ll

MI

E

—
—
_
_.—;
_____.
—
_
—
—
—
—

I

t
H
1

IIW

01—: I
04>-
45p

1
E

 

.THS-

FEECEW’EQ 2259‘? A‘LK‘E‘EAL CORRELAEEE Q?
AFFEEE’CE EEVEL Y MEAEUAEDE A FFEQE‘S
ANEE SEE FcEVALUATEQNS EN E1548
LAEEE AEQLESCZNE FEMAEE

E'Emsts Em? {Ezra 38:; ms (22': ERIE; A
.EC3EGAE‘E SEAT: [EEEEE ERSEEE

Chmies Ea BE. aiaeré
3.968

!' LIBRA n. V a”?
Michigan State

TH Eels 5, . .
Umvemty

LN?

113; 311). 17-3-1 -111- - 1.1: “ :1 L11, 0011 1:32:31 01-“ 1,1'1v.1v-11 Lr LY
11311.2:Urm :,;‘-“:-“1-:CTS .1110 51311123711. 1-10"“ 1:!

mTV'T“ P11‘1 If‘N‘ fl") h‘~7_h"| TV,TI,' A-T 1"!
1L1 LAub1mOLLJCmHermLLL

Charles J. Brsincrd

Abstract of Esstor's Thesi,s
Comnlotod Fall Term, 1968

This papmr advances an cxpcricntia l approach to the study of appcrceptive

cvor~“11)1 of affect and >11s-cv11 ation. The prcscnt study scores appor-

coptive storiés for the p10asantnrms—unplcssantness of horo—relatnd emotion-

al cxpr-Sssmi .s and for t.he pos i- Livity lic“ativity of hero—related outcomes.

rm

infise txo h"OP”fnra0 provid- tho measures of appsrcoptive affects and evalua-
tions. 331:5 “at“: cog on the basis of both theory and previous research liters—

turc that thcsc moasures of affect anL self-evaluation would be related to

thrco chorwcfi mrl Lic LJn-~icnccs deriving from the parent—child relation.

Those orpwrifincfis wtrc the §511por :3 of themselvss as being rejected, neglected,
and lovnd 3y t~c.r ps3’uis

The §s vars 66 late sfiolesccnt frnslcs and the apperccptivc stimuli more
eiglt n.w TAG—like pictures 61313 110d esPecially for the social—ago group under

considcrntion. Both halvvs of RAG Pnrwnt—Child Rslstions ;usstionnsirs ware

1“.‘ 'rJ'r V‘r1 '9“ J" (‘r‘ (~ , r, a .0 h ~r~ ,.,(_"1 4.3,, fl .1 .. . I -+ _._,\, ‘,..,. , f‘
8‘»: 11311.11 5 ‘r ‘ 0 [1.1.0 3 2 a a 1.1? ant) 01. :1 614-11-111115‘; L1 '11-: 1.2.17 LOG-H” €3.11.) CA n.)I‘1=..‘-uCL?S 0.x
—-..— — .L
:1 4' a «(.rJ' "' ~~ (f‘n 1 “i ,n '1 (a Iva" t4 r‘ V“"\ «A w“ ’GAE" ’ “J ."1 -" .
.Il Lb]. -4 u L: o 1.3. .. 1. C, C_-1_ -_ , .L .L . -JDHQ l3 1’ I L. .L1 L1\.".) 0
_ 4.: r , “ 1-4-4 1- ““13-.. ‘l ,1 -. 11-11.11... r- _. _ _- _ _r'-_r-_ .1. , 1. ,_
(l) A. 1103 _€~ LAM“ Tutu 1,-1.th H“ T, 1 ,' 11 p.12" .4831] L11; b1; 01. £3 LEW-1‘0.» lit-1V0 as. i :.C L,- mm? 6.1.. )1-

113ri111ccw- of‘1,r1mnitn]. ra“fizctjxmi.
A. J. U

A . - VLF-L“ . - -—: -- ‘-\,.--.. - 1-!— A c -. . , M! . cry . 1. 1.,
(4) A n wajVU r Iation L vagn plcesnhL ops o; nppwicwpt1vo 911Lct sum 11-
hflla‘! ’V1p,’ r 11‘ T3 {7‘ l 2:“ NJ- Al. .

A J. ’

A ‘ ,_ ‘ J- 0 , ' _t_ - .- _ 3 J. 33 V _ +3 ,1 - .L - {\fln w
> *1 r V 1,3 1 r ‘1 l \ y: ' . «y ., 1 . (- . . ,N s. A (q ‘ , - A - - .. ‘r *1 v2 ‘ a - I .
( “J A 13'3“] V"; » 1 .Y ._ RDA; 1.) 1-1. .31 11 3'1» ., 1 211--1 ‘1, Di 3-13.41‘0 T13 Litr- C11C C‘L Dar“; (1}:-

102.L"‘1”1(_‘.C‘:3 Of 13573313“! 5,] 1.3mm

_ c ‘_| L o _o __v _f| __ _ _ _._ .0 YA (- .. . ‘1‘ _ n _ o ‘M
iv.“ 1*” Inf-aim bbfiwr n pox-.1. LJNJ 3 0;- gm >6 sea-91;.wu “elf-mJQ-lu... tluns

1 ‘VR'th “‘3 ' ~ f" ' 'n ~\r‘ A 1' rx .-‘\ 3 ’ '4‘ -.I ~
Fry-3 4?‘ 1.." .!‘.L‘. 1-10” 0'. luff“ nt-Ll rg‘: “QC “v.00-

U

(5) A WEI??? v3: 737?.3‘F'Iwn 11-52%: 5:»? n port‘f'rx’Lv'Viir of (iti'ffv'n'l‘C‘f/‘Ji'i‘f'?! S"’1¢-€=Vsluations
5-116. C'I'T’”v2"'lf‘.10£i‘. or? fxrfr‘f.21te.-J__ 17G;;-}-5"?th

('5) A posi."j5.r€: Y-e‘ln’tim‘: 1‘}<"-"c.:7z"-’-‘rn posi‘rfivi 1537 0;” Spy: rCCIfiLiv-r‘z €3le -.:;vnlur‘c.io1-1::
cw". {':«j',;r:~1‘i~irzc:is of 1:_,.?7"‘71’C07 lryii.

F." ~-~ n-.a~«r~~'n"\‘1r'l"."" ”"me'n‘r- 3- r’)“~" 3 r‘s’»fi*-~’Ln" 15 .7 ' *‘/\1" .(‘D 1’.’L‘: Aw“:-L'.‘L‘T " 1
,L'L'J <1.‘).,I~.__\, 1i. ‘7 :1. 13.4342” '_ ..- 1‘,LIAL; " .xc ;.k.(_,_'1,-l_y.;-i.' 1.. _L.\/ _. Q ()3. 1K,“ ,Lul): L,» (glib.
.. ‘L .I.

v ‘ °
‘1 l.\ '1 {'1
_ L

‘ 1 .0 AMA -. -1: -L.__' .. .- “a .f‘: . -H. . 1
6.151011 0).. ‘Lu, vaf._l.f:'.‘~.'w .‘~ .lDuu 185 ClDflJquLMWLK. :‘JC, :1. 1'..:.:.‘~‘. 3:13-07 ._

i- - 9 p

‘

": r' . A. '~ ~- * -- a. v-' 1’ r“; ‘ u h V’x . r~ -.' - .r" ‘4'- . ’1 “ r‘
.2_-_-.111.._1_C.:2nc--. ; :1; 1.~:J:-_,1_._L\.r tr 1»; ....-Ls_cm:«o m rxlatuan to tn: swronqtus and

1 n I a fl .1. ‘
l

. _ .fi, .. - . -. 1- .- ..,_; ”4.- . . A, 1
If, {1. I10 sums O r_ ‘. H333 _’._a )1"; Cu- LL 5111:; LJ "07'3": O _ 1.11;? G
A .L

I, . 7 / ..
V - . Cr, '

.‘sxziwl‘QXNJT: , k . / BIZ-41116.9

 

 

- /
T ”-1- )II 7 / 97’
l'c be: V’ 1 (’6 u/ A / L/4 AC ,./,
L r— r

_W jfi‘fi '. ND T‘-"T-.'('.1 'r'WT'rH .‘T ru '5: .TpT AT‘WW'IC' \'j',\ Athn )r‘ .-1‘P1'1'*r".“‘ 77'
IL’J..‘~JILI ‘1 31‘ IL”; (1.- -1 .‘J. .- I "LLJ C- . ...AJ.‘_LL.L fin.) C.‘ KL; 1 fl!....;£.;.c Jul. ‘1 41.1.1).

- "1' US" I‘ ‘ “1‘“ *1 'IH -'*"'r-.r*1 (j *r
11.“. (LI/1L) J14.) :JJJJJJ."__‘L1J1I..I lL.-LLIL.LJ 1.1

. '11—‘51-

r"*";\ '7' Arm-I \fi'WHren. , m ”rrv'---f\
4.x; Lvnml: ..-..'.w-u;ok,.ry_a; Juana

.11

(“I‘ T ' ~ , R ‘
\1 caries u . .-2 “33.11:; m

« Ti-TV‘TC?
. . 1 .bL)

*‘

.'" '..'.L-L..\j
hiu'L PA]- \1 ilk/(.4 +10

_ . ~_ 0 u _ .‘J— 4— T— a -'A _o '-
1 _L4')="-.T‘.-f 53.1 [can L111 w r: Lil!
o q ,. “1 D _f'\_0'\ . “H“ ”‘14" j) “ _- A ' a .. . ,\ J.
In TV}. _JC_J,.J._L . 1.13-; _ ' 11 -‘- :1: t, 0.- {719 7."...W 71111“ 3%. 1'1 LA.
.1" 4.7- 7 A ,‘- ,. f"
.L 01‘ t-i f, C' - i". .. D_
{‘f‘"‘ . fl mm A r
1 5))JL‘I‘L \..‘L( ‘1 .ik)
“w n- .HJ- n “W-— * '1 M.
;J,.(:)\} L z] 1‘ 1|, O__ f ,_ C 33")
k _’U

'1 (“I ‘3
L”- ,

Jr. l
I ,
V" r’
, x
5 1 '
1' ’ ’
\./
, j A
f n x 4. r
M-” ‘ ‘

I“ "
I
\_IL'

mev",rr

’. 1-21;;

v-A

INtl‘OklUCJCiQDU00.00clout-0000000000000

E:‘¥:3t"10\’.10000000000000000000000-0000.000
[{‘ZSUltSoooooo00.000.00.00oncoco-co...
JJlCCU.SS:-O'-loono...on.00-00000-0000000.

CI 0" ‘A 3 ("
.LC3_‘.JIL}h(-€‘JOIIOOIIOIOIOOIIOI000-00....

° + F1 1- ,K
LlSt 0+ qffl.’--So00000000000000.0000...
-—_°1,‘+ 4" ’- ‘, (:fi-sfic
1.1..va OJ. JUJuHDK‘aonooooloooououooon

 

I'r-J

IN

to

! " E‘C‘
:31 no

Reliability and intorobsol'cr agreement coefficients for the appor—

- 4.. -fi ' " "’
Ckpolve X'C‘I‘lailLGSIOIOIIOIIOIOO00..I..00....OOOIOIIOOOOIOOOOI0.0.0.0540

Raw validity correlations for each of the appcrcoptivo variables
with each of the experiential variables............................27
Factor loadings offln subscales fajaijon, Neglect, and Love of the
Parent—Chili Relations Questionnaire for adult females.............28

APPENDICES

F..- S'-
mflfifinfilfl
W

“-4

The Parent-Child Relations QUGStiDnnaireo00000000000cocoon-0038

Anoendix 2. Scoring sheet for the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire...46

 

Aonend’

1

$2
{an

 

sample protocols for the Uniform Adolescent Identification

-—\. “L ‘Fr‘ Q
lebUIUDoococo-00000000000000..-a...coco-000000000000...-cuoouU

ACICICZELDGZEIITS

The author wishes to acimoxrledgge the support, guidance, and patient criti-
cisms of Dr. John P. LcKinney, in the context of those ongoing research the
present study and the apperceptive stimuli used therein were developed. The
author also tishes to acknowledge the many helpful suggestions and criticisms

of Dr. Lucy R. Ferguson and Dr. Albert I. Rabin which were invaluable in the

preparation of this manuscript.

I:.~'ia.';2.c-1;U$fld:

w

Tue study to be discussed in this report suvcests an experiential ap-
proach to the measurement of cmotionality and self-evaluation in the apper-
ceptive situation. The working assumption is that when apperceptive expres—
sions of affect and self-evaluation are examined dichotomously (i.e., plea—
sant vs. unpleasant and positive vs. negative), reliable differences between
individuals will be noted and these differences will be related to salient
experiences. The rule that, in general, we act on the
basis of our experience (Lainq, 1967) is, therefore, merely applied to an
experimental situation designed to sample apperceptive behavior and estab-
lish correlates of the behaviors sampled. Later in this paper, a more limited
form of Laing's broad experiential hypothesis is offered and is based on the
distinction between experiences of the se f as an object and the self as a
subject.

The eXperiential orientation is thought to be of Special relevance
when studying the so-called "higher process" in reasonably mature gs (iebb,
1960). The develipmental assumption is that maturation and level of behav—
ioral complexity combine to maxmize the validity of assuming he antecedent
influence of experience and minimize the relevance of peripheral determin-
ism. A corollary to this assumption is the ability to "pause" between per-
ipheral excitation and peripheral response (hay, 1967). This hypothetical
pause provides the means whereby the individual asserts his uniqueness as

an experiencing agent through his behavior. The implication for deterministic

-1-

-2-
psychology is that individuals identified as experiencing similarly might
also be observed to behave similarly.

When examining behavior as a function of experience, it is important
to articulate the distinction between experiences of the self as an object
and experiences of the self as a subject. T415 distinction has recently
been examined empirically by'KcKinney (1968). This study concerns the con-
struction and validation of a scale to measure characteristic individual
differences in the self descriptions of college students as Ehey see them—
selves (subjective mode of experience) and as others see them (objective
mode of experience). Developmentally, the experiential history of the in-
dividual can be viewed as a continuous fluctuation between the experiences
of oneself as an object of physical and/or interpersonal forces (Hay, 1967)
and the experiences of oneself as an affirming, asserting agent (Tillich,
1952). This dichotomous structuring of personal experience suggests an
experiential interpretation of the antecedent-consequent relation. This
interpretation asserts the antecedent influence of the experiences of the
self as object upon actual behavior (and the attendant experiences of the
self as subject). Simply, the experiential structuring of what comes in
influences what goes out.

The above distinction has been implicit in "field" theories of person-
ality (Levin, 1951) as well as more basic ontological theorizing (Tillich,
1952). Bertrand Russell (1945) has employed the epistemological distinc—
tion between man as an object of externally given knowlege and man as a
subjective affirmer of knowlege as a principle underlying the whole devel-
Opment of Western philosophical thought from the pre-iocratics to the con-
temporary schools. Lecently, there has been movement toward an integration

of these two concepts of man's experience (Gondlin, 1962; May, 1967; and

-3-

Polanyi, 1958). It is hoped that by integrating the tendency to view man
exclusively as an object of external forces (as exemplified by the logical
positivism of Ayer, Each, and Schlick) with the tendency to view man exclu-
sively as a subjective affirmer (as exemplified by the existentialism of
Tierkegaard and Nietzche), a new orientation will be synthesized which pays
due heed to both the ontolOgical complexity of man and the needs of scien-
tific psychology.

This paper does not presume to suggest that different types of experi-
encing are in any way completely separable. It is thought, however, that
we may Speak of experiences that differ as to certain qualitative charac-
teristics. These words are directly applicable to the distinction between
experiences of the self as object and experiences of the self as subject.
This distinction is a matter of degree and may be illustrated for the case
of interpersonal relations, in order to clarify the theoretical orientation
of this paper.

Consider the interpersonal relation as a theoretical situation composed
of people and events. The events of interest here are behaviors initiated
by people in the relation. If we choose a single individual in the relation
to serve as our point of reference, it is possible to describe experiences
of the individual which fall into the self as object and self as subject
categories mentioned previously. The self as object experiences deriving
from the interpersonal relation would include those experiences attendent
to actions of others which have our individual of interest as a referent.
The self as subject experiences deriving from the interpersonal relation
include those experiences which attend the actions initiated by our indi-
vidual of interest toward other peeple. More simply, in the first instance

our individual of interest is the "object" of the actions of others, while

-4-
in the second instance he is the "subject" or asserter of actions. The
interpersonal relation is only one situation for which these qualitiative
differences in experiencing may be descraibed. It is obvious that our in-
dividual of interest could, for example, be placed in a similar relation
with inanimate objects and the same differences in experiencing would ob-
tain.

In light of these considerations, the general notion advanced by this
paper is that characteristic differences in the experiences of he actions
of others towards oneself are antecedent to and predictive of individual
differences in behavior. The strength of the antecedent-consequent relation
is thought to increase as the self as object experiences become of more per-
vasive importance to the individual and as the behaviors sampled become less
a function of rigid determinants in the immediate stimulus situation. To
illustrate the first part of this criterion, a child's experiences of him—
self as a referent of certain parental actions would seem to be a more per—
vasive set of self as object experiences than, say, the child's experiences
of himself as a referent of similar actions on the part' of casual acquaint-
ances. To illustrate the second part of the criterion, the responses usual-
ly sampled y projective instruments would seem to be reasonably free from
rigid determination by the immediate stimulus situation.

Applying these assumptions to empirical measurement provides one with
criteria for choosing measures of antecedent and consequent variables of
interest. This study, for example, has chosen the Parent-Child deletions
Questionnaires (Roe & Siegelman, 1963) as a measure of antecedent self as
object experiences. This choice is thought to be theoretically justified,
because the structure of the questions exactly satisfies the previous defini-
tion of one source of self as object experiences. Specifically, each ques-

tion asks about an action or actions initiated by either the mother or

-5-
father (depending on the form) in which the subject was a referent. By
way of further illustration, the present study chose an apperceptive tech-
nique as the measure of consequent variables, since it is thought that such
an instrument meets the criteria for a consequent measure which can be mean-
ingfully related to self as object experiences. The semi-structured nature
of the apperceptive stimuli, as well as the lack of Specificity about the
actual reSponses required, minimizes the extent to which the reSponses are
a function of factors other than a §fs experiential history (e.g. immedi-
ate situational conditions). These are the major reasons for suggesting
that the measures employed in this investigation are consonant with the
theoretical orientation previously mentioned. The remainder of this sec-
tion will consider these measures further, in connection with empirical rea-
sons for selecting the three PCB; subscales of interest (Love, Rejection,
Neglect), the apperceptive variables of interest (affect and Self-evaluation),
and the Specific predicted relations.

The obvious question is how to apply the previous thoughts to empiri-
cal investigation. What experiences of oneself as an object of action have
a meaningful influence upon one's behavioral expressions? That behavioral
manifestations are pervasive and stable enough to suggest the possibility
of experiential correlates? In a sense, these are fundamental questions
to which most correlational psychological analyses presume to assert par-
tial answers, either on the basis of intuition or on the basis of empiri-
cal data. It is important to choose self as object experiences which are
salient in the individual's life history, since the foregoing alludes to
the possibility that significant experiences of the self as object may be
a source of important antecedent (if not, in fact, formally causative) vari-

ables. Likewise, it is important to select those behavioral expressions

which are stable enough across time to justify the assumption that they can
be related to interpersonal experience, following suitable categorization
and quantification. In general, these two choices prov vid e the antecedent
and consequent variables in the correlational analysis of empirical rela-
tions.

Lnder the guise of dee Mu ctive reasoning, it often is the convention
to begin with a statement of those antecedent influences which the investi-
gator believes to he of szeat reievance, and then proceed to extract the
consec u nt evants which a“e held to 3e 1m filuenced by these antecedent vari—
ables. a- nough this reasoninv process most often proceeds in the opposite

(lflk. "ive direction as a rusult of the probative function of prior research

), the introductory section of this report will proceed in a
roughly cartesian manner.

his Study has selected the parent—child relation as its source of ante-
c: dent vanria bL:s. Kore pastieularly, the SPGCL ‘ic aspect of tais theoretical
relation which has been selected for empirical scrutiny is the adolescent
fw1ale's EClYfJTi.mUCQ of herself as a referent of actions by her parents which

fall roughly into three categories: love actions, rejection actions, and

neglect actions (or non—actions). Ther—~ is, of course, an epistemologica

(7)

issue relative to the meaning of action versus non-action. At least one
study (Crandell, 1965) has Shown an empirical difference in the effects
of the experience of action as opposed toxnnaction on learning. This empiri-
cal and/or philosophical distinction is considered to be beyond the interest
of the present paper. That both have an effect, a pervasive effect, seems
sufficient reason for investigation.

It is, without question, an existential fact that the parent-child
relation has been given a position of prominence in the psychologies of

the genetic-developmental tradition. nnether one tall :5 about psychological

-7-

development in terms of basic learning paradigms (Bijou & Baer, 1961) or
genetic-biological determinism (Freud), the overwhelming emphasis placed
on the parent-child relation is still evident. Given the asserted import-
ance of this relation, it remains to suggest Specific aSpects of this rela-
tion that influence behavior. As mentioned previously, the present study
focuses on three characteristic self as object experiences derived from
the child's reports of this relation.

empirical evidence in support of the child's experiences of herself
as a referent of parental love, rejection, and neglect as influential fac-
tors in development can be adduced from the extensive reports of Baldwin,
Kalhorn, and Breese (1945). The observational methodology of this study
made use of the Fels Parent Behavior Rating Scales. These acales contain
all the aforementioned experiential variables in one form or another. In
relation to the experiential hypothesis, this paper suggests that an observer's
”ability to report significant, meaningful material certainly reflects the
extent to which an observer is able to put himself in the child's place
as an experiencing agent; hence, the Fels scales must represent some third
person inferences about the child's experiences of the self as an object
of parental actions. The "acceptance" syndrome reported by the Baldwin
et al. monograph is obviously analogous to the child's experiences of him-
self as a referent of parental rejection as measured by the Parent-Child
Relations Questionnaire. In addition, one of the subscales used in relation
to the "Acceptance syndrome" (isolation) seems to provide some measure of
the child's experiences of parental neglect. Also, one subscale of the
"democracy syndrome" (approval) and one subscale of the "indulgence syn-
drome" (solicitude) appear to be related to experiences of rejection and

neglect, respectively. Concerning the child's experience of himself as

-8-

a referent of parental love, the subscale hostile—affectionate seems to
be of relevance.

In both the earlier report (Baldwin et al., 19b5) and a later report
(Eeldnin, et al., 1949), the observational indices employed were described
as meaningful predictors of behavioral differences among the children studied.

The previous two paragraphs were intended only as a means of suggest—
in that an examination of how the child experiences the self as an object
of parental behavior with reSpect to the aforementioned actions of interest
may provide meaningful interpretations and predictions of behavior. More
specific evidence in support of the child's experiences of parental love,
rejection, and neglect being related to behavior are discussed in relation
to the consequent variables of interest: pleasant vs. unpleasant affects
and positive vs. negative self-evaluation (as expressed and measured through
apperceptive productions. These apperceptive responses were analyzied in
relation to intensity scores of each g on three subscales of the hoe-Siegelman
(1963) Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire.

The consequent variables examined in this report are two in number:
dichotomous (pleasant-unpleasant) affect and general positivity-negativity
of self-evaluation. The method chosen to measure the behavioral expressions

f
ch

0 these two variables involved quantification of the fis' reSponses to a
group of eight new apperceptive stimuli. These pictures were originally
deve10ped for use in the empirical validation of the Actual and Perceived
Self scale (heKinney, 1968). The situations portrayed in these pictures
were selected to be of Special significance to the social-age group of the
is (undergraduate females).

In the use of these apperceptive stimuli, this report makes a broad

"projective assumprion" which is similar to the statements of Cattell (1951)

-9-
Rotter (1954), and Sarason (1966) relative to why the apperceptive method

is presumed to provide a meaningful measure of the consequent variables of
interest. The basic notion is that each subject sees the "unstructured"
(i.e., semi-structured) pictorial stimuli somewhat differently as a func-
tion of experiential history, among other things. The responses which a

§ communicates in relation to such stimuli are thought to be organized in
patterns which may or may not be correlated with measured (i.e., reported)
experience. since this paper employs apperceptive responses as consequent
variables, the additional assumption is made that these "organizing Patterns"
are, at least partly, a function of the interpersonal experiences already
alluded to. The implication is that in so far as these projective responses
and their patterning are a function of experiences deriving from the parent-
child relation, reliable and relevant measurements should demonstrate signi-
ficant statistical relations. Consequently, regardless of whether the ap-
perceptive variables are interpreted in terms of motivational dynamics (Holt,
1951) or in terms of sheer probability of reSponses (Rotter, 1954), the
hypothesis that projective responses vary as a function of experiential
determinants remains essentially unchanged.

The first set of apperceptive responses measured in the present study
were qualitative differences in expressions of apperceptive affects. Speci-
fically, the affects quantified were only those expressed in relation to the
principal (hero) of each story. The reason for this procedure derives from
the nature of the apperceptive stimuli, in which a uniform and experiment-
ally defined principal (a member of the gs' age group) appears in all the
pictures. The stated interest of this study was in the differences in de-
gree of pleasantness-unpleasantness of expressed affects as they relate

to the experiential measures of interest. This dichitomous approach to

-10-

quantification of projective affect is suggested as a procedure which is
meaningful in terms of both theory and empirical data.

r"he method of studying emotional expressions as a dichotomous variable
has, of course, frequently appeared in the literature of both clinical and
developmental psychology. A projective rating scale has been reported (Eron,
1953) which has this bipartite discrimination as its basis. Observations
of the development of emotional expressions have also revealed the twofold
nature of these behaviors during the period when the human infant first
develops such manifestations. The historic reports of Bridges (1930; 1931;
1932) are cases in point. The earlier reports of her data and the final
form of her developmental diagram (1932) indicate that, even early in life,
the dichotomous nature of emotionality is evident. Given that emotional
expressions appear to fall roughly into two qualitative categories, it seems
at least intuitively reasonable to suggest that investigations of emotional-
ity in the later years of development which treat these expressions dichoto-
mously might reveal important develOpmental correlates of observed indivi-
dual differences.

The literature appears to offer tentative support for the assertion
of experiential correlates of emotional expression deriving from the parent-
child relation. Studies with juvenile delinquents (females as well as males),
for example, seem to indicate that such juveniles are characterised by ab-
normally frequent displays of unpleasant affect. The label "juvenile de-
linquent" has, in fact, become synonymous with such diSplays in this cul-
ture. The crucial point, for this paper, is that studies employing juvenile
delinquents as gs (e.g., hedinnus, 1965) have reported that these indivi-
duals experience their parents as having been more hostile, more rejecting,
more neglecting, and less affectionate toward them than do more average

juveniles.

-11 ..

1

Finney (1961) has reported hat independently observed maternal be-
haviors which could be labeled "rejecting" (hostile-rigid) in terms of the
child' s eycperience were predictive of unpleasant behavioral-emotidnal mani-
festations in the children studied. siegelman (1965) has shown, similarly,

that measured experiences or pa arental rejection among college students cor-

relate postively with the relative presence of an unpleasant affect that

is measured appercc- :pti Lively by the pr ent study (anxiety). In addition,
xosenthal, hi, Finkelste’n, and Eerkwits (1912) drmonstra ted that, among

ot21er tflhhr s, the ckfiJmLHs ex3e1dxnuxes of the fkdflu r as cold, dieflnnrt, and

neglecting were postively related to i1e presence of childhood emotional

(‘ul

.".',_.L, .‘1_,‘.‘,, ~ '1- 4.1 .1 1 ---.. ‘ 1.“... _-,. .‘ _ ,,
1alobu1U¢uLLuo Finally, tUO Obnbr papers have shown suwgestwr1 relat:1ens

“-\ '. . ‘. v“ r: 1" ”\J‘ .""\ -'—"~«..- “‘33-. - 1 ' (J'- -.~v~.- -‘ 1‘. ,\ ‘Hn ‘1 0 ‘~ rs [“1 r I" ~ . A. (0
uptalnlme use Jen bum Chile 0 SAPS lenees 01 tAG parents do authoritalian—

.L

- ...'.,,, ,.‘ .'.l.- -1“ Rf.-. . .- 7‘ .l‘,‘ '. _‘ -\ 1 ”1a,... ' .. ....-. ',..-(. - \ u‘\ nu 7 . ‘.
l. 01‘ 35-1131 _ MI»; 1»: Ll.. 1.: 1,1. 1:4 \1).~111(212 ()1. k.) bllJlfJ—lezl'lt LDKJJ lCiVlL)l‘ ( LII-L11-.'.(L['1LD , (3L)\1,’) , CAJIC}. {XI i‘tle (27,11

‘4

’ " . ‘1 I" “3“" " «J n I’ ” r ”a-‘\ 3‘ ' "' - ‘ ‘ J »- ’* a ‘5 r~ ". r- n h
Cfllfid p r on 1e1e1ts o1wa1 1ta rejection and generally undesireable be-

havioral thifestations (shoemaker, fhoem u1er, 10,1- , 1962). each of
these reports seem» to provi pa1tia1 support for the prediction of a statis-

tic 9.1 relation betvr1n €fper|enccs of the self as a referent of parental
love, rejection, and neglect and quality of affects expressed (apperceptively).
1ne second consequent variable examined in the present study was self—
evaluation expressions deriving from apperceptive protocols. The actual

me hod involved rating th

CD

positivity-negativity of the outcomes of the
eight stories for the here. In so far as is identified with the central
character, the degree of positivity—negativity of the story outcomes should
represent some measure of the subjects' general self—evaluations in inter-
personal situations.‘

Two definitions of "self-evaluation" are relevant here: an abstract

definition (or orientation) and a more Operational definition. The abstract

-12-
conceptualization of self-evaluation is analogous to Sears and 5h rman's
(l96u) definition of self—esteem: the possession of Opinions or attitudes
about oneself ranging from favorable to unfavorable, depending on the situa-
tion. Operationally, this definition implies that when situations are held
constant, as in the present study, characteristic individual differences
in manifestations of self-evaluation will be observed. The precise Opera-
tionalization of this concept in the present report embraced the notions
of both Rotter (1954) and Tillich (1952). Self-esteem or positive self-
evaluatinn can be thought of both in a passive and an active sense. The
passive sense would be the acceptance of reinforcements while the active
phase would involve such things as the affirmation of one's desires "in
spite of" environmental forces to the contrary. Rotter's (195M) concept
of "generalized expectancy" represents the passive pole while Tillich's
(1952) notion of the courage to be oneself "in Spite of" represents the ac-
tive pole. The measure of self-evaluation employed in the present study
(positivity-negativity of apperceptive story outcomes from the hero's per-
spective) took in to consideration both of these notions without making
a quantitative or qualitative distinction between them. Self-evaluation,
then, was construed as one's expectations of success in common life situa-
tions.

This report assumes that such eXpectations are established through
the process of validation of one's intrapersonal (subjective) experience
with data from one's interpersonal (objective) experience. Allis (1962)
has presented some thoughts relating to the development of self-evaluation
which are similar to the preceding statement. allis suggests that peOple
tend to esteem themselves in relation to extrinsic values and the relative

presence or absence of pleasant affective states. his relevant notion,

-13-»
for this paper, is that people tend to act on the assumption that there
must necessarily be a one to one correSpondence between one's extrinsic
value (determined by a person's experiences of how others experience him)
and one's intrinsic value (determined by one's subjective, intrapersonal
experience). Ellis, then, suggests that self-evaluation is a product of
the consensual validation of intrapersonal experiences with interpersonal
experiences. It is apparent that this statement is similar to the hypothe-
sis already advance by the presentpaper. This hypothesis suggests the ante-
cedent influence of experiences of the self as an object of the actions
of others.

It is implied that the group of expectancies which we call selfLevaluation
is learned during the course of development and that this process proceeds
in different directions for different individuals. These directions are
partly functions of the three antecedent experiences of interest to the
present study. It is suggested, then, that active or passive participation
in many situations which produce experiences of derogation of the self by
significant others may eventually result in the individual also coming to
experience himself as not being of intrinsic worth. This very point seems
to be one of the most important messages of a book by Robert Coles (1964).
The book is concerned with salient psychological characteristics shared
by negro children being raised in the states of the old confederacy. If
it is admitted that this society largely rejects and neglects the negro
minority, then Cole's report suggests that low self-evaluation is clearly
one outcome of such experiences. Cole's indicates (through figure drawings
and other data) that negro children in the South are characterized by poorly
articulated self-evaluations.

The methodology of this report assumes that in so far as a S does not

-14-
see herself as being of worth (because she has experienceithe antecedent
variables of interest), she will express negative story outcomes in rela-
tion to any character with whom she identifies in the apperceptive task.
The previously mentioned studies with juvenile delinquents appear to be
of relevance here. This is due to the fact that members of this group tend
to have generallylow evaluations of themselves. Further, the literature
also seems to be in support of the preposairelation between apperceptive
evaluations and the antecedent experiences discussed earlier.

Heilbruin and Orr (1966) have shown that the self-aspiration compon-
ent of self-evaluation is related to the experience of mother rejection
in late adolescents. Heron (1962) found a similar result in relation to
a more general measure of self-evaluation. Conversely, Carlson (1963) re-
ported that preadolescents who experienced "supportiveness" from their parents
were higher in self-acceptance. Particularly suggestive are studies by
Gorlow et al. (1963a; 1963b) which report that self-evaluation is apparent-
ly related to the experience of acceptance by others in both the psychothera-
putic situation and the parent—child relation. Also, Grusec (1966) found
that parental love expression plays a crucial role in the development of
self-critical attitudes on the part of the children studied.

Concerning the previous statements about the experiential genesis of
self-evaluation, studies by'Kalher et al. (1962), Brock and Bodwin (1962),
and Iuldashevia (1966) all report data which are congruent with the expressed
notions. The studies of Kalher et a1. (1962) and Iuldashevia (1966) are
of particular interest, because both studies reported data which indicate
that self-evaluation can develop and change as a function of the §s' experi-
ences of how others value them.

In addition to the sueeestive empirical studies of self-evaluation
L.)\_A . ’

-15-
there are also clinical reports which seem to indicate that the relations
of interest in the present study may be significant ones. Sears and Sherman
(1964) have reported case histories of eight elementary school children
as these histories relate to the tepic of self-esteem. Two youngsters whose
case histories indicate they would be of interest to the present investi-
gation seem to provide supportive data for the specific relations predicted.
Howard, who had rejecting and unaffectionate-rigid parents, was reported
to be consistently low on measures of self-esteem and was apparently high
in expressions of unpleasant affects. Carla, who had accepting and loving
parents, was consistently high on self-esteem measures and low in expres—
sions of unpleasant affects. In many other areas, such as school achieve-
ment, the two children were very similar.

The preceding theoretical and empirical discussion represents the ma-
jor substantive grounding and experimental justification for asserting the
existence of a relationship between the is' experiences of parental behavi-
ors in which they were a referent andindividual differences in apperceptive
affects and self-evaluation. To recapitulate, the suggested antecedents
are the adolescent female's experiences of her parents aslbving, rejecting,
and neglecting her--as measured by Bee and Siegelman's (1963) Parent-Child
Relations Questionnaire (PCRQ). The consequent variables which are held
to be related to these experiential factors are measured expressions of
apperceptive affect and self-evaluation (hero-related story outcomes).

On the basis of these general considerations, six specific hypotheses
were formulated. These hypotheses were presumed to be predictive of the
major relations which were thought to obtain in the data.

A. Apperceptive expressions of pleasant affects are negatively related

to experiences of parental rejection.

U

3

-16-
Apperceptive expressions of pleasant affects are negatively related
to experiences of parental neglect.
Apperceptive expressions of pleasant affects are positively related
experiences of parental love.
ApperceptiVe expressions of positive self-evaluation are negatively
related to exieriences of parental rejection.
Apperceptive expressions of positive self-evaluation are negatively
related to experiences of parental neglect.
Apperceptive expressions of positive self-evaluation are positively

related to experiences of parental love.

HETZCD

Subjects
The experimental 85 were 66 undergraduate females enrolled in the in-

troductory psycholoyy course at nichiran mt te University. The median age

of the experimental 83 was 19 .6 years. The ra.ge was from 18 to 21 years.

Pilot study data were also gathered on alternate group of 50 females enrolled

in the introductory psychology course. In both cases (experimental and

o 0 v ,' ‘ J- , 1 .~ -.
pilot samp m) the is were tested as a group.
‘ ‘ 1—. - r. A J‘ ['1
1\:a urin* Idnlluficneo

 

Both hal es of the Roe— iaf _elman (19-63) Parent—Cull Relations Ques-
tio ;1:10ire (ECLM) were administered to the group to obtain a measure of the
gs perceived experiences of their parents as loving, rejecting, and neglect-
inr. The intensity scores for each of the: e experiential variables were

d... -“fi “7- ‘ . "1" '1 ’3".,-\ ‘ I) ‘ ‘ —-‘ H". x . '3 .""‘,1— PI .‘ “'1 r. r‘ "c. t‘ I1C7—3" _<~~l._ .(. , fl - r‘ L . 1 ,. fl‘ -.
e L in Cu 1 .1. 01.1 mt: c.1135.» .L Op: 15. Cb m a) mgr-1.1.1) Cl 110 .4“: e um. CCLLUO OVln; , w;—

o ‘ \ __ ‘ _ '71 H a ‘
seeing). ;were are, 0; course, wtll sta elish :d procedur

n . . .14-.“ w. . -In -. -1 . M - r L . ,1 "- ,. ,. 1 ‘ ,. 1 4.
10f quancii3inf the 33' fCSBOHQHS to tUQ HULQllODQ 01 eacn suosccle 916

1 _ —. .1. -_ .1. ‘ - ,,. , - _ -,.'. ,1 i - v~,-, , .- 1 ..a ‘ N’.“ ,. or”?
if}; “ff 1); OCCdL‘LI'd S naVe I.) win 1‘01 )0; Crew L DJ finch.) ct; 1C; -.‘ -U-‘ ( 11 £111 (ljflo); P L: . )p)’; o

.0
J.

eiwht new apperceptive stimuli were also acrilmi tc' red to
the is. As mentioned previously, these pi:tures were develOped in connec-
tion with other research (ICbll hey, 1968). Each g's expressions of affect
and self—evaluation were derived from her responses to these pictorial stim—
flit

The so t of appercep otive stimuli have oecn labt ed the Uniform Adolescent

-13—

Identification pictures (UAI) and a parallel set of pictures has been de-

veloped for use with undergraduate male fig. These apperceptive pictures

were designed to be of relevance to the particular social—age group of the
gs. The physical structure and the characters of each picture were selected
for their presumed social and psychological significance in the lives of
underaraduate females. The distinctive feature of this series of pictures
is hat one central character appears in all of the stimuli and this charac-
ter is a member of the §s' social group. Descriptions of these stimuli

are as follows:

F-I The principal is seated on a large footstool. This is an introductory
picture about which the §s were ppt asked to compose a story.

Ffl The principal is in the arms of a young man. In the foreground is a
sports car vith the words "FU L INJQCTIOH" imprinted on the front fender.

F—Z The principal is in the foreground and her facial expression indicates
fear. Eehind her, a bald man is slumped in a chair, and bottles and
cans are scattered about.

F-3 An elderly woman is seated at a table in the foreground and the prin-
cipal is running toward her. In the background are a television set
and.a shplreading'HKEQSSJVJTIIELN.

F-U The principal is in the foreground of a classroom. In the background,
the pythagorean theorem is written on the board and an instructor is

pointing to the formula.

*1)
I
kn

The principal is in a bedroom. In the foreground, another girl is

 

standing behind the bed and on the wall is a poster advertising a popu-
lar musical group.
F-6 The principal is dancing on an elevated platform with another girl

--.--

dancing nearby. Around the platform are various other young people

-19-

of both sexes.

’11
I
\1

The principal is seated at a table with a young man of comparable age.

!

Standing behind the principal is another girl and on the wall is a
poster proclaiming "BAEARA PGIDA".
F-8 The principal is in the foreground holding the arm of a man who is
smoking a cigarette. In the background another man is walking through
a doorway.
It should be reiterated that the introductory picture (F—I) was employed
only to introduce the principal to the Es and to acquaint them with her

physical appearance.

Procedure

a”-

[:11

'oth halves of the PCRQ were administered to the 45 first. Instruc-
tions are provided for this questionnaire and have been reported elsewhere
(doe a :iegelman, 1963). These instructions were also included on the front
page of each half of the questionnaire which the :s received. The instruc-
tions were also read aloud to the group prior to administration. It may

be relevant to nouahere that the gs were informed that all responses to the
questionnaire and the apperceptive stimuli would be kept confidential.

A certain degree of anonymity was achieved by not asking the gs for their
names; rather, the §s' reSponses were grouped for analysis on the basis

of a numerical designation (student number).

Before asking the §s to respond to eight pictorial stimuli, §_showed
the §s the introductory picture (F-I). The principal was given a name (hary
Ann) and she was identified to the §s as an undergraduate at Michigan state
University. Following this, he §5 were given the following instructions

by E:

You are going to be shown a series of pictures. In each

-20-

of these pictures, the young lady you see before you--Kary Ann--

will appear with one or more other people. I want you to com-

pose a story about each picture. Gome of he things you might

talk about are: what events led up to the picture, what is going

on in the picture, and how things will turn out. You will be

given sufficient time to compose a reasonable complete story.

After the clarification ofcpestions, the pictures were administered
in the order in which they were described on the pre eding pages. yach
of the pictures was flasaed on a large screen in the front of the room by
means of a large opaque projector. The time each picture was visible was
the same for all eight pictures (six minutes). Given these experimental
conditions, this report assumes that the chances are maximal that §s identi-
fied with the "experimental her" and talked about her as they would talk
about themselves.

In addition to the measuring instruments already mentioned, the §s were
also given both forms of heKinney's Actual and Perceived Self questionnaire.

The pilot sample was not given this questionnaire.

 

9.9351393119563211 .93" £122? Nor-”Cm Responses

As mentioned previously, the procedures for quantifying subject responses
to the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire subscales have been reported
elsewhere and will not be reviewed here. There are 30 questions pertain-
ing to each of the three subscales of interest in the present study (15
on each half of the questionnaire). The subjects, then, responded to 30
questions relative to each of the experiential dimensions measured. There
are high scores of "5" possible per item and low scores of "1" possible
per item. This means that, for each variable, there was a possible high
score of 150 and a possible low score of 30.

It is important to repeat that projective expressions of affect and
self-evaluation were scored only in relation to the principal (i.e., hero

related manifestations of these two variables). Jpecifically, only those

-21-
emotions expressed or felt by the principal and those story outcomes in—
vloving the principal were considered.

The emotional tone of a story was assigned to the negative-unpleasant
category and given a numerical designation of "three" if the emotions ex-
perienced and eXpressed by the principal were predominantly of the unpleasant
variety. The affects which were considered unpleasant correSpond to those
which Bridges (1932) reported as being differentiated from general distress
during the first two years of life. Bridges reported five major expressions
of unpleasant affect in the infant: Distress, jealousy, anger, disgust,
and fear. The present study added to these the most commonly accepted synonyms
for each. In particular, these synonyms were:

For distpgsg- distraught, displeasure, discomfort, and uneaSiness.

For jealousy- envy, suspicion, and doubt.

For anger: annoyance, wrath, resentment, indignance, rage, and vehemence.
For disgust- hate, disapproval, destation, loathing, and aversion.

For feap- dread, horror, terror, alarm, panic, apprehension, and anxiety.

The second affect category to which stories were assigned was the
ambivalent-ambiguous classification. A story assigned to this.grouping
received a numerical designation of "two". Hero related affects were classi-
fied as ambiguous-ambivalent when one of two conditions obtained: The
story lacked any hero related affective expressions apart from generalized
excitement, or the story expressed roughly equal quantities of pleasant
and unpleasant affects expressed and experienced by the hero.

The third and final affect category to waich stories were assigned
was the 'pleasant classification. Stories so grouped were given a numeri-
cal designation of "one". Stories in this category manifested a predom-

inance of the emotional expressions reported by Bridges (1932) as being

-22-
differentiated from general delignt during the first two years of life.
Bridges reported five pleasant (positive) emotional expressions: Delight,
joy, elation, affection for adults, and affection for children. Aswas

the case for the categorization of unpleasant affects, the most common
synonyms for each of the pleasant affects articulated by bridges were added
in the methodology of this study. These synonyms included the following:
For delight - happiness, gladness, glee, and cheerfulness.

For jgy— merriness.

For elatign— pride andlcontentment.

1

For affection for adults and affection for children- love, liking, devotion,

 

admiration, adoration, rapture, infatuation,énrlsympathy (including empathy
and understanding).

The total numerical score for the affect ratings was then taken as
the estimate of the degree of negative emotional expression manifested by
each respondent in relation to the apperceptive principal.

The estimate of principal related self-evaluation was derived by a
procedure involving he classification of story outcomes according to the
apparent degree of pleasantness-unpleasantness for the "experimental hero'.
As mentioned earlier, apperceptive outcomes were classified in terms of
both a passive criterion (receipt of positive or negative reinforcements) and
an active criterion (affirmation of the hero's wishes in a constraining
situation). \

Rotter (1954) suggests that the apperceptive technique may be a meaningful
measure of individual differences in expectations of success in life situa-
tions. Rotter's "generalized expectancy" is too broad a concept for the
scope of the present paper. The methodology of this report sought to mea-

sure a more limited aSpect of hotter's more general formulation: the direc-

-23-
tion and strength of the subjects' apperceptive manifestations of efficacy
in interpersonal situations depicted in the eight test stimuli. The only
basic addition to Rotter's notion is that affirmations of the hero's desires
in constraining situationsVEfB also considered to be manifestations of posi-
tive evaluation (as were the passive receptions of reinforcements as per
Rotter's thinking). As was the case for apperceptive expressions of affect,
apperceptive expressions of self—evaluation (story outcomes) were assigned
to three catesories. The outcome of each story was scored for the positivity-
neeativity of reinforecements received by the principal (both physical and
social) and/or for whether or not the hero asserted herself in the presence
of constraining forces. This notion of self-assertion "in spite of" (Tillich,
1952) was found to be most applicable for scoring the outcomes of pictures
F-2 and F—B.

The outcome of a story was assigned to the negative category if the
hero related reinforcements were predominantly unpleasant and/or if the
hero failed to assert herself (i.e., submitted) in the face of constraint.
stories assigned to this category received a numerical designation of "three".
The reinforcements mentioned by §5 obviously differ as a function of the struc-
ture of the stimuli, with respect to both direction (positive vs. negative)
and type (physical vs. social). It is also true that some pictures tended
to elicit more negative outcomes than others, but as long as these trends
were not too marked, the individual differences hypothesis on which validity
correlations are based still seems tenable.

Stories were assigned to an ambivalent-ambiguous outcome category pur-
suant to two events: the story had no clear outcome (e.g. statements were
vague and without direction) or the hero relatedxeinforcements were equally

pOSitive and negative. ‘tories in this group received a numerical designation

-2114,—
of "two”.

The third outcome category to which stories were assigned was the posi-
tive grouping. Stories so classified received a numerical designation of
"one". These stories were characterized by a predominance of positive rein-
forcements received by the principal and/or assertions by the principal of
her own desires in the preseice of forces which would mitigate against such
assertions.

The procedures mentioned in this section, then, describe exactly the
methods by wlich the protocols of the §s were interpreted and grouped for

analys is .

R j’LILTd

Apart from their theoretical value, the apprOpriateness of the apper-

ceptive scoring procedures outlined in the previous section is fundamentally

an empirical question which must be considered as the first step in the analy-

sis

of data. The present study employed thre basic calculations to determine

the empirical reliability of the apperceptive variables and scoring proce-

dures:

l.

2.

The internal reliabilities of the self—evaluation and affect scores
were determined by the odd-even cor~elational method. This method in-
volves the calculation of the Pearson product moment correLation for
total self-evaluation scores or affect scores on pictures F-l, F-3,
F—5, and F—7 (K variables) with total self—evaluation or affect scores
on pictures F—Z, F-Q, F-é, and F-8 (Y variables). The two obtained
correlation coefficients were then correct with the Spearman-Brown pro-
phecy formula to provide an estimate of the actual reliability of the
two apperceptive measuresfbr the 66 §s of interest. The corrected odd—
even correlation coefficient values appear in the first column of Table

1.

Actual test-retest reliabilities of the two apperceptive measures were
determined for the pilot sample of 50 female gs enrolled in the intro-
ductory psychology course. These values appear in the second column
of Table l.

-25-

«All! A’! ‘Ao'mm
- . - ' ' 9 3‘

' \uT-L.

A“;

, _ .-."
,g—mfl

- .
o

:1

.fl-“ 1. A

.7
J
'7:
i
i
5
r!

:4" I .. - 1 7 .r... V

I.

 

”as“ -.‘ " ‘2',—

 

 

 

_20_

“ he Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calculated for

the independent scoring of all 66 of the protocols by two observers.
These interobservcr agreement values appear in the third column of Table
1. It should e noted that these two values are raw coefficients of

correlation which have not been corrected for attenuation.

Table l. fieliability and interobserver agreement coefficients for the Ap-

perceptive variables.

 

 

—‘w" " Correcte‘ __.--_- 'flmTest—retest: Inte‘scEEE34
Odd—even Reliabilities Agreement
deliabilities N=50 h=66
11:66

A perceptive , h

pi. .L .05 . /O .82

Affects

.I-c- ---- .u‘ v—-——‘ .. --- u m — w-vn-u- _ on. H ova- ,.-‘ --o-———.—-~ m-'.~—.-I.—.—¢-»—~v --~'—--. h—o—v—u-i —. c...“ —--— --.—-—.p---.--o- an-

A oerce tive a
p.L p . (O .68 . 76
Outcomes

>——. w -—. 0----..“ m ..-,_. c ,

‘ Inapection of Table 1 indicates that all coefficients are within the
confidence limits usually applied to such measures (e.g., see Helmstadter,
1961+; PC. 814').

Given that the apperceptive measures were of acceptable reliability,
calculation of the Pearson product moment correlation coJfficients for each
of the PChQ variables with each of the apperceptive variables was the nex
procedure in the analysis. pix such coefficients were calculated (for ap-

perceptive affects and outcomes paired with experiences of parental rejection,

neglect, and love). iaeh of these values provides some evidence for the

-27-
statistical tenability of one of the six relations advanced in the intro—

duction. These values appear in Table 2. For each cell, the N was be.

gs are raw values that have not been corrected for attenua—

I 1 7‘. _ . _‘ M. ~.'. Y F A .. ‘ p A, “. n '.‘ ' -. '. “ ‘ ‘l" (‘
Taole ?. gen v liuit; COTTCldthDS l0? omen 01 he apperceptiVo variables

«ll-1‘ __ 1 p 4.1"“ A _' .L’,__ n ' ‘.
fit; CnCQ or one experienolol Terlatles.
&

- .u-u --.. ~--“ - .-. -.-——_
(_

litensity of 'ffitdfisity"bf’ Intensity 65'
HTPQTlUHCCS of experiences of experiences of
parental parental parental
rejection neglect love

.~ r‘ . J7 . - A
f L)\ . j. LIJ V _L IJU'
of *
l,
."" -¢»'-..-r. I! :r , * L6.-
xii-J?) I‘fh ' L)‘ .L V L3 "' o ”70 "' 04'0 + g I
A. a. __
-19 A ,‘J.
Ark-J.’ K L J

- - -. - . - - , . - 7 , .——. , . -7 -4. . fl .- F-—. u — .- -,‘ -7--'.‘ - ->.~ 7 m -7

Positivity
of
Apperceptive
Oute one s

L t. ~" ’:
r) 2- T.- f’ p, ’1‘ >1 * *
" o S i

, \-‘ ”OJK +0137

- - - ”V. v n .. . u - , -7 _ -.. ...- i w -... _-. —..— .—.- ..-- .7...77 ha-— a N ~—— . ~._ --. *.7-- —-.—.

* (P .002?)

>331: (P . 001 )

J-

- . .‘ .:.-. r- - 1.- , "4., ° , n -;g,.'- . 4-1. -'. 1..
Inspection Ul e 2 indica.es statistiCal validation of the sin n“-

pothesised relations presented in the introduction. All coefficients were

at or above acceptable levels of Sienificrnce. The term "ac eptatle" is

taken to mean that not only were the values significantly different from
chance expectations, but, also, in each case a reasonable portion of the
Variance was accounted for.

1

1

-1
C;
f...
F.‘
(f-

LWQ Pifih correlations reported above raises tin; obvious euastlon L

the extent to which

periences. In order to

3 presents the factor lo

The three factors

t;pically account

--I\ 7‘
I" v {216:

.fi . .A“ .-~ , . .
8118134))..8 Oi 11.7.3 VIM . J-

rv-r “ P f)
igllfi J.

of the Parent—

u—v_~—- .h-.—.-. -o - — —-o ._

-o-o u—“- --—_v -.--- — - - -~.~

Subscale n5
Rejection

---..

Subscale

_ 9?
Neglect "’
Jubscale F.

+01}
Love

adings
“A - ' ° 1 'I _
smashing; in ‘laole .

for better taan

Factor loadings of the subscales 30330

-29..

_‘. 1 . T‘u" TN,"

L F - - .- L
rat... suoscales represent

provifle a partial answer to tn

5
U

f5
/

1

data are for adult females

Child Relations oucstionnaire

Factor

Overt
”010
'010
+.25

“-- -

. - .w. w

1

nifihly related ex-

L

CLS

question, Table

orfinally reported bv Roe and Uiegclman (1963).
(Lovinr, Casual—Demanding. and overt)

90 percent of the variance in the factor

in the UeW'Iaven area.

Neglect, and Love

for adult females

W‘~ v “Mc—WW-

Factor
Casual-
Demanding

“ --—;- m ——.—..-.v”

’0’)
—. J
“-15

+.25

- C. n—-“- -~—.— ..

D13CUSSIOK

J-”

As indicauuC, he data demonstrate a statistical confirmation of the

‘1eses advanced in the introduction at "acceptable" levels of sig—
nificance. Comparison of the tOp row of Tab ole 2 with the bottom row indi-
cates, further, that the validity co e Ff icients pertaining to the self—evaluation
measure are,cell for cell, higher than the validity correlations pertain-

ine to tn: emotionality measure. rher validity correlations can
be accounted for in two basic Hays: (l) the measure of apperceptive self-
evaluation nag'be more reliable than the me sure of apperceptive affects,
or (2) the experiences measured by; tm three PCRQ subscales of interest

_L‘

may be more relevant to bee develooment of self-evaluation (appercep biVCly

measured) than the develOpmcnt of emotional expression (similarly measured).

‘ 3

Of these two explanations, tee secone seems empirically and theoretically

them ore plaus :Lble. The tenability of the first explanation seems question-

at

able on the basis of bfle reliaeility coe 11 cien ts presented in Table l.

,ince Table 1 indicates that the three coefficients calculated for ea c11

m«: ”u“ are Highly comparable, larye eifferences in cor :lational valiei-

ties betveen apperceptive measures cannot be explained by discrepancies in
the corresponding reliabilities of the two measures. Further, the previous—
ly mentioned re ort bv Eridyes (1932) suffests tliat the bipartite nature

of affective s"pression is in evicence dux i113 the earliest parlods of devel-

0
Ct
.J
O
(1"
P.)
H
:‘J
J

0pment, Vhil- cannot be said for expressions of self—evaluation.

-0q-

[‘14

-30-
self-evaluation is apparently a more cognitive variable. In addition, Coles'
report (1964) seems to indicate that notions of se elf -evaluation are in flux
throughout childhood. Finally, additional support for suggesting the later
develoPme nt oi self-evaluation can be adduced from thesfiudies of Iuldashevia
(1966) and Malher et al. (l962). These reports found that self-evaluation
can be al bCer relatively late in develOpment as a function of the experi-
ence of evaluations of the self held by others.

-mpirical evidence would seem to suggest, then, that while emotional
evpressions are first articulateiduring the prevcrbal stages of maturation,
the development of self—evaluation is characteristic of per sfollowing
the acquisition of verbal facility. ‘he fact that t11e 90 responses to the
PCB; which were empl ved in the analysis of this report are very relevant‘
to the period of life vhen notions of self—evaluation are thought to be
in critical flux (late childhood and early adolescence) lends further cre-
dence to theexplanation advanced in relation to the observed discrepancies
in validity correlations. In short, one might suggest that the antecedent
experiences measured by the subscale wtion, Neglect, and Love a.re just
developmentally more relevant o the genesis of self-evaluation than the
genesis of affective e1 ressions.

fihen the vertical rows of Table 2 are examined, it is observed that
the valiclitv correlations for each of the apperceptive measures with the
three subscales of the P322 are higher with the subscale Love than with

either the fiejcction or Neglect suMo cale . This result is most easily

C)

expla M1ed b" the relia.bility argument pr sented earlier. The TIV on reli-
abilities (Zoe & fie«1lman, 1963 ) are consieera1l hi3ner for the Love sub-
scales than for either the hejection or lie lect suoscales. Cdd—even esti-

mates of the subscale relial Dilities were calculated for the data of the

-31-
present study. These values were in substantial agreement with the lryon
‘eliabilities reported by hoe and Aiegelman (1053). Given these data about
subscale reliabilities, one would predict that quantitative intensity scores
on the Love subscale would cor-slate more highly with a given measure than
would scores on the Pejection or Eaglect subscalcs, other things being equal.
It should be noted that for the affect measure, the validity coefficients
calculated in relation to the Rejection and heglect subscales are identi—
cal. Also, the corrOSponding validity coefficients for the self-evaluation
measure were within one decimal point of each other. These results are
consonant with the fact that the reliabilities of the subscales Rejection
and Heglect are almost identical when summed across both forms of the PCRQ
(lejection= .76 and Heglectz .75 by the odd-even estimate of the present
study).

Considering eXperiential correlates of dichotomous emotional eXpres-
sion in particular, it seems evident that the experiences measured by the
PCRQ do not refer directly to the earlier periods of life when the expres-
sions of afiect first develOp. The pres;nt paper assumes,ibr explanatory
purposes, tLat the measured superiences are probably more "SOphisticated"
forms of rejection, neglect, and love which were preeeded by more primitive,
but nonetheless analogous, manifestations of similar experiences during
the early years. That is, given a reasonatle amount of consistency in both
parents and children across time, the child's experiences of herself as a
referent of parental actions during he later years of maturation should
be qualitatively comparable to experiences deriving from the earlier years.
3imp-y, parental behavio‘s and the child's construing of the behaviors should

be characterised by some degree of consistency throughout develOpment.

It is, of course, possible to suggest explanations for the statistical

relations of interest in this paper which are quitec diffe rent from the gen-
eral notions advanced in the introduction. The most powerful alternative
argument would probably be one deriving from social learning models of deve1~
opment (e.;., Rotter,l 195E; Dolla.rd and Kil]_er, 1950; Li ijou and hair, 1961)

1 I

and based largely upon sheer probability of given re spo onses in given situa-
tions. Quch an explanation would probably assert that rejection and neglect
of the child by the parents would tend to elicit unpleasant affects from

the child W1ile simultaneously decreasing (or inhibiting) the child's evalua-

1

tion of him elf, Convcwr .clv, an orthodox social learning interpretation
would be likely to sugcest that expressions of affection toward the child

by the parents tend to elicit positive affective states which at least one
author (Ellis, 1932) asserts to be an integral part of positive self-evaluation.
At first blush, such an interpretation seems most parsimonious and, conse-
quently, most seductive. It also seems intuitively reasonable that, as

the social learning interpretation would suggest, a‘fi should tendto express
thosaaffects and evaluations vith which he is most familiar (enter the con—
cepts of respons- hierarchy and generalisation). It is possible, even likely,

s are not quite so simple and taat such n interpretation does

(1)

O
I I
0

completely ignolas the ialividual S as an evoerichJn” “cent EOW'it is
perfectly :71 right (on empirical " ‘ounds) to 3cnort the individual as a de-

terminant of his own behavior provided that such a logical-positivistic

procedure leads to the m st adequate (as well as the simplest) of possible

.-,. ,.¢.- , v .t. x ., -t‘ i, ,.. '» -3 ' ,..i 7‘ h 3 V. - ..‘ -
CaplanwblODn. fhen Cccum BIPIQQSOO his lat oi UmTSlMDnJ,he :tated that

A

J

.1.

ae siMplest of two explanations is pr:f rra l:le onlf'nhen both emplanations

are of equal acequacy with reenact to the facts. Too often, the boundary

O

—0 ~-
J

\

between these two criteria fades in the light of logical-positivistic “ea-

soning and a acrificed for the sake of simplicit'. we must face

0
CD
,0
1:.
a:
O
k:
H.
U)
m

the fact that if the adequacy criterion does not obtain, it may well be
that the more complex explanation may be the more parsimonious. In this
regard, it is suggested here that any approach which fails to consider the
role of the individual as an agent who structures and interprets experience
is less than adequate and does not fully account for the observed facts
of behavior.

An elementary example will serve to illustrate the above statements.
The example derives from instances of behavior disorders in individuals of
Highly'similar backgrounds (in terms of objectively'measured events to which
they have been exposed), such as siblings or even twins. The behavior syn-
drome which we call paranoia is a case in point. The existence of paranoid
individuals indicates that when people are exposed to essentially the same
events, some will see the events as more threatening than will others.
Certainly, one could say that paranoid behaviors are higher in the "respons
hierarchy" of some individuals. But, given the fact that response hierarchy
is a somewhat metaphysical construct (with the added assumption of the "elicit—
ing power" of external stimulation), would it not be more parsimonious to
simply say that some individuals interpret their experiences differently
than do other individuals? Parenthetically, it might be noted here that
the assumption of the fundamental importance of the "eliciting power" of
external stimuli is not at all unlike the "force at a distance" notion which
was the basic assumption of the hemtonian conceptualization of gravity.
Thiscnncept pas also the product of an overemphasis on simplicity Pussell,
1958) and it is impossible to defend when one considers the "objective"

realities of individual interpretations of experience as Einstein did.

-34..

It is hoped that the preceding example not only suggests that the or-
thodox social learning approach does not always fully explain the relevant
facts (a claim that is frequently made; e.g., see Hebb, 1960), but that
such an approach does not always provide he simplest of explanations (a
claim which is almost never made). For these reasons and others, this paper
holds that when considering individual differences in characteristically
human behavioral manifestations, such as the ones examined in the present
study, it is crucial to consider individual differences in self-reported
experience as meaningful predictors of behavior.

The obvious implication of all this is that considerations of reported
experience may provide predictions of behavior which are just as valid as
predictions made solely on the basis of the occurance of external environ-
mental events. duch an orientation may also provide a clue to how behavior
may be altered in relation to experience. specifically, it is not only the
actual behaviors manifested toward us by others that determine our action
but, also, the manner in which we experience these behaviors. Pursuant to
these considerations, the present paper would not predict any one-to-one
correspondence between the reports of the experiences of parental behavior
measured by the PCB; and the actual behaviors that were manifested (the
actual questions call for a frequency interpretation on the part of the
reSpondent). Rather, it is suggested that it is the child's exgeriences
of these actions of interest which are related to apperceptive reSponding.
If actual parental behavior is predictive of such responding, it is only
in so far as objective behavioral events are related to certain types of

experience on the pale of the child.

Faldyin, A. L., Kalhorn, J., & Ereese, F. f. The appra'sal of parent behavior.
Psychological Tonographs, 1949, 63, E0. 299.

———-

 

Baldrin, A. L., Kalhorn, J & B;eese, F. 1. Patterns of parent behavior.
Psve‘ool ode?” 17n>iomrrmts ' A

y -—-«— c‘——-'-- —---_— a _’
Bijou, 3. fi.;& 336?: D. K- b

1ild development 1. Ken York: Appleton-Century-
crofts, 1961.

 

 

Bridges, K. K. E. gmotional development in early infancy. Child Development,
19:,‘2, 3, 3219-”41.

fridges, K. h. h. The social and emotional development of the preschool
child. London: Kegan Paul, 1931.
hip~betneen self-concept and the

Bruck, N. & Eodnin, R. F. The relations
acnievement. Journal of Clinical Psy-

presenee and absence of scholastic
011010.35. 19:2, 1:3, 181—183.

V!

 

Carlson, d. Identification and personality structure in preadolescents.
Journal 2: Abnormal and Social Psycholggy, 1963, 67, 566-573.

 

Cattell, R. E. Principles of design in "projective" or miSperceptive tests

of personality. In Anderson, 3. H. & anderson, G. L. (.ds.) ép introduction
29 projective techniques. fingleuood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1951, 56l98.

 

 

Coles, R. Children of crisis. Boston: Little-Brown, 1964.

Crandell, V. C. Reinforcement effects of adult reactions and nonreactions
on childrens' achievement eXpectations. Child Develgpmcnt, 1963, 3b, 335-
ssh
JJ‘.

 

Dollard, J. €;hiller, N. J. Personality anl ppychotherapy. New York: KcGrau-
Hill, 1950.

 

allis, A. Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New Yerk: Lyle btuart, 1962.

 

 

iron, L. D. ReSponses of women to the Thematic Apperception Tes . Journal
g: Consulting PsycholoeV, qud, 17, 269-252.

Ida

 

"inney, J. C. Some maternal influences on childrens' personality and

References cont'd

 

character. Genetic Psvehological Fonographs, 1961, 63, 199-278.

 

a
Y1_1

Gendlin, I. Eroerioncinga

1962.

 

the cre9tion of meanin". New'York: Free Press,

Gorlow, L., Futler, A., & Guther11e, G. K. Correlates of self—attitudes of
retardates. American Journal of Lental D ficiengg, 1963a, 67, 5b9-555.

 

 

Gorlowy L., Butler, A.,.flinig, K. G., & Smith, J. A. An appraisal of self-
attitudes, a behavior following group psychotherapy with retarded young
adults. Aneriean Journal of Fental Deficiency, 1963b, 67, 893-898.

 

 

Grusec, J. Some antecedents of self-criticism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psycho105y, 1966, 4, 249-252.

 

 

T7 a o o o / r
hebb, D. O. The american revolution. Amerlcan Psgthologist, 15, 1900, 735-

 

-ebb, D. O. Lducation for research. Canadian Federation News, 8. 1966.

 

Yeilburn, A. B. a Orr, H. K Perceived maternal childrearing history and
subsequent motivational effects of failure. Journal of Genetic PC vcholory,
1966, 109, 75—89.

 

I—Telmstadter, G. c. Princifiles of mmholosiml m<19SD.raveWe- Kev York: Appleton-
Century—Crofts, 1969.

 

 

aerron, U. 138 test pa atterns of acceeted and rejected adolescents. Perceptual

’1’353

and Ector Skills,l 1962 ,43 -e98

 

 

Holt. R. R. _he Thematic Anperception Test. In inderson H. H. & Anderson,
G. L. (395- ) n introeue1ion to projective tec1nieues. englenood Cliffs,
Prentice—Hall, 1951.

 

 

 

Iuldashevia, 3. H. The forma.tion of self—appraisal in adolescents. Voerosv

 

. .......L...._._.a{..
P81 :holorii , 1966, b, 87- 92.
Laing, R. D. The po alitics of 9vr9r1ence. hen York: Pantheon Eeoks, 1967.

 

 

LeUin, K. Field theorv in social science. flew Eork: Yarner and R02, 1951.
m 1—..— J-

n...—

 

 

J. P. {odes of experience: suojcct tive and objective. Paper in

Palher, K. L., Kensing, J., C hafzger, 5. Concept of self and the reaction
of other Socior1€ trr, 1962, f5, 353- 357.

‘r _- 7‘:
1.4.(3‘; , JL.

1"“9'o‘o"" an. the nuLan Gilenma. Princeton, few Jersey: Van Kos—
r 7 —.
tranrh 19 7

 

 

f lone-s cm t'd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

r I -\ x _o‘ ’ A _ _ .9 ..L‘ ' o . J. T ‘

1 (111120115 G. 11. Del 111.1111...11ts' percenhon.» o1 L;lill"p&1\.116-->o .11-1112111’«1 o1 1,1111-
11::zm- r1«v-r,1i>€5. 22-1 51512-591.

‘ . 9 "" v: \ .,- w-n‘ ""- 9 "‘L ‘I: 1". .n 2‘ 3" -.—.‘»' "A .-
P0131131.P—?rs.111..'11 39-10.111.912: 13014-22“. a yous-c1 11,.-.11 1.12.11-11sg13. 1.12:1.
Yor‘r: “manor and 1111.1, 1951.3.

3109: :31.- 8= --"-!-"‘;I'1111"Tl. 1 . ~1 1111‘0111-(1111d real tions qua stionn. 11'“ o «11d 11e-

- .L "’1 r»! r‘. A " --—

Vl\]'(‘i')‘."n;f‘nL,, 1:54,), 11', ’.155-11'-‘I.

 

 

 

 

11080nt17a_1'. Jo) 1:51, ‘10, Fj.-,1’11<'(:3151»ein 1:0! & 1131"}.{111135’ G. K. Father-(31,1116
relationships and c‘ ilr‘rens' problems. .1‘,:1-:rican ch‘eives of G 111* ral Psgc1ia-
.’ m ...-
two; F 2! 7: 1760‘???-
Rotter, J, Ti. "3191:1511 lcarnin; .9111-.. c1"n:'1_1-.11 3530119119“? 11131012on Cliffs:
I «- I
Prentice- all, 1 , H.
3115:3711, ‘3. 51"”) of 1:111:11" iv“: .Lon( on: George Allen and 1111:1111, 1,th 19:33.
Russ-:11, T9. 1‘1 11194113197 of res 1(1n nh ilos ooh". lieu York: Simon and. Schustcr,
.— .—-¢’—.—.—.—L ...—— ”......“— ‘m—m_. don’t.
191:5.
'. ' o o I 1 ,7 . I /
..arason, I. 1;. PT.“SO‘1"4’UL'+X: an 01120171‘JC affroaci. 1.01.7 York, '.:.'11ey, 1906.

 

 

 

Sears, P. "5. 8c ;‘:.71errr1an, V. .3. 1:1 mars wit 01" 51.7.1.1. estttuzm. Eelrnont, California:
”.Jads worth, 19

 

Ij‘11'.)€1‘.'la.ker, R. 3.3., ”11011111.- -s r, D. T., :‘=.‘; Noel is, I. ’aboratory Incasurerwnt
of parental behavior. Tournal of 1': amnltin" Pave} 1.01331, 1962, 26, 109-1114.

 

'i- gelnan. 1:. College 5: udent pe lsonalitv correlates ofear1Vparent-child
rolati ons. Journa 1 of Consultin: Pragnhologr, 1965, 29,5 53—561}.

 

1

33.. 11:21.: Haven: Yale University Press, 1952.

"J

Tillich, P. The co1.ra:e t1

 

13111.1 1.81113 , 1.". C. The PAL“) tests: a technioue for children to evaluate both
oaronts . Journal. of Consul‘in" Psye‘: .ol 1;; ,195F ,22, 1.574195.

 

11199.91de U l: The Parent—Child Relations Questionnaire

./

Instructions f or the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire

Felon are a 111111er of statements which describe rays that father (or
mothers) act toward their children. Read each statement carefully and thin:
hm: well it describes your f.‘ ether (or mother) while you were growing up.

Eef ore each statement there are 1‘ our lines labelled V -.Rl’ T111211), Til/15D
TO :3 TREE), '1‘ 2.171) _-.'D "O E: UITTRU 1;, VERY UM‘RU V'. Put an X. on the line that
indicates how true you tnink each statement was of your father (or mother).

‘

If none of these escriptions seems quite right, you 111a}; put the X between
two of the lines.

For example, if your memory is that your fati'xer (or mother) often let

you off easy when you did something wrong, you would mark the item as fol-

 

 

101:5:
T3 ETD J) ’1' 1.3 911')
Vii-{Y TO T TO. E»; Vipy
T ‘EU 75 "WU T I"-""I‘E"U U""" 3T1 .
i '2‘“ ' ”'9 1:1! fatncr (or mother)
X _ 1. never let me off ears},r when I did something
wrong.

STUD 413T 1*.‘1UL 13-3

 

bf)!

w
d

43,0-

'r fa;her (or mother)

tried to get me every thing I wanteu.
comylained ahout me to others mien I did not listen to him (her).
made no concessions for my age.

let me spend my allovance any may I liked.

discussed what was good about my behaVior and helped to make clear the
desirable consequences of my actions.

punished me hand enough when I misbehaved to make Slre that I wouldn't
do it again.

took away my toys or playflfings when I was con.

was genuinely interested in my aifairs.

5.-.;

kept forgetting things us (she) was supposed to do for me.
tooc me places (trips, shows, etc.) as a reward.
spoiled me.
made me feel ashamed or guilty when I misbehaved.
let me thW‘I Hasn't wanted.
set very few rules for me.
compared me favorably with other children when I dii well.
made it clear that he (she) was boss.
slapped or struck me when I was imprOper.
ma7e me feel wanted and needed.
was too busy to answer my questions.
relaxed rules and regulations as a reward.
was very careful about protecting me from accidents.
nagqed or scolded me when I was bad.
hought it was my own fault if I got into trouble,

gave me as much freedom as I wanted. (item for faJher form only)

let me dress any way I pleased. (item for mother form only)

-41-

hy father (or mother)

25.
F26.

1".26 I

\

b8.

tOld me how'proud he (she) was of me then I was good.

never let me get away with breaking a rule. (item for father form only)
thought I should always be doing something. (item for mother form only)
took away or reduced my allowance as punishment.

made me feel that I was important.

did not care if I got into trouble.

gave me new books or records as rewards.

believed I should have no secrets from my parents. (item for father
form only)

couldn't bring herself to punish me. (item for mother form only)
punished me by ignoring me.

did not spend any more time with me than necessary.

let me off easy when I did something wrong.

treated me more like a grown-up when I behaved well.
pushed me to excel in every thing I did.

wouldn't let me play with other children when I wasted.
encouraged me to do things on my own.

paid no attention to what I was doing in school.

let me stay up longer as a reward.

protected me from teasing or bullying by other children.
made me feel I wasn't loved any more if I misbehaved.

did not want me to bring friends home.

gave me the choice of what to do whenever it was possible.
praised me before my playmates.

told me how to Spend my'free time.

spanked or whipped me as punishment.

talked to me in a warm and affectionate way.

49.

50-

69.

70.

-42-
did not take me into consideration in making plans.
rewarded me by letting me off some of my regular'chores.
shamed me before my playmates when I misbehaved.
did not let me play rough outdoor O*ames for fear I might get hurt.

CD

disapproved of my friends.

.L

eXpected me to take every day disappointments. (item for father form
orflgr)

let me eat what I wanted to. (item for mother form only)
expressed greater love for me when I was good.

punished me without any thought or hesitation when I misbehaved.
gave me extra chores as punishment.

tried to help me when I was scared or upset.

did not care whether I got the r'ght kind of food.

gave me candy or ice cream or fixed my favorite foods for me as a re-
ward.

made others give in to me. (item for father form only)

taught me not to fight under any circumstances. (item for mother form
only)

frightened or threatened me when I did wrong.
went out of the way to hurt my feelings.
let me stay up as late as I liked. (item for father form only)

let me do as I liked with my time after school. (item for mother fomn
only)

gave me Special attention as a reward.
demanded unquestioning reSpect and deference.
punished me by sending me out of the room or to bed.

did not try to tell me everything, but encourayed me to find things
out for myself.

left my care to someone else.

let me go to parties or play with others more than usual as reward.

71.

72.

(-32 .
0’)
K. )0
(“'1
kW.
“12’
(2/.
{76.

father (or mother) -ew-

taught me to go for help to my parents or teacher rather than to fight.
told me how ashamed he (5‘ he) x as w W n I nishc‘: waved.
TifiiCUlGd and ma de fun of me.

let me do pretty much That I van mt d to do.

let me choose my om frien

)ré‘ifiwd U10 1,1113?) I dOSEX'VCd it.

altajs told me c ‘03:: cytl 1-. 0.7 to do my work.

tOOa away my books or records as punish rient.

respected my point of View and encouraged me to ex.ress it.
acted as if I didn't exist.

rerarfiad_me by giving me money, or increased my'allovnnce.

wanted me to have at least as large an allowance as mr flierds. (i

iJT faiiu r fcemwtmily)

I
U

1

preferreo to have me play at home rather than to visit other Children.
(item for mother form only)

nisbehavcd.

H
(I

t
}_ I
('5
,_J
O
r
in
"S
0
Li:
Q.

.I
i )
:3
.4
P— .4
r’)
:3
Pl

,
co nfred mo unfaworan

made me feel proud phen I did Hfill.

pushed me to do U011 in school. .
punished me by being more strict about rulcs and IJSulations.

let me do things I thought were important e en if it Vere inconvenient
.0
.L

‘ .L_'-
L

paid no ao.ent 101 to me.
‘1‘ ~A 1. .. A A s - ‘ ‘ ,-1 -‘v‘.- ~r‘ ~a .‘
huigee me, lziss d no, pett u we Intn I mas Loon.

In.) J- . .. ..L -n .°.L ... - .-,. .-1.,.'_ .°...1 1 -. ..r -n .-.1. N. . ...
trlww LO Leon me one OI SlbUythHa tulb n1 mt no noble SflMb cHC euhnihs-
- .- _ .0 .. nNL‘ _. . _
SIN” (fixrlior_rmfler iomnrnflwfl

. a . .. .L“ ,_ i :4. u,
)eernlse suimetl;in . _ l t £1.1upfr1't0 1:v3. (it‘il

;)

100.
101.

102.

103.

100.

106.
107.
100.

)0

110.

111.

ather (or mother)

reasoned with me and explained lossitlo harmful consequences when I
1
I

o 1‘.
connarcd no unfavorahly to other children no ma.tcr what I 01d.
. ' 1‘ . ~ -’ an! ‘, -. ‘ " r‘x" 1"." ‘-'"°‘
did not oogoct to NJ loaling or Ludflluamlflgo
nraiscd no to others.

J.

would not lat n3 .nastitn nis (her) roasonins.

\—'

nunishofi no by not trLiny no on trips, visits, etc. that I had teen
promised.

tried to hclp me learn to live comfortably with myself.
ignored no as long as I did not do anything to disturb him (her).
gave me new things as a retard, such as toys.

hates to refuse me anything.

thought that it was had for a child to be given affection and tender-
nC‘SS 0

did nottell me what time to be homo when I went out.
wanted to have complete control over my actions.

g

was willing to discuss regulations with me, and took my point of View
into account in making them.

,_.J

dic not care who my friends were.
worried about no when I was avay.

did not want me around at all when ho (she) 480 company.

1
1

id not objoct when I was late for meals.

taught me that he (she) knew best and that I must accept his (her) dc-
cisions.

encouraged me to bring friends home, and tried to make things plwasant
for than.

loft no alone when I vas upset.
norrird a great deal about my health. (item for father form only)

wouldiufi.lct ma try thinrs if here were any .nance I would fail. (item
for mothcr form only)

1y father (or mother)

11a .

11%.

.t

...-o"

'1

ex?ected Children to misbehavc if thev were not matched.
was easy with no.

uronpt and unquestioning obedience.

- 1
taught :e skills I wanted to learn.

:io not try to help me learn thinvs.

h)

ranted to know all about my exneriences.

0"

cl

eved a chill should be seen and not heard.

PJ-

did not bother much about enforcing rules.
was full of advice about everything I did. (item for father form only)

{apt the house in order by having a lot of rules and regulations for
me. (item for mother form only)

made it easy for me to confide in him.

forgot my birthday.

did not want me to grow up.

avoided my company.

did not check up on mhe h:r I did mv homework.
allowed me to make only minor decisions.

said nice things about me.

Tr. ‘ p

did not care whether I had the sane nlnC o clothes as other children.

Annendix 2- Seoring Sheet 1? or the Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire

I
.2‘
(k
I

'33?) 3’30’I1J SFTT FOR
."‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JCT? alt-J OR FA'1‘15X-b
Jtudent Number
P re Pun Re 3' C as flew Dem Pun Lev lie 3 Rev
:‘s—L S—L D-G 3-13
1_____ 2___ 3______ LT______ 5____ 6____ 7_____ 8____ 9 10______

ll________ 12______ 13...... ILL_______ 15 16_______ 17 18...... 19_______ ?O______
21______ 22______ 2 _____ 24...... 2 5 26______ 27 28______ 29.... ;O_____
31_____ 3?______ 33_____ 34...... °5___,___ 36“ 37_____ 38___ 39____ no”
“1* "I...“ It?” 41*____ 1!'5_____ ”5.... 47_____ 48 49______ so_____
51...“ :z>______ 53______ Su__ 55___ 56____ 57___ 58 59____ €0_____
€1-___ , c______ ( 3______ (LL______ 6 5_____ 66____ 67____ 68 €9____ 7o____
71___*_ i9____- 73_____ 7h_____ 75_____ 76L____ 77;_“__ 73 79_____ 50____.
E‘l______ “?______ 5‘ °______ (01er 5‘ 5________ 86“ 87________ <_8_______ 89______ 90_____
91...... (“’2_______ 0”)“ 911'. 05...... 96“ 97...... <98_____ 99...... lOO________

lOl_____ 102 10?“ 10b“ lO5_______ 106______

lO7______ 10““ 100*— llO____ lll_____ ll?_______

llB________ 111:» 115...... 116_______ ll 7_____ llo_______

119 1‘0“ 12l_____ 122____ 123_____ 124”

125_____ 126* 127...... 128...... 129____ 130

TOTALS:

-b7-

 

 

Aonendix 3- Sample protocols for the

Unifrom Adelescent Identification Pictures

. n
-1.},k1-

-a9_

Unbiect= 23 Picture: F-l Affect: positive Outcoqgé positive

 

 

ary Ann and her steady Bob are about to go for a ride in Bob's new Sports
car. as car is very new and very stylis and they're so proud of it their
minds are about to blow. fiery Ann and Bob are very happy and very much in

I‘D

love. Alter they finish school they'll get married and raise a large family.

EBEQEEEF 10 Picture; F-M Affect; negative Epteomgé negative

Kary Ann is enrolled in 090 math because she flunked her math orientation
exam after staying out half the night with a boy met during freshman visita—
tion. The teacher is trying to explain the pythagorean theorem but fiery Ann
just can't get the damn thing throu
good at math anyray and has always hated doing those stupid homework problems.

Right now she's mad at the Prof. and his stupid explanation because there's

a test coming up on Friday which she's certain to flunk.

Subject: 59 Picture: F—6 Affect; positive Outcome: negative

 

Hary Ann's in he glory new! She's been asked to be a 50—30 dancer at
her dorm's term party and does Kary Ann lgy: to dance. Cld Kar feels great
when showing off the movements of her body in front of the other kids. She's
really putting the nose into her dance of gay abandon. The three kids in front
are disgusted by her seductive movements, however, and are about to go get

3.1

'V

I
C) U

the house mother or the police to threw her off the stage, before some

rapes her.

-.———-—..-.

lubiect= 3? Picture: F-Z Affect: nerative Ontcone= positive
”A... ...... --...._..- -... ‘« ......— .. _. -. L

horrors! hary Ann is petrified! She came home early after class and is
shocked to find her father slumped in the chair. He has been eldiabetic for

years and he seems to have take- an overdose of insulin. Lary Ann is torn

vith indecision. .ventually, she calls an ambulance and her father is saved

Protocols cont'd
Harry Ann's father is very grateful to her because she has truly saved his

life.

03196 4632

IIII'
I‘I
||I|I
nl'lll
||||1|||
I'll
\I'
'll
\‘Iu
llll
||I|
I||I|I|
Illlll
II
'III'
l'ul
Illl'
I‘ll.
|I|
‘I‘
II!
III
I|||||
lllll
‘I
III
III
lllll
ll
l‘ll
I'll
I‘ll
Ill|||
|I|III
I‘.
I‘ll
‘Il‘l
|||
II‘I
1||I|
||||
||I||
I\
I‘ll

3 1293