ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION IN
ATTITUDES TOWARD PREGNANCY:
(HELD BEARENG AND CHILD REARING

Thesis for ”19 Degree of M. A.
WCE SAN STATE UNEVEBEETY
Richard B. Does
1965

i ‘

lillilllllflllilflfllfllllllllllllllllllll{lllllllllllllllll i LIBRARY x

10461 7786 .. , chhlgan §tatc
Umverszty

 

ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION IN ATTITUDES
TOWARD PREGNANCY, CHILD BEARING AND

CHILD BEARING

by

Richard B. Does

AN ABSTRACT QF_A THESIS

submitted to
Michigen State University ’
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1965

ABSTRACT

ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION IN ATTITUDES
TOWARD PREGNANCY, CHILD BEARING AND
CHILD HEARING

Richard B. Does

This study concerned relationship(s) among females' atti-
tudes toward pregnancy, child bearing and child rearing. Ascer-
taining the degree to which the dimension of acceptance-rejection
was a common factor in attitudes toward pregnancy, child bearing
and child rearing was the principal conceptual focus.

gs were forty-two Michigan State undergraduate coeds. They
were divided into two equal groups, one composed of freshmen and
saphomores and the other of juniors and seniors. Each group was

administered three instruments: a general indicator of acceptance

vs. rejection in child rearing practices (M-R index), an objective
measure of degree of rejection toward pregnancy (R-P scale), and a
new, four item projective story measure of attitude toward pregnancy
and child bearing (RPPI).
An index of response defensiveness was included in the RPPI
in order to assess the degree to which defensive or "socially desir-
able" responses influenced scores on the three instruments.
Scores received on the three instruments were intercorrelated
and comparisons were made among the younger and older subgroups as
well as for the total sample. No significant correlations were obtained

between the child rearing practice measure and the measure of rejection

Richard B. Does

toward pregnancy or child bearing. These results support the view
that a mother's attitude toward her infant may be quite different
from that toward her pregnancy.

Between-group correlational differences suggested that the
younger gs responded more negatively than the older §s to an index
of rejecting attitudes toward the physical state of pregnancy (R-P).
Older gs, however, were more prone to respond negatively than younger
§s to a measure of rejection of the more emotional, economic and
marital partner aspects of pregnancy. Why this might be so was dis-
cussed.

The new projective story measure of attitudes toward pregnancy
and child bearing (RPPI) correlated positively and significantly with
an objective measure of rejecting attitudes toward pregnancy (R-P).
This convergence supports the validity of both the new RPPI and the
older R-P index.

The measure of response defensiveness utilized revealed sig-
nificant differences in rejecting responses to the pregnancy measure
but not to the child rearing practice measure. High defensiveness
females of the younger sample responded to an index of rejection of
pregnancy (RPPI) with significantly lower rejection scores than low
defensive females in the same group; in the total sample, high defend—

ers were significantly less rejecting of pregnancy (R-P) than low

defenders.

Verbatim samples of responses to the RPPI were cited and the

Richard B. Does

implications of the present findings for improvements in research
design and future investigations of the psychology of pregnancy

were discussed.

Thesis Committee: Approved: ‘ Tb Watt/A46

Committee Chairméh/'
John Hurley

Lucy Rau f .
Arthur Seagull Date: 1? AfUé‘bLL—(x [36 S.

ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION IN ATTITUDES
TOWARD PREGNANCY, CHILD BEARING AND

CHILD BEARING

by

Richard B. Does

A THESIS

submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1965

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the contribution of
his committee, John Hurley, Lucy Rau, and Arthur Seagull to the
develOpment of this thesis.

Thanks are also given to the subjects of this study, with-
out whose participation no investigation could have been undertaken.

I extend my sincere appreciation to my wife, Lynne, who as
my typist, sensitive critic and most ardent supporter, made this

work more meaningful.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -v
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Chapter
I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II METHOD 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

(1) Child Relations Inventory
(Manifest-Rejection Index) . . . . . . 5

(2) Rejection of Pregnancy Scale . . . . . 7

(3) Reaction to Pregnancy and
Parenthood Index . . . . . . . . . . 8

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
M-R vs. R-P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

M-R vs. RPPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

R-P vs. RPPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1h
Evaluation of Response Defensiveness . . . lh
Response-Reliability. . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Possible Sample Effects . . . . . . . . . . 20

Response Defensiveness . . . . . . . . . . 22

Content of RPPI Responses . . . . . . . . . 22

iii

Chapter

V

SUMMARY .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .

APPENDICES . . . . .

iv

Table

1.

2.

LIST OF TABLES

Reliability Of RPPI Ratings 0 e e e e e e e e e e e 11
Intercorrelations: All Measures . . . . . . . . . l2

Comparison of Mean Scores for High and
Low Response Defenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6

Appendix

I

II

III
IIla

IIIb

IIIc

IV

LIST OF APPENDICES

Child Relations Inventory . . . . .
Rejection of Pregnancy Scale . . .
RPPI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Criteria for Rating RPPI Responses

Instructions for Raters
(for Items L, M, O) . . . . . . .

Instructions for Raters of Item N .
Master Score and Rating Sheet . . .

RPPI Response Material. . . . . . .

vi

Page

30
33
35
3?

to
45
47

INTRODUCTION

The notion that the prenatal environment is a significant
variable in subsequent neonate behavior, gained empirical status
in l9kl (Sontag, l9#l). Animal research has shown that variabil-
ity of emotionality in strains of rats occurs according to the
degree of prenatal maternal anxiety (Thomson, 1957).

Bettelheim (1959), in describing a case of childhood schizo-
phrenia, asserted that the process had begun even before birth. He
implied that the mother of the schiZOphrenic child had contributed
to the onset of his disturbance even before his birth--primarily as
totally rejecting the existence of the child from pregnancy on.

Sullivan (1953) devoted a portion of his work to the emphasis
of postnatal anxiety communication in mother-infant relationships
and the potentially debilitating effects on psychological develop-
ment.

Maladaptive infant deveIOpment, both physiOIOgical and social,
seems related to maternal attitude toward the state and condition of
pregnancy. Studies have indicated a relation between negative reac-
tions to pregnancy and difficulty in delivery and abnormality in
infancy (Wallen and Riley, 1950; Zemlick and Watson, 1953; Ferreira,
1960). These and other reports of maternal reactions to pregnancy
have revealed some consistently recurring indices of potential infant

abnormality or delivery complications: (1) Overly high maternal

-1-

anxiety level (Davids £3 31., 1960); (2) Complaints of an appar-
ently psychosomatic nature such as extreme nausea and vomiting
(Wallen and Riley, 1950; Lakin, 1957); and (3) Conscious atti-
tudes "of either extreme rejection or non-rejection seen as a reac-
tion formation of...(the) state of pregnancy (Ferreira, 1960, p.
560).

Results of the previous studies suggest that attitudes of
acceptance and rejection may operate in various and subtle ways
to effect quite different reactions in both mother and infant,
e.g., mothers who evidence a negative and rejecting attitude toward
pregnancy demonstrate a greater incidence of psychosomatic com-
plaints during pregnancy than do mothers with accepting attitudes
(Zemlick and Watson, 1953; Davids £3 51., 1961). Mothers who had
numerous psychosomatic complaints and eXpressed rejecting attitudes
toward their pregnancy had children who evidenced a greater degree
of upset (e.g., abnormal bowel movements, excessive crying, colic)
in their first five days of life, than did children of mothers with
accepting attitudes (Ferreira, 1960). A study by Garner and Wenar
(1959) suggests that mothers with positive reactions to pregnancy
but 223 toward infant care, have children that evidence a high degree
of psychosomatic illness (e.g., ulcers, colitis, asthma). Such data
suggest that there is a difference between the attitudes and reactions
toward the child before and after birth.

The preceding studies point to a need for a simultaneous in-
vestigation of women's attitudes to both pregnancy and child rearing

and the relationship between them. Zemlick and Watson (1953) have

suggested that in many cases there appears to be a definite change
in maternal anxiety and attitudes after the birth of the child.

The present study prOposes to investigate similarities and/or
differences between attitudes toward pregnancy and attitudes toward
child rearing. Females' attitudes toward the state of pregnancy as
well as toward attitudes to post-pregnancy mother-child interaction
will be assessed. Hypothetical rather than behavioral situations
will be utilized.

Our instruments will measure attitude along an acceptance-
rejection scale. One instrument describes possible reactions to
parent-child interactions, another depicts hypothetical statements
regarding the condition of pregnancy. A third instrument is com-
posed of "projective" stories pertinent to pregnancy and child bear-
ing. The relationship between the responses to these sets of mea-
surements will be studied. For example, are negative, rejecting at-
titudes toward the condition of pregnancy consistent with negative,
rejecting attitudes toward child rearing? Women who reject the idea
of pregnancy, motherhood or child rearing should respond to the in-
struments differently than accepting women; it is validating the
latter two instruments that is a primary purpose of this study.

A second concern is to test the utility of the conception of
the acceptance-rejection dimension as a discriminator of women's at-
titudes toward parenthood in general. DeveIOpment of a technique for
the assessment of these attitudes may prove of value in predicting

reactions to pregnancy and subsequent effect on child deveIOpment,

and hence be useful in counseling pregnant mothers and alleviating

symptoms.

METHOD

Subjects:

§s were forty-two undergraduate females at Michigan State
University divided into two groups, each containing twenty-one
individuals.

SS in Group 1, freshman and sOphomore volunteers from an
introductory psychology courses. were each given one hour of re-
search credit for their participation. Of the twenty-one in Gp
l, nineteen were single and two were married. None reported being
or having been pregnant. One of the married S5 was in the process
of obtaining a divorce at the time the study was conducted. The
age range for Op 1 was 18-23 with a mean of 18 years, 9 months.

Gp 2 was composed of SS from a course in child psychology
who participated in the study at their instructor's request. The
S5 in Op 2 were primarily from the junior and senior classes. Of
the 21 in this group, 13 were single and 8 were married. Of the
married gs, five were neither pregnant nor had they had children,
but three of the §s had children and one of the mothers was pregnant
at the time of the study. The age range for Op 2 was 19-27, with a
mean of 20 years, 10 months. There was one g of age 38, who is not
included in the mean score, as she was not representative of the
average member age and would unrealistically inflate the mean score.

Measures:

1. Manifest-Rejection Index:

Three different assessment devices were used. The first was
the Child Relations Inventory, (Hurley, 1965), an index of mani-
fest rejection, and hereafter designated the M-R (manifest-rejec-
tion index). The M-R Index is designed for assessing parental
attitudes toward child rearing practices (see Appendix I). It is
composed of a series of thirty items concerning the general inclin-
ation of parents to endorse either a supportive, acceptant and.
non-coercive approach toward child rearing practices or a punitive,
intimidating and fear-inducing disciplinary policy toward children.
Presumably this instrument will also reflect attitudes of childless

women toward child rearing practices.

‘éé agree or disagree with each item on a weighted five point
scale. The scale score for each §bis the sum of the item weights.
There is a commonality between "rejection" and "punishment"
(Hurley, 1965, p. 25). High M—R scores tend to reflect overly pun-
itive and rejecting attitudes toward children. Individuals with
high M-R scores implicitly express rejection of their children in
terms of their punitive child rearing practices.

Low M-R scores are assumed to reflect a tendency to avoid
coercive, punitive and rejecting behaviors in parent-child inter-
actions. That low scores might reflect an attempt by the respond-
ent to give defensive or socially desirable responses was taken into
consideration in the construction of the M-R Index. Items are con-
structed in corollary pairs such that for an S to obtain a consistent-
1y low score, she should have to agree with one item which symbolizes

an accepting attitude toward children and child rearing practices,

7

while disagreeing with a corollary item which symbolizes a reject—
ing attitude toward children and child-rearing practices. An ex-
ample of such contrasting items from the M-R Index: (1) "It is
healthy for children to sometimes express anger toward parents":
and the converse (2) "Children should not be allowed to argue with
their parents."

M-R scores which fall between the high and low boundaries

reflect a tendency to utilize both accepting and rejecting atti-

tudes in child rearing practices. Such median scores would suggest
that the respondent relies on a balance between discipline or re-
strictive techniques and tolerance or acceptance.

2. Rejection of Pregnancy Scale:

The second instrument of this study, entitled the Rejection of
Pregnancy Scale (R-P), but not so labeled when administered, was
taken from Ferreira (1960). This scale is composed of eight items
(see Appendix II). SS respond to each of the items along a weighted
five-point continuum of agreement-disagreement. Ferreira's original
scaling of item responses (1960) was modified to parallel Hurley's
(1965). Scale scores for each S was the sum of the item weights.

In effect, the only change in Ferreira's original scale was to
lengthen the continuum of choice from four to five by the addition
of a neutral ("neither agree nor disagree") category.

The R-P scale was originally designed and utilized by
Ferreira to provide a criterion score in the assessment of his Ss'
attitudes of acceptance or rejection toward their pregnancy. The

scale items are primarily concerned with assessing reactions to the

physical state and condition of pregnancy. Ferreira later studied
the relation of the "rejection" score for each of his gs, obtained
during their pregnancy, to the degree of "upset" or deviant behavior
in the newborn infants of the respective gs. In a post hoc ob-
servation of R-P scores, Ferreira noted that the mothers of deviant
babies tended to score at extreme ranges on the R-P scale. The
extreme acceptance scores were interpreted as a conscious denial

of rejection, with extreme rejection scores interpreted as conscious
admissions of rejection.

Items from the R-P scale and the M-R Index were included in
one test form for easier administration, though scored and tabulated
separately.

The R-P scale was incorporated into the present study to
provide an index of attitudes toward pregnancy, especially attitudes
of rejection. In addition, the R-P scale was utilized to provide a
basis for appraising the convergent validity of a third, methodolog-
ically independent instrument, designed for the assessment of the
acceptance-rejection dimension with regard to both pregnancy and
child bearing.

3. Reaction to Pregnancy and Parenthood Index (RPPI):

The RPPI, a relatively unstructured projective test, was de-
vised by the investigator. It is composed of a sequence of four
hypothetical story situations depicting occurrences pertinent to
pregnancy and parenthood (see Appendix III). ‘gs were asked to write
their reactions to these stories. The stories were interpreted and

scored via ratings, according to criteria of rejection of pregnancy

devised by the investigator (see Appendix IIIa). These criteria
were deveIOped by culling a number of sources which described re-
sponses typifying women who were negatively disposed to their
pregnancy (Hall and Mohr, 1933: Lakin, 1957; Ackerman, 1958).

Of the four stories in the RPPI, only three (Items L, M
and 0) were directly concerned with the assessment of rejecting
attitudes toward pregnancy and child bearing.

Item L is a potential elicitor of rejecting attitudes toward
parenthood due to fears of losing the security of dependent sibling
status in a family situation. This item also tends to elicit rejec-
tion in terms of sexual anxiety about pregnancy, fear of the physical
appearance, meaning and possible complications of pregnancy, and
concern about how others will view one's pregnancy.

Item M is a potential elicitor of fears surrounding the aware-
ness of one's pregnancy-~whether the fears are reality based or not,
and whether a women is married or unmarried. This item is structured
in such a way as to maximally facilitate the projection of an S's
reSponse into a situation where a woman has just discovered she is
pregnant. If rejection of the condition is implied, gs may tender
a variety of concerns as rationale for their reactions, foremost among
which are social, economic and emotional stigmata. Item M encompasses
a wider area of potential response than Items L and 0.

Item 0 is a potential elicitor of specific reasons why certain
§s would choose not to have children. It provides an Opportunity for
women to "justify" at a given time the rejection of pregnancy and

parenthood.

10

The fourth story (Item N) was included to provide a basis
for evaluating the degree of an S's response defensiveness. If
anԤ should respond defensively to Item N, it is likely her re-
sponses to the other items will also be defensive. The instruc-
tions for raters (See Appendix IIIb and IIIc) state» the following:

Item N represents an obvious overstatement.

It is assumed that nondefensive women, who

are not averse to go counter to 'socially

desirable' response, or who aren't overly

repressive regarding fears, ambivalence,

hostility or anxiety toward marriage, sex-

uality and pregnancy, will deflate the

pretentiousness of this item.
Item N on the RPPI depicts a situation which is geared to showing
up unrealistic response to perceptions of conflict. It suffices
as a filler item in that it was not scored on the acceptance-
rejection dimension. gs responding defensively to Item N, however,
were, for the purposes of further analysis, grouped separately from
S5 who were not defensive.
Procedure:

‘Ss were administered the three instruments in a random man-
ner to avoid order effects. Instructions were printed on each of
the tests, each § therefore receiving the same procedural informa-
tion. All gs were unfamiliar with the instruments.

To ascertain whether gs' attitudes fluctuated over time, a
reliability check was undertaken. Three and one-half weeks after
the original administration of the M-R and R-P scales, test retest-
ing was done with Op 2 for both of these instruments.

Scores on the three measures were computed independently by

ll

judges unaware of the identities of the respondents. The scoring
of the M-R Index and the R-P scale was a straight-forward process
involving the summing of the numerical scores obtained on each
item and computing a total score for each g. The total score on
the RPPI was calculated by summing the weighted ratings of degree
of acceptance-rejection evidenced by Ss' reSponse to each of the
items.

A preliminary assessment of inter-rater reliability on RPPI
judgments was made. Table 1 contains inter-rater reliability fig-

ures for the two judges.

Table 1

Reliability of RPPI ratings

 

 

 

 

Interrater Pearson a Interrater Pearsonlg
(Items L, M & 0) (Item N)
Op 1 +.72‘ +.90‘
Gp 2 +.77‘ +.89*
Gps l
and 2 +.7#' +.89‘
‘P .01

RPPI ratings selected for analysis were made by an independ-
ent judge unfamiliar with the SS in the sample and unaware of the
goals of the study (Guilford, 195A, p. 295). With the establish-
ment of inter-rater reliability, the relation between the scores

on each of the instruments was investigated.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the intercorrelation data on the three
independent instruments for Gps l and 2 and the combined groups.
A listing of the scores and ratings from which these figures were

derived is presented in Appendix IV.

Table 2'

Intercorrelations: All Measures

 

 

R-P RPPI
(a) GP 1 M’R -02“ +e02
N s 21
R-P +055“
RsP RPPI
(b) Gp 2 M-R +.O7 -.3#
N x 21
R-P +e35
R-P RPPI
(c) Combined Groups M-R -.11 -.06
N = #2
R’P +e3‘P.‘

 

’ All tests two-tailed

" P .05

Table 2 shows that significant positive correlations occurred
between the R-P and the RPPI indices. The R-P and RPPI appear then
to measure some factors in common. However, the absence of significant

12

13

correlations between the M-R and R-P and between the M-R and RPPI
suggests that rejection toward children and rejection toward preg-
nancy are different. Furthermore, the negative correlations occur-
ring among the groups and between the tests suggests that in
certain instances inverse relationships may exist between attitudes
toward pregnancy and attitudes toward children. Further analysis
follows.
M-R vs. R-P

None of the correlations between these two measure approached
significance. For Gp 2 and the combined groups the relationship is
virtually nonexistent. The slight negative correlation (g 8 -.24)
between M-R and R-P in Op 1 suggests that rejection of children and
rejection of pregnancy are different phenomena. It is possible that
any relationship, inverse or otherwise, between the two measures may
be a function of the sample selected. It might be pointed out that
the members of Op 1 were both lower in age and in educational level
(hence having had fewer psychology courses) than those of Op 2.
M-R vs. RPPI

None of the relationships between M-R and RPPI are statistical-
ly significant. However, it is possible, again, that the suggested
relationship might be a sample related phenomenon. This time, however,
we find that females from Gp 2, the older, more educated SS, tend to
reapond in such a manner as to suggest an inverse relationship between
M-R and RPPI (5 a -.3#); i.e., the higher these women are in accepting

attitudes toward child rearing practices, the less acceptant they are

1%

in their responses to the RPPI, or vice versa. By virtue of the
relationship between the M-R scale and both the RPPI and R-P,
it appears that a predominantly negative, although non-signifi-
cant relationship exists between attitudes of acceptance and
rejection toward pregnancy and parenthood and attitudes of accept-
ance and rejection toward child-rearing practices. Again, such
data suggest that rejection of children and rejection of pregnancy
are different phenomena or not necessarily linearly related.
R-P vs. RPPI

Significant correlations between the R-P and RPPI were ob-
tained in Op 1 (g - +.55, P .05) and in the combined groups
(£_s +.3#, P .05).

Such a positive relationship between the R-P and the RPPI
was anticipated, since the two were initially viewed as methodo-
logically independent measures of the same or similar factors. The
R-P was utilized in part as a device for appraising the convergent
validity of the RPPI. The results lend some support for the valid-
ity of the RPPI as a measure of attitude toward pregnancy and parent-
hood.
Evaluation of Response Defgnsiveness

As previously noted, the RPPI was devised to include an item
(Item N--see Appendix IIIb) which would serve as an indicator of
degree of response defensiveness. Ratings of responses to Item N of
the RPPI were made in accordance with the degree of naive acceptance

of, or the degree of skepticism toward, the item content (see Appendix

15

IIIC). High reliability coefficients between raters were obtained
(see Table 1). Those §s who responded with skepticism to the item
content and received ratings toward the aero end of the rating
scale were designated low defenders. Those §S who responded with
highly naive acceptance of the item content and received ratings
toward the high end of the 5 point rating scale were designated
as high defenders. The R-P and RPPI scores of Se in each group
as well as for all gs irrespective of groups were divided at the
median into high and low defenders according to their Item N
responses.

The mean values for low and high defenders on the R-P and
RPPI were then obtained. T-tests of the difference between the
respective means (Walker and Lev, 1953, p. 157) were carried out
to determine whether there were significant differences between
the mean scores for the two groups. Table 3 contains the results

of the comparisons.

15

Table 3

Comparison of Mean Scores of High and Low Defenders

 

 

 

— -

 

 

‘—:

 

 

Group Test Low Defensiveness High Defensiveness
i1 s12 x2 s22 obtained t
l M-R 50.7 52.h1 47.3 33.21 1.161
R-P 9.7 29.21 8.9 20.#5 .359
RPPI 13.5 22.65 8.6 30.2# 2.130.
R’P 11.1 9.29 9e} 1"".37 10169
RPPI 5.9 29.27 6.6 19.04 .319
l & 2 M-R #5.3 137.80 47.5 91.20 .676
R-P 11.5 18.70 8.6 19.40 2e1h8.
RPPI 10.2 35.61 7.# 25.52 1.6hl
Note: T-tests two-tailed
Note: N1 = N2 = 20; N1 and N2 = #0

‘P .05

In Gp 1 low defensive gs were rated as responding with sig-
nificantly greater rejection to the RPPI items than were high
défsnsive §s. Also, the combined groups analysis indicates that §s
who were uniformly low in defensiveness (i.e., obtained scores on
Item N z 0 or 1) were rated as responding with significantly greater
rejection to the R-P items than were gs who were uniformly high in
defensiveness (i.e., obtained scores on Item N = 2, 3, or A). Fur-
thermore, the same relationship holds true for the R-P data from the
combined groups if a one-tailed t-test is used. No significant dif-

ferences occurred between the high-low defensiveness groups in their

 

1'?

responses to the M-R index. It seems then, that for this sample
defensiveness exerts a lesser influence on the expression of at-
titudes toward child rearing practices than it does on the expression
of attitudes and feelings toward pregnancy and child bearing.
Response Reliability

Pearson product-moment correlations were computed from the
scores on the first and second administrations of both tests to
Se in Gp 2. (Retesting was not done to the SS in Gp 1; therefore
a between groups analysis of response stability was not possible.)
The test-retest g for the M-R index was .83 (P .01).1 For the
R-P scale, an 5 of .85 (P .01) was obtained. Plainly, the Ss'
responses over a short time Span remained fairly consistent. Other
studies, however, have suggested that longer temporal intervals and
concomitant critical occurrences may modify scores considerably
(Hohn, 196A).

Test-retesting was not carried out on the RPPI since alter-
nate forms of the test would have been required. However, since we

were interested in the extent of inter-item consistency, comparisons

 

lAlthough changes in scores were not significant, in terms
of the direction of change that did occur, 18 of the 21 Gp 2 SS
responding to the M-R index, and 13 of 21 on the R-P scale received
lower scores on the second administration. It seems likely that the
content of and philosOphy behind the course material in child psychol-
ogy taken by S8 in Gp 2 during the time this study was conducted had
a bearing on depressing the rejection scores. However, since no con-
trol group was utilized, there is little basis for substantiating
assertions regarding direction of and/or reason for change in scores.

18

of Ss' scores on Items L, M and 0 were undertaken. In terms of
the percentage contribution to the total rejection scores for
both groups combined, Item L elicited responses which received
61/358 or 17%, Item M 225/358 or 60%, and Item 0 72/358 or 23%.
Obviously, Item M served as the primary elicitor of rejecting

attitudes.

DISCUSSION

The most substantial finding of this study was that a new
projective measure of attitude toward pregnancy and child bearing,
the RPPI, was demonstrated to have a reasonably significant rela-
tion to an objective measure of attitude toward pregnancy, the R-P
scale. evidence supporting convergent validity. As previously
noted, however, the two devices seem to assess somewhat different
aspects of women's attitudes toward pregnancy.

In regard to the variability of interrelationships, it was
seen that although the R-P scale and the RPPI evidenced a reason-
able degree of correlation (Gp l, 5 = +.55, P .05; Gp 2, a s +.35,
N.S.; Gps l and 2 combined, £_= +.34, P .05), a rather high degree
of variance between the two remained unexplained. Some of the error
variance is related to variability in raters' judgments of RPPI re-
sponses. In addition, however, some of the variance may be attrib-
uted to the fact that the two measures tapped somewhat different
aspects of the state and status of pregnancy.

Although the R-P and RPPI appear to be related by virtue of
their concentration on the factor of rejection of pregnancy, in
terms of the content they emphasize, the two instruments are somewhat
unique. The R-P scale deals with the reactions of females toward

essentially the physical (objective) aspects of pregnancy. The RPPI,

19

20

however, elicits reactions of a more social and emotional (subjec-
tive) nature.

The second major finding of this study concerned the relation-
ship between attitudes toward pregnancy and attitudes toward child
rearing practices. The data of this investigation suggest that at-
titudes toward child rearing practices are different from, if not
unrelated to, attitudes toward pregnancy and parenthood, supporting
Zemlick and Watson's (1953) contention that the attitudes of mothers
toward their infants often differ from their attitudes toward their
pregnancy.

Possible Sample Effects

The factors responsible for the differences between attitudes
toward children and attitudes toward pregnancy are not readily dis-
cernible, nor statistically speaking, apparent. In the present study,
however, for the purpose of speculative explanation of sample differ-
ences in response to the pregnancy scales, it would seem of value to
analyze further some of the relationships which appeared between the
M-R Index and the R-P and RPPI scales.

In Gp l, the sample of younger women who are less advanced in
their education than those S5 in Gp 2, it was noted that a slight
inverse relationship existed between Ss' attitudes toward child rear—
ing practices and attitudes toward pregnancy (M-R vs. R-P,‘£ = -.2h).
Such a negative correlation does not appear in a comparison of M-R and
R-P scores for Op 2. It is tempting to speculate that for the younger

§s the confrontation with the idea and possibility of pregnancy is more

21

threatening than for older §s who are more accustomed (culturally
conditioned?) to the prospect of marriage and the physical aspects
of pregnancy associated with marriage. That almost four times as
many of the SS in Gp 2 as those in Gp l were married is of some
slight support for such a conjecture. Furthermore, since the R—P
scale is highly evocative of the physical appearance of the preg-
nant female, one might again speculate that younger girls are less
desirous of associating themselves with what might be for them, a
"socially undesirable" state.

When Gp 2 test intercorrelations were carried out, it was
noted that an inverse relationship also existed. But this time the
negative correlation occurred between the M-R and RPPI (g s -.33),
whereas for Gp l the negative trend appeared between the M-R and
R-P scales. It seems, then, that the older §s from Gp‘Z (more of
whom are married or approaching marriageable age than those from Gp
1), are more diSposed to react in a rejecting fashion to the material
encompassed by the RPPI. The RPPI is more oriented to the social,
economic, emotional and husband-wife relationship aspects of pregnancy
and child bearing than to the purely physical state and appearance
of pregnancy depicted by the R-P scale.

It might be Speculated that material of the type encompassed
by the RPPI is more threatening to the older Se and hence more read-
ily "rejected" by them; but that hypothesis will have to await clar-
ification of future research.

In further studies investigators would be well advised to

22

utilize clinical interview material on the nature of anxiety and
expression of rejecting attitudes as a function of age, marital
status and area of concern (e.g., physical vs. emotional etc.,
aspects of pregnancy).
Response Defensiveness

The study also attempted to account for the effect of re-
sponse defensiveness on depressing rejection scores. The inclusion
of a marker item (Item N) on the RPPI was offered as a means of
isolating gs who were prone to guard against forthright expression
of negative attitudes. Analysis of the data suggested that high
response defensiveness tended to depress the expression of negative,
rejecting attitudes toward pregnancy, while low defensiveness accel-
erates the expression of negativism and rejection toward pregnancy.
Whether the high defensive S is generally less free than the low
defensive S to express her genuine feelings and attitudes about preg-
nancy and other important life situations (hence remaining conflict-
ridden) needs to be further evaluated in subsequent research. Sim-
ilarly, the use of an expanded measure of defensiveness (e.g., via
structural clinical interviews), not solely buttressed on the assump-
tion of consonance between "naivete" and "defensiveness," is needed
in future studies to further clarify the influence suggested by this
investigation.
Content of RPPI Responses

Though the RPPI was an attempt at develOping a new projective

measure of attitudes toward pregnancy, "objective" scoring based on

23

a given criterion of rejection tends to obscure qualitative find-
ings (see Appendix V for some of the actual RPPI response mater-

ials and a broad discussion of some of the implications these

may have for the study as a whole). A summary of Appendix V fol-
lows.

An examination of Appendix V readily indicates that the

RPPI items tapped a greater range of material than was discussed
in this study. However, the following comments on the responses
cited (as well as those not listed), show the extent to which the
RPPI elicited material which was rejecting of pregnancy and par-
enthood:

(1) Some §s expressed such a pervasive concern for their
adequacy as a woman that they tended to fear for the
adequacy of the hypothetical in utero embryo.

(2) "Motherhood" (the institution of) seen as an ideal
condition in fantasy at least. Item 0 tended to
elicit almost without exception, the response of
resentment that Kay is being deprived of her right
to motherhood. In reality, however, it would appear
that conflicts abound over the individual's felt ade-
quacy to fulfill the demands and responsibilities of
the role of the mother.

(3) The physical fear of birth and anxiety about infants
and their care appeared often in Ss' responses. But
this factor was not mutually exclusive of warm and

loving attitudes toward children.

2%

(A) An awakening concern over leaving childhood and adoles-
cence for the perceived responsibilities of adulthood
and parenthood was evidenced by most SS.

(5) Conflicts over dependency-independence were apparent.
Many §s expressed implicitly resentment in their feel-
ihg that marriage may deprive them of many things that
remaining single would allow them to do. Yet marriage,
pregnancy, etc. were not summarily rejected; rather the
degree to which it was perceived as being a secure and
desirable state was ambivalenty discussed.

(6) Most §s reflected ambivalence toward marriage and par-
enthood as a function of their exposure to conflicting
models: the model of motherhood as opposed to the models
of educational endeavor and career seeking.

(7) As a general comment, the degree to which Se have vicar-
iously experienced motherhood as a desirable and joyful
occurrence (probably from their mother's own account)
seems related to the degree of acceptance or rejection
of pregnancy and parenthood.

That women's reactions to pregnancy and parenthood are multi-
determined is clear. The variables assessed in this study could cer-
tainly be expanded in future investigations. The inclusion of clin-
ical interviews geared to examining the summary points listed above
would be an invaluable addition to clarification of class and inter-
individual differences in attitudes of rejection toward pregnancy and

parenthood.

SUMMARY

This study concerned relationship(s) among females' atti-
tudes toward pregnancy, child bearing and child rearing. Ascer-
taining the degree to which the dimension of acceptance-rejection
was a common factor in attitudes toward pregnancy, child bearing
and child rearing was the principal conceptual focus.

§s were forty-two Michigan State University undergraduate
coeds. They were divided into two equal groups, one composed of
freshmen and SOphomores and the other of juniors and seniors.
Each group was administered three instruments: a general indicator
of acceptance vs. rejection in child rearing practices (M-R Index),
an objective measure of degree of rejection toward pregnancy (R-P
scale), and a new, four item projective story measure of attitude
toward pregnancy and child bearing (RPPI).

An index of response defensiveness was included in the RPPI
in order to assess the degree to which defensive or "socially desir-
able" responses influenced scores on the three instruments.

Scores received on the three instruments were intercorrelated
and comparisons were made among the younger and older subgroups as
well as for the total sample. No significant correlations were obtained
between the child rearing practice measure and the measure of rejection

toward pregnancy or child bearing. These results support the view

25

26

that a mother's attitude toward her infant may be quite different

from that toward her pregnancy.

Between-group correlational differences suggested that the
younger §s responded more negatively than the older S3 to an index
of rejecting attitudes toward the physical state of pregnancy
(R-P). Older gs, however, were more prone to respond negatively
than younger S3 to a measure of rejection of the more emotional,
economic and marital partner aspects of pregnancy. Why this might
be so was discussed.

The new projective story measure of attitudes toward preg-
nancy and child bearing (RPPI) correlated positively and signifi-
cantly with an objective measure of rejecting attitudes toward
pregnancy (R-P). This convergence supports the validity of both
the new RPPI and the older R-P index.

The measure of response defensiveness utilized revealed sig-
nificant differences in rejecting responses to the pregnancy measure
but not to the child rearing practice measure. High defensiveness
females of the younger sample reSponded to an index of rejection of
pregnancy (RPPI) with significantly lower rejection scores than low
defensive females in the same group: in the total sample, high de-
fenders were significantly less rejecting of pregnancy (R-P) than
low defenders.

Verbatim samples of responses to the RPPI were cited and the
implications of the present findings for improvements in research de-
sign and future investigations of the psychology of pregnancy were

discussed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, N. The Psyphodynamics 2; Family Life. New York: Basic
Books, 1958. (especially pp. 168 cf)

Bettelheim, B. Joey: A "Mechanical Boy." Scientific American,
1959.

Davids, A., Devalt, S. and Talmadge, M. Anxiety, pregnancy and
childbirth abnormalities. J. Consult. Psychol., 1961,

22. 74-77-

Ferreira, A. J. The pregnant woman's emotional attitude and its
reflection on the newborn. Amer. J. OrthOpsychigt., 1960,

0. 553-561.

Garner, A. and Wenar, C. The Mother-Child Interaction in Psycho-
somatic Disorders. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1959.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Com-
PaHY. 1950-

Hall, D. E. and Mohr, G. T. Prenatal attitudes of primiparae.
Mental Hygiene, 1933, 12, 226-234.

Hohn, R. A longitudinal study of parental attitudes toward children.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964.

Hurley, J. R. Parental acceptance-rejection and children's intelli-
gence. Merrill-Palmer Quart., 1965, 11 (1), 19-31.

Lakin, M. Personality factors in mothers of excessively crying
(colicky) infants. Child Developm. Monogr., 1957, gg, No. l.

McNemar, Q. Psyghological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1949.

Sontag, L. W. The significance of fetal environmental differences.
Am. J. Obstet. and Gynecol., 1941, 42, 996-1003.

Sullivan, H. S. The Interpersonal Theory 2f Psychiatgy. W. W. Norton
and Company, Inc., New York, 1953.

27

28

Thomson, W. R. Influence of prenatal maternal anxiety on emotion-
ality in young rats. Science, 1957, 125, 698-699.

Walker, H. M. and Lev, J. Statistical Inference. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1953.

Wallen, P. and Riley, R. Reactions of mothers to pregnancy and
adjustment of offspring in infancy. Amer. g. Orthopsychiat.,
1950, g9, 616-622. “"

Zemlick, M. and Watson, R. Maternal attitudes of acceptance and
rejection during and after pregnancy. Amer. g. Orthopsychiat.,
1953. g2. 510-524-

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

Child Relations Inventory

17¢: foljmanirmt ETC; anemia: M777 to 77+ 3:“. 33 If VCR} is
iryiicats how 7C7}. thy :TSCC or diES3 5%. it: ysur
C a; rixisn. 1's statements the; L‘szs are both
S‘3rred and di: z 37: a: wi7h by many peaplae 80 there
377% ms "ri.ht' 2r "wrang" answers. Please read

5: a.-.h statwmant. Lien shuw yOur upiainn “y Ci7ulimg
7578 letters EaL 1 been represan 7 year O“fl view

*3
J; 0

ll.

7 s

nut.

1.30:

17.

18s

It is
bade"

Cya-

Childi‘m '7
r2?!) «30.3.0

Children

lizl’leir F91!“ ’L

It is heaj
anger tome.

A W188 ems

pregnant.

A wise pa

boss at as

When Oh? 1
real] y 7h.

Your? Chi
whipped.

S asking
800do

Pregnan. ' 3.7
Most

Making a
get gCCd

dost ch11 rCn r.eed Sens cf

taken out
It 5.8 gco

Often a w;

A great dr

ya ~- 1, .u- . ‘9‘
1.. 1. a...“ 7:.
r J.

children

Giving m.
best way

An fl.nt&ll

..--_A _1_..

”“Q to mar.

:hil:
than is g:

-

net 123 s;

‘ a. v. f
:- “,th I {'5
l z—C. wine.
A, .;-
,I:
‘;

.tiy fer.d33€r
i 1.‘-:~*.i”'¢an*l'.s .

“I"
'1.
b ‘

, . f. .. :7 ...
v. r2777 get. .730 seaming.

P _ ’l
.f n_,‘l—‘.v “Iv”. eff.- J -
fiat .J‘hé nu . L: ',‘e‘..:

L: _
-. I") ,w' ‘0. a:
k. an r" -§.a-‘

makes

.rsn g t more s
71.. " t

2%? Lueme

.y’. ’3
.‘ :5.

e‘ h
14

" 1"}. l j.

feel
.. “r“. l .1
L-‘f3.|19. .1? .503.” e

‘ "P
.

0i Lawms

6 for

O

m :7: Ti
Ans e )1...-

.. ‘1
911...). {:3 .

«1

-71i‘“UtB e

'. :‘ up. (:2: 1;“ 64—1 :1!

If"; :1". U (mild

---“1-n

OVSL

.. - chi Larch tC fi"G.fl¢3Ll'~H"‘3 "tell:
to their IZJSL S

- R I Dag - ‘I
FESFGMR 8342

lovm d ts 8.7 g‘:e wi an

n 1'.C Ssmstimss expre.as

3w
n.caas bsCCming

sfwoman U{uql:.

t-p fit Ty and kinduss

i? .hC surest ray to
as rater a1 meanness

Ck fl

'1’ng

.
(“l-.73 5' ('IT" '3‘.»

. ., J.
lA—“; .n"_~‘L-~.p..~.\fi FI CJE nanba

Mzsa.ry is tra

qnish slap is the

FDQDISL

873013151 net he shamed for

. 1.-
all
.A

1"",

u
a

7777—7-77

-
'
7

3’7 A

U

.Wmmw

 

' I

1' [I
:3)

F»
.i.‘
gt—

(3."

3’
.: ,0

SA

SA

‘ I
-
3.);

.p‘
5

I‘Lg.
Q.» . erg-41$) )2) {7152457. “if.

CI 'F
13
.

l,‘.

_“'
'.-
.—

f

’3:
V‘
‘e 7"}. "I.” l,-. ‘54
3 . 5 a

S,¢.

{E
.3

‘9
0/5.

{Jib/45fl%fi?

- 13/

’
In

”‘1:

f I
flfl.
/V”

9!

 

 

$9
'2:

p.

N’

Q5

53

N

Q:

LY.

’2):

p:

N

N d

m

p.

m.

a

 

uzéfzbmflyémxygggcn

U‘W

i.

W

V.

 

U!
1‘:

U)
b

'0
U

FD
U

f‘ “'\
£3.11
C" 7
he"

(D

C"
r

m

U

h)
h)
‘3

5‘7.)
K)!
a

5‘)

+-
c

”I
4

h}
Q
o

i

1‘
6200

ix)
.4
o

h )
(.3

h.)
Rf.)

KM
C)
I:

K}!
5...:

k.)
0\
o

Xx!
N]
o

:7 ‘7' 7 .

a .. .- 4

A ~ ~ wzfir . 1" ”~- '~‘1”’i"‘ 'Hu ’7
| ‘5 5, 95} I \ |,~’”_' ,3}; ‘_ 7:.) p“ 6b?)

MCCE GLLLC mm wC1Cy hClping RMH1° paren7a.

- ,1 b C7 CCCCLCCLI "CCpC after” if
thuy 1W3 CC d5 wCll in Later liféa
1

'17“; "' " 7. ‘ 4". " X". "t W " r». 9:" I" "'- 1:, " "‘ ‘ .3 1 . t r -,". 'D“ '5‘ ’fi " ‘ 1"“. Y' (T
.93 3 “5.1.5 2.. 7-5. .55."; C. -.-.1. 5:123 .1- 5.31. a, at. 5,}‘4135141 1.7.1.2151} 1.. 07.1.. -

an: -.
v
. (
$J’3” " “‘1‘ ."
I‘L‘o '5’“ £3,311 ’ -’ ‘
F "

0:518:17. 1-1; 515-; a. r5517 MIC to lrwor“. .CW‘Ly D 217.5 in a.
a 7 .7.
I) ‘36

'I
14.1. @137 r:-

I I‘d-“on.“-

“'1 i 715’ r ’ 1 1 ‘ '7 u“ vi." - 51'} l "A. 3 111‘
A RCJC w Cl wa 0-7us Ln 5 b1ag 1n 3C
'3
... - " - . " ." ‘ I“ “ .5“ ..
t is L - CCC hC.5CCy 1v? chiguvcn to
‘- I ‘ :‘l " ‘k I. ‘1' O... 0‘
Ccaaim--mnf C17CCC7 pCJCCLC.

PC ren7.C 7hCuli not inCint that young Children
Cat U““C*¢:C fCods.

’ 9 ‘ ‘3 ~ ' . fl. '1‘ «V

Egon p CCM.C SCECEB CzimrrCn anula obey.

OfLCi

5&1C7C C Crcgnant Caman w:1gkea hzr b3.b
nCver

K
‘ ‘1'» . .—- : .
130 5.: a 1.75.7311 9

SP eazi U633 13 cr11515a is uaually cause“ by

poor 1.275.”) methoiia...

Children are in ppieC Cnfi er s7rict training
tha. thC 7 5 under lenient t ainM 5.

Very +rfzt discipline may Cast? r0; wkat migh t
have dw C3;vC& 1.nLo a {1' n8 LGPSL mallty.

Host ch11d.c3 need mare k-Cfiua.C Chan they
usually CCCCLVC.

For naiu'51 17Casons many LifiCC a woman resanis
having a Lacy.

’
0:“

(”N

SA

SA

8.

“'7‘
L\

N

N

D;

9: DID:

d

m to
t) (*5

U)
C1

U)
U

5L1

T.’\

5.53

SD

SD

APPENDIX II

REJECTION OF PREGNANCY SCALE

APPENDIX II

REJECTION or PREGNANCY SCALE (Ferreira, 1960)

(not so entitled on form administered to gs)

A wise an intelligent woman avoids
becoming pregnant.

Pregnancy makes a woman ugly.

Often a woman regrets having become
pregnant.

A woman often doubts the wisdom of
being pregnant.

There is nothing worse for a woman
than being pregnant.

A pregnant woman is an unhappy woman.

Oftentimes a pregnant woman wishes
her baby never to be born.

For natural reasons many times a
woman resents having a baby.

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

MA

MA

MA

MA

MA

(N)‘

(N)'

(N)’

(N)‘

(N)‘

(N)'

(N)‘

(N)‘

MD

MD

MD

MD

MD

MD

MD

‘ Category "B" (neither agree nor disagree) was added to

Ferreira's original scale in order that the instrument
structurally comply with the scaling of Hurley's M-R

index.

3.4

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

SD

APPENDIX III

RPPI

APPENDIX III

RPPI

The following constitute a series of four hypothetical situ-
ations intended as elicitors of g's attitudes toward the idea of
pregnancy and child bearing. gs are asked to speculate freely on
the possible reactions and feelings that a woman might have to

these.

(L) Two sisters are visiting with each other on a rainy afternoon.
The older girl, Anne, is 23 and recently married. She is talking to
her younger sister Laura, 18. She has just finished telling Laura
she is pregnant. How does Laura feel about this news?

(M) A young woman has Just left her doctor's office and is stand-
ing quietly in the shadowed hallway. The examination that has just
been completed has indicated that she is pregnant. What is she think—
ing?

(N) Sue is telling her recently engaged neighbor, Paula, that marri-
age is really wonderful, that it solves more problems than she could
ever dream of, and that it constitutes the easiest and best way for a
woman to fulfill herself. What does Paula think?

(0) Kay and Randy are a childless couple. Two old friends, Bill and
Mary Smith, whom they haven't seen for quite some time, drOp in unex-
pectedly with their children. In the course of the visit, Kay and
Mary find themselves alone in the kitchen. Over a cup of coffee Mary

lapses into a discourse on the joys of motherhood. How does Kay react?

36

APPENDIX IIIa

CRITERIA FOR RATING RPPI RESPONSES

APPENDIX IIIa

CRITERIA FOR RATING RPPI RESPONSES

Item L:

1. Extreme or exaggerated fear for her sister's well being.

2. Questioning the wisdom of her sister becoming pregnant "so
soon" after marriage: i.e., indication that pregnancy at this
stage is "bad," for whatever reason, for her sister.

3. View that her sister's pregnancy represents an unacceptable
threat to their continued companionship.

#. Expression of disbelief that her sister is "really" pregnant;
unwillingness to accept the news as reality; admonition that
Anne "be sure" (e.g., see another doctor) before telling others.

5. Emotional concern over the sexual aspects of her sister's preg-
nancy; e.g., negative connections surrounding sexual relations
generalized to state of pregnancy itself.

Item M:

1. Indications of regret that her expectations have been confirmed;
e.g., concern about the financial, physical, emotional, etc. re-
sponsibilities of parenthood with less emphasis on the joys.

2. Fear for the physical health or the physical, mental health of
the unborn child.

3. Fear Of husband's or parents' reactions to the pregnancy.

#. Denial of her pregnancy, e.g., "this just can't be, maybe I

should see another doctor,” this just couldn't have happened

38

39

with the precautions we've thken, etc."

5. Interpretation that the woman is unmarried and must think of
some way to avoid the shame and condemnation of an illegitimate
pregnancy.

Item 0:

l. Assertion that they're "not ready" for children yet, not inter-
ested in the "joys of motherhood," kids would conflict with
career, etc.

2. Suggests that not having children frees them from many irksome
responsibilities.

3. Expression of gladness that she has not had to face the ordeal
of pregnancy.

4. Feels Mary is "socially uncouth" for bringing up the tepic of

motherhood; she has "reasons" for not having children; she
shouldn't have to justify herself; suggests that neither she

nor her husband doesn't want children.

APPENDIX IIIb

INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATERS
(for Items L, M, O)

APPENDIX IIIb
INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATERS
(for Items L, M, 0)

Rate reaponses on a scale from O to h, A zero weight would
be assigned if in your Opinion the subject's response in no way
resembles any of the criteria stated (in Appendix IIIa). Four
would be assigned in cases where the subject's response is virtual-
ly synonymous with 231 of the scoring criteria for each item (L,

M and 0). Intermediate ratings should be assigned according to

the following scale:

 

o 1 2 3 4
unrelated slightly medium highly virtually
related agreement similar synonymous

If the subject's responses are in agreement with more than
one of the scoring criteria for each item, rate each instance ac-
cording to the same scale and sum the weights to arrive at a total
for each item. If some of the responses seem ambiguous, try to
make the best subjective judgment you can relative to the scoring

criteria.

kl

APPENDIX IIIc

INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATERS OF ITEM N

APPENDIX IIIc

INSTRUCTIONS FOR RATERS OF ITEM N

Item N represents an obvious overstatement. It is assumed
that non-defensive women, who are not averse to go counter to
"socially desirable" responses, or who aren't overly repressive
regarding fears, ambivalence, hostility, or anxiety toward marriage,
sexuality and pregnancy, will deflate the pretentiousness of this
item. (If a "Pollyannish" response is given, consider it as an
index for giving more scrutiny to your ratings of Items L, M and
0.)

Rate Ss' reactions to the content of Item N in terms of
being:

Very skeptical - 0

More skeptical than
accepting - 1

Balance between
skepticism and
acceptance - 2

More accepting than
skeptical - 3

Highly naive accept-
ance - #

ts

APPENDIX IV

MASTER SCORE AND RATING SHEET

APPENDIX Iv #5

MASTER SCORE AND RATING SHEET

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group 1
M-R Score R-P Score {f fists 8 RPPI Rating (N)

£5 Test Retest Test Retest Rater l Ra er 2 Rater l Rater 2
1 #2 o o 1 2 2
2 53 2 o o 2 3
3 'h9 3 6 11 3 4
h 66‘ 54 7 12 0 0
5 55 A 1 7 2 3
6 #2 5 2 11 1 1
7 62 6 5 10 1 2
8 51 7 o 2 3 3
9 Eu 8* 11 16 o 0
1o #9 9 11 15 h u
11 #0 9 11 17 1 l
12 55 10 1 15 1 o
13 53 10 7 16 o 0
18 57 10 12 17 o o
15 E8 11 6 7 1 2
16 37 12 l 8 2 2
17 49 12 7 7 h 3
18 ES 13 5 20 2 3
19 37 16 3 9 1 2
20 #6 2o 16 18 o o
21 53 21 8 12 o 0
Sum 1033 192 120 231 30 35

Group 2

l 42 #1 8 8‘ 1 2 1 1
2 #5 28 17 16 1 h 2 1
3 50 53 10 13 I o h 2 3
A 32 32 8* 7 o 2 o o
5 6o #5 13 12 o o o o
6 55 #2 8 9 A 5 1 2
7 32 32 11 12 5 16 o o
8 31 19 1h 11 11 16 *E’ 3
9 38 33 18 12 lo 12 o o
lo ’h8 36 1o 6 3 6 o 0
JJ. 20 8 12 14 5 h 1 1
12 58* 38 10 2* o 12 1 2
13 29 28 o o o 2 h a
1A- ’h3 R0 12 9 3 2 *E h
15 62 51 ,9 6 2 E 3 13
16 38 24 16 12 lo 12 1 1
17 #1 23 8 6 8 L 0 2
18 1+7 1+8 12 9 2 l o o
19 36 18 8 9 8 8 K Ir
20 18 17 11 5 9 12 o 1
21 63 59, 1% #15 A 9 2 3
Sum 908 715 225 195 86 137 30 35

 

APPENDIX V

RPPI RESPONSE MATERIAL

APPENDIX V

RPPI RESPONSE MATERIAL

Responses to Item L:

Sample responses to Item L included jealousy, sibling rivalry
and competitiveness, and concern about the future, as well as feel-
ings of enthusiastic acceptance and anxious anticipation of the
same experience.

Examples from Gp_l

"Laura is inwardly wishing that it were perhaps her (sic)
(that was married). At the age of 18 a large majority of girls are
desirous of marriage and pregnancy at a later date. They often
seek security and see it in the marriages of others."

" . . . Laura is excited and happy, but might be a little
bit jealous."

" . . . Laura would feel that the baby would take Anne's
attention completely away from the type of life they led as girls."

" . . . Anne's pregnancy is slightly disconcerting for it
emphasizes that soon she (Laura) will be taking the responsibility
of marriage and a family. She's not sure she's ready to accept
these responsibilities."

" . . . If Laura had no goals in life other than marrying,
she would wish she were her sister. But at 18, a girl thinks she
is too young to handle the responsibility of raising a child."

" . . . If they hadn't been close, Laura would probably be

jealous of Anne and would probably think that Anne had been pregnant

47

1+8

when she got married."

". . . If (they) were always competing with each other,
Laura would be jealous (of Anne).”
" . . . Laura feels that it is wonderful and I suppose is

inwardly wishing it were perhaps hers."

Examples from Gp 2

". . . Laura is anxious to have the same experiences of
marriage and pregnancy and wonders 'what it would be like' and
how it has changed her sister."

" . . . Laura may feel a twinge of jealousy. The older sis-
ter having just recently been married, was probably the center of
family attention during the wedding preparations and now will be
again during the pregnancy and motherhood."

" . . . I think Laura's first reaction was . . .‘Did Anne
have to get married?'"

" . . . She is happy for her sister, but is also concerned
for her health."

" . . . Laura is not only jealous of Anne but filled with
her own self frustration of not being able to fully enjoy sexual ex-
periences. The rainy weather makes Laura feel even more gloomy about
her sexless-till-marriage prospects."

" . . . She wishes it were she instead of her sister, but is
fearful of some possible danger that may befall her sister because

of the pregnancy."

l+9
Responses to Item M:
Responses to Item M contain a higher degree of fear, anxiety
and rejecting attitudes than those to the other stories. Manifested

are concerns about personal-and baby health, husband and parent reac-

tions, adequacy as mother, and ability to provide adequately..

Examples from Gp l

" . . . She is thinking how terrible it is. She is not mar-
ried, and how is she going to explain to her mother . . . She is too

young to get married."

" . . . She wonders about her husband's reaction before she
feels happy or unhappy. Is it the right time to have a baby?"

" . . . She is uncertain--pregnancy is sometimes dangerous
but she has confidence in modern medicine and feels reasonably safe.
Will her husband be upset or proud? She wants to see her mother for
reassurance."

" . . . Her fear is stronger than her happiness. Doubts begin
to arise inside her about her safety and whether or not she will make
a good mother."

" . . . She seems afraid and unsure . . .the idea of an abortion
comes to her . . . she is very confused . . . Should she kill it or
have the baby, and if she is single, bear the shame?"

" . . . She is anxious yet (sic) leery at her situation for she
isn't sure if she is capable or wise enough to handle the situation."

" . . . doubt and some worry might be in her mind as to the

babies (sic) physical health."

so

". . . wanting the child . . . is a prerequisite for making
it happy and healthy emotionally."
" . . . She might doubt that she could be the kind of person

to mother a child or if her husband would feel any differently about

her."

Examples from Gp 2

" . . . She is thinking (how) it feels to have a baby. Does
it hurt much?"

" . . . Most women would be pleased or they wouldn't have
gotten that way. But perhaps she may wonder what she is getting
herself in for."

" . . . She wonders if it will be healthy and is a little
scared to think that soon she'll have her own baby which she and
her husband must raise."

" . . . She is thinking about the possibilities of anything
happening to her and her future child. Will her child be healthy,
will she have any difficulties? Will her husband and family be
excited and happy or will she be rejected and shunned?"

" . . . She is not afraid . . . shé and her husband want
children . . . she is happy and worried all at the same time."

" . . . I don't know how she could possibly be standing there
quietly, I'd be dancing a jig.“

" . . . She wonders whether the child will be deformed or

retarded in any way and what she'd do if it were."

5,1

Responses to Item 0:

Responses to Item 0 center around the advantages and disadvan-
tages of having children. More .53 than not express resentment that
Kay is deprived of her right to motherhood. However, it seems evi-
dent in many cases that it is missing the experience of becoming a
mother, rather than missing the fact of being a mother that is often

implicitly resented.

Examples from Gp l

" . . . (Kay tells Mary) there are advantages to not having
children. You can be free to get up and go wherever you please . . .
Children are nice, but they are a lot of trouble."

" . . . (they may be) perfectly content--they have more freedom
than their friends and this might in some way be advantageous to
Randy's occupation. (But if) they wanted children and were unable to
have them, then I feel that Kay would feel sad and slightly envious
of Mary."

" . . . Although they haven't had children, they've been inde-
pendent, free to go where they want, when they want.”

" . . . She wouldn't like to hear the joys of motherhood from
anyone else because she would like to experience it herself. But

if she didn't want children then she'd just be bored with Mary."

" . . . Kay feels badly. She knows that when peOple get married
others tend to think the couple will have children."

" . . . She envies Mary her joys in watching her children grow

and teaching them new things. She also realizes there is much more than

52

just joy involved in children, but like anything else good in life,
it has its price tag."

" . . . She is envious of Mary who seems so happy-~she feels

jealous and regretful."

Examples from Sp 2

" . . . Kay sits silently, hurt in her heart, she wishes that
she too could personally experience these joys. But their name is
on the list for adoption of a childl"

" . . . If they can't have their own (children) adOption is
a very satisfactory solution to their problem." i

" . . . Kay is somewhat jealous because of never having ex-
perienced motherhood--it is Mary's eXperience of which Kay is jealous
rather than Mary's position as a mother."

" . . . Kay is envious of Mary who expresses the great satis-
faction she vauires in her role as a mother."

" . . . If Kay doesn't want children, she will think Mary is
a fool. If she does, she will likely be envious."

" . . . Kay feels deprived of her privilege to fulfill the
thing she was created for."

" . . . She would be hurt deeply by Mary's unkind, thoughtless
remarks."

" . . . She would feel she has been cheated by not being able
to have children herself . . . but may think of adoption."

" . . . Kay is upset because the joys of motherhood have bypassed

her . . . she feels she has missed something in life."

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

llll1ll 2lllll

llll l||1|ll7| I?" l lllll