FAEEN‘E‘AL QEF‘ENBENCY AND PEER. GEQG? ENTEGRANQR East's gap (in: Dogma 0'? Me :5... ifi‘CHEGéK STATE Ul‘fi Eda“??? David Murray Lemmem n‘fl/fi. 59031 GAE! L I B RA R Y T Michigan Stab University p A\‘._‘-,‘ . u ‘- t-"T . n P ‘ w ABSTRACT PARENTAL DEPENDENCY AND PEER GROUP INTEGRATION By David Murray Lemmen Much of the literature on adolescent behavior sees the role of the adolescent peer group as a vehicle for reducing the adolescent' s dependency on parents; that is, conformity to the peer group is a form of dependency that replaces the parental dependency. This study represents an attempt to demonstrate that adolescents who remain highly dependent on their parents are not well integrated into their peer groups. The data, however, do not support this. "Behavioral" Dependency has different effects than "Emotional" Dependency, and ”Emotional" Dependency seems to affect males differently than females, but there are no uniformly linear trends in the relationship between parental dependency and peer group integration for this college freshman sample of adoles- cents. PAREN TAL DEPENDENCY AND PEER GROUP INTEGRATION By David Murray Lemmen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1969 ‘33 T? b (v (\ V] \i (X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere thanks to Dr. Philip Marcus, who served as my thesis advisor, for the criticism, guidance, encouragement, and patience required to see me through this project. Thanks also to Dr. Kelly and Dr. Waisanen, who served on my committee, for their criticism and guidance. Finally, thanks to my parents, whose continued support and encouragement have enabled me to pursue my educational goals. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUC TION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . Controls The Sample . . Operationalization of Concepts ANALYSIS OF DA TA Behavioral Dependency Popularity. . Number of Close Friends Emotional Dependency Popularity. . Number of Close Friends Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency . CONCLUSIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY iii Page iv «10) 18 18 19 21 24 25 28 30 36 41 Table 10 11 12 LIST OF TABLES Inter-item correlations for the Behavioral Dependency Index Inter—item correlations for the Emotional Dependency Index Behavioral Dependency by sex . Female Behavioral Dependency Index score: Popularity . Male Behavioral Dependency Index score: Popularity . Behavioral Dependency Index score: Number of Close Friends . Emotional Dependency by sex Female Emotional Dependency Index score: Popularity . Male Emotional Dependency Index score: Popularity . Emotional Dependency Index score: Number of Close Friends . Association between Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency Female combined Behavioral and Emotional Dependency Index categories: Popularity . iv Page 12 14 18 20 20 22 24 26 26 29 31 32 Table Page 13 Male combined Behavioral and Emotional Dependency Index categories: Popularity . . . . . . 33 14 Combined Behavioral and Emotional Dependency Index categories: Number of Close Friends . . . . . 34 INTRODUC TION This research problem arises not from a full-fledged theory, rather, from a collection of loosely related ideas about the ”parent versus peer" orientation of adolescents. These ideas sug- gest a shift of dependency from parents to peers as a definitive aspect of adolescence. That is, as will be seen below, part of the definition of adolescence is that it is a time of dissolving the child- hood dependency on parents and reinvesting that dependency in the peer group as part of the normal process of maturation. There has long been recognition of the importance of over- coming familial dependency, as suggested by Freud' 8 statement below: The more closely the members of a family are attached to one another, the more often do they tend to cut themselves off from others, and the more difficult it is for them to enter the wider circle of life. Pronounced familial dependency would seem to be associated with low integration and attachment with peers, and other non-family members. 1Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton 8; Co., Inc., 1962), p. 56. More explicitly relevant to the topic of adolescent indepen- dency from family ties is this statement by Parsons and Bales: The initial nature of adolescence involves pressure to abandon this familial dependency and to form independent attachments outside the family. Gottlieb and Ramsey add: The childish dependence upon parents must gradually be relin- quished as adolescence proceeds. Emotional ties with members of the same age of course are strong, but the extreme attach- ment and dependence placed upon parents and other adults are a deterrent to the development of adulthood. With decreasing familial dependence, the increasing im- portance of the peer group for the adolescent is noted by many writers: Above all [the peer group] is the primary repository of the needs for emotional security and acceptance which have been so powerfully fostered in early childhood and then so sharply cut back in relation to the original objects, the parents-- particularly, of course, the mother-~because of the imperative of achieving independence. Being in a period of transition in their lives from childhood to adulthood in a society which is itself changing at a relatively accelerated pace, adolescents are thrust betwixt and between 2Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955), p. 44. 3David Gottlieb and Charles Ramsey, The American Ado- lescent (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1964). p. 118. 4Talcott Parsons, "A Sociologist' s View, " in Values and Ideals of American Youth, ed. by Eli Ginzberg (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961), p. 281. the values of their own developing world and those of the older generation. This marginality plunges them into the throws of an unstable identity. Frustrated by the gap between their aspirations and what is afforded by the older generation, they gravitate toward one another to establish some identity in the image of their own time, as they perceive it. The products of interactions among individuals caught in the same predicament is formation of their own reference groups which serve as vehicles of reestablishing a stable identity and of mutual support toward more effective attainment of the goals defined by their personal experiences of frustration and deprivation. He [the adolescent] discovers he is not alone in these feelings nor in his plight: His age mates are in the same boat. Hence, they gravitate toward one another to exchange notes and, in time, to seek ways and means to take steps in concert which assert themselves and satisfy their desires. Though at times treated as inextricably interwoven in the same process, there are two distinct themes present here. One, that adolescence is atime forIeductionnofmparental dependency;:and_the second, that adQléfigenceisafime_of-increasingpeer 032111111211, W~-q—.—— _ng_de_nge. The relevant work on this tOpic is divided in the way these themes are treated. While most of the writers on the topic seem to agree that the bonds of parental dependency must be loosened during adolescence, all do not see the process of forming close peer group attachments as intrinsically related to gaining independence from parents. Some writers speak of forming close 5Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Reference Groups (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 40. 61bid., p. 56. peer group attachments as the process, or vehicle, of dissolving parental dependency. Other writers speak of adolescents gaining independence from parents without explicitly involving the peer group at all in this process: Either the child will safely remove himself from emotional dependency on the parent and the family and assume self- direction, or he will fail to make this passage from childhood to adult responsibility and forever afterward, unless later he is especially helped in breaking away from his parasitic sup- port, fail to reach emotional maturity. Similar accounts which do not explicitly include the peer group are offered by Bell, Burgess and Locke, and Reuter and Runner. As mentioned above, however, other writers seem to see the aspects of gaining independence from parents, and investing attachment in peers (whether as a vehicle of establishing indepen- dence, or by default of the parents' diminished importance or relevance), as essentially part of the same process, including: Coleman, Cavan, Britton, Sherif and Sherif, Parsons, Parsons and Bales, and Douvan and Adelson. The relevance of peer group attachments to waning parental dependency is the issue taken up in this research. The focus of this research is to investigate empirically the relationship between parental dependency and the adolescent' s peer 7Ernest Groves and Gladys Groves, The Contemporary American Family (Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1947), p. 276. group attachment, in considering if these processes are independent or if they are dependently related one with another. It should be made clear at the outset that ”dependence" and "independence" are concepts which are broad, vague and without specific content. Rather than being referents for something particular and specific, "independency" and "dependency” represent rather loosely conceived modes of orientation. The operationalization of "dependency" and "peer group attachment, " as discussed in more detail below, are not by any means exhaustive or completely definitive of their referents, but are hopefully suggestive of the flavor of the "mode of orientation" each is intended to reflect. The generalized null hypothesis is: There is no significant relationship between parental dependence and peer group attachment. As will be seen in the operationalization of the concepts, there are two essentially different aspects of parental dependency and several different aspects of peer group attachment used in the research, giving rise to several specific possibilities for relationship between parental dependency and peer group attachment. Each of these specific possibilities will be examined in light of the relationship between parental dependency and peer group attachment. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Controls The entire analysis will be controlled by sex as suggested by various theoretical and empirical work. Cavan notes: The differential training of boys and girls encourages boys to become emancipated from their parents and permits them to have privacy in personal affairs whereas girls are kept under the protective dominance of the parents. 9 . 10 . . Komarovsky, and Winch, among others, report emp1r1cal sup- port for the idea that female adolescents are less parentally inde- pendent than males. (The line of reasoning implied in these accounts is that females are given less behavioral independence, therefore they will have less emotional independence than males. Why there are differences in behavioral independence is not made explicit.) The Behavioral and Emotional Dependency Index scores were controlled by size of home town, in an attempt to discover if 8Ruth Cavan, The American Family (New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Co., 1953), p. 426. Myra Komarovsky, "Functional Analysis of Sex Roles, " American Sociological Review, 1950, pp. 508—516. 10Robert F. Winch, ”Courtship in College Women, " Ameri- can Journal of Sociology, November, 1949, pp. 269—278. the size of the home town in which the respondent was raised had any systematic effect on his parental dependency as here operation- alized. No such effects were apparent. The Sample This research is a secondary analysis of data collected in a study of kinship patterns and terminology in American families. The initial research project was conceived and directed by Dr. Philip M. Marcus of the Department of Sociology at Michi- gan State University. The interviewers were graduate students in a course on Modern American Society. The sample is a random sample of 273 Michigan State University freshmen in 1966. The following chart compares the sample parameters with the population parameters as published in the Michigan State University Enrollment Report, Fall, 1966. M. S. U. Freshmen, 1966 Sample 7496 Total 273 3834 (51.1%) Males 152 (55. 6%) 1654 (22.0%) Major-~No Preference 65 (23. 8%) 6153 (83. 0%) In-State Students 235 (86.0%) It is relevant to note that college students in general may under-represent the independence end of the dependent-independent continuum for young people, because of the fact of their continued financial, and sometimes emotional, dependence on parents while in college, as compared with non-college youth who are more often beginning to establish their own independent households and families. Operationalization of Concepts This research will deal with two different kinds of depen- dence on parents, and with two different categories of peer group affiliation. Parsons and Bales suggest parental dependency as falling into the categories of "emotional dependence" and "economic dependence. "11 Douvan and Adelson speak of parental dependency in three categories: "emotional, behavioral, and value" dependency. The present research retains the category of "emotional" dependency from both of the above approaches, and utilizes "behavioral" depen- dency as suggested by Douvan and Adelson, which may be closely related in conception and function with Parsons and Bales' "eco- nomic" dependency. The two categories of dependency are implemented in the present research in the form of an index of each. The questionnaire 11 Parsons and Bales, op. cit., p. 319. 12Elizabeth Douvan and Joseph Adelson, The Adolescent Experience (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), p. 130. items used in the construction of each index were divided into the two categories initially on the basis of face validity. Inter-item correlations were computed and these results, after the elimination of one item from the Behavioral Dependency Index, supported our notion of combining the items. Each of the three remaining Behav- ioral Dependency items are significantly inter-correlated, as are each of the three Emotional Dependency items, but the relationships for each separate BehavioralDependency item with each Emotional Dependency item are not uniform or significant. The Behavioral Dependency Index was constructed from these three questionnaire items: Have you been home since coming to M. S. U. ? _yes _no If yes: How many times? _ Have your parents been up to see you since you have been here? _yes _no If yes: How many times? __ Have you spoken to your parents on the phone since coming to M. S. U. ? yes no If yes: How many times? The next questionnaire item was considered for inclusion in the Behavioral Dependency Index, but elminated on the basis of inconsistent and insignificant relationship with the other three items. 10 How often have you written home since coming to M. S. U. ? times per month. In the construction of the index, the distance of M. S. U. from home was controlled for each of the above responses accord- ing to the following schedule of distance categories: Lansing, East Lansing, or Okemos Commuting distance About 45 minutes Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids, Detroit Areas 2, 2% , 2% hours from Lansing Border area, up-state and upper peninsula Out of state Other country 004103thme It would be reasonable to expect that a person could visit home, have his parents visit, and call home more frequently if his home were within commuting distance compared with 2 to 2% hours from M. S. U. , and likewise, for differences between other distance cate- gories. So in assigning index values, the median was computed for each distance category for each questionnaire item. Those re- sponses falling below the median frequency value for each distance category were given an index value of "0. " Those responses above the median frequency for that distance category were given an index value of "1. " The range for values on the three item index was from "0" to "3. " A "0" value on the Behavioral Dependency Index indicates the respondent was below the median frequency of 11 interaction with parents on all three items, compared with others in the same distance category. A Behavioral Dependency Index value of "3" indicates the respondent was above the median frequency for parental interaction on all three items compared with other per- sons from his distance category. The assumption underlying this operationalization is that relatively greater frequencies of inter- action with parents indicate greater dependence on parents, and relatively lower frequencies of interaction with parents indicate less dependence on parents. The frequency distribution for these three behavioral items is as follows: "visited home" above median 125 index value 1 below median 128 index value 0 H "parents visited you" above median 7913 index value below median 173 index value 0 H "spoke on the phone" above median 133 index value below median 120 index value 0 All respondents in distance category 1, "Lansing, East Lansing, or Okemos, " were eliminated from the behavioral index 3Since the medians were divided at the nearest integer and were computed for each separate distance category where the dis- tributions tended to cluster unevenly and immediately below the true median, the operational breaking points did not always yield a 50%- 50% distribution. The cumulated effects of this account for the lopsided distribution of frequencies ”above and below the median. " 12 because their responses were not distributed widely enough to make differentiation meaningful. In the coding of responses, any frequency greater than "9" was coded as ”9" and most of the responses from distance 1 were coded as "9. " The following gives the inter-item correlations for the Behavioral Dependency Index. TABLE 1. -- Inter-item correlations for the Behavioral Dependency Index 'y .2 "times phoned” X "times home" . 31 5. 97 "times phoned" X "parents visit" . 43 10. 13 ”times home" X "parents visit" .32 5. 35 The measure of the degree of association used is Yule' s Q, or Gamma. p< .05 ifx233.8 The Emotional Dependency Index was constructed as follows: How much do you miss being away from your parents? (check one) I miss being away from them very much I miss being away from them quite a bit I miss being away from them somewhat I miss being away from them a little bit I do not miss being away from them at all 13 The frequency distribution of responses and the assigned index values are: ”miss very much" 15 (f) = 63 "quite a bit” 48 index value = 1 "somewhat" 79 "little bit” 81 (f) = 196 "not at all" 36 index value = 0 The breaking point for allocation to categories of ”Depen- dency" and ”Independency'l does not yield a numerically equal distri— bution between the two categories. More important than numerically equal categories was the hope to isolate dependent responses in a category as nearly "pure" as possible. In the above case it would have been possible to divide the responses between the categories to yield 143 dependent responses and 116 independent responses, which is a better numerical balance than the 63 to 196 distribution as used. But this more numerically balanced distribution would have watered down the "Dependent” category by including respondents who missed their parents only ”somewhat" along with those who missed them "very much" and "quite a bit. ” The latter two responses seem to constitute a "purer" category of dependent responses and are therefore defined as the "Dependent" category for the analysis. 14 Suppose you had a chance to go to Europe next summer with either your best friend or your parents. Which would you choose? best friend parents "parents" (f) = 74 index value "best friend" (f) = 197 index value Generally speaking, how would you describe your relationship to your parents when you were a senior in high school? (check one) I was very close to them I was quite close to them I was somewhat close to them I was not very close to them I was not at all close to them "very close" (f) = 108 index value "quite" 85 "somewhat" 49 (f) = 160 ”not very" 20 index value "not at all" 6 TABLE 2. --Inter-item correlations for the Emotional Dependency Index Iy 2 x "who go to Europe with" X "miss parents” .51 14. 42 "who go to Europe with" X "close to parents" .45 11. 98 "miss parents" X "close to parents" .53 15. 5 ’y = Yule' s Q or Gamma p<.OlifX226.6 15 The foregoing table shows the association among the items in the Emotional Dependency Index. The significance of the value of the Emotional Dependency Index score parallels that of the Behavioral Dependency Index score. The higher the index score, the greater parental dependency indi- cated. An index score of "0" indicates no dependent responses; a score of "3" indicates 3 out of 3 dependent responses. As parental dependency is operationalized into two cate- gories--"Behavioral Dependency" and "Emotional Dependency"-- so peer group affiliation is operationalized into two categories corresponding with the analytically distinguishable "flow of attach- ment. " The two categories are "Perceived Popularity" and "Reported Number of Close Friends" (male and female). Perceived Popularity can be said to indicate the perceived amount of attach- ment from peer others to self. And Number of Close Friends can be thought of as indicating the flow of attachment from self to others. The Reported Number of Close Friends is an indicator of how many others the respondent attaches himself to. Popularity represents attachment by peers; Number of Friends represents attachment to peers. Because the sample divides neatly into "males" and ' and the instrument evokes both the number of close "females,' male friends and the number of close female friends, there are four possibilities for analysis: 16 number of male friends number of female friends number of opposite sex friends number of same sex friends An analysis of the relationship between "Popularity" and ”Number of Friends" is rendered ambiguous by the forms of the questions: Compared to your classmates when you were a senior in high school, how popular do you think you were with members of the opposite sex? __ very much more popular (f) = 17 __ more popular (f) = 99 _ about the same as others (f) = 118 __ less popular (f) = 30 _ very much less popular (f) = 7 About how many close male friends do you have here at M. S. U. ? How many close female friends do you have here at M. S. U. ? It is ambiguous to approach the relationship between Popularity and Number of Close Friends because each does not refer to the same immediate reference group. Popularity refers to a high school membership group; Number of Friends refers to a college membership group. Although not referring to the same immediate group, each does refer to the "peer group, " and the 17 analysis will proceed at that level of abstraction. Even if the two conceptions are not directly translatable into one another, they both 14 represent indicators of peer group integration or attachment. This objection notwithstanding, a comparison of the rela- tionships between "Popularity" X "Same Sex Friends" ”Popularity" X ”Opposite Sex Friends" "Popularity" X ”Male Friends" "Popularity" X ”Female Friends” shows "Number of Female Friends” to indicate the highest relation- ship with "Popularity, " regardleis of the sex of the respondent. y = .17;x2 = 5.91;p< .05 ifx = 5.99. ANALYSIS OF DATA Behavioral Dependengy As discussed above, the data will be controlled for sex differences because there are theoretical and empirical suggestions that males are more independent, in general, and particularly from parents, than females. TABLE 3. -- Behavioral Dependency by sex The following table indicates that there is Behavioral Males Females Total Dependency Cell Index Cell Cell Per Cent Per Cent Frequency Score Frequency Frequency Independent 0 29% 40 14% 16 56 1 32 44 37 42 86 2 26 36 34 38 74 3 13 18 15 17 35 Dependent Total 100% 138 100% 113 251 x2 = 7.99; p< .051fx2 = 7.8. 18 19 a slight tendency for greater proportions of males to obtain a "0" dependency score, but throughout the rest of the range of scores no important differences are apparent. This constitutes only very vague support for the proposition that males are more parentally independent in their behavior than females. For the bulk of the analysis it seemed sufficient, and convenient, to collapse the four Behavioral Index Scores into two categories: "Dependent" and "Independent. " Index values of zero or one, indicating zero or one dependent response out of three possible, comprise the category labeled "Independent, " and index values of two or three, representing two or three dependent re- sponses out of three possibilities, were assigned to the "Dependent" category. On this basis, the remainder of the discussion will com- pare "Dependents" and "Independents. " Popularity The form of the generalized null hypothesis appropriate here is: Ho There is no significant relationship between "Behavioral Dependence on parents" and "Perceived Popularity. " The data, as the following tables show, do not provide grounds for rejecting this null hypothesis. There is no significant 20 TABLE 4. —- Female Behavioral Dependency Index score: Popularity . Independent Dependent Total Perce1ved Cell Popular1ty Per Cent Cell Per Cent Cell Frequency Frequency Frequency Low 14% 8 1 1% 6 14 Average 40 23 47 25 48 High 46 2 6 42 22 48 Total 1 00% 57 100% 5 3 1 10 ’yz-,03; x2 = .055; p < .05 ifx2 = 5.9. TABLE 5. -- Male Behavioral Dependency Index score: Popularity . Independent Dependent Total Perce1ved Cell Popularity Per Cent Cell Per Cent Cell Frequency Frequency Frequency Low 1 8% 1 5 1 2% 6 2 1 Average 35 29 47 24 53 High 46 3 8 4 1 2 1 5 9 Total 100% 82 100% 5 1 1 33 'y = .03; x2 = 2.16; p<.051fx2 ; 5.99. 21 relationship between "Behavioral Dependency" and "Perceived Popularity" for either males or females. Number of Close Friends The following table summarizes the various relationships between Behavioral Dependency and Number of Close Friends. The total sample median for the number of same sex friends was between four and five for both males and females. That is, about half of the females reported four or fewer close female friends; about half of them reported five or more close female friends. And about one- half of the males reported four or fewer close male friends; about half reported five or more close male friends. The total sample median for the number of opposite sex friends was between two and three. Half the females reported two or fewer close male friends; half reported three or more close male friends. Half the males reported two or fewer close female friends; half reported three or more close female friends. The median figures used in the table represent the values for the entire sample as a whole; when the total sample is broken down into the groups below, and divided according to the total sample medians, there may be some irregular departures from 50%-50% distributions above and below the median. ' Reading the top row of the table it is evident that 51% of Behaviorally Independent males report five or more close male 22 m.m u wwwmo.vm m . . quoflm 3.35m 6.52 .5 m 5 mm mm 3‘ pm mm. mme2 . . £5ow 6E2 952 .5 m Nb m2 3 mm wm Hm mmamaom . . mucoflm ofimfiom 6.52 .5 m rm 3 Hm mm mm 3. mofimfiom . . mncmflm 652 0.52 .5 m E 2 2.. 0.3... we $3 $32 hocosdonm no .5 mocmsvmnh so .5 :5 s. o a :mo 5 o m mcamtm Ho 32892 m \A. 92252 ofi can» mv.52 aaopnoaom 259:5va mpdoflm 9520 20 nonfisz 5.55 x22: monopcoaom Hanogmnom .. .m amxfi. 23 friends (49% Behaviorally Independent males report four or fewer close male friends), and 57% of Behaviorally Dependent males report five or more close male friends (43% of Behaviorally Depen- dent males report four or fewer close male friends). Thus there is a small tendency for higher numbers of close male friends to be associated with Behaviorally Dependent males (3’ = . 13). In other words, males who are Behaviorally Dependent on their parents tend to report greater numbers of close male friends. Continuing to read the table in this manner, it follows that dependent males also tend to report more close female friends than independent males. Depen- dent females also report greater numbers of close female and male friends. Throughout the entire table there is evidenced a very mild but consistently positive relationship between parental dependence and higher numbers of close friends. The particular null hypothesis is: Ho2 There is no significant relationship between Behavioral Dependence and reported Numbers of Close Friends. There is not sufficient evidence to reject this null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance, although there is some small and tentative evidence of a relationship between Parental Dependency and Number of Close Friends. The direction of this relationship, however, would not support the idea that peer group attachment is 24 a substitute for declining dependence on parents. The most parentally dependent, in terms of behavior, indicate the greatest peer group attachment as well. Emotional Dependency The next topic to be explored is the effect of emotional parental dependency on peer group integration. In a similar fashion to Behavioral Dependency, there are only barely discernable differences for Emotional Dependency between TABLE 7. -- Emotional Dependency by sex Emotional Males Females Total Dependency Cell Index Cell Cell Per Cent Per Cent Frequency Score Frequency Frequency Independent 0 43% 57 40% 44 1 01 1 34 46 30 33 7 9 2 17 22 2 0 22 44 3 6 8 1 1 12 2 0 Dependent Total 100% 133 100% 1 1 1 244 2 2 x = 2.63; p<.05ifx = 7.8. 25 males and females. Here we see continued extremely minute, but consistent, tendencies for males to outweigh females at the lower end of the Emotional Dependency values, and, conversely, for females to outweigh males at the higher dependency values. These relationships are by no means statistically significant and hardly constitute support for the notion that males are more independent than females from parents at this stage in adolescent life. Collapsing the Emotional Dependency Index scores into two categories, "Independent" and ”Dependent, " follows the same pro- cedure as with Behavioral Dependency. Index values of "0" and "1" were treated as the Emotionally Independent group, and index values of "2" and ”3" comprise the Emotionally Dependent group. Popularity The following two tables indicate the relationship between Emotional Dependency and Perceived Popularity for females (Table 8) and males (Table 9). For females the measure of association (gamma) between Emotional Dependency and Popularity has a value of —. 36, indicating a moderate relationship between Dependency on parents and a female' 8 Perceived Popularity. In other words, females who reported greater Emotional Dependency on parents perceived themselves to be somewhat less popular, compared with females who reported Emotional Indepen- dence from parents. This association is not statistically significant. 26 TABLE 8. -- Female Emotional Dependency Index score: Popularity . Independent Dependent Total Perce1ved Cell Pop ular1ty Per Cent Cell Per Cent Cell Frequency Frequency Frequency Low 10% 8 21% 7 15 Average 40 31 50 17 48 High 49 . 38 29 10 48 Total 100% 77 100% 34 111 2 . 2 y: -.36;x =4.48;p<.051fx =5.9. TABLE 9. -- Male Emotional Dependency Index score: Popularity . Independent Dependent Total Perce1ved Cell Pop ular1ty Per Cent Cell Per Cent Cell Frequency Frequency Frequency LOW 13% 14 23% 7 21 Average 45 46 23 7 53 High 42 43 53 16 59 Total 100% 103 100% 30 133 2 . 2 'y .07;x =4.74;p<.051fx 5.9. 27 The corresponding table for males shows somewhat different results. For males the relationship between Emotional Dependency on parents and Popularity has a value of +. 07. Taken by itself this value means very little, but when compared with the value of -. 36 for females, there is some suggestion of a differential effect that Emotional Dependency has for males compared with females. Comparing the bottom two cells in the "Dependent" columns between males and females shows some indication of a different relationship between the two variables taken by each sex. Dependent Females Dependent Males Perceived Popularlty Per Cent Cell Per Cent Cell Frequency Frequency Average 50% 17 23% 7 High 29% 10 53% 16 These apparent differences are based on an extremely small number of cases, and the relationships in the larger tables are not significant, at face value, nor statistically, but perhaps there is enough relationship to warrant further investigation of a more direct and more refined nature. 28 The appropriate form of the null hypothesis is: Ho There is no significant relationship between Emotional Dependence on parents and Perceived Popularity. The data do not constitute sufficient evidence for rejecting this null hypothe sis. Number of Close Friends In the previous section where Behavioral Dependency was considered, the small positive association between dependency and peer group attachment was consistent for males and females whether peer group attachment was approached through Perceived Popularity or Reported Number of Friends. In t_hi_s section dealing with E_nr£: t_i_oga_1 Dependency there is a male-female difference, that is, for males, Dependency is associated with greater Perceived Popularity; for females, Dependency is associated with less Perceived Popu- larity. As Reported Number of Friends is considered this differ- ential association is maintained. For males, greater Emotional Dependence is associated with reports of greater Numbers of Friends; for females, greater Emotional Dependence is associated with fewer Numbers of Friends. So, Emotional Dependency for males is associated with peer group attachment, whether it is opera- tionalized through Perceived Popularity or Reported Number of 29 w.m u on.:mo.vQ N . . mungnm 626869..— 6.52 .5 m 3 3 E 5. 3 am 66262 . . mcc6whm 62.62 6.52 .5 m aw 3 A. on wv pm 662656h . . mpc6wnm 626869“ 6.52 .5 m we mo 2 mm mw. mm m6~6§6m . . 66:6Em 6262 6.52 .5 m cm. H E 2 $2 an sow. $32 moc6~56nm 1325:6632 56D .5m «:60 66% :60 :60 mpn6flm mo n6nasz m X. 56362 65 :65 6.52 566:6Q6Q «:6pG6Q6UGH mpcflnm 6630 .5 669852 ”6.566 x69: hoc6vc6a6m ”msoflofim 1.. .3 gamma. 30 Close Friends. For females, Emotional Dependency is associated with lesser peer group attachment, whether it be Perceived Popu- larity or Reported Number of Close Friends. Again, however, it is important to consider that these relationships, although consis- tent, are not large or statistically significant. Again, the data do not warrant rejection of the null hypothesis: Ho4 There is no significant relationship between "Emotional Dependence" on parents and "Reported Numbers of Close Friends. " Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency After having examined the separate effects of Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency on peer group integration, this investigation will combine the two categories of dependency and look for possible patterns of effect. As a preliminary step to this ‘ intent, the association between Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency is given in Table 11 on the following page. There is a slight, significant relationship of +. 32 between Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency. This association may have some bearing on the social psychological question of the relationship between behavior and attitudes, for Emotional Depen- dency may be indicative of an attitude of dependency on parents, 31 which may be compared with Behavioral Dependency. This question in all its ramifications, however, is beyond the scope of this under- taking. TABLE 11. -- Association between Behavioral Dependency and Emotional Dependency Emotional Dependency Behavioral Independent Dependent Tgtill Dependency e Frequency Cell Cell Per Cent Per Cent Frequency Frequency Independent 63% 1 1 9 ~ 47% _ 30 149 Dependent 37% 70 53% 34 104 Total 100% 1 89 100% 64 253 y: +.32; x2 = 5.12; p<.051fx2 = 3.8. When Emotional Dependency is combined with Behavioral Dependency, little new information is gained, and the sample is parceled out too thinly to warrant confidence in any of the findings. What evidence there is does logically seem to support the earlier findings that Dependency for males tends to mean greater Perceived Popularity; Dependency for females is associated with less Perceived Popularity. (Compare cell ”i" in Table 12 with cell "i" in Table 13; 32 o H H a H e\soo H m w. $2: 3 AV\soo H H659. m6 n mm mm 3 Hm om hoc6sv6nm E60 H6nH moc6av6pm E60 .5nH mos6566nm 56D .5m :33 a: :66 :5. :66 :m: :5 mu. 3 mm mm 3. mH mm hoc6so6nm E60 .5m mung—Hugh «:6U-H6m moc6=v6nm 560 .5nH 69365» :.H: :60 :6: :60 :P. :60 E a «.3 m. «.3 m $2 moc6sc6nm «:60 .5m moc6sv6nm E60 66m moc6a56nm 560 .5nH Bod :6: :60 :9: :60 :6: :60 thong—Gem «:6cn6a6n HG6HE6Q6Q 5695.565 .mHHanHEOnH HHMHWH \HC6HE6Q6Q $2695.59: 3266:2523 66>H66H6nH kiwi—mom ”m6Hnom6H66 “5qu m6u6pc6Q6Q quoHHoEmH E5 HmHoH>6HH6mH p6aHnEoo 6386b i .NH maHdeqH 33 mmH mH $.03 Hm #2: Nb $.22 H.659 mm m cm mH pm Hm mv moc6sv6nm E60 66m moc6sv6nm E60 66% h6s6a56nnH E60 .5nH anHH .9. :66 :n: :66 :w: :66 mm m cm mm om mm pm mos6sv6nm 56D 66% moc6sv6nm «:60 .5nH hoc6zv6nm E60 66m 696.53“. :H: :60 :6: HH6U :Ho: :60 Hm m $om A $3 2 $3 hoc6sv6nm H260 H6m hoc6sc6nm E60 .5nH hoa6sv6hm E60 H6nH 304 :6: :60 :n: :60 :6: =60 hoc6sv6nm Hc6ps6a6m HG6HE6Q6Q 566:2?ch hHHansmonH HHMWWH \HG6HE6Q6Q \HG6HE6Q6EHH \HG6UG6Q6HEH @6366 H6& hing—Eon ”m6HHow6H66 65an moc6pc6Q6Q HmcoHHoEmH paw HmHoH>6£6mH 66:3:56 362 u: .mH mHiHmH6£6m p6GHnEoU : .wH mHaHmeH 35 and cell "c" with cell "1, " and cell ”d" with cell "g" in Table 14.) Relationships consistent with the earlier findings are not surprising since this is the same data. CONC LU SIONS In terms of the initial question posed by this inquiry, the data have to be interpreted as failing to support the idea that peer group attachments are a vehicle, or otherwise part of the process, of dissolving parental dependency during adolescence. The data indicate that gaining independence from parents, and attaching one- self to the peer group, are two independent processes. On the basis of the findings, however, several kinds of possible relationships are suggested, even though none are "proved" to exist. Considering Behavioral Dependency on parents, the effects seem to be the same for male or female adolescents. Parental Independence is associated slightly more with the extremes of Popularity; Independent respondents outweigh Dependent respon- dents at both high and low Popularity categories. For the variable "Number of Close Friends, " in all cases, Parental Behavioral Dependence is associated with greater propor- tions of respondents being above the median Number of Friends. The Behavioral Dependents report above the median Number of Friends in larger proportions than the Behavioral Independents. 36 37 This might suggest that there may possibly be a "trait" of closeness to, or dependency on, others: Those who are close to, or dependent on, their families attach themselves somewhat closer to their peers; those who are more independent, or distant, from their families are less likely to attach themselves closely to their peers. While it is found that some sample members indicate depen- dency on parents to the exclusion of close peer attachments, and other sample members indicate independency from parents and close attachment to peers, there are still others who report depen- dency on parents and close peer attachments, and others who indicate independency from parents and distance from peers as well. No consistent patterns of relationship are found that would lend support to the hypothesis that peer group attachment replaces, or facilitates, the withdrawal of dependency on parents. But for Emotional Dependency the consistent pattern is not evident, rendering the trait hypothesis untenable. Emotional Depen- dency does not affect males and females identically, as is found with Behavioral Dependency. Emotional Dependency for males is asso- ciated with higher proportions reporting high Popularity (42% of Emotionally Independent males report high Popularity; 53% of Emo- tionally Dependent males report high Popularity). Emotional Depen- dency for females, however, is accompanied by a sharp drop in the proportion who report high Popularity (49% of Emotionally Independent 38 females report high Popularity; only 29% of Emotionally Dependent females report high Popularity). Emotional Dependency affects males differently than females. This male-female difference is preserved when the indicator of peer group attachment shifts from Perceived Popularity to Number of Close Friends. Dependent males report above the median Number of Male and Female Friends in greater proportion than do Indepen- dent males, which is consistent with the trait of dependency hypothe- sis. But Dependent females report above the median Number of Male and Female Friends in smaller proportions than do Independent females. For males, Emotional Dependence on, or closeness to, parents is accompanied by closeness to peers. For females, Emo- tional Dependence on, or closeness to, parents is accompanied by greater distance from peers. So this leaves the "trait" hypothesis of dependency, or closeness, as a possibility for males, but not for females. A possible explanation for this reaction from females might be that they are expected to define and execute their dependency, or inti- macy, rather narrowly, as compared to males, who are relatively more free to participate in the world more fully and divergently. Females may be expected to confine their flow of attachment more selectively, especially in anticipation of the wife and mother home- maker role, in contrast to males who may spread out their 39 attachments more widely and include not just one sphere, as the family, but many spheres simultaneously. Whereas a woman' s loyalty and devotion have integrity only if they are specifically and narrowly focused, no such restrictive clauses are attached to the integrity of a man' s loyalty and devotion. Thus we have women who are closely attached to their family or the peer group, but not to both; and men who are attached to both the family and the peer group (if they are disposed to depen- dency or close attachments) and those who are attached to neither family or peer groups (because they are not so disposed). This investigation does not find much support for the notion that males are significantly more independent from parents than females are. There is only a very slight tendency for males to be more independent from parents, and this is true for Emotional and Behavioral aspects of Dependence and Independence. So either males really are not more independent than females, as popularly believed, or the Operationalizations and measurements used in this research are not sufficiently sensitive to reflect the alleged differ- ence. What this research can claim is to have suggested that Behavioral and Emotional Dependence on parents affect adolescents in somewhat different fashions and, secondly, that males and 40 females are affected by Emotional Dependency somewhat differently. Behavioral Dependency affects males and females identically. Behavioral Dependency is associated with the extremes of Popu- larity, high and low, and is associated with reporting more than the median Number of Friends. Emotional Dependency affects males differently than females. For males, Emotional Dependency seems slightly associated with closer peer group attachments. For females, in contrast, Emotional Dependency seems to be associated with less close peer group attachments. To express the reservation that this analysis is inconclu- sive is to exaggerate the case for doubting the need for a more definitive work. At best, this effort may provide the basis for a sharper focus for research attempting to probe into the nature of parental dependency and its dissolution during adolescence. As this question is considered, researched, and analyzed, light may be shed on the larger question of intra-group dependency and independency, and its relationship with inter-group mobility. BIB LIOGRA PHY Bell, Norman, and Vogel, Ezra. The Family. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. Bell, Robert. Marriage and Family Interaction. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1967. Burgess, Ernest, and Locke, Harvey. The Family. New York: American Book Company, 1953. Cavan, Ruth. The American Family. New York: Thomas Y. Corwell Co. , 1953. Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Douvan, Elizabeth, and Adelson, Joseph. The Adolescent Experi- ence. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966. Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton & Co. , Inc. , 1962. Gottlieb, David, and Ramsey, Charles. The American Adolescent. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1964. Groves, Ernest, and Groves, Gladys. The Contemporary Ameri- can Family. Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1947. Komarovsky, Myra. "Functional Analysis of Sex Roles. " can Sociological Review, 1950, pp. 508-516. Ameri- Parsons, Talcott. "A Sociologist' s View. " Values and Ideals of American Youth. Edited by Eli Ginzberg. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961. 41 42 , and Bales, Robert. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1955. Reuter, Edward, and Runner, Jessie. The Family. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. , 1931. Rosenberg, Morris. SocietLand the Adolescent Self Imajg. Prince- ton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965. Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn. Reference Groups. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Winch, Robert F. "Courtship in College Women. " American Journal of Sociology, November, 1949, pp. 269-278. Zelditch, Morris. Sociological Statistics. New York: Henry Holt & Co. , 1959. c5 \989