I

MOTIVATIONS FOR PARENTHOOD
IN MOTHERS OF DISTURBED AND MOTf‘IERS OF
NORMAL CHiLDREN: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Thesis for the Degree of M A
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

ROBERT J. GREENE
1967

 
   

‘khfir “~M

LIBRARY
Michigan State J

A

University

ABSTRACT
MOTIVATIONS FOR PARENTHOOD IN MOTHERS OF
DISTURBED AND MOTHERS OF NORMAL CHILDREN:
AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

by Robert J. Greene

The present study was an exploratory project to
investigate motivations for parenthood. Of central concern
were differences in general needs and Specific motivations
for having children as eXpressed by mothers of emotionally
disturbed children and mothers of "normal" children. The
instruments employed were the Motivation for Parenthood
Questionnaire (PM2) and the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (EPPS). The study was also designed to help
establish the construct validity of the PM2.

Both measures were distributed to mothers who had at
least one child diagnosed as needing psychological treatment
and to a larger sample of mothers of normal children.
Materials were returned by mail. Questionnaires completed
by 30 mothers of disturbed children were matched with those
of mothers of normal children. Criteria for matching were:
income, education, number of children, religion, and age.
Questionnaires were scored after matching and apprOpriate
statistical tests were conducted.

Results of t tests for differences confirmed two
hypotheses. Mothers of normal children had stronger
fatalistic motives on the PM2 scale and stronger nurturance
needs on the EPPS scale. These differences may support

contentions that mothers wanting progeny due to fatalistic

Robert J. Greene

motives and mothers with stronger nurturance needs would
exhibit more psychologically positive behaviors toward
their children. However, the significance of results was
diminished by the fact that other related hypotheses were
not confirmed. I

No hypothesized correlational relationships between
PM2 and EPPS variables were statistically significant.
The construct validity of the PM2 received no support.

Results were discussed in the light of sampling,
measurement, and research design problems. The need for
_genotypic descriptions of children's disturbances and
information on the planned or unplanned status of the
child was noted. Questions were raised regarding
projective aspects of reSponses and possible changes in
procreative motives and general needs.

It was concluded that the study of motivations for
parenthood warrants further eXpenditures of time and
effort. Suggestions for modifying the PM2 instrument and

directions for future research were offered.

Approved :W

Committee Chairman

Date: i/Ajfl 2

 

MOTIVATIONS FOR PARENTHOOD IN MOTHERS OF
DISTURBED AND MOTHERS OF NORMAL CHILDREN:

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

BY

Robert J. Greene

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1967

To Marsha
whose patience, understanding and

hard work made this study
possible and more meaningful

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express appreciation to his
committee chairman, Dr. Albert 1. Rabin, for his valuable
guidance. Dr. Rabin provided assistance and encouragement
throughout this investigation and during the author's
previous work under the research apprenticeship program.

'The author is grateful to Dr. John R. Hurley and
Dr. William T. Stellwagen for their helpful suggestions and
comments. The statistical advice of Dr. Stellwagen is also
appreciated.

Gratitude is also due the staff of the Lansing Child
Guidance Clinic for the time and effort they spent con-
tacting subjects and distributing questionnaires.

Dr. Gilbert DeRath and Dr. Thomas Schmitz deserve special
appreciation for their c00peration and assistance.

Finally, the author wishes to eXpress his thanks to
his colleague, Marlyn Major, who took time from her

research to help this project.

iii

'TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . .
Parental Attitudes and Expectations
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
Motivations for Parenthood .

Biological determinants .
Psychological determinants
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

PROBLEMS AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0

METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mothers of emotionally disturbed children
Mothers of all normal children . .
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . .
PM2 . . . . . . . . . .
Test format . . . .
The four major categ
Scoring . . . .
Reliability . .
EPPS . . . . . . .
Test format . .
The 15 manifest

r

{nooooOooo

:3

(D
(Do...
0.3

Scoring . . .
Norms . . . .
Reliability . .
Procedure . . . . . . . .
Mothers of emotionally di
Mothers of normal children
Matching . . . . . . . . .
Income . . . . . .
Education . . . .
Number of children
Religion . . . . .
Age . . . . . . . .
Predictions Stated in Terms of the Measures .

1
St

0000......
H-oooooooo

D"
:5

Differential hypotheses on the basis of PM2 d t

Differential hypotheses on the basis of EPPS
profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Correlations between PM2 and EPPS variables
Construct Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . .
t tests . . . . . . . .
Predicted PM2 differences
Predicted EPPS differences

iv

a

a

.—-I

U'l-htwaN

18
19

23
23
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
32

32
33
33
34

36
36
36
36

Correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Predicted PM2 and EPPS correlations . . . .
Additional Results . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-predicted group differences on the PM2
Non-predicted group differences on the EPPS
Non-predicted PM2 and EPPS correlations . .

DISCUSSION . . . . . .
Theory and Design .
Sampling . . . . . .
Instruments . . . .

PM2 . . . . . . .

EPPS . . . . .
Additional Results . .
Differences on EPPS

€000.00.
t—looooooo

a
Correlations . .
Research Directions
The PM2 instrument .
Construct validity
Instrument design
Research design . . .

(D
o o o o o . a). . o . o . o
o o o o o . o o o o o o o -.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o . o . o o o o
o o o o o . . . o o o . o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o .
. o o o o o o o o . o o . o
o o o o o o o o o . o o o o

S UPIMARY I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

36
36
39
39
39
43

45
45
48
50
50
51
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
55

57

75

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of 30 mothers of disturbed children
and 30 mothers of normal children on three
criteria utilized in matching . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of means of PM2 variables for which
hypotheses were stated . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of means of EPPS variables for which
hypotheses were stated . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations between EPPS and PM2 variables for
which hypotheses were stated . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of means of PM2 variables for which
no hypotheses were stated . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of EPPS means on variables for which
no hypotheses were stated . . . . . . . . . . . .

Significant correlations between PM2 and EPPS
variables for which no hypotheses were stated . .

Correlation matrix of all EPPS and PM2 variables,
data from combined groups of 30 mothers with
normal children and 30 mothers with disturbed
children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlation matrix of all EPPS and PM2 variables,
data from 30 mothers of disturbed children . . .

Correlation matrix of all EPPS and PM2 variables,
data from 30 mothers of normal children . . . . .

PM2 item intercorrelations based on a student
sample 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Test-retest reliability coefficients of EPPS
variables (Edwards, 1959) . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

31

37

38

4O

41

42

44

61

62

63

69

74

LIST OF APPENDICES
Complete Correlation Matrices for All EPPS and
PM2 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

The Motivation for Parenthood Questionnaire
(PM2) and Item Intercorrelations . . . . . . . . . 64

Definitions of the 15 Manifest Needs Measured
by the EPPS and Reliability Coefficients . . . . . 7O

vii

INTRODUCTION

Modern contraceptive methods provide practical and
effective means of controlling procreation. Thus, we may
assert that the choice of having a child is related to
psychological motivations. In turn, it is reasonable to
hypothesize that motives to procreate influence the
subsequent formation of parental attitudes and expectancy
expressions toward the child.

The literature contains many studies focused on
effects of parental attitudes upon the child. Typically,
these works make no reference to underlying need structures
nor do they explicitly consider motivations involved in
having children. Facts about motives for reproduction
have remained obscure.

In an attempt to reduce this obscurity, the present
research has studied general manifest needs and specific
motivations for parenthood in two groups of mothers. One
group was comprised of mothers who had at least one
emotionally disturbed child. The other group of women had
"normal“ children. In accord with indications that parental
attitudes toward a child play a significant role in the
genesis of psych0pathology, it was hypothesized that group
differences would be observable in both general needs and
motivations for parenthood. It was also predicted that
relationships between general needs and specific motiva-

tions for parenthood would be found.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The impact of parental motives on the child occurs via
translation into attitudes and eXpectations. Thus, research

and reflections in both areas will be discussed.

Parental Attitudes and Expectations

 

The assumption that childhood psychOpathology rests
completely on a psychodynamic etiology would be tenuous
(N. Allen, 1964). Yet, information in this area does
offer a sound basis for asserting that the child's
psychological environment is a central precipitating factor
in emotional disturbances. Parents' attitudes constitute
an important part of the child's social and emotional
environment (Sears et a1., 1957; Taylor, 1955).

The recognition that parental attitudes are important
is not new (see Kanner, 1948, and Rambert, 1949). Similarly,
present writings (see Yarrow, 1963) stress the consequences
of the "affectual-emotional" interchange in which child
rearing attitudes are central.

More specifically, analytically oriented authors have
suggested that detrimental growth conditions lack
communication of positive feeling (Gerard, 1956; Goldfarb,
1961). This results in a deficiency in ego synthesis
(Escalona, 1963). Different theoretical orientations
(e.g., Moustakas, 1953) point to a similar etiological
basis founded on parental restrictions, demands, and a lack

2

of positive communication. Observations that a large
percentage of disturbed children have parents who are
"cold, detached," and "giving of mechanical attention"
(Kanner, 1949; Keller, 1957) support traditional views.

Several authors (Reed, 1923; Duval, 1946; Taylor, 1955;
Vogel, 1960) have designated specific parental attitudes
toward children (e.g., "nuisances," "social responsi-
bilities," "occupying objects") as central determinants
of emotional disturbances. In contrast, the positive
growth atmosphere has "security," "belonging," "an
awareness of being accepted at full value" (Wile, 1932).
Generally, this represents the positive end of Anderson's
scale of "dynamic human interaction" (1946).

Claims that parental attitudes are not important
(Bergler, 1964) have little supportive evidence. However,
there are many studies illustrating the effects of the
impingement of parental attitudes upon the child (see

Glidewell, 1961).

Summary

Evidence supports the assertion that parental
attitudes do influence the child's emotional development.
The detrimental psychological environment contains
demanding, restrictive, and manipulative behaviors. Here
the child is not recognized as an important self-entity.
The positive growth context emphasizes love, acceptance,

and freedom.

Motivations for Parenthood

 

The question, "Why do peOple have children?", has
received little attention. Centers and Blumberg (1954)
stated:

“We do not really know why man procreates and,

in view of the great practical import of man's

reproductive tendencies, it is surprising that

so little attention has been given to the

matter by psychologists." (p. 245)

A number of authors have discussed motivations for
procreation but few continued to contribute empirical
data. Nonetheless, an inspection of the literature reveals

several important areas which may provide focal guidelines.

Biological determinants - In an article presented in

 

the early 20's Thorndike contended that motherhood was a
part of the "maternal instinct" (see Thorndike, 1935).
However, a concurrent analysis of interview data obtained
from expectant women and mothers with small children did
not support a similar conclusion (Reed, 1923). Nonetheless,
the assumption that procreation is an elementary biological
process still finds numerous advocates.

Benedek (1952) considered biological aspects of
paramount significance in "the primary reproductive drive."
She conceptualized motherliness as "an evolution of a
basic anlage." Later (1959), this same author said there
is a "drive for fatherliness based on biological bi-
sexuality. . . there need be no doubt that the male

reproductive drive has psychic representations of

instinctual, biological origin." Although some research
was presented which supported the interaction between
physiological and psychological processes in women, it was
noted (Rabin, 1965) that Benedek's "postulates about the
biological aspects of fatherliness, especially, remain in
the realm of speculation and unverified theory."

In this same context, it would be difficult to support
a contention that the "biological family" (Montagu, 1965)
currently plays a crucial role in fostering procreation.
Sound refutations of arguments for the existence of a
"spontaneous maternal instinct in women generally" are
available (see Scheinfed, 1944).

Yet, because motivational aspects of parenthood are
of primary interest to the present research, studying the
biological substratum per se is not necessary. Justifi-
cation for this position was outlined by Rapaport (1960):
"A theory of motivation must distinguish motivations from
causes: all motivations are causes, but not all causes are
motivations.“ One may also support a separation of
psychological from biological determinants on the basis of
modern social changes (e.g., the individualization of
marriage and the personalization of procreation). With
these changes, apologetics of the "biological need" and of
the "elementary wish" are no longer applicable (Wyatt, 1963).

Psychological determinants - Rauf (1958) recognized

 

that "the problem of family size and birth rate is

predominately psychological." Yet, a review of the

literature reveals that "intensive studies of motivation
and social attitudes affecting general family planning have
hardly been undertaken" (Bhandari, 1957). In fact, even
studies of an introductory nature are scarce. Most
writings are based on personal observations and specula-
tions. This does not necessarily diminish the value of
insights available in these works, but more controlled
empirical data would be desirable.

The review of information on motivations for parent-
hood has been categorized under four headings: narcissism,
fatalism, altruism, and instrumental usage. Results of
studies which integrated several of these concepts have
been subdivided for presentation in the appropriate
categories.

narcissism - Freud (1914) said that the child

 

represents "not only the parent's self as a child but also
his hape and eXpectation of self-realization through the
child." The goal of "remaking her own life," (Hoffman and
Wyatt, 1960) has a similar narcissistic connotation. Wile
(1932) emphasized the detrimental psychological effects
caused by a parent's failure to realize that "children are
more than physical representations of their parents."
Similarly, Benedek (1959) said superego involvement often
directs strivings to raise a child who "fulfills the
parents' aspirations."

Centers and Blumberg (1954) surveyed more than 1,000

peeple to determine "why peOple really have kids." Eighty

percent said "self-centered" motives were important
reasons for wanting children. A study of 1,444 protestant
couples (Whelpton and Kiser, 1958) supported arguments
that having children may offer a chance to relive one's
life. These authors reported that strong feelings of
inadequacy were associated with the ineffective practicing
of contraception. Here, the person who feels his life
needs to be reconstructed gains Opportunities to do so via
his offspring (Satir, 1964).

Another subdivision of narcissism appears in Pearce
and Newton's (1963) claim that "having babies offers an
opportunity to reintegrate many uneasy feelings about one's
body image and one's physiological capacity." Similarly,
Flugel (1947) pointed to a "narcissistic fear of impotence"
and Taylor (1955) referred to "the validation of his man-
hood" as motives to procreate. Further emphasis on
physical narcissism was offered by Bhandari (1957). This
author said anxiety about sexual functions is a fundamental
motivation for parenthood because "in the mind of the
average man, procreativity is equated with male sexual
potency." In Bhandari's call for rational procreation, he
stressed the importance of conveying an understanding that
fertility and potency are determined by different
biological and psychological processes.

The quest for immortality has also received attention
as a narcissistic reason to procreate. Flugel (1947) noted

that an individual's children were often regarded as "an

extension or re-incarnation of himself . . . the nearest
possible approach to immortality." Others, (Cattell, 1938;
Benedek, 1959; Pearce and Newton, 1963) underscored this
concept. They contended that the child often "affirms

the continuity of the parent's impact on the future,”
"represents survival,“ "is a continuation of one's
existence." In addition to stating that the child often
represents immortality, Hoffman and Wyatt (1960) asserted
that immortality has become a more important motivation "as
the belief in the hereafter looses ground."

The importance attributed to narcissistic motives for
procreation was seen in Rabin's "eXploration of the
motivational range underlying parenthood" (1965). Nearly
50% of student respondents to an Open-ended sentence
instrument considered the male's motivation "primarily
narcissistic, involving self—enhancement, self-
perpetuation, and proof of masculinity and virility."

Finally, information on narcissism is available in
data obtained by Rabin and Greene (1966). Correlations of
the Roe-Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire with
the Motivation for Parenthood Questionnaire indicated that
females who saw their own mothers as rejecting gave a
preferable ranking to the narcissistic motivation for
parenthood. This relationship was as predicted. A
rejecting treatment is not inconsistent with narcissistic

reasons to procreate.

fatalism - Another central motive appears in
fatalistic views of life's purpose. The core idea is that
reproduction is essential to fulfill the predestined,
natural function of man.

Taylor (1955) maintained that for the well—adjusted,
emotionally mature man "parenthood comes as a real fulfill-
ment." In agreement, Benedek (1959) declared that a
principal aspiration of the adult male is to "complete
his role in procreation."

In her discussion of the female, Taylor (1955)
conceptualized parenthood as part of the "biological role"
and "role as a woman." Similarly, Bhandari (1957) stressed
that much procreation is encouraged by the belief that the
main role of woman is to "perpetuate the progeny." Confir-
mation of this traditional view appeared in Rabin's data
(1965). Rabin found that 52% of his sample attributed a
predestined function to motherhood -- "women want children
because 'its natural,‘ 'it's their role and purpose in
life' or 'it is a fulfillment of a basic need.'" In this
same vein, Wyatt (1963) contended that the new social and
psychological accent on individual adjustment and
gratification has led to a re-emphasis of the traditional
feminine role. Wyatt stated that "tradition and the new
ideology of adjustment agree that the woman should devote
herself to feminine functions and be a mother and homemaker
first." As support, Wyatt presented results from the

Mellon Fund Study at Vassar College. These results

10

indicated that, in contrast to young women of the previous
generation who were concerned with careers and equality,
modern coeds are more preoccupied with "meeting their
feminine role as eXplicitly and as quickly as they can
manage."

The notion of predestination also includes religious
beliefs which promote procreation as a preordained "duty"
or "fulfillment." "Every couple owes it . . . to God . . .
to itself, to the community, to procreate those children
whom it will be able to bring up and prepare adequately
for life" (DeLestapis, 1961). Most important are
Catholicism's tenets which state that the primary end of
marriage is the "procreation and education of offspring"
(Pius XI, 1930).

The force of these precepts appeared in results from
a survey of Roman Catholic high school seniors (Goodwine,
1961). Most students believed married couples are duty
bound to have as many children as possible. Actually, a
policy of maximum procreation is not supported by the
church: "the obligation of parenthood does not require
a couple to have as many children as is humanly possible . .
they should have as many as they can support reasonably"
(Kelly, 1958; see also DeLestapis, 1961; O'Brien, 1961).
However, the members' interpretations of the church's
views and the church's negative position on contraception
("it is a vice against nature," Aquinas, 1965) have

influenced procreative practices. Whelpton and Kiser (1958)

11

surveyed 44,000 married couples and found an 18% higher
birth rate in Catholic families as compared to families
following a more "liberal" theology.

Similarly, after interviewing more than 350 peOple,
Rockwood and Ford (1945) reported that 22.9% of Catholics
wanted a child within the first year of marriage as
contrasted to only 9.7% of Jews and Protestants. Similar
comparative data were published by Centers and Blumberg
(1954). These investigators also found that 31.9% of
those who wanted children replied "yes" to the question:
"Is it a person's religious duty to have children?" This
information supports the hypothesis that religion does
influence eXpressed desires for offSpring. The same study
reported 56.6% of the total sample agreed with the statement
that "PeOple have a duty to society to have children."
While not related explicitly to religion, again this
presents a predestined feeling. Individual choice is
secondary.

altruism - A reason for bringing children into the
world which has the highest degree of social desirability
has been labeled an "altruistic" motivation. An accurate
delineation of this type of motive is especially difficult
because of the ready mergence of altruism with other
motives and the expression of other needs under the guise
of altruism. Mandeville (1924) reviewed several authors
who agreed that real altruism is a fictitious concept.

His theme was that Machiavellian motives always underlie

12

altruistic acts. However, contentions that "the norm of
reciprocity is not ubiquitous" (Gouldner, 1960) more
accurately fit some behaviors. Leeds' (1963) claim that

a form of giving does exist "not because of any anticipated
returns, but for its own value" is Consonant with judgments
of a number of authors (Simmel, 1950; Sorokin, 1950;
DeTocqueville, 1954).

Holmes' (1942) asserted that parental care itself
constitutes “the earliest form of true altruism." A
similar position was taken by Taylor (1955). She said
many peeple eXpressed love to their child "for the delight
in giving of one's self." "Protector and provider" male
characteristics (Benedek, 1959; DeWitt, 1963) and
nurturance are also altruistic eXpressions.

Some related evidence appeared in the Indianapolis
study's report of a positive relationship between "liking
children" and family size (Whelpton and Kiser, 1958). The
authors described this relationship as based on a "child-
centered interest in children." Altruistic reasons for
having children were also found in Rabin's study (1965).
Subsequent data (Rabin and Greene, 1966) confirmed
predictions that subjects who perceived their mothers as
rejecting or demanding would rank altruistic motivations
for parenthood low. Likewise, views of mother as "loving"
correlated positively with a high preference for altruistic

motivations.

13

instrumental usage - The production of a child to be
used as an instrumentality presents an interesting motive
structure. Explicit material and psychological gains may
be obtained by the child's presence and behaviors. Ross
and Anderson (1965) highlighted instrumental goals in
their study of mothers who had adOpted children. A few
reasons for adoption were:

"hOpe that natural pregnancy would follow

adOption"

"having a baby to care for precluded her going

out to face situations fraught with fear"

"mother was bored with collecting antiques and

on the verge of becoming a serious alcoholic"

In interviews with natural mothers, Hoffman and Wyatt
(1960) discovered that a common reason for having a baby
was to allow the mother to remain at home without
ostracism by contemporaries. As an additional instrumental
ygain, the.mother automatically joined a "special society"
Open only to those holding the required entrance certificate
of having borne offspring. Hoffman and Wyatt also pr0posed
that producing a child may provide an answer to "the
loneliness and alienation of modern man."

In this same sphere, the gain of status should not be
disregarded. Parenthood has traditionally received the gold
seal of approval from family, friends, and society. "Since
parenthood is in accord with one of our basic customs,
community approval itself has a stablizing effect . . . one
obtains new status" (Taylor, 1955). PeOple are also

pressured toward the norm; and the norm is parenthood

(Landis, 1965).

14

Another goal related to an instrumental type of
motivation is "creativity." Creativity has become very
pOpular in current writings (Anderson, 1959; C. Taylor,
1964) and has been presented as a bona-fide reason for
procreating in scientific (Hoffman and Wyatt, 1960) as well
as in pOpular literature (Graves, 1966). In discussions
of reproduction, creativity considerations are frequently
intertwined with fatalism (e.g., "woman's Specific form of
creativeness, that of motherhood, is tied up with the life
of nature," Stern, 1965). Nonetheless, since the creative
View typically continues from producing the child to the
subsequent "social sense of molding it" (Hoffman and Wyatt,
1960) the tone is instrumental. Even the proposal to
reproduce "for mental health" (Wyatt, 1963) shows an
instrumental motive structure behind the child's existence.

other motivations - On the basis of present literature,

 

 

we cannot contend that our four main categories are
inclusive of all motives for reproduction. We would not
expect that a complete definition of the psychological
matrix underlying the desire for progeny could be so

simply completed. Puzzles in classifying motives have

been presented by general and non-eXplanatory statements
such as wishes for children to "have a family" (Rabin, 1965)
and "to have a happy marriage" (Centers and Blumberg, 1954).
It may also be possible to discern many individual motives
existing apart from general trends. No attempt at an

enumeration of minor motives is present in the literature.

15

Such an attempt seems neither essential nor useful for the

present research.

Summary

The general theoretical basis and rationale for the
present investigation are consonant with Rabin's (1965)
major hypothesis:

"Motivation for parenthood prior to the birth

of the child determines parental attitudes to a

great extent. Parental attitudes may be health-

promoting or pathogenic in the develOpment of the
child. By studying the relationship between
motivation for parenthood, eXpectancies, and the
attitudinal constellation of the parent, it may

be possible to identify the antecedents of the

influences that impinge upon the child, that

bring about health or pathology." (p. 410)

As noted, psychological data regarding motivations for
parenthood are scarce. Most information has come from
observant, thoughtful individuals rather than controlled,
replicable, studies. Nonetheless, a valuable outline may
be constructed by combining available materials. This
outline reveals several major motives as well as concomitant
attitudes and eXpectancies.

Social pressures, conformity, and status enter the
sketch. There are also more Specific instrumental reasons
and individual gains to be obtained by having a child
(e.g., "cement the marriage together"). A motivational
structure of this nature promotes restrictive attitudes

and stringent demands upon the child. These demands may

produce pathological effects.

16

A basic narcissistic element exists in the desire to
have a child to reflect favorably upon one's self, to relive
one's life, to make one immortal. Again, this seems to
involve a rigid structuring of expectations and requirements
which the child must fulfill. BehaVior that does not conform
to a parent's eXpectations could not be readily accepted in
this motivational context.

A fatalistic or predestined View appeared repeatedly.
This conceptualization includes views of motherhood as an
unchanging "instinctual" function and beliefs that man
must "fulfill the purpose (role) of life" via the path of
procreation. Church affiliation and adherence to religious
beliefs are relevant influences. Fatalistic motives are
such that specific demands and structuring imposed on the
child could be relatively flexible. Because life itself
is viewed as predetermined, parental involvement may be of
a very passive nature.

Finally, the literature indicated an altruistic
motivation for parenthood. Centered around needs to be
nurturant, to help and love others, and to simply have
children in accord with "liking children," altruism
represents the most socially desirable motivating factor.

To be congruent with this motivation, negative attitudes
and restricting demands imposed upon the child should be
minimal.

We cannot contend that narcissism, fatalism, altruism,

and instrumentalism are comprehensive of all procreative

17

motives. Yet, the literature does suggest that these four
general categories do encompass most significant

motivations recognized to date.

PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES

The literature leaves little doubt that parental
attitudes constitute a significant variable Which does
affect the child's psychic development. There are also
clear indications that motivations for having children are
not all consonant with attitudes, eXpectations, and
behavioral expressions that comprise a favorable environ-
ment for psychological growth. If the suggestive premises
in the literature have been interpreted correctly, one may
expect to find different attitudes and eXpectancies in
homes of children who were conceived due to differing
motivations and needs of the parents.

The problem is obtaining an eXpression of parents'
motivations for having children and analyzing this in
conjunction with assessments of parental expectancies,
general needs, and the psychological state of the child.
From the previous theoretical basis, we may posit that the
attitudinal-exPectancy constellations of parents, which in
part constitute derivatives of motivations for having
children, comprise influential factors in the child's
psychological environment. As such, they may affect
emotional development. Thus, the possibility of discerning
differential motivations, needs, exPectancieS, attitudes,
and their impact as reflected in the emotional state of

the child demands eXploration.

18

19

The relevance of ascertaining the motivational bases
for parenthood and the relationships of these motives to
subsequent psychopathology covers several practical areas.
These include considerations of: birth rate acceleration
(Wyatt, 1963), understanding of perSonality differences
(Hoffman and Wyatt, 1960), the evaluation of foster parents
(Veiga, 1965), and the prophylactic intervention and
modification of the motivational system (Rabin, 1965).

Yet, current literature contains no studies which attempted

to empirically approach this Specific field of relationships.

Hypotheses

 

From the preceding review and discussion, it is
suggested that motivations for parenthood warrant attention
and that these motivations, contingent eXpectancies, and
more general personality needs are related to the develOp-
ment of childhood psychopathology. Moreover, since
motivations for parenthood are a part of the general
personality structure, and as such, are not independent
of other personality needs we eXpect relationships to
exist between these two sets of variables.

Specifically, the present work focused on four main
variables: (1) Specific motivations for parenthood.

(2) Parental expectancies of the child directly related to
motivations. (3) General personality needs. (4) The

psychological state of the child.

20

From these variables, eight hypotheses were pr0posed.
These hypotheses emerged from the theoretical views and
empirical investigations discussed previously. The
psychological condition of the child was used to

differentiate groups of mothers for study.

Specific Motivations for Parenthood and Expectancies:

Hypothesis I;_ Mothers of disturbed children have
(a) stronger instrumental motives for having
children and (b) more instrumental eXpectancies
of children than mothers of normal children.

 

Hypothesis II. Mothers of disturbed children
have (a) stronger narcissistic motives for having
children and (b) more narcissistic expectancies
than mothers of normal children.

 

Hypothesis III. Mothers of disturbed children
have IaT7weaker altruistic motives for having

children and (b) less altruistic expectancies

than mothers of normal children.

Hypothesis IV. Mothers of disturbed children

Have (a) weaker fatalistic motives for having

children and (b) less fatalistic eXpectancies

than mothers of normal children. '

 

 

General Needs:

Hypothesis V. Mothers of disturbed children
have weaker—intraception needs than mothers of
normal children.

 

Hypothesis VI. Mothers of disturbed children
have weaker nurturance needs than mothers of
normal children.

 

Hypothesis VII. Mothers of disturbed children
have stronger exhibition needs than mothers of
normal children.

 

Hypothesis VIII. Mothers of disturbed children
have stronger7dominance needs than mothers of
normal children.

 

21

Within the framework viewing specific motivations for
parenthood as part of the total personality, it was posited
that relationships exist between general need constructs
and specific motivations for having children. Thus, from
this theoretical relationship, four additional hypotheses
were formulated:

Relationships Between General Needs and

Motivations for Parenthood:

Hypothesis IX. Exhibition needs are positively

related to narcissistic motives for having
children.

 

Hypothesis X; Intraception needs are negatively
related to narcissistic motives for having
children.

 

Hypothesis XI. Dominance needs are negatively
related to altruistic motives for having
children.

 

Hypothesis XII. Nurturance needs are positively
related to altruistic motives for having
children. .

 

To test these hypotheses and to provide a general
eXploratory study, the present project was designed to
investigate differences in motivations for having
children, and differences in general manifest needs as
eXpressed by mothers of emotionally disturbed children and
mothers whose children are "normal." To obtain information
concerning the structure and measurement of motivations for
progeny, an investigation of the relationship between
general needs and specific motivations for parenthood also

comprised an important segment of this work. Finally,

22

apprOpriate analyses of the data were performed to supple-
ment the construct validity of one instrument used in the

study.

METHOD

Subjects

Two groups of mothers served as subjects. Participa-
tion was voluntary.

Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

 

This group was comprised of individuals who were the
natural mothers of at least one emotionally disturbed
child. A broad definition of "emotionally disturbed"
was used. These children were neither brain damaged nor
mentally retarded and were diagnosed as having emotional
problems warranting psychotherapy. According to self-
reports, none of the mothers were involved in psychotherapy

programs themselves.

Mothers of all normal children.

 

These mothers had no children who had been diagnosed
"emotionally disturbed." Again, on the basis of self-
reports, none of these women was currently participating

in any type of psychotherapy.

Measures

The measures employed in the eXploration were:
1. The Motivation for Parenthood Questionnaire
(PM2).

2. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS).

23

24

PM2

The PM2 (Rabin and Greene, 1966) is an instrument
designed to assess four comprehensive motivational variables
(Altruistic, Fatalistic, Narcissistic, Instrumental) focused
upon reasons for having children.

Test format - This instrument (see Appendix B) is

 

rcomprised of 14 stem statements directed toward motivations
for having children and parents' expectancies of their
children. Questions 3, 8, 12, and 17 are filler items.

The stem units were adOpted from Rabin's (1965) Open-ended
sentence instrument. The four completion choices were
constructed to represent typical responses in each category
(Rabin and Greene, 1966). Subjects are instructed to rank
the answers to show order of preference.

The four major categories of responses.

 

l. Altruistic (Alt): Responses classified in this category
refer to unselfish motivations for parenthood. Simply,
affection for children, concern for them, and the need
to eXpreSS nurturance in relation to them.

2. Fatalistic (Fat): This expresses the notion that man
(or woman) was brought into the world to procreate and
perpetuate the species; it is in "the order of things."
It is preordained - part of fate and human destiny.

3. Narcissistic (Nar): This motivation refers to the
eXpectation that the child will reflect glory upon the
parent, prove his masculinity (or her femininity) and,
generally, his physical, biological and psychological
adequacy.

4. Instrumental (Ins): Under this rubric come the re-
sponses which indicate that the child has utility, is
to be used as a meansio an end. He is "instrumental"
in the sense that he is eXpected to be employed as a
vehicle in the achievement of specific parental goals.

25

Scoring - Scoring is performed by adding the preference
rankings for each category. A consistent selection of one
category as first choice would give a score of 14 for that
category. The highest score possible (indicating least
preference) is 56. In addition to total scores on the four
major variables: Altruistic total (Alttot), Fatalistic
total (Fattot), Narcissistic total (Nartot), and Instru-
mental total (Instot), items may be subdivided for a more
detailed examination of sets of responses. By summing the
rankings of items referring to eXpectancies, one may obtain
scores of: Altruistic eXpectancy (Altexp), Fatalistic
expectancy (Fatexp), Narcissistic expectancy (NareXp), and
Instrumental eXpectancy (InseXp). Similarly, sums from
items directly concerning motivation produce scores of:
Altruistic motivation (Altmot), Fatalistic motivation
(Fatmot), Narcissistic motivation (Narmot), and Instrumen-
tal motivation (Insmot).

Reliability - Thirty-six students at Michigan State

 

University completed the PM2 twice. An interval of 2 1/2
weeks separated the testings. The test-retest reliability
coefficients based upon scores for the four total-score

variables are as follow:

variable E
Altruistic total .79
Fatalistic total .54
Narcissistic total .68
Instrumental total .53

Item intercorrelations are presented in Table 11 of

Appendix B.

26

EPPS

The EPPS (Edwards, 1959) is a widely employed research
and counseling instrument which purports to measure 15
manifest needs. These needs were selected from a list
presented by H. A. Murray (1938). In designing this
measure, Edwards attempted to minimize the influence of
social desirability. Studies have given indications of
both success in this attempt (Silverman, 1957) as well as
failure (Korman and Coltharp, 1962). At this time, no final
conclusion on social desirability is justified.

Test format — The test consists of items arranged in a

 

forced-choice paired comparison design. Statements
representing each need are paired with all other needs.
For example, one pair representing needs of dominance and
exhibition is:

A. I like to tell other peOple how to do their jobs.

B. I like to be the center of attention in a group.
The subject is instructed to choose the statement that is
more characteristic of "what you like" or "how you feel"
from each of the 225 pairs.

The 15 Manifest Needs - The following list contains the

 

names and abbreviations of the needs measured by the EPPS.
Definitions of these needs are in Appendix C.

1. Achievement (Ach).
. Deference (Def).
Order (ord).
Exhibition (Exh).
Autonomy (Aut).
Affiliation (Aff).
Intraception (Int).

\lmU‘bww
o o

27

8. Succorance (Suc).
9. Dominance (Dom).
10. Abasement (Aba).
11. Nurturance (Nur).
12. Change (Cha).
13. Endurance (End).
14. Heterosexuality (Het).
15. Aggression (Agg).

Scoring — Scoring is accomplished by adding the number
of statements chosen which represent each need.

Nppgs - Norms for the EPPS have been described as
"excellent" (Stricker, 1965). The 1959 Manual presents
several tables of norms, including a "General Adult Sample"

of 4,031 males and 4,930 females (KOponen, 1957).

Reliability_— Test-retest reliability coefficients

 

were calculated from the records of 89 students at the

University of Washington who took the EPPS twice. A one-
week interval separated the two administrations (Edwards,
1959). Correlations ranged from .74 to .87. The list of

correlations is presented in Table 12 of Appendix C.

Procedure

 

Mothers of emotionally disturbed children.

These women were contacted through the facilities of
the Child Guidance Division of the Lansing Mental Health
Clinic and the Michigan State University Psychological
Clinic. At the Lansing Mental Health Clinic, when mothers
were initially interviewed a staff member gave a brief

explanation of the project and an introduction to anonymous

28

forms of the PM2 and EPPS. Those who agreed to participate
were given a stamped folder addressed:

Department of Psychology

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

R. Greene
Each folder contained:

PM2 Questionnaire

EPPS Booklet

EPPS Answer Sheet

Pencil
Participants were asked to complete the materials within
one week.

Mothers of children being seen at the M. S. U. Clinic
were contacted by the author or another graduate student.
Again, those agreeing to participate were given instruc-
tions and materials identical to those distributed at the
Lansing Clinic.

Data collection was terminated when 30 completed

folders were received.

Mothers of normal children.

 

Contacts were made by door to door solicitation in the
Lansing area. Subjects were given a brief eXplanation
and introduction to the instruments. A folder identical
to that distributed to mothers of disturbed children was
left with each cooperative mother. Differentiation of
materials received from the two groups was accomplished by
different colored address stickers. A sample of 47

prOperly completed questionnaires was obtained from mothers

29

of normal children.

Matching.

All subjects were classified on four criteria
determined on the basis of information from questions
printed on the PM2. Categorizations were:

income (estimated from report of husband's occupation).

I. $5,000 or less.
II. more than $5,000; not more than $10,000.
III. more than $10,000.

education

 

A. not graduated from high school.
B. graduated from high school.
C. graduated from college.

number of children

 

x. one. ,
Y. more than one; not more than five.

Z. more than five.

religion
P. protestant.
R. catholic.
N. None.

1. under 25.
2. 25-35.
3. over 35.

30

The 30 mothers of disturbed children were paired with
mothers selected from the pool of mothers of normals.

Both groups contained two individuals who had no
religious affiliations, seven Roman Catholics and twenty—
one Protestants. In the group of mothers with disturbed
children, twenty-eight were in income level II, one in
level I, and one in level III. With the exception of one
mother in income level III, all in the matching group were
in level II. All respondents were Caucasian and the
natural mothers of their children.

Scoring of the measurement instruments was completed

after matching.

Predictions Stated i2 Terms pf the Measures

 

 

To test the hypotheses outlined, the following
Specific predictions were formulated in terms of the raw
data. Each corresponds to the previously stated hypothesis
with the same roman numeral.

It should be noted that, because the PM2 employs a
ranking format, stronger motivations or more eXpectancieS
are indicated by lower scores. Similarly, a positive
directional correlation between any pair of EPPS and PM2

variables will have a negative Sign in the raw data.

Table 1. Comparison of 30 mothers of disturbed children
and 30 mothers of normal children on three
criteria utilized in matching.

 

 

 

Mothers of Mothers of
Disturbed Children Normal Children
Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Education (grade) 11.5 1.98 12.4 1.16
Age 32.5 6.77 33.1 7.85
Number
Of ’ 3.4 1.27 3.0 1050
Children

 

31

32

Differential hypotheses on the basis of PM2 data.

Dividing the PM2 into motivation and eXpectancy items
and comparing group scores on each of the sub-categories,
the following differences in motivation and expectancy
scores were predicted:

Hypothesis I (a, b). Mothers of disturbed

childfen will have lower scores on the
instrumental scales than mothers of normals.

 

Hypothesis II (a, b). Mothers of disturbed
children will have lower scores on the
narcissistic scales.

 

Hypothesis III (a, b). Mothers of disturbed
children will have higher scores on the
altruistic scales.

 

Hypothesis IV (a, b). Mothers of disturbed
children will have higher scores on the
fatalistic scales.

 

Differential hypotheses on the basis of EPPS profiles.

 

In comparing scores on the EPPS, the following
directional differences were hypothesized:

Hypothesis V. Mothers of disturbed children
will have lower scores on intraception.

 

Hypothesis VI. Mothers of disturbed children
wiIl have Iower scores on nurturance.

 

Hypothesis VII. Mothers of disturbed children
will have higher scores on exhibition.

 

Hypothesis VIII. Mothers of disturbed
children will have higher scores on dominance.

 

Also, in accord with the eXploratory nature of this study,
non-directional comparative tests were performed on all

15 EPPS variables.

33

Correlations between PM2 and EPPS variables.

 

Corresponding to hypotheses IX, X, XI, and XII, the
following directional correlations were eXpected to occur

in data from combined groups.

 

 

 

EPPS variable relationship PM2 variable
Exhibition - Narcissistic
Intraception + Narcissistic
Dominance + Altruistic
Nurturance - Altruistic

Construct Validity

 

In addition to testing the hypothesized differences
and relationships, a segment of the present project was
involved with eXpanding the construct validity of the
recently developed instrument employed in this study (The
Motivation for Parenthood Questionnaire - PM2; Rabin and
Greene, 1966). As specified in the Psychological

Bulletin's Technical Recommendations (1954): "Construct

 

validity is ordinarily studied when the tester has no
definitive criterion measure of the quality with which he
is concerned and must use indirect measures to validate
the theory. Here the trait or quality underlying the test
is of central importance rather than the test behavior or
the scores on the criteria." This approach is essential
when dealing with concepts such as "needs" and "motives"
because direct knowledge of an individual's true position

on the-variables being measured is absent.

34

In that adequate construct validation requires the
accumulation of information from a variety of sources, the
ordinary procedure is to integrate evidence involving
predictions based on the set of prOpositions in which the
construct is involved (Selltiz et al., 1965). The most
common way to investigate what a test measures is to
correlate it with other measures--especially with other

tests which are "better understood" (Technical

 

Recommendations, 1954; Anastasi, 1961). Since the specific

 

motivations with which the PM2 is concerned are conceptual-
ized as parts of larger, more general need constructs, the
EPPS is theoretically apprOpriate and fulfills standard
requisites for a suitable supplementary measure. Thus, in
addition to the correlational relationships examined to test
hypotheses IX, X, XI, XII, non-directional tests of the
total (4 x 15) correlation matrices of separate and combined
groups were conducted. This procedure is consonant with

the exploratory nature of the project and allowed a

consideration of all relevant data.

Analysis of Data

All computations were performed using Michigan State
University's 3600 computer. Data were prepared and sub-
mitted by the author with apprOpriate programs.

Total correlation matrices for all variables (eXpec-

tancy, motivation, and total PM2 scores, plus the 15 EPPS

35

scores) were computed under the BASTAT routine (Ball et al.,
1966) which employs the simple (Pearson product moment)
correlation. Matrices were derived for combined data as
well as for separate groups.

The Fisher—Student t test for matched samples was
performed using a separate program Specifically designed

for this purpose (Morris, 1966).

RESULTS

Having considered the theory, hypotheses, instruments,
and procedure which comprised the present work, we turn our
attention to the results derived from the data analysis.

3 Tests

Predicted PM2 differences.

 

The only hypothesis confirmed was IV (a). The mothers
of disturbed children did have Significantly higher Scores
on the Fatalistic motivation items than did mothers of
normals (t = -l.96). With the exception of one variable
(Altruistic motivation) the directions of all differences
were as predicted but below the magnitude necessary for

significance at the .05 level (see Table 2).

Predicted EPPS differences.

 

Again, one hypothesis was supported. Mothers of nor-
mal children had higher scores on Nurturance (t = +1.72).
The other three t'S'were statistically insignificant. The
direction of two of the differences (Intraception,

Exhibition) was Opposite to eXpectationS (see Table 3).

Correlations

Predicted PM2 and EPPS correlations.
In regard to the predicted relationships between

general needs and motivations for having children, an

36

 

 

 

Table 2. Comparison of means of PM2 variables for which
hypotheses were stated.
PM2 Means of Means of

Variable Normals S.D. Disturbed S.D. t
AlteXp 7.60 2.85 8.03 3.01 -0.60
Fatexp 10.50 3.46 11.07 3.45 -0.57
Narexp 16.63 2.43 15.83 3.03 +1.03
Insexp 15.27 2.16 15.07 2.35 +0.34
Altmot 17.17 4.52 15.40 4.73 +1.48
Fatmot 17.60 5.25 20.53 4.15 -1.96*
Narmot 25.27 5.75 24.77 5.16 +0.37
Insmot 29.97 3.16 29.30 3.76 +0.69

 

* = probability less than .05 (one-tailed test)

37

Table 3.

Comparison of means Of EPPS variables for which
hypotheses were stated.

 

 

 

EPPS Means of Means of
Variable Normals S.D. Disturbed S.D. t
Exh 12.70 4.13 11.90 3.20 +0.82
Int 16.23 5.04 16.97 4.55 -0.58
Dom 9.57 4.40 10.13 5.06 -0.40
Nur 18.27 3.83 16.47 4.29 +1.72*

 

* = probability less than.05 (one-tailed test)

38

39

inspection of Table 4 reveals that none Of the four
directional relationships hypothesized between PM2 and EPPS
variables was confirmed. Contrary to eXpectationS, the
directions of two of the predicted relationships
(Exhibition/Narcissistic; Nurturance/Altruistic) were
reversed. In examining Table 4, the reader should recall
that the type of correlation implied is Opposite that of
the raw data correlation Sign (e.g., peOple having high
Exhibition needs showed low narcissistic motives for

parenthood).

Additional Results

 

In accord with the eXploratory nature of this study,
t tests were performed on all variables. Also, complete
correlation matrices of EPPS variables with PM2 scores of

combined and separate groups were calculated.

Non-predicted group_differences on the PM2.

 

Using a two-tailed test, no group differences on PM2
total scores were found to be statistically significant

(see Table 5).

Nonfipredicted group differences on the EPPS.
Only one t was of an acceptable magnitude (see Table 6).
This indicated that mothers of normal children scored

significantly higher on the Succorance scale (t = +2.28).

Table 4. Correlations between EPPS and PM2 variables for
which hypotheses were stated.

 

 

 

EPPS variables PM2 variables
Narexp. Narmot Nartot
Exhibition +.l3 +.07 +.12
Intraception -.08 +.O4 +.00
AlteXp Altmot Alttot
Dominance -.01 +.08 +.06
Nurturance +.31 +.09 +.21

 

Note: No correlations Significant at .05 level (two-
tailed test)

Note: Because of the PM2 ranking format, a negative Sign
indicates a positive relationship between variables.

40

Table 5.

Comparison of means of PM2 variables for which
no hypotheses were stated.

 

 

 

 

PM2 Means of Means of
Variable Normals S.D. Disturbed S.D. t
Alttot 24.77 6.13 23.43 6.30 +0.88
Fattot 28.10 6.88 31.60 6.11 -l.82
Nartot 41.90 6.31 40.60 6.73 +0.82
Instot 45.23 4.48 44.37 4.92 +0.68
Note: No differences significant at .05 level (two-

tailed test)

41

Table 6. Comparison of EPPS means on variables for which
no hypotheses were stated.

 

 

 

EPPS Means of Means of

Variables Normals S.D. Disturbed S.D. t
Ach 15.13 4.65 14.03 3.64 +1.02
Def 13.17 3.87 13.20 3.44 -0.05
0rd 12.70 4.63 13.43 4.67 -0.64
Aut 11.50 4.45 12.70 3.67 -1.15
Aff 16.50 4.31 17.03 3.62 -0.52
Suc 13.10 4.20 11.07 3.64 +2.28*
Aba 17.63 5.13 17.60 5.09 +0.02
Cha 16.37 4.97 17.27 4.61 -0.76
End 14.47 5.33 16.90 4.80 -1.57
Het 11.87 5.32 11.60 6.69 +0.15
Agg 10.77 5.03 9.67 3.99 +0.96

 

* = probability less than .05 (two-tailed test)

42

43

Nonepredicted PM2 and EPPS correlations.

 

Results were no greater than eXpected by chance. With
combined group data, there were nine correlations, out of
168 for which no hypotheses were stated, that were
significant at the .05 level (see Table 7, a). These were
determined by non-directional tests.

A consideration of separate groups (each having 180
correlations) revealed ten correlations significant from
data of mothers of normal children (see Table 7, b) and
four significant from data of mothers Of disturbed
children (see Table 7, c).

The total correlation matrices are presented in

Appendix A.

Table 7.

Significant correlations between PM2 and EPPS
variables for which no hypotheses were stated.

 

 

a. Correlations from combined groups data.

EPPS variable

 

PM2 variable r
Aut Altexp —.31
Nur Narexp -.29
Nur Fatmot -.29
0rd Fatexp -.29
0rd Fattot -.29
End Fatmot +.27
Def Narmot +.27
Def Nartot +.26
Cha Alttot -.29

b. Correlations from data of mothers of normal children.

 

EPPS variable PM2 variable r
Suc Altexp +.40
Suc Alttot +.39
Cha Fatexp +.41
Cha Fattot +.41
Nur Narexp -.44
Nur Fatmot -.42
Aut InseXp +.38
Def Narmot +.42
Def Nartot +.43
Agg Fattot +.36

c. Correlations from data of mothers of disturbed children.

 

 

EPPS variable PM2 variable r
Aut Altexp -.36
0rd InseXp +.40
Ord Fatmot -.37
0rd Fattot -.39

Note: Because of the PM2 ranking format, a negative Sign

indicates a positive relationship between variables.

44

DISCUSSION

The two positive t tests may be interpreted in the
context of general arguments previously outlined. Perhaps
mothers of normal children did have more of a fatalistic
motivation for procreation. This motivation may have been
reflected in attitudes and behaviors that promoted a more
adequate psychological adjustment. Similarly, more
nurturance needs in mothers of normal children may have
been eXpressed in more positive, loving, growth-promoting
types of attitudes and behaviors. One may cite these
results as support for contentions underlying the hypotheses.
However, the strength of this support is diminished because
these results may have been obtained by chance. Thus, we
must direct our attention to the overall results which
were not statistically significant.

While a number of eXplanations may be logically
prOposed to account for the insignificant results, there
is no way of immediately ascertaining the relative efficacy
of alternatives. Thus a review of a few of the Options
must suffice. We cannot designate a "best answer" to our

query for causal factors.

Theory_and Design

 

It was asserted that the female's motivation for
parenthood functions as a crucial factor of a complex

causal chain in the formation of childhood psychological

45

46

disturbances. Inherent in this assertion was the argument
that motivation impinges through its effect on attitudes
and through its subsequent eXpression in behaviors directed
toward the child. Several comments on this conceptualiza-
tion are in order. First, it is pOssible that motivation
for parenthood appears less important when information is
known about only one parent. Differing motivations between
parents is perhaps a more important variable than mother's
motivation alone. The press eXperienced from divergent
demands created by incongruous motivations of mother and
father may be much more detrimental than a Single parent's
restricting attitudes and eXpectancies.

Closely related to the previous perSpective is the
question Of multiple precipitating factors. Sibling and
peer interactions, traumatic experiences, ungratified needs
and excessive fixations may overshadow or mask the impact
of factors related to motivations for parenthood.

Also, the issue of phenotype versus genotype looms
large. Qualification for inclusion into our sample of
"mothers with disturbed children" was based on a broad
phenotype—-a child needed to be "emotionally disturbed."
This categorization which lacked differentiation of
disturbance type may have allowed considerable distortion.
A disorder founded on parental rejection could have stemmed
from parental motivations, attitudes, and actions in

diametric Opposition to those Operative in a disturbance

47

resulting from living under a symbiotic overprotective
cover.

The above comments may, in a general sense, be
directed toward the EPPS results as well as the PM2. An
appraisal of needs of both parents, a description of other
potentially damaging variables, and Specific differen-
tiations of the child's pathology may have shed a different
light on the investigation.

A further issue (more Specific to the PM2) is that the
posited continuous transmission sequence of original
motivations into behavior may be broken or modified at
several points. For example, the motivations accounting
for procreation could be masked or distorted in attitudes
develOped after actually having the child. Perhaps
original motivations were sublimated and gained expression
in other than child-oriented behaviors. A similar obser-
vation pointed at the EPPS is that the needs currently
eXperienced by the mother may differ markedly from those
Operative in the past years—-the years of the develOpment
of the child's psychOpathology.

Similarly, it should be noted that the design required
no information about the planned status of the child.
Recent data (Whelpton et al., 1966) indicated that large
percentages of births in the United States are still
unplanned. The inclusion of mothers of unplanned (perhaps
unwanted) children may have limited the apprOpriateness

of responses to questions stemming from reasons for

48

"wanting" children. This uncontrolled factor may also have
invalidated assumptions of the existence of a pre-conception
motivation as a point of departure for the develOpment of

attitudes and eXpectancies.

Sampling

Selection introduced a serious problem. Eighty folders
were distributed to mothers with disturbed children before
the required return of 30 prOperly completed was obtained.

A total return of 33 was received-—three were imprOperly
filled out. Thus, almost 60% Of individuals who made

initial commitments failed to complete the materials. Because
of response anonymity, tracing those who failed to return

the folders was not feasible. However, one may offer a

number of Speculations about this occurence.

The complexity and length of the instruments may have
been discouraging. The 225 items in the EPPS tend to
require considerable time to complete and item replications
may seem meaningless to unSOphisticated subjects. The PM2
also involved considerable replication of similar items and
the idea of ranking answers was probably unfamiliar to most
subjects. Another conjecture may be derived from the fact
that, in the Lansing Mental Health Clinic, approximately
50% of mothers do not return their child for treatment after
the initial interview. Thus, whatever dissatisfaction or

disillusionment was eXperienced in the clinic may have proved

 

(I III 'III III lull" ‘III III Ill...

49

detrimental to their commitment to complete the research
materials.

The fact of voluntary participation provided another
extraneous variable. Those who agreed and did complete
the materials may have comprised a verbally sophisticated
segment of the pOpulation. Also, they may have been very
sensitive to social desirability aspects of responses.

This alone could have created a cover of the hypothesized
differences.

Examining returns from mothers with normal children,
while 13 folders were collected at homes by the author, we
are still confronted with a much higher return rate of those
mailed--a1most 80% (37 returned of 47 distributed). This
is twice the return of the clinic-distributed folders and
tends to buttress a contention that unidentified
personality variables of mothers with disturbed children
or their interactions with the clinic depressed return
rates.

We should also consider the fact that we had no
information about "normals" other than the mother's self-
report that none of her children were receiving or had
received any type of psychological treatment. This may
have included enough mothers of "disturbed" children in the
"normal" group to mask sample differences. In fact, one may
Speculate that mothers whose children were exhibiting
abnormal behaviors but had not contacted any treatment

facility may have been more self-selected to volunteer to

50

fill out the psychological materials in hOpes of gaining

useful information.

Instruments

 

PM2

The PM2 is a new instrument. Its only construct
validity data was obtained in the form of moderate
(although statistically significant) correlations with an
instrument designed to measure an individual's percept of
his childhood relationships with his parents (The Roe-
Siegelman Parent-Child Relationship Questionnaire, PCR).
Thus, perhaps the absence of predicted correlations with
the EPPS was due to the fact that variables tapped by the
PM2 are not closely related to the selected EPPS need
constructs.

As previously noted, mothers contacted in the clinics
may have been very sensitive to forwarding a good image.
We have no evidence that the PM2 is not readily "fakeable."
The content appears as such that a defensive individual
could easily select the more desirable types of reSponses.
In this same vein, the mother whose child has been labeled
as "psychologically disturbed" may limit the projection of
herself in response to queries such as "most peOple have
children because. . .." Rather, she may, because Of her
association with a child who does not fit the norm, believe
her views deviate from "most peOple." Thus, she may

structure reSponses in terms of the way she perceives that

51

"most peOple" (i.e., those without disturbed children)
want children.

The possibility also exists that, rather than couching
responses in terms of reasons for having the child now
disturbed, the mother of several children may have projected
her reasons for wanting and her eXpectancies of her normal
children. Subjects were not instructed to draw their
responses from reflections on any Specific child.

An additional point on PM2 content is also in order.
Response categories and items were derived from an analysis
of responses to an Open-ended sentence instrument. Respon-
dents included a large sample of single college students plus
a small sample of married students and spouses. The verbal
and cultural SOphistication of this sample may have produced
items which are neither familiar nor of Specific concern to
non-college pOpulations. It is possible that the instrument
did not contain those response choices which would be most

relevant and most sensitive for differentiating our groups.

see .
Research with the Edward's Scale has amassed consider-
able construct validation. However, there is one facet of
the EPPS that warrants critical attention. Although the
instrument was constructed to avoid criticisms of "social
desirability" distortions, it has been illustrated that

psychologically unSOphisticated individuals can produce

different profiles according to instructions to do so

52

(Korman and Coltharp, 1962). Thus, as with the PM2, one
cannot ignore the possibility that a group of defensive
individuals (e.g., mothers being initially interviewed in
regard to a psychologically upset child) may have been

extremely sensitive to selecting "good" needs.

Additional Results

 

An examination of additional t and correlation
statistics provides additional insights and additional

quandaries.

Differences on EPPS variables.

 

The fact that mothers of normal children scored
Significantly higher on the EPPS Succorance scale than
mothers of disturbed children does not fit our present
theorizing. A mother who has strong needs to be given
help from others, to have others feel sorry for her, and
to receive affection, would be more demanding of positive
affect from her children than freely offering love and
nurturance. Again, in addition to questioning theory,
one may suggest that the mothers of disturbed children
were more interested in presenting a positive image, or

that this result is due to chance fluctuations.

Correlations.

 

Looking at the nine correlations found Significant
from the matrix of combined-group data we are faced with

two problems. The first is, again, these results are

53

approximately the chance expectancy. They may indicate
nothing about the existence of meaningful correlations.

The second problem is interpretation. For example,
although the negative relationship between nurturance and
fatalistic motivation scores fits Our conceptualizations,
the correlation between nurturance and narcissistic
expectancy is not consonant with our reasoning. If not

due to chance, this may point to a flaw in our conceptuali-
zation of relationships between variables tapped by the PM2
and EPPS.

An examination of the statistically significant
correlations from data of separate groups elicits the same
types of reactions as do previous data. There are no more
correlations than eXpected by chance. Some results seem
to reveal relationships that fit eXpectations, some do not,

some are not readily interpretable.

Research Directions

 

Although the results obtained were, in the main,
insignificant, the study's utility in suggesting directions

for future explorations is not diminished.

The PM2 instrument.

 

Construct validity - The construct validity of the

 

Motivation for Parenthood Questionnaire was not enhanced
by our results. This does not mean the instrument is

invalid. It does mean that further work is necessary if

54

claims of the instrument's utility in measuring
motivations for parenthood are to be supported. We must
still look for meaningful relationships with relatively
well-established measures whose variables can be

logically related to PM2 variables. Instruments (such as
The Interpersonal Checklist) providing Love-Hate, Dominance-
Submission dimensions could be employed to this end. With
such tools, hypotheses could be formulated (e.g., prefer-
ence for altruism scales should correlate positively with
high "growth-promoting" scores) which would test whether
the PM2 does draw upon related variables.

Instrument design - The first call in a further

 

eXploration of design is for a broad sampling of respondents
to the Open-ended sentence instrument upon which the PM2 is
based. This is needed to ascertain the applicability of
categories and response items to adult non-college groups

of various socio-economic levels.

The fact that the PM2 instrument is such that socially
desirable responses are not disguised also requires
attention. This problem is greatly enlarged by the verbatium
replication of response choices. Once an individual
selects the "good" pattern, the instrument's format
facilitates perseverated responding. Rewording response
choices so they are not evidently similar may partially
alleviate this problem. The issue of patterned responding
and the complexity Of ranking several reSponseS could be

further circumvented by incorporating a two-item pairing

55

format (after the EPPS) with item replication in different

pairings.

Research design.

 

Several revisions in design are called for, especially
in regard to future samplings. As previously noted,
information about fathers as well as mothers may be of
paramount importance. Also, "voluntary participation"
should be modified. Required completion Of research
instruments by both mothers and fathers of children
requesting admission to a psychological clinic would offer
much clearer parameters than samplings of "willing,
COOperative volunteers." This procedure would also demand
a more general sampling of mothers and fathers Of normals.
In this same context, one should obtain an evaluation
(e.g., teacher's report) as to whether or not the children
of the "normal" sample of parents are relatively well-
functioning individuals. In accord with this call for a
more accurate evaluation of samples, the previous issue of
phenotype versus genotype is relevant. Accurate diagnostic
information about the type of problem exhibited by the
child and information about Specific etiological factors
should be obtained to allow an intelligent subdivision of
parents.

As noted in previous comments on the possible
influence of the "planned" versus the "unplanned" status

of the child, this factor could certainly affect

56

motivational structures. Thus, attempts should be made
to obtain information about this variable. Moreover,
influences of the related question of "wanted“ versus
"unwanted" should also be eXplored.

To investigate questions raised in regard to changes
in one's perception of needs and motivations for having
children before and after having a child, a longitudinal
study is required. However, because the investment in such
a work is usually prohibitive to its undertaking, comparing
like segments of pOpulations with and without children may
yield some of the desired information.

The potentials of working with measures of motivations
for having children other than the type employed in the
present project should not be overlooked. Some positive
results have been recently reported in an investigation
which employed a semi-structured projective technique--the
Parental Picture-Story Completion Test (Major, 1967). Also,
it may be fruitful to conduct further comparative work with
the PM2'S stem units as an Open-ended sentence instrument.
These methods are more projective and less susceptible to
defensiveness.

It is also suggested that work involving methods
other than paper and pencil responding be undertaken. More
specifically, a structured interview situation could be
designed to obtain information about attitudes and family
interactions before and after the birth of Specific

children.

S UMMA RY

The present study was an eXploratory project to
investigate motivations for parenthood. Of central concern
were differences in general manifest needs and specific
motivations for having children as eXpressed by mothers of
emotionally disturbed children and mothers of "normal"
children. The instruments employed were the Motivation
for Parenthood Questionnaire (PM2) and the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS). The study was also conceived
to help establish the construct validity of the PM2.

Both measures were distributed to volunteer mothers
who had at least one child diagnosed as needing psychological
treatment and to a larger sampling of mothers with no
children recognized as exhibiting psychological disturbances
("normals"). Materials were returned by mail. When
questionnaires completed by 30 mothers of disturbed children
were received, each was matched with those of a mother of
normal children. Matching was accomplished on self-report
criteria of: income, education, number Of children,
religion, and age. Questionnaires were scored after
matching and statistical tests apprOpriate to the data and
hypotheses were conducted.

Results of t tests for differences confirmed only one
hypothesis concerning the PM2 scale (mothers Of disturbed
children had higher scores on the Fatalistic motivation

items) and one hypothesis about the EPPS scale (mothers of

57

58

"normals" had higher scores on Nurturance). It was noted
that these differences may support contentions that
individuals wanting progeny due to a fatalistic motivation
would make less psychologically damaging demands upon their
children and that mothers with higher nurturance needs
would also exhibit less damaging and more supportive
behaviors. However, the significance of results was
diminished by the fact that other related hypotheses were
not confirmed.

No hypothesized correlational relationships between
PM2 and EPPS variables were statistically significant. The
construct validity of the PM2 received no support.

A number of factors which may have influenced results
were discussed. Paramount were sampling problems, social
desirability aspects of the instruments, and questionable
assessment accuracy. Using volunteer mothers of disturbed
children may have resulted in a very unrepresentative,
highly verbal, eager-to-please sample. This may have masked
realgroup differences.

The possible importance of failing to separate mothers
of disturbed children on the basis of Specific pathologies
of their children was considered. Also noted was the
possible disruption of basic assumptions concerning
procreative motivations. No information was obtained about
the planned or unplanned status of the child. Questions
regarding the projective aspects of the responses, possible

changes in motivations over time, and the relationship of

59

current and past needs were raised.
Suggestions for refinements of the PM2 instrument and

directions for future research designs were offered.

APPENDIX A

Complete Correlation Matrices
for All EPPS and PM2 Variables.

60

61

Home»

OOHHmu:Oauv m0. cmsu meH HOHHHomnoum n R

 

 

AH.- Ho.- ms. Ho.- NH.- so.- HH. so.- «H.- on. NH. Ho.- ww<
00.: HH.: 0H. 00. 00. HN.: MN. qo.:. 0H.: 0H. 80. 00.: new
NH.: m0.: NH. «0.: 0H.: 00.: SmN. q0.: NH. 00. m0 : H0.: 0cm
m0.: 00. mN. SNN.: N0. N0. 0N. mN.: NH.: mo. 0N. NN.: pro
mo. «0. mN.: HN. H0.I 0H. SmN.: 00. 00. #0N.: 00.: Hm. usz
no. 0H. mH.: H0.: m0. HN. NH.: 00.: 0H. 0N.: H0.: NH. mn<
00.: N0.: mo. 00. 50.: 00.: m0.: 00. 00.: m0.: 0H. H0.: Eon
No. NH.: NH.: mN. NH. 0H.: ~0.: HN. N0.: N0.: «H.: HN. usm
H0. 00. 00.: mo. d0. c0. NH.: m0. m0.: 00.: 00.: HH. OOH
N0. 0H. 0N.: HH. 00.: NH. mN.: 00. HO. N0.: mo.: 00. mm<
NH. NH.: mo. 00.: NH. NH.: N0. HH. 0H. 0H. 50. «HN.: us<
NH.: NH. 00. HH.: NH.: no. «0. «0.: 00.: mH. 0H. NH.: :xm
mH. mH. «0N.: no. 00. NH. 0H.: H0. 0H. 00. RmN.: «H. 090
H0. «0N. 0H.: 00.: 00.: smN. NH.: «H.: NH. 00. 0H.: m0. man
no. NN.: 0H. N0.: NH. mNH.: NH. 00. m0.: N0.: 0H. 0H.: 30¢
uoumcH uOuumz Oeuumm uOuuH< uosmcH uoEpmz uoeumm uoEuH< demcH dxwumz exoumm deuH<

 

 

.coupHHso Ooousume LOHs muosuos 0m 0cm coupHHnu HwEuoc
SOHB muosuos on no mdsouw OOOHSEOO Scum pump .mOHbmHum> NEH 0cm mmmm HHO mo xHuumE OOHumHouuoo

.w OHOOH

62

Human

pOHku:Osuv 00. gene mmOH

NUHHHBwBoua : «

 

 

mo.- AH. No. HH.- qo.- NH. No. ~H.- NH.- MH. oo.- «0.- ww<
00.: 00.: 0H. H0. N0. OH.: ON. «0.: 0N.: N0. 00.: 00. um:
00.: 00.: SN. 00. 0N.: mH.: 00. 0H. 0H.: 00. 00. 00.: wow
m0. mH. H0. NN.: 00. «0. 00. NH.: 00. 0N. «0.: 0N.: «:0
N0.: 00.: 00.: NH. 00.: do. 00.: 00. m0. 0N.: 00.: H0. usz
0H. 00. 00. NH.: 00. 0H. 00.: 0N.: 0H. HN.: mH. 00.: On¢
00. NN.: 0H.: H0. 00. 0H.: 0H.: 00. H0. 0H.: N0.: 0H. Soc
00.: HH.: 0H. 00. 00. NH.: NH. 30. 0H.: 00. «0. mo. 0:0
0H. 0H.: mo. 00.: ON. 00.: 00.: m0.: 00. 0N.: mH. H0. ucH
HH.: 0N. mN.: 00. NH.: 0N. 0N.: 00. 00.: 0H. 0N.: 00. mwd
0H. H0. H0. NH.: NH. 00.: 0H.: 00. 00.: 0H. NN. s00.: us<
N0.: N0. N0.: H0. 00. H0.: 00.: mo. 00.: 00. 00. N0.: nxm
NH. mN. Smm.: 00. 00.: mm. st.: HH. Rod. 00.: 0N.: O0. puo
00.: 00. H0. 0H.: 00.: mo. 0H. 0H.: 00. 00. OH.: 00. won
00.: 0H.: 0H. 00.: 00. NH.: 0N. 00.: H0. 00. 00. 0H.: 50¢
uOumcH Ocuumz uOuumm uOuuH< uoamcH uosumz uoaumm uOEuH< axmmaH mxmumz axmumm dequ

 

 

.coupHHno pOOHSOme mo mumnuoe om Eouw pump .mOHomHuO> sz 0cm mmmm HHw mo xHuumE OOHOOHOHMOU

.m oHamH

63

Aumou OOHku:03uv m0. cmcu mmOH NuHHwaboua n t

 

 

HN.- NH.- 400. 00.- NN.- 0H.- mm. 00.- NH.- 00.- NN. 00.- 00¢
00. NN.: 0N. 0H.: NH. 00.: H0. 00.: N0. 0H. 0H. mN.: umm
00. 00. 00. 0H.: 00.: N0.: 0H. NH.: HN. HH. HN.: N0.: 0cm
0H.: N0.: in. mm.: m0. N0. NN. 00.: 00.: 00.: SHH. 0H.: O50
«0. mH. . 00.: NN. 00. mm. *00.: N0. 00. ¥¢¢.: 00.: mm. usz
00. HH. 0N.: OH. 00.: MN. NN.: N0. HH. 0H.: NH.: mN. Ob<
NN.: 0N. NH. 0N.: 0N.: 0N. N0.: mH.: 0H.: 0H. NN. 0N.: Boo
mH. 0N.: 0H.: Sam. mH. 0N.: 00.: 0N. 00. 0H.: 0N.: Rod. 0:0
0H.: 0H. 0N.: NN. 0H.: 0H. 0N.: NH. 0H.: HH. 0H.: HN. ucH
mH. NN.: 0H. «H. 00. 00.: 0H. 0H. NH. 0N.: H0. N0. mud
NN. NN.: N0. H0. NH. 0N.: N0. 0H. S00. mo. N0.: 0N.: uc<
0N.: 0H. HN. 0N.: NN.: NH. 0H. 0H.: HH.: 0H. 0H. NN.: 5x0
NH. NN. 0N.: 0H. mN. N0.: HH.: «0. 00.: SN. mm.: «N. who
N0. £03. 00.: 00.: N0.: *N0. H0.: 0H.: mH. OH. 0N.: N0. won
00. 00.: ON. 00.: NH. 00.: mH. HH. 00.: 00.: 0N. mN.: zo<
uOumcH uouumz uOuumm uOuuH¢ uoemcH uosumz uoeuwm uosuH¢ dxmmcH mxmuwz mxmumm axOuH<

 

.ooupHHLO HmEuoc Ho mumzuoe

om Eouw dump mmOHooHuw> NEH paw mmmm HHO mo xHuOmE OOHOOHOHHOU

.oH OHbmH

APPENDIX B

The Motivation for
Parenthood Questionnaire (PM2) and
Item Intercorrelations.

64

Form PM2

Child Study Inventory

 

Indicate the answer you feel is the best by placing a
one (1) in front of it. Rank the remaining answers (2, 3,
4) to Show your order of preference. Do not write your name
on this paper.

 

1. Parents expect their children . . .

To fulfill the purpose of life
To strengthen the family

To be healthy and happy

To follow in their footsteps

AAA“
vvvv

2. Men want children because . . .

They would like to prove their sexual adequacy
It is a natural instinct

They need them to enhance their social status
They like children

AAAA

3. Birth control . . .

) Is a necessary measure

) IS inherently wrong

) Requires agreement of both husband and wife
) Is not natural '

4. Mother expects her daughter . . .

( ) To give her companionship and affection

( ) To take the place in the world for which she is
destined

( ) To be like herself

( ) To be happy and well

5. Men want children because . . .

Children hold the marriage together

They like to care and provide for children
It is a function Of the mature adult

They want to perpetuate themselves

AAA“
VVVV

65

10.

11.

66

Father eXpects his son . . .

( ) To be happy and well

( ) To take the place in the world for which he is
destined

( ) To give him companionship and affection

( ) To be like himself

Women want children because . . .

They like children

They need them to enhance their social status
They would like to prove their sexual adequacy
It is a natural instinct

AAAA
savvy

Planned parenthood . . .

IS impossible

Should be considered by all
Is most desirable

Leads to problems

“AAA
vvvv

Generally, peOple want children because . . .

They are destined to reproduce

They desire to help someone grow and develOp
They create someone in their own image

They provide companionship

AAAA
VVVV

Father eXpects his daughter . . .

To believe in him

To be happy and well

To take her place in the world

To give him companionship and affection

“AAA
VVVV

Women want children because . . .

Children hold the marriage together

It is a function of the mature adult

They like to care and provide for children
They want to perpetuate themselves

“AAA
vvvv

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

67

Large families . . .

Are happy ones

Cause large problems

Are obsolete

Are closer than small families

Women want children because .'. .

They are destined to reproduce

They desire to help someone grow and develOp
They provide companionship

They create someone in their own image

“AAA
VVVV

Generally, peOple want children because . . .

They like to care and provide for children
They want to perpetuate themselves
Children hold the marriage together

It is a function of the mature adult

“AAA
VUVV

Mother eXpects her son . . .

) To take his place in the world

) To give her companionship and affection
) To be happy and well

) To believe in her

AAA“

Men want children because . . .

They provide companionship

They create someone in their own image

They are destined to reproduce

They desire to help someone grow and develop

“AAA
vvvv

Children who are not planned . . .

Are a welcome blessing

Are hard to accept

Are loved and cherished
Are sometimes unwanted

AAA“
vvvv

Generally, peOple want children because . . .

It is a natural instinct

They like children

They need them to enhance their social status
They would like to prove their sexual adequacy

“AAA
vvvv

68

Please answer the following:

Age Sex Race Religion

 

 

 

Husband's occupation

 

Number, age and sex of your children

 

Are any of your children adOpted?‘

 

How many brothers and sisters do you have?

 

How many of your brothers and sisters are older than
you?

 

Circle the last school grade you completed -

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Fr So Jr Sr
(Grade School) (High School) (College)

Table 11. PM2 item intercorrelations based on a student

 

 

 

sample.
Narcissistic Instrumental Fatalistic

Females AltIUiStiC ’069 008 -035
(N=33) Narcissistic -.23 -.21
Instrumental -.56
Altruistic -.18 -.ll -.59

?§i23) Narcissistic -.36 -.40
‘ Instrumental -.31

 

69

APPENDIX C

Definitions of the 15 Manifest Needs
Measured by the EPPS and Reliability Coefficients.

7O

The fifteen manifest needs as described byiEdwards (1959).

l.

Achievement: To do one's best, to be successful, to
accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a
recognized authority, to accomplish something of great
significance, to do a difficult job well, to solve
difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do things
better than others, to write a great novel or play.

Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out
what others think, to follow instructions and do what

is eXpected, to praise others, to tell others that they
have done a good job, to accept the leadership of others,
to read about great men, to conform to custom and avoid
the unconventional, to let others make decisions.

Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make
plans before starting on a difficult task, to have
things organized, to keep things neat and orderly, to
make advance plans when taking a trip, to organize
details of work, to keep letters and files according to
some system, to have meals organized and a definite

time for eating, to have things arranged so that they
run smoothly without change.

Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, to tell
amusing jokes and stories, to talk about personal
adventures and eXperiences, to have others notice and
comment upon one's appearance, to say things just to
see what effect it will have on others, to talk about
personal achievements, to be the center of attention,
to use words that others do not know the meaning of, to
ask questions others cannot answer.

Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say
what one thinks about things, to be independent of
others in_making decisions, to feel free to do what

one wants, to do things that are unconventional, to
avoid situations where one is eXpected to conform, to
do things without regard to what others may think, to
criticize those in positions of authority, to avoid
responsibilities and obligations.

Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to participate in
friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new
friendships, to make as many friends as possible, to
share things with friends, to do things with friends
rather than alone, to form strong attachments, to write
letters to friends.

Intraception: To analyze one's motives and feelings,
to observe others, to understand how others feel about

71

10.

ll.

12.

13.

72

problems, to put one's self in another's place, to

judge peOple by why they do things rather than by what
they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze
the motives of others, to predict how others will act.

Succorance: To have others provide help when in

trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have
others be kindly, to have others be sympathetic and
understanding about personal problems, to receive a
great deal of affection from others, to have others do
favors cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed,
to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a
fuss made over one when hurt.

Dominance: To argue for one's point of view, to be a
leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded
by others as a leader, to be elected or appointed
chairman of committees, to make group decisions, to
settle arguments and disputes between others, to
persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to
supervise and direct the actions of others, to tell
others how to do their jobs.

Abasement: To feel guilty when one does something
wrong, to accept blame when things do not go right, to
feel that personal pain and misery suffered does more
good than harm, to feel the need for punishment for
wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding
a fight than when having one's own way, to feel the need
for confession of errors, to feel depressed by

inability to handle situations, to feel timid in the
presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in
most reSpects.

Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble,
to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with
kindness and sympathy, to forgive others, to do small
favors for others, to be generous with others, to
sympathize with others who are hurt or sick, to show a
great deal of affection toward others, to have others
confide in one about personal problems.

Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to
meet new peOple, to experience novelty and change in
daily routine, to eXperiment and try new things, to
eat in new and different places, to try new and
different jobs, to move about the country and live in
different places, to participate in new fads and
fashions.

Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to
complete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task,
to keep at a puzzle or problem until it is solved, to

14.

15.

73

work at a single job before taking on others, to stay
up late working in order to get a job done, to put in
long hours of work without distraction, to stick to a
problem even though it may seem as if no progress is

being make, to avoid being interrupted while at work.

Heterosexuality: To go out with members of the
Opposite sex, to engage in social activities with the
Opposite sex, to be in love with someone of the
Opposite sex, to kiss those of the Opposite sex, to be
regarded as physically attractive by those of the
Opposite sex, to participate in discussions about sex,
to read books and plays involving sex, to listen to or
to tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually excited.

Aggression: To attack contrary points of view, to tell
others what one thinks about them, to criticize others
publicly, to make fun of others, to tell others off when
disagreeing with them, to get revenge for insults, to
become angry, to blame others when things go wrong, to
read neWSpaper accounts of violence.

Table 12. Test-retest reliability coefficients of EPPS
variables (Edwards, 1959).

 

EPPS variable r
Achievement ' .74
Deference .78
Order .87
Exhibition .74
Autonomy .83
Affiliation .77
Intraception .86
Succorance .78
Dominance .87
Abasement .88
Nurturance .79
Change .83
Endurance .86
Heterosexuality .85
Aggression .78

74

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, N., "DevelOpmental and Degenerative Diseases of the
Brain," T. W. Farmer, ed., Pediatric Neurology. New
York: Harper and Row, 1964, pp. 162—284.

 

 

Anastasi, A., Psychological Testing. New York: Macmillan,
1961. '

Anderson, H. H., ed., Creativity_and Its Cultivation. New
York: Harper and Row, 1959.

 

Anderson, H. H. and G. L. Anderson, "Social DeveloPment,"
L. Carmichael, ed., Manual 2: Child Psychology. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1946, pp. 1162-1215.

 

Aquinas, Thomas, "Secundae Qae, Question 154, Article I,"
Summa Theologica, circa 1266. In Dorothy Bromley,
Catholics and Birth Control. New York: Devin—Adair,
1965.

 

 

 

Ball, F. J., W. L. Ruble, D. F. Kiel, "Calculation of Basic
Statistics on the BASTAT Routine," STAT Series Descrip—
tion No. 5. Michigan State University Agricultural
EXperiment Station, 1966.

 

Benedek, Therese, Psychosexual Functions in_Women. New
York: Ronald Press, 1957.

 

Benedek, Therese, "Parenthood as a DeveIOpmental Phase,"
Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1959,

7' pp. 3-8—9-‘4170

 

Bergler, E., Parents Not Guilty} New York: Liveright, 1964.

 

Bhandari, L. C., "The Psychological Aspects of Family
Planning," The Journal 9: Family_Welfare, 1957, 3,

 

 

Cattell, R. B., Psychology and the Religious Quest. New
York: T. Nelson, 1938.

 

Centers, Richard and G. H. Blumberg, "Social and
Psychological Factors in Human Procreation: A Survey
Approach," The Journal 2: Social Psychology, 1954, 40,
pp. 245—257. .

 

 

DeLestapis, Stanislas, Family_Planning_and Modern Problems.
New York: Herder and Herder, 1961.

 

DeTocqueville, A., Democracy in_America. New York:
Vintage, 1954, 2, p. 23.

 

75

76

DeWit, Gerard A., Symbolism gf_Masculinity and Femininity.
New York: Springler, 1963.

 

 

 

Duval, E. M., "Conceptions of Parenthood," American Journal
g: Sociology, 1946, 52, pp. 193-204.

 

 

Edwards, Allen L., Edwards Personal Preference Schedule:
Revised Manual. New York: Psychological CorporatiOn,
1959. '

 

 

Escalona, S. K., "Patterns of Infantile EXperience and
Developmental Process," R. S. Eissler, A. Freud, H.
Hartman and M. Kris, eds., The Psychoanalytic Study of
the Child: XVII. New York: International Univer- _—
sities, 1963, pp. 197-244.

 

 

Flugel, J. C., Men and Their Motives. New York:
International University Press, 1947.

 

 

Freud, 8., "On, narcissism: An Introduction," (1914),
Standard Edition 14:73—102. London: Hogarth Press,
1957.

 

Gerard, M. W., The Emotionally Disturbed Child. New York:
Child Welfare League of America, 1956.

 

 

Glidewell, J. C., ed., Parental Attitudes and Child
Behavior. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,

I961.

Goldfarb, W., Childhood Schizophrenia. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1961.

 

 

Goodwine, John A., "Marriage Duty Clarification," Catholic
Familnyeader. June, 1961.

 

Gouldner, Alvin, "The Norm of Reciprocity," American
Sociological Review, 1960, 25, pp. 161-178.

 

Graves, Eleanor, "A Woman on Her Way to a Miracle," Life,
1966' 61' pp. 48-62.

Hoffman, Lois W. and F. Wyatt, "Social Change and
Motivation for Having Larger Families: Some Theoretical
Considerations," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1960, 6,
pp. 235—244.

Holmes, S. J., "How Life Becomes Complex," Science Monthly,
January, 1942.

 

Kanner, L., Child Psychiatry. Springfield: Thomas, 1948.

 

77

Kanner, L., "Problems of Nosology and Psychodynamics of
Early Infantile Autism," American Journal 9:
Orthopsychiatry, 1949, Vol. 19, pp. 416-426.

 

 

Keller, W. R., "In Discussion," Psychiat. Reports gf_the
American Psyghiat. Association, 1957, No. 7, pp. 66-88.

 

Kelly, Msgr. George A., The Catholic Marriage Manual.
New York: Random House, 1958.

 

KOponen, A., "The Influence of Demographic Factors on
Responses to the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule,"
Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Columbia University,
1957.

Korman, M. and F. Coltharp, "TranSparency in the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule," Journal g£_Consu1ting
Psychology, 1962, 26, pp. 379-382.

 

 

Landis, J. T., "The Family and Social Change," S. Farber,
P. Mustacchi, and R. Wilson, ed., Man and Civilization:
The Famil '3 Search for Survival. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1965.

 

 

Leeds, Ruth, "Altruism and the Norm of Giving," Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 1963, 9, pp. 228-240.

 

Major, Marilyn A., "Assessment of Motivation for Parenthood
in Parents of Disturbed and Parents of Normal Children,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1967.

Mandeville, B., "An Essay on Charity and Charity Schools,"
Fable 9: the Bees. London: Oxford University Press,
1924, 1, pp. 253—322.

 

Montagu, Ashley, The Human Revolution. Cleveland: World
Publishing, 1965.

 

Morris, J., "Nonparametric Two—Sample Tests; Walsh Test
for the Median," Technical Report gg, Michigan State
University Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, 1966.

 

Moustakas, C. E., Children in Play_Therapy, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1953.

 

Murray, H. A., et al., EXplorations in_Personality, New
York: Oxford University Press, 1938.

 

 

O'Brien, John A., "Let's Take Birth Control Out of
Politics," Look, October 10, 1961.

78

Pearce, J., and S. Newton, The Conditions 9f Human Growth.
New York: Citadel, 1963.

 

 

Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Casti Connubii — 92
Christian Marriage, December 31, 1930. New York: The
Paulist Press, 1941.

 

 

Rabin, A. I., "Motivation for Parenthood," Journal 9:
Projective Technigues and Personality Assessment, 1965,
29, pp. 405-411.

Rabin, A. I. and R. J. Greene, "EXploring Motivation for
Parenthood." Unpublished paper, 1966.

Rambert, M. L., Children in Conflict. New York:
International Universities Press, 1949.

Rapaport, D., "On the Psychoanalytic Theory of Motivation,"
M. R. Jones, ed., Nebraska Symposium 93 Motivation, 1960.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1960.

 

 

Rauf, Adur, "Psychological Aspects of Family Planning,"
The Journal 9: Fami1y_We1fare, 1958, 4, pp. 85-91.

 

 

Reed, R., "Changing Conceptions of the Maternal Instinct,"
Journal g£_Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1923, 18,
pp. 78-87.

 

Rockwood, Lemo D. and M. E. Ford, Youth, Marriage and
Parenthood. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1945.

 

 

 

Ross, Adelaide and A. S. Anderson, "An EXamination of
Motivation of AdOptive Parents," American Journal 9:
Orthgpsychiatry, 1965, 35, pp. 375-377 (Digest).

 

 

Satir, Virginia M., Conjoint Family_Therapy, Palo Alto,
California: Science and Behavior Books, 1964.

 

 

Scheinfed, Amram, Women and Men. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1944.

 

Sears, R. R., E. E. Maccoby and H. Levin, Patterns g:
Child Rearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1957.

 

Selltiz, Claire, Marie Johoda, M. Deutsch and S. W. Cook,
Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and'Winston, I965.

 

 

Silverman, R. E., "The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule
and Social Desirability," Journal gf_Consu1ting
Psychology, 1957, 21, pp. 402-404.

 

 

79

Simmel, George, The Sociology gf George Simmel. Glencoe:
Free Press, 1950.

 

 

Sorokin, P., Altruistic Love. Boston: Beacon Press, 1950.

 

Stern, Karl, The Flight from Womanhood. New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1965.

 

 

Stricker, Lawrence J., "Report on EPPS," Oscar K. Buros, ed.,
The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park,
New Jersey: Gryphon Press, 1965, pp. 200-207.

 

Taylor, C. W., Creativity: Progress and Potential. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.

 

 

Taylor, Katherine W.; H. Becker and R. Hill, eds., Family,
Marriage and Parenthood. Boston: D. C. Heath and
Co., 1955.

 

Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and
Diagnostic Techniques, supplement to The Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 51, No. 2, Part 2, March, 1954.

 

 

 

Thorndike, E. L., The Psychology gf_Wants, Interests and
Attitudes. New York: Appleton-Century, 1935.

 

 

 

 

Vegia, Mariano, "The Wanted Child: Motivations of Foster
and AdOptive Parents for Seeking Care of Children,"
American Journal 9: OrthOpsychiatry, 1965, 35,
pp. 375—377 (Digest).

 

 

Vogel, E. F., "The Marital Relationship Of Parents of
Emotionally Disturbed Children: Polarization and
Isolation, Psychiatry, 1960, 23, pp. 1-12.

 

Wile, Ira 8., "Preventive Psychiatry," Birth Control
Review, 1932, 16, pp. 8—10.

 

Whelpton, P. K., A. A. Campbell and J. Paterson, Fertility
and Family Planning in the United States. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966.

 

 

 

Whelpton, P. K., and C. V. Kiser, eds., Social and
Psychological Factors AffectingFertility. New York:
Milbank Memorial Fund, 1958.

 

Wyatt, F., "The Motives of Reproduction in Women," VII
Congreso Interamericano d2 Psicologia. Liverpool,
Mexico, 1963, pp. 365-371.

 

 

Yarrow, Leon J., "Research in Dimensions of Early Maternal
Care," Merrill—Palmer Quarterly, 1963, 9, pp. 101-114.

 

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

 

IIIH lllll Hllll III II llllll lllllll Ill!
9 2

312 3100994 47