I35

.3. 2 ..
.c a, 3.1:... ..

.< .§ :31.)
.5... .r

A...) t
1,:

.a .43? ...

£1

.1 5:643 ,.
3

.:. 2..
1... 5.2 .

A

.. . iv;
. 1:1

$52,?

 

.....1.....:
21):...»

1.
\I)..ai.:.x>..
(£5.11; 1.

“Hun

.unw

 

THESYS

MICHIGAN STATE U ERSITY LIBRARIES

I H H”Hill/Willllll/lllllllllllllll!

3 1293 00892 7372

ll!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
The Effects of Three Types of Childhood Maltreatment on
Young Adults' Capacities to Maintain Close Relationships

presented by

Linda Ellen Burke

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masten's degree in Esycbologx.

4,

pk...

Ma rofessor

Date July 23, 1993

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY
Michlgan State

University

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
c:\clrc\damdue.pm3vo I

THE EFFECTS OF THREE TYPES OF CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT
ON YOUNG ADULTS’ CAPACITIES TO MAINTAIN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

BY

Linda Ellen Burke

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1993

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF THREE TYPES OF CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT
ON YOUNG ADULTS’ CAPACITIES TO MAINTAIN CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS

BY
Linda Ellen Burke

Research on the effects of childhood abuse tend to
limit their investigations to the effects of a single,
narrowly defined form of abuse, and the effects examined
often include only overt and severe behavioral difficulties.
The present study examined the effects of parental
emotional, physical and sexual abuse on college students’
current romantic relationships. Attributions of both
personal and parental responsibility for abuse were
hypothesized to moderate the effects of a history of abuse
and young adults' relationships. Controlling for the
effects of parent conflict, results indicated that parental
abuse has both direct and indirect (via the moderating
effects of attributions) on young adults' current
relationships. In particular, emotional abuse emerged as
the most salient and detrimental form of abuse for this
sample. Furthermore, attributions of responsibility were
found to either buffer or exacerbate the effects of abuse
depending on the sex of the young adult, sex of the parent,

nature of the attributions, and type of abuse experienced.

 

a?! One: 920th: hocdfi-Izntn he :i7:.:-'1""I-: -¢_--:-: ':-_'- .‘ - i

‘-1

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my chairperson, Susan Frank, for
the valuable conceptual and statistical guidance she
provided throughout the course of this project. I would
also like to thank Jacqueline Lerner and Ellen Strommen for
their constructive comments and flexibility.

My gratitude also goes out to the participants of this
study, who shared the intimate, and at times painful,
details of their lives. It is my hope that their
willingness to disclose what is too often surrounded by
secrecy has helped to more clearly illuminate the nature and

implications of child abuse.

Finally, I would like to thank those friends who
provided me with neverending support, humor, and, above all,
a sense of perspective. In particular, I'm thankful to
Jeff, who was patient when I was impatient, believed in my
ability when I was discouraged, and was, simply, my best

friend throughout this entire process.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... Viii
LIST OF FIGURES............ ......... .......... ........ .. ix
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Overview.............. ............... .............. 1

Bridging the Gap: Can Past Research Answer

Present Questions? ............................ 4
Effects of Child Maltreatment ................... ... 6
Physical abuse ....................... ......... 9
Emotional abuse ........................ ....... 12
Sexual abuse .................................. 14

Comparing the Effects of Various Types of Child
Maltreatment .................................. 20
Evidence for the Effects of Child Maltreatment on

Young Adults' Capacities for Intimacy......... 25

Longterm consequences of sexual abuse ......... 25
Dating violence ..... ... ......... . ......... .... 29
Intimacy. .......................................... 31
The origins of intimacy ....................... 32
Attachment and intimacy ....................... 34

Defining intimacy for the present study....... 40

The Role of Parent Conflict ........................ 46

iv

 

 

Attributions Related to the Abuse and Abuser ....... 47
Summary: Considerations for the Present Study ...... 52
Hypotheses ......................................... 54
CHAPTER II: METHOD
Subjects and Procedures ............................ 56
Measures of Abuse .................................. 59
Measures of physical abuse.................... 61
Measures of emotional abuse................... 61
Measure of sexual abuse....................... 63
Measure of Attributions about Abuse................ 64
Measure of Marital Conflict ..... ... .......... ...... 66
Outcome Measures ................................... 67
Measures of closeness and intimacy ............ 67
Measures of conflict and conflict resolution.. 71
CHAPTER III: RESULTS
Factor Analyses of Abuse Measures.. ................ 73
Description of Final Abuse Measures ............ .... 75
Intercorrelation of Abuse Scales and
Parent Conflict ................. . ....... ...... 77
Factor Analysis of Relationship Outcome Measures... 77
Intimate relationships factor ................. 79
Angry relationships factor..... ........... .... 79
Anxious relationships factor .................. 81
Dependent versus dismissing relationships
factor .............................. 81

 

Palliative versus active conflict resolution

factor..... ...... .. ...... ........... 82

Factor Analysis of Attribution Scales .............. 82
Descriptive Analyses ............................... 82
Test of Hypotheses ................................. 85
Regression procedures ......................... 85
Effects of parent conflict ................ .... 85
Effects of parent emotional abuse..... ........ 85
Effects of parent physical abuse. ..... ........ 91
Effects of parent sexualization...... ......... 94
Direct effects of attributions ................ 98

CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION
Abuse, Parent Conflict, Attributions and
Relationship Outcomes ......................... 100

Methodological Limitations and Future

Directions .................................... 108

LIST OF REFERENCES ........ .... .......................... 112
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Assessing Environments III-Form SD ..... 123

Appendix B: Parental Acceptance-Rejection
Questionnaire ................................. 131
Appendix C: Perception of Parent/Step-Parent
Behavior ..... . ................................ 139
Appendix D: Parent Conflict Scale .................. 142
Appendix E: Romantic Relationships Questionnaire...144

Appendix F: Personality Assessment Questionnaire...145

vi

 

 

vii

 

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 11:

Table 12:

LIST OF TABLES

Analysis of Variance Contrasting Romantic and
Nonromantic Relationships on Initial Outcome
Relationship Factors .......................... 58

Childhood Abuse and Attributions Measures..... 60

Percentages of Participants Endorsing Sexual
Abuse Items ..... ...... ........................ 65

Breakdown of Questionnaires, Scales, and Scale
Reliabilities for Measures of Relationship
Outcomes ............................... ....... 68

Factor Analyses of Abuse Scales for Mothers
and Fathers ..... . .......... ... ...... . ......... 74

Percentages of Participants within Each Level
of Abuse across Abuse Type... ....... .......... 76

Intercorrelation of Abuse Scales and Parent
Conflict ..... ... .............................. 78

Factor Analysis of Outcome Variables for Young
Adults Involved in Romantic Relationships ..... 80

Factor Analyses of Attributions of
Parental Abuse ................................ 83

Group T-tests: Participant Sex and
Parental Abuse ............. .. ................. 84

Regression Analyses Predicting Relationship
Outcomes for Females and Males from Parent
Conflict, Maternal Abuse, Attributions and
Interactions between Attributions and Abuse... 86

Regression Analyses Predicting Relationship
Outcomes for Females and Males from Parent
Conflict, Paternal Abuse, Attributions, and
Interactions between Attributions and Abuse... 87

viii

 

 

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

1:

LIST OF FIGURES

Interaction between Mother Emotional Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Females.................. ........ ......... 89

Interaction between Father Emotional Abuse and
Attributions of Father Responsibility
for Females ..................... .... .......... 9O

Interaction between Father Emotional Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Males ..... ....... ........................ . 92

Interaction between Father Emotional Abuse and
Attributions of Father Responsibility
for Males ............................ . ........ 93

Interaction between Mother Physical Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Females ................................... 95

Interaction between Father Physical Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Females ........... . .......... . ............ 96

Interaction between Father Physical Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Males ..................................... 97

Interaction between Father Physical Abuse and
Attributions of Personal Responsibility
for Males ..................................... 99

ix

F -,v... -‘~

'io anoiiud 2191

Q. canot-Icoo-0...“.nl-O‘0000poIo..qo-~y-.o3$“fipfiu Inf-1

 

Ems Elm-JGA (studious?! 'x-..--H '1 ;"..'-'ri...‘-_-.'! -. -I

\- "' i I-‘ "il'ii-“t' '! ' '.: I "l

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Overview

Child maltreatment is one of the foremost problems that
our society faces today. Historically, children have been
subjected to abuse by social institutions. Fortunately,
laws such as those banning child labor, which were
implemented in the early 19005, helped to protect children
from further exploitation. However, it wasn’t until
approximately thirty years ago that society began to address
the issue of abuse that occurs within the family. Since
then, many researchers have attempted to illuminate the
multiple facets of intrafamilial child abuse. In
particular, researchers have focused on the potentially
detrimental physical as well as psychological effects of
abuse on children’s development. In addition, there is
considerable research addressing the long term effects of
child abuse (see Augustinos, 1987; Browne & Finkelhor, 1986
for reviews of the literature).

The present study focused on the effects of three types
of childhood abuse on young adults' capacities to maintain
romantic relationships. This is an empirical route that has
remained relatively untraveled. In fact, other researchers
have noted the relative scarcity of studies exploring the

association between late adolescent development and a

 

2

history of childhood abuse (Elmer, 1977). Moreover, what
research is available linking abuse to later relationship
problems has tended to focus on specific types of abuse and
relatively narrow outcomes, for example, the rate of sexual
dysfunction in adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse.
This approach neglects the multidimensionality of child
maltreatment as well as the variety of possible outcomes.

Prior findings indicate that child maltreatment can
negatively affect a child’s ability to form friendships
(Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Oates, Forrest, & Peacock, 1985)
and act in a prosocial manner with other children. It is
likely that these problems continue through adolescence and
subsequently affect the young adult's ability to develop and
maintain intimate relationships. However, the question of
just how and in what way a history of child abuse affects a
young adult's ability to form relatively long lasting and
deeply intimate relationships remains unanswered by
empirical research. Certainly, the extent to which a young
adult is successful or unsuccessful in this endeavor will
have profound implications for the nature of their
relationships later in life.

In addition to exploring the effects of child abuse on
intimacy formation, this study will examine the role of
other variables in this relationship. One of these
variables is parent conflict. This study will assess

whether parental conflict can, in part, account for negative

3
implications of abuse for young adults’ intimacy formation.
The bulk of findings presenting the negative effects of
parental conflict on the child come from studies assessing
the effects of divorce on children (Chess, Mittleman, Korn,
& Cohen, 1983; Hetherington, 1989; Kurdek & Sinclair, 1988;
Long, 1986; Wallerstein, 1985). More recent evidence,
however, suggests that it is not divorce, per se, that
results in negative effects, but rather parental conflict
(Enos & Handel, 1986; Kulka & Weingarten, 1989). In
addition, Wolf (1988) has noted that child abuse and
parental conflict very often occur within the same home.
Given this relationship between parental conflict and child
abuse, it is important to untangle the potentially unique
from the shared effects these two situations may have on the
functioning of the young adult.

Secondly, this study will address the young adult's
current attitude toward the abuse and his or her abuser.
Within the realm of social psychology, attributional
theories have addressed the issue of a victim's notion of
who is responsible for the violation (Janoff—Bulman, 1979).
In regards to the present study, the extent to which the
abuse survivor does or does not accept blame for the abuse,
(e.g., "I was responsible for my mother/father's negative
behavior toward me", etc.) and the extent to which the young
adult blames the abusive parent (e.g. "My mother/father was

to blame for his/her negative behavior toward me") may

 

4
relate to the survivor’s current functioning. It is
probable that freeing oneself from responsibility for the
abuse will buffer the effects of abuse and result in more
adaptive functioning than believing that some stable and

internal factor caused it.

Bridging the Gap: Can Past Research Answer Present
Questions?

Although past research assessing the consequences of
child abuse has added much to our understanding of its
complexity and severity, as a whole the generalizability of
these findings to the questions posed by this study are at
best limited. The literature to date is plagued by several
theoretical and methodological difficulties that point to a
need for a somewhat different and more comprehensive
approach.

First, outcome factors are usually limited to highly
specific measures of psychological and behavioral well-
being, such as depression, conduct disorder, and sexual
dysfunction. There are a few exceptions, and among these
are studies showing that abused children typically have
greater peer problems and poorer social skills than
nonabused children. These findings suggest the possibility
of later intimacy problems, but it is difficult to
extrapolate from these results to the experiences of young
adults, for whom interpersonal relationships typically are

far more complex.

 

5

Secondly, definitions of abuse tend to adhere to narrow
criteria and the preponderance of studies dealing with abuse
lean towards easily detected forms of abuse. For example,
physical abuse is usually defined as blatant physical harm,
which neglects more subtle but potentially detrimental
behavior such as locking a child in a closet as a means of
discipline. The same problem characterizes research
involving sexual abuse. Usually, sexual abuse is defined as
intercourse or obvious sexual contact between a child and
adult. However, many clinicians now recognize that less
conspicuous seductive behavior, such as continuously
watching a child undress or not respecting a growing child’s
need for privacy in the bathroom may create significant
confusion and subsequent problems in achieving developmental
tasks. Psychological abuse, such as continuous denigration,
can be damaging as well, especially to the child’s
development of self-esteem. However, this form of abuse is
more difficult to measure and fewer studies have attempted
to address its effects. A related problem is that usually
only one or at best two forms of abuse are explored within
the same study. This makes it impossible to decipher to
what extent each type of abuse uniquely contributes to
specific outcomes.

Finally, studies tend to ignore other aspects of family
or individual functioning that may be relevant but are not

directly linked to the issue of abuse. Examination of the

    

[Mfiwulm aw alidua man amt-11pm: Hulda
1o anew: a as 39301:: .=. m": hit-fr :. _ “nu-ad

;"'.'.-'I '-.--.-.'..-'-". :1 J'.‘ t '1-

II,-‘ 3

 

6

quality of the child's relationships with his or her parents
in the abuse literature is largely limited to mother-child
pairs, in which the mother is the identified abuser. Both
parents need to be included in any study examining the
effects of maltreatment, regardless of which parent is the
perpetrator. In spite of these difficulties, there is some
evidence, albeit often indirect, that various forms of
childhood maltreatment have both short and long term
negative implications for interpersonal functioning, and,
ultimately, the capacity to form intimate relationships.
The following review of the literature will help to lay an
empirical foundation for the current study.
Effects of child maltreatment

In recent years, the emergence of child abuse as a
major social concern has resulted in the rude awakening not
only that child abuse is a pervasive problem, but also that
its effects are potentially devastating to the victim both
at the time of the abuse and in later life. The extent of
the adult’s continued experience of pain as a result of
earlier abuse is extensively documented in both the
empirical literature as well as in clinical reports.
Reported effects range from poor social adjustment and low
self-esteem to high levels of alcoholism and depression
(Briere & Runtz, 1990; Finkelhor, 1984; Gil, 1988; Harter,
Alexander, & Neimeyer, 1988; Herman, 1981).

Because abuse means that a child's trust in persons

 

 

7
with whom he or she has close relationships is undermined
(Gagliano, 1987; McCarthy, 1990), it also seems likely that
another long term effect is a continued difficulty in
forming intimate relationships. Yet, the literature does
not provide information on the differential effects of
various types of maltreatment on this outcome variable.
Instead, the majority of what is known tends to fall into
one of the following categories: 1) longitudinal studies
that typically extend only to the child's eighth or ninth
year (Friedman & Morse, 1974; Pianta, Egeland, & Erickson,
1989), 2) cross sectional studies that assess the immediate
effects (such as aggressive behavior, school performance,
depression, etc.) of one or at most two types of abuse on a
clinical population of preadolescent children (Farber &
Joseph, 1985; Martin, 1976; Martin & Rodeheffer, 1980;
Reidy, 1977), or 3) information about the effects of
childhood sexual abuse on adult women's adjustment (although
there is some empirical work, much of this is provided via
clinical descriptions and case studies) (Courtois, 1988;
Gagliano, 1987; Herman, 1981).

In general, studies seeking to identify the effects of
child maltreatment do so by examining specific categories of
abuse. A common approach utilized by researchers who are
exploring the effects on a sample of children is to compare
the levels of problem behaviors exhibited by a group of

abused and a group of nonabused children. Studies of

 

 

8

interpersonal skills and deficits have focused on concrete
indicators or behavioral outcomes, such as number of friends
or teacher’s reports of how well the child gets along with
peers. For example, in a study of 37 abused children with
an average age of 8.9 years, Oates, Forrest, & Peacock
(1985) found that, in comparison to a group of 37 nonabused
children matched for age, sex, ethnic group, school and
social class, the abused group exhibited fewer interactions
with friends, lower expectations and beliefs in future
occupations, and lower self-esteem. Giblin, Starr, &
Agronow (1984) observed the interactions between mothers and
their children (ages ranging from 3-5 years) and compared
results for an abused and nonabused group. They found that
the abused children exhibited more negative affect, less
attention, and were less alert in their interactions with
the mother. The small number of subjects as well as the
fact that only mother-child interactions were observed
significantly limit the generalizability of these findings,
however. In addition, these studies failed to examine the
effects of specific types of abuse. Furthermore, Oates,
Forrest, & Peacock neglected to indicate how they
operationalized abuse in their study.

Other researchers have addressed some of these
methodological problems in their own work. In particular,
several studies have distinguished between different forms

of childhood maltreatment and the associated consequences.

 

 

 

9
The following is a review of these studies, categorized
according to the three types of abuse included in the
present study: physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual
abuse.

Physical abuse. For the present study physical abuse
was defined according to Gil’s (1970) criteria which include
"the intentional, nonaccidental use of physical force...on
the part of the parent or other caretaker...aimed at
hurting, injuring, or destroying the child" (p. 6). This
could include behaviors ranging from inflicting injury that
requires medical attention to constant but less intense acts
such as pushing, hitting or slapping.

In one of the earliest follow-up studies of the effects
of physical abuse, Friedman & Morse (1974) recontacted 41
children and their families 5 years after the children had
visited the University of Rochester Medical Center. At that
time, Holter & Friedman (1968) had conducted a study
involving these children, who had been judged to have
experienced physical abuse, neglect, or an accident. In
their follow-up study, Friedman & Morse questioned the
mothers about the existence of certain developmental and
behavioral problems, but no differences between the physical
abuse, neglect and accident cases were found. However, they
did find that the mother—child relationship was poorer in
the physical abuse and neglect groups than in the accident

group (as evaluated by mother-child interactions). Although

 

 

10

no behavioral differences were noted between groups, a small
sample size, lack of a comparison group, as well as
questionable classification of groups (it is unclear to what
extent children in the accident group may also have
experienced abuse) make these findings tentative at best.

Martin (1976) found that victims of physical abuse
exhibited withdrawal, learning problems in school,
psychiatric symptoms such as enuresis and hyperactivity,
opposition, hypervigilance, and compulsivity. One year
later, Martin & Beezely (1977) assessed 50 abused children
at a mean at of 4.5 years after the abuse had occurred. The
children ranged in age from 22 months to 13 years. They
replicated the findings of Martin's earlier study and also
found that a significant percentage (52%) possessed low
self-esteem, school problems (mostly related to their
destructive behavior and withdrawal), and an overall
impaired ability to play freely and uninhibitedly enjoy
themselves. Egeland, Sroufe, & Erickson (1983) found that
physically abused preschoolers were extremely distractible,
noncompliant, low in ego control, self-esteem and
creativity, and displayed more negative affect than
nonabused children. Martin & Rodeheffer (1980) also
indicate that physically abused children experience
interpersonal ambivalence, constant mobilization of defenses
in anticipation of attack, defensiveness in social contacts,

tendency to care for their parents emotionally and

 

Gain)» it-oiled4 :u m: -‘ ;-.- -'

 

11
physically, and impaired socialization skills with peers.

Similar findings have been noted by researchers
assessing the effects of physical maltreatment of
adolescents. Acting out, generalized anxiety, depression,
adolescent adjustment problems, emotional thought disorder
(defined by the authors as homicidal ideation, hypomanic
symptoms, etc.), helplessness and dependency were all
symptoms displayed by a group of 77 physically abused youth
(Farber & Joseph, 1985).

Many researchers have found that one of the primary
effects of physical abuse on children is a heightened level
of aggression and hostility (Martin, 1976; Martin &
Rodeheffer, 1980; Reidy, 1977). Reidy (1977) compared the
relative levels of aggression of three groups of children
(abused, non-abused-neglected, normal). Results of teacher
ratings of aggression, free play ratings of aggression, and
level of TAT aggressive imagery, indicated that abused
children display significantly greater degrees of aggression
than either of the other two groups. Another approach to
the understanding of the effects of physical abuse is
described in terms of the "belt theory" (Welsh 1976), an
intriguing theory linking severe parental punishment not
only to delinquency marked by high levels of aggressive
behavior, but also to the habituation of fear. According
to Welsh, children who are subjected to chronic severe

parental physical abuse become habituated to the punishment,

 

 

Infi‘loflih impact!) IMOI-ficlts .4m:\.'o":".‘!.!_ Pun-.1 ; T .. var-Lube!

' .. Harm, {:1 .n '. "' t .. -'~"

l2
and are therefore less likely to avoid engaging in deviant
behaviors, since the threat of the consequences hold little
or no weight with them.

Emotional abuse. Emotional abuse (also referred to as
psychological abuse) is probably the most heterogeneously
defined form of abuse in the existing literature, thereby
making it the most difficult form of maltreatment to
accurately identify (Garrison, 1987). The National Center
on Child Abuse and Neglect define psychological abuse as
"injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a
child as evidenced by an observable and substantial
impairment in the child's ability to function within a
normal range..." (Landau, Salus, Stiffman & Kalb, p.2).
Helfer, McKinney, & Kempe (1976) identified specific ways in
which normal developmental lines are obstructed by
psychological abuse including extreme parental put-downs,
labeling, humiliation, scapegoating, lying, unrealistic
expectations of the child, fear-inducing techniques,
inconsistency, burdening the child with excessive
responsibility and name-calling. In this study, these sorts
of parental behaviors constituted psychological abuse.

Psychological maltreatment is often referred to as the
"core issue" in child maltreatment (Garbarino & Vondra,
1987; Hart & Brassard, 1987; Hart, Germain, & Brassard,
1987). Hart and colleagues have argued that psychological

abuse is the unifying component that reaches across all

 

 

13
forms of child maltreatment and the most detrimental effects
of abuse are psychological (e.g. low self-esteem).

Unlike the majority of children who are physically
abused, children who have suffered psychological abuse,
alone, tend to express "internal" symptoms rather than more
acting out behaviors. Garbarino (1987) found that
psychologically abused children were more apt to be
anxiously attached to parents, experience fear and distrust,
and have lower levels of self-esteem than nonabused peers.
Massive repression of feelings and impaired ability to
empathize with others (Polansky, 1981), as well as increased
rates of delinquency (Polansky, 1981; Garbarino, 1987) are
also potential results of psychological abuse.

In an attempt to cast some light on the range of
psychological abuse, Egeland & Sroufe (1981) compared the
behaviors of a group of 267 children at varying intervals
between the ages of 3 months and 24 months. This study
compared children of hostile/verbally abusive mothers
(mothers who continually found fault with their children and
criticized them harshly), and children of psychologically
unavailable mothers (mothers who were unresponsive,
passively rejecting of children) to a comparison group of
non-abused children. The researchers found that children
whose mothers were categorized as hostile/verbally abusive
were anxiously attached and expressed more anger,

frustration and noncompliance than children in the control

 

 

14
group. Interestingly, children whose mothers were
psychologically unavailable were not only more anxiously
attached than the controls, but also more anxiously attached
than the group with hostile/verbally abusive mothers.
Children whose mothers were psychologically unavailable also
expressed more anger, frustration, whining and negative
behavior and less positive behavior than children in the
control group. It possible that, at least up to a point,
children encounter fewer problems when they get some
attention from their mothers, albeit negative, versus
getting little or none.

On a more abstract level, all of the findings of the
Egeland and Sroufe (1981) study suggest that abuse
undermines interpersonal functioning. Although the
psychologically abused child may be more anxious and the
physically abused child more aggressive in interactions with
others, both experience disturbed relationships with others.
This study assessed whether these disruptions in
interpersonal relationships will also be apparent later in
life.

Sexual abuse. Sexual abuse was defined for this study
using somewhat less narrow criteria than the majority of
prior studies. Most studies limit definitions of sexual
abuse to physical contact between a child and another person
at least five years older. However, if one acknowledges

that sexual abuse is at its core an abuse of power and

 

 

15
exploitation of the powerless, the foundation for a broader
definition becomes apparent. For this study, not only did
sexual abuse include any form of sexual contact between a
child and adult that exploits the power differential between
the two, but also nonphysical interactions that serve a
similar purpose. Maltz (1988) refers to this nonphysical
abuse as "emotional incest" and suggests that an expansion
of the definition include participation in child
pornography, watching or performing in sexual acts, or
engaging in provocative or explicit sexual discussions for
the stimulation of the adult. The issue of sexual abuse is
not one of merely engaging a child to participate in sexual
acts. It is an issue of exploitation of boundaries and
responsibilities for the purpose of gratifying the
perpetrator at the expense of the child’s physical and
psychological development.

For the present study, the effects of intrafamilial
sexual abuse only were examined, in large part because there
is a consensus of opinion that this is both more harmful and
more common than sexual abuse that occurs between a child
and a non-family member (Finkelhor, 1984; Herman, 1981).
Kempe & Kempe (1984) effectively summarize the difference
between the two experiences,

A single molestation by a stranger, particularly of a

nonintrusive, nonviolent kind...may cause only

transitory harm to normal children living with secure
and reassuring parents. (p.188) Incest at any age

appears to cause major difficulties...particularly in
the distortion of development of close, trusting and

 

16

dependent relationships. (p. 189)
In reference to the extent of damage that is wrought upon
the victim of childhood sexual abuse, Anna Freud (1981)
stated that "where the chances of harming a child’s normal
developmental growth are concerned, it ranks higher than
abandonment, neglect, physical maltreatment or any other
form of abuse" (p. 34). According to Freud, sexual abuse
not only subjects the child to often frightening and
inappropriate sexual experiences for which he or she is not
yet developmentally prepared, but also makes the child's
oedipal fantasy a reality. The effects of this experience
not only limit the achievement of later developmental tasks
but also "disastrously disrupts the normal sequence in his
(sic) sexual organization".

There is considerable research which assesses the
nature and effects of childhood sexual abuse. Pierce &
Pierce (1985) investigated the differences between 25 cases
of male sexual abuse, mean age 8.6, and 180 cases of female
sexual abuse, mean age 10.6. They found that the natural
father was the most common perpetrator when the victim was a
girl, whereas the most common perpetrator of boys was the
stepfather. In addition, girls were more commonly abused at
an older age (14 years) than boys (7 years).

Caffaro—Rouget, Lang, & van Santen (1989) compared the
effects of sexual abuse on a group of 240 victims with a

mean age of 8.47 and found that the closer the relation of

 

17

the perpetrator to the child, the longer the duration, and
the more severe the abuse, the more devastating the effects.
They found that abused children experience nearly three
times the amount of behavior problems than nonabused
children do. However, they also found that in 49% of the
cases of abuse, no immediate signs of maladjustment were
apparent. The obvious question that this raises is whether
the criteria for "maladjustment" used in this study are
appropriate indicators of problems for this group. Some of
the criteria used here included drug and alcohol abuse,
lying, stealing, and "behavior problems" in school. The
problem with these criteria is that they constitute a
constellation of externalizing behaviors, without any
consideration to more internalizing problems such as self-
destructive behavior and social withdrawal. In addition,
the effects of sexual abuse may not be as salient during
early childhood and may become more problematic as the Child
develops into adolescence, at which time issues associated
with sexuality move into the forefront of his or her life.

Although Caffaro-Rouget, Lang, & van Santen found few
immediate negative effects resulting from sexual abuse, the
majority of clinical and empirical data argues against this.
Intrafamilial sexual abuse, or incest, obliterates the
appropriate boundaries between parent and child. Incest is
above all a violation of trust on the part of the abusive

parent and in many cases the nonabusive, but unprotective,

18
parent as well. A child depends on the security of stable
boundaries and appropriate love and affection from parents.
Without this, the child experiences significant difficulty
achieving the developmental challenges he or she encounters.
In addition, children’s cries for help too often fall upon
deaf ears, both within their own family and within their
community. Although society has begun to recognize incest
as a real and pervasive problem, most victims are threatened
by their abusers to keep the "secret" and since the abuser
is also the parent, more often than not the child obeys. As
a result of these conditions, children who are sexually
abused struggle with a variety of distressing feelings and
difficulties.

Among the immediate effects of incest are the inability
to trust others, especially those in authority (Gagliano,
1987; Hazzard, King, & Webb, 1986; Lindberg & Distad, 1985;
Porter, Blick, & Sgroi, 1982; Sgroi, Blick, & Porter, 1982).
Gagliano (1987) suggests that this is due to the fact that
if the most important authority figure in the child victim’s
life is also his or her abuser, it becomes nearly impossible
to either respect or trust other symbols of authority.
Another primary effect is low self—esteem (Gagliano, 1987;
Oates, Forrest, & Peacock, 1985; Porter, Blick, & Sgroi,
1982). Although males are often excluded from studies of
sexual abuse on the premise that it is so much more

prevalent among females, Tong, Oates, & McDowell (1987)

 

 

 

19

found an interesting sex difference in their study. They
assessed the effects of sexual abuse on 49 children (37
females, 12 males). In comparison to a control group, the
abused children were less self-confident and had fewer
friends. In addition, girls experienced lower levels of
self-esteem than the controls but there was no significant
differences between the two groups of boys. This may have
been an artifact of the relationship to the perpetrator,
however, since girls in the study were more often abused by
a father or step-father while boys were more often abused by
strangers (and the closer the abuser is to the victim, the
more intense the effects). Researchers and therapists have
also noted that intense shame and guilt (e.g., as a result
of feeling responsible for abuse, disclosing the abuse and
"causing" a disruption in the family) (Damon, Todd,
Macfarlane, 1987; Hazzard, King, & Webb, 1986; Lindberg &
Distad, 1985), depression (Anderson, Bach, & Griffith, 1981;
Hazzard, King, & Webb, 1986), inappropriate sexual behavior
(Friedrich, Urquiza, & Beilke, 1986; Tufts, 1984), and
overwhelming anger (which tends to be repressed, but may
also be acted out in behaviors such as running away)
(Anderson, Bach, & Griffith, 1981; Hazzard, King, & Webb,
1986; Tufts, 1984) are also negative effects suffered by
victims of sexual abuse.

Although it is clear that the experience of sexual

abuse is a horrifying and damaging one for many children,

 

to alovai 1DUDI bonnsitnqxs at:.

g .n::w:fln :1 .abnsiil
Stilt-3111:1225": Dr: .19.“: --‘:::-I- I _ ' -_ - " -. 11,3

 

20
there is a major problem with the available information
concerning the effects of sexual abuse on children. The
majority of reports are derived from anecdotal and case
study data. The lack of sound empirical studies using
standardized measurement instruments and control groups
compromises the validity of the findings and greatly limits
the extent to which the conclusions can be generalized. In
addition, sexual abuse is often undefined or defined
narrowly. Many studies utilize the reports of state
agencies or hospitals, which represents a biased sample of

what are probably the most severe cases.

Comparing the Effects of Various Types of Child Maltreatment

More recently, researchers have made an effort to
distinguish between the effects of different types of abuse.
Furthermore, not only are there different types of
maltreatment, but there are a variety of possible
experiences within each type as well as multiple effects
that may result from different forms of maltreatment (Briere
& Runtz, 1988, 1990; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Powers &
Eckenrode, 1988). Therefore, in order to paint a complete
picture of an abusive experience it is necessary to broaden
the scope of what is considered abuse and assess the effects
of various types of abuse in a single study or in studies
with very similar designs. By doing so, not only does the
description more closely approach the actual experience, but

it is easier to connect specific forms of abuse with

 

 

21
specific psychological effects, such as problems associated
with forming intimate relationships during late adolescence
and young adulthood.

Egeland & Sroufe were two of the first researchers who
attempted to assess the differential effects of distinct
forms of abuse on children. In their 1981 study they
assessed the effects on child development of behaviors of
mothers who fell into one of 5 groups: physically abusive,
verbally abusive, psychologically unavailable, neglectful,
and a nonabusive control group. A total of 267 mother-child
interactions and child performances (e.g. feeding and play
situations, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall's Strange
Situation, and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development
(BSID)) were assessed from birth to 24 months. Physically
abused children were found to be anxiously attached, more
distractible, angry, and frustrated, and less persistent and

enthusiastic than nonabused children. Children whose
mothers were hostile and verbally abusive tended to be
anxiously attached, express more anger and frustration, and
be more noncompliant than nonabused children.

Interestingly, the negative effects endured by
physically and verbally abused children were, in large part,
no different than the effects experienced by children whose
mothers were only hostile and verbally abusive. The one
difference that did emerge indicated that children who were

both physically and verbally abused obtained lower

 

 

22
developmental quotients on the BSID. Children whose mothers
were psychologically unavailable (unresponsive and passively
rejecting) tended to be angry, avoidant, highly dependent,
and experienced difficulty accessing sufficient resources to
deal with environmental demands than non—abused children.
Finally, neglectful mothers were more likely to have
children who were anxiously attached, angry, frustrated,
noncompliant and displayed more negative and fewer positive
behaviors than children in the control group. Neglected
children who were not physically abused were also rated as
possessing poorer coping skills than neglected children who
were physically abused.

In a follow-up study of this same sample, Egeland,
Sroufe & Erickson (1983) determined that the negative
effects of abuse continue as the child develops. Comparing
across the same groups used in the previous study, they
found that physically abused preschool children were the
most distractible of all groups and the least enthusiastic
in teaching tasks. They were also the most noncompliant
with mothers and teachers. Children whose mothers were
rated as hostile/verbally abusive were rated as displaying
the most anger and being the most avoidant of their mothers.
Unfortunately, due to the small number of children from this
group who were attending preschool, their adjustment in
school could not be accurately assessed. Psychologically

unavailable mothers tended to have children who experienced

 

 

23

a large number of pathological behaviors in preschool (as
rated by a trained observer and a teacher/child care
worker). These children received an overall "pathology
score" that was significantly higher than any of the other
abuse groups. However, neglected children fared the most
poorly in many other ways. Their major difficulty was in
accessing problem solving resources to deal with tasks
presented to them. In comparison to the other abused
children, neglected children had the lowest levels of self-
esteem and agency in a problem solving task, the most
negative and the least positive affect, the highest levels
of dependency and the lowest levels of ego control. It
appears that the impoverished environment of the neglected
child can be potentially more devastating than the effects
of other forms of abuse. Although other forms of abuse are
painful and humiliating, they are at least interactive, and
if nothing else the child learns how to survive and protect
himself or herself against attacks. However, the neglected
child is defenseless and cannot fights against indifference
and rejection. In addition, it is possible that process of
chronic neglect, unlike other forms of abuse, is not
interspersed with periods of parental affection and support.

Briere & Runtz (1990) surveyed 277 female college
undergraduate students using measures of parental
psychological maltreatment, parental physical maltreatment,

sexual abuse, self-concept, maladaptive sexual activity, and

24
anger/aggression. They found that victims of chronic
psychological abuse had lower self-concepts than children
who were physically or sexually abused. Physical abuse, on
the other hand, was more likely to result in higher levels
of aggression than psychological or sexual abuse.
Finally, those students who indicated that they had been
sexually abused before the age of 14 by a person at least
five years older (a criteria commonly used in the literature
for defining child sexual abuse) reported higher levels of
maladaptive sexual behavior. The authors acknowledge that
psychological and physical abuse are often present together,
but nevertheless, statistical analyses revealed that they
each contribute uniquely to the effects experienced by the
victim.

Martinez-Roig, Domingo-Salvany, & Llorens-Terol (1983)
conducted a retrospective investigation of 97 children they
labeled as psychologically maltreated. They found that
parental neglect was most likely to result in impairment of
intellectual and locomotor development and emotional and
behavioral disorders. In comparison, those children who
experienced severe abuse, e.g. physical violence, parental
mental illness, and parent promiscuity, were most likely to
develop neurotic disorders. However, the researchers failed
to include a control group in their study, so it is
impossible to infer from these findings to what extent these

children are different from nonabused children matched for

25
relevant characteristics. In addition, although they
categorize the abuse by intensity, there is obvious overlap
of different forms of abuse within categories. For example,
since the severe category contains both physical violence
and promiscuous parents, it is difficult to determine how

each of these uniquely contribute to the measured effects.

Evidence for the Effects of Child Maltreatment on Young

Adults' Capacities for Intimacy

Most of the research examining the effects of child
maltreatment on adolescents and adults has had two primary
foci: the continued effects of child sexual abuse on women
and the influences of physical child abuse on later
involvement in physically abusive adult relationships.
Results from both areas indicate that childhood maltreatment

has negative consequences for later experiences of intimacy.

Longterm conseguences of sexual abuse. Several long

term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse have been noted by
both researchers and clinicians. Peters (1984) assessed 119
women from the community and found that those women who had
experienced sexual abuse involving physical contact were
more likely to have been hospitalized for depression than
nonvictims. Using multiple regression analyses, Peters
determined that sexual abuse contributed independently to
the effects. In a sample of 387 women, Bagley & Ramsey
(1985) found that women who reported a history of child

sexual abuse scored higher on two measures of depression

26
than did nonabused women. Other researchers have supported
this finding as well (Jehu, Gazan, & Klassen, 1985;
Meiselman, 1978).

Further examples of continued effects of childhood
sexual abuse include anxiety (Bagley & Ramsay, 1985; Briere,
1984; Sedney & Brooks, 1984), alcoholism/drug abuse (Briere,
1984; Jehu, Gazan, & Klassen, 1985; Herman, 1981; Peters,
1984), impaired self-esteem (Bagley & Ramsay, 1985;
Courtois, 1979; Herman, 1981; Jehu, Gazan, & Klassen, 1985),
and feelings of isolation (Briere, 1984; Courtois, 1979;
Herman, 1981).

One of the most detrimental effects adult survivors
continually report is difficulty trusting others, especially
those closest to them. Levay & Kagle (1977) reported that
women who had been sexually abused were more successful with
impersonal relationships but experienced considerable
intimacy dysfunction when relationships moved toward deeper
levels.

Christine Courtois (1988), drawing from her clinical
interactions with female survivors of childhood sexual
abuse, notes that they tend to "experience relationships as
threatening instead of gratifying" (p. 112), and often in
close relationships these women feel "trapped" and "unable
to move past a certain point (of intimate involvement)".

She also indicates that men are often simultaneously feared,

idealized, and overvalued. Jehu, Gazan, & Klassen (1985)

 

27
identified the primary psychological problems of 22 women
who had been sexually abused. Nearly 75% of the clients
indicated a fear of intimate relationships with men. As a
result, these women tended to engage in a pattern of
shorter, more superficial relationships. These results were
consistent with earlier findings (Lukianowicz, 1972;
Meiselman, 1978). Jehu and his colleagues suggest that
avoiding deep, long-term relationships arises from fears of
recreating the earlier abusive relationship as well as from
the experience of betrayal and exploitation.

Another aspect of adult intimacy that is affected by
child sexual abuse is sexual functioning. Lack of
enjoyment, avoidance of sexual activity (in most cases to
avoid intense feelings of anxiety and fear this produces),
impaired arousal and impaired orgasm are all potential
effects of early coercive sexual experiences (Herman, 1981;
Jehu, Gazan, & Klassen, 1985; Lukianowicz, 1972; Steele &
Alexander, 1981).

Although a great deal of the evidence for intimacy
dysfunction as a result of child sexual abuse is presented
in the form of clinical data and case studies, it provides
some of the most poignant, albeit difficult to replicate,
glimpses of the experience of sexual child abuse. Herman
(1981) interviewed 40 women (in their late 205, early 305)
who had experienced incestuous relationships with their

fathers and were currently receiving outpatient therapy.

 

28

She also interviewed 20 women whose fathers had clearly been
seductive towards them (e.g. exhibiting themselves to their
daughters, disclosing details of their sexual lives, etc.)
but had not engaged in any sexual contact. Through their
interviews, these women revealed their most painful memories
and the devastating consequences that they continue to
struggle with daily. Among these consequences, Herman notes
that

...the legacy if their childhood was a feeling of

having been profoundly betrayed by both parents.

As a result, they came to expect abuse and

disappointment in all intimate relationships: to be

abandoned, as they felt their mothers had abandoned

them, or to be exploited, as their fathers had

exploited them. Given these possibilities, most

women opted for exploitation. (pp. 99-100)
The terror of reexperiencing abandonment is presented here
as more threatening than becoming the exploited, humiliated
victim. This anecdotal data is consistent with research
that has revealed that neglect and parental indifference
(noted earlier in this paper) can have more problematic
implications for the developing child than other forms of
abuse. Many of the women in Herman’s study engaged in
temporary relationships and the majority of those that did
marry often experienced various forms of further abuse.
Whether married or not, most of these women reported
numerous instances of abuse in their relationships. Often

feeling as if they deserved the abuse, these women would

remain the victim, becoming more and more distrustful of

 

 

29
intimacy. Ironically, they also reported becoming
increasingly more desperate in their search for intimacy,
which Herman interprets as their search for the feeling of
specialness, albeit exploitative, they had found with their
fathers.

Until recently, it was widely believed that the
childhood sexual abuse of males was too rare to consider it
a worthwhile phenomenon to study. However, more recent
evidence suggests that male sexual abuse is more common than
previously thought. In contrast to female victims, boys
tend to be younger at the time of abuse, more likely to be
abused by a nonfamily member than girls, and more likely to
come from a low income, one parent household (see Finkelhor,
1984 for a review of the literature).

Dating violence. other evidence for the continuing
effects of child maltreatment regarding difficulty in adult
relationships comes from research involving dating violence.
These studies focus on the implications of physical rather
than sexual abuse. Makepeace’s (1981) startling finding
that 25%-30% of college dating relationships involved some
form of physical abuse provided the impetus for later
studies to explore the dynamics of this phenomenon. One
consistent finding throughout this body of research is that
individuals who become involved in abusive marriages are
likely to have previously experienced some form of dating

violence (Carlson, 1987; Breslin, Riggs, O’Leary, & Arias,

 

30
1990; Bogal-Allbritten, & Allbritten, 1985; Billingham, &
Gilbert, 1990). In addition, more recent research reveals
that college students who are physically abusive in
relationships were more likely to have experienced a past of
physical abuse than students who experienced no abuse
(Matthews, 1983; Siegelman, Berry, & Wiles, 1984; Bogal-
Allbritten & Allbritten, 1985; Riggs, O'Leary, & Breslin,
1990).

In a study of 800 undergraduate students at Rutgers
University (Aizenman & Kelly, 1988) both men and women
reported that violent behavior within their relationships
most frequently occurred during their senior year in high
school or freshman year in college. However, while there
was a significant relationship between having received
verbal and physical punishment as a child and being abused
in current romantic relationships for women, this
relationship was not significant for the men. It was
unclear whether the authors attempted to determine whether
there was a relationship between physical child abuse and
perpetrating violence in current romantic relationships for
men, however. The authors point out another problem with
the study, which is that a gender difference may have
existed in whether the same behavior is considered abusive
by males and females. They posit that women may have a
broader definition of what is abusive.

Follingstad, Rutledge, Polek, & McNeill-Hawkins (1988)

 

 

31
studied 48 female undergraduate and graduate students who
had been victims of force in dating relationships. They
found that women who experienced ongoing physical abuse were
more likely to have a history of abuse by parents than those
women who had experienced only one occasion of abuse within
a dating relationship.

Other studies have indicated that both men and women
who were physically abused as children are more likely to be
involved in abusive relationships in college. Laner &
Thompson (1982) analyzed the results from 371 college
students and found that there was a significant relationship
between current involvement in a violent relationship and a
history of childhood abuse for pppp men and women. Marshall
& Rose (1988) found that childhood abuse predicted a greater
likelihood of both expressed and received violence for men
but only predicted the receipt of violence for women. This
is interesting because these researchers, unlike many
others, found no significant difference between the reported
rates of either expressed or received violence for men or
women.

Intimacy

Clearly, aside from the gaps and methodological
problems, there is substantial evidence that maltreatment
compromises relational skills. However, in order to study
this effect in a more comprehensive and articulated manner,

we need to be clear as to what aspect of relatedness is

 

 

32
under investigation. The present study focused specifically
on one's capacity for intimacy.

For many years, theorists and researchers have
supported the position that the ability to form intimate
relationships is an important if not necessary aspect of
life. When asked his opinion on what achievements hallmark
a normal person, Freud replied "Lieben und arbeiten" ("To
love and to work") (cited in Erikson, 1968, p. 136).
Moreover, in the past ten years there has been a dramatic
surge in research dealing with the dynamics and correlates
of intimate relationships. A review conducted by Clark &
Reis (1988) identified nearly forty articles published since
1980 that explored the issue and importance of intimacy.

The origins of intimacy. Harry Stack Sullivan (cited
in Mullahy, 1952) conceptualized the formation of intimate
relationships as central to the process by which children
evolve from egocentric to social beings. Sullivan was one
of the first psychologists to emphasize the importance of
considering interpersonal relationships in a field that was
still clinging fervently to a strictly individualistic
notion of personality. Sullivan proposed that the
development of one’s personality, per se, cannot be examined
apart from the context within which the person interacts.
While it is clear that the study of intimate relationships
is both timely and of significant consequence, a serious

question arises. What i§ intimacy?

 

33

Erikson (1950, p. 263) described intimacy as "the
capacity to commit...to concrete affiliations and
partnerships and to develop the ethical strength to abide by
such commitments". According to Erickson’s developmental
theory (1950, 1968), the acquisition of intimacy instead of
isolation is the sixth of eight challenges that mark the
progression from infancy to adulthood. Put simply, how
successful a person is when he or she encounters these
challenges influences the level of psychosocial maturity she
will reach. In addition, the achievement of subsequent
levels of maturity is dependent upon the effective mastering
of prior stages. This theory is consistent with the premise
of this study, which is that negative interpersonal
interactions early in life (between parent and child) can
have a negative effect on that child’s interactions later in
life.

The theories of Erickson and Sullivan were unique
because they were among the first to both emphasize the
importance of intimacy as a psychological construct as well
as recognize the achievement of intimacy as part of a
developmental progression. However, there is relatively
little empirical evidence linking specific childhood
experiences with the ability to form intimate relationships
later in life. Orlofsky (1978) and his colleagues conducted
several studies that found that successful resolution of the

intimacy crisis was dependent upon the successful resolution

 

34
of previous crises. For example, he found that subjects who
were categorized as "isolates" (engage in the fewest and
most superficial relationships of all categories) tended to
lack a sense of basic trust, suggesting that these
individuals experienced disruption during one of the
earliest of Erickson’s stages (trust vs. mistrust). However,
by including only college males in his study, as well as
drawing some inferential conclusions from the results, he
presents findings that are somewhat limited.

Attachment and intimacy. Another source of information
regarding the formation of intimate relationships is the
literature dealing with attachment in childhood (for an
overview of attachment theory see Bretherton, 1985; Hazan &
Shaver, 1987; Weiss, 1982).

The foremost figure in the area of childhood attachment
is John Bowlby (1969, 1977). Bowlby (1977) defines
attachment as "any form of behavior that results in a person
attaining or retaining proximity to some other
differentiated and preferred individual, who is usually
conceived as stronger and/or wiser" (p. 203). He argues for
both the continuity and increasing complexity of attachment
styles throughout the life course. For example, Bowlby
asserts that, among other things, attachment is comprised of
the following components: duration, early attachments
usually endure throughout life, while those established

later on are subject to greater variation; engagement of

 

 

35
emotion, many of the most intense emotions involve the
formation, maintenance, and disruption (e.g., loss) of
attachment relationships and therefore, the pathology of
emotion can often be traced back to attachment
relationships; learning, regardless of continuous parental
punishment, attachment to that parent can still occur; and
organization, as the child becomes more sophisticated (e.g.
begins incorporating representational models of self and
environment), different patterns of attachment behavior are
established (e.g. if the attachment figure is present or the
child aware of her whereabouts, attachment behavior ceases
and the child begins to explore his or her environment).
When the caregiver is present, the child experiences
security and comfort, and when separated, the child
experiences distress. Bowlby conceptualized the adequate
fulfillment of the attachment figure role as the parent’s
ability to be responsive and available to the child and to
protect the child from dangerous situations (Bowlby, 1977).
The outcome of this is a successful affectional bond between
parent and child, allowing the child to explore her world
while maintaining a secure base with the parent. However,
if these roles are not adequately filled by the parents,
then Bowlby suggests that not only immediate problems may
arise, but also that negative consequences could result in
later life if early attachments are dysfunctional.

In particular, Bowlby delineated patterns of parental

36
behavior resulting in different problematic attachments.
For example, if the parent is unresponsive to the child’s
needs, disparaging, and rejecting, the child may grow up
constantly fearing the loss of the attachment figure. The
fear of establishing attachment relationships would be a
possible, if not probable, outcome of this type of prior
attachment experience.

Based on Bowlby's assertions, Ainsworth and her
colleagues conducted some of the earliest research to
investigate the attachment process in infants (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). They conducted a
longitudinal study to determine the nature and stability of
these behaviors in a group of infants. To investigate this
process, they developed a method, known as the Strange
Situation Task, that involved observing a child’s behavior
over two temporary separations and reunions with the mother,
during which time either the child is alone or a stranger is
present in the room with the child. Several of the child’s
behaviors were tracked, including smiling, crying,
exploratory behavior, attitude towards mother upon the
mother's return (e.g., avoidant, proximity seeking,
resistant), and interaction with the stranger. According to
the constellation of behaviors observed during the task, the
child’s attachment style was assigned one of three labels:
secure (e.g., seeks proximity with mother, little tendency

to resist interaction with mother, more interested in

 

37

interaction with mother than with stranger),
anxious/ambivalent (e.g., gives the impression of both
seeking and resisting contact, may appear more angry or
passive than other infants), or avoidant (e.g., avoids
mother at reunion, little tendency to seek proximity, little
distress during separation/distress due to being left alone
versus mother's absence). Results of the longitudinal data
indicated that, among many other things, mother-child
attachment behaviors remained relatively stable over time.

Intuitively, Bowlby's assertion that there is a strong
causal relationship between one’s early experiences and
later relationship styles makes sense. Typically, a child’s
first relational experience occurs with his or her parents.
Children learn how to trust, share, and form connections
with others through experiencing these qualities within
their own families (Erikson, 1968). It follows, then, that
a child who is not provided with exemplars of nurturance and
intimacy as a child would find the task of forming intimate
relationships in the future difficult if not impossible.

Cindy Hazan and Philip Shaver (1987) made one of the
most thorough attempts to demonstrate the importance and
applicability of attachment styles as developed for infants
and children to be applicable to adult romantic
relationships as well. Working from the assumption that the
attachment styles described by Ainsworth and her colleagues

(1978) are applicable to adults' experiences of romantic

 

38
love, Hazan and Shaver conducted two studies to test the
following hypotheses: 1) much as in infancy, 60% of the
adult respondents would classify themselves as "secure" in
their attachments with romantic partners, 20% as
"anxious/ambivalent", and 20% as "avoidant", 2) the
attachment style of the respondent will correspond to a
certain pattern of characteristics (e.g., the "avoidant"
adult will indicate fears of closeness and a lack of trust),
3) adults' perceptions of self and environment will also
correspond to their attachment style (e.g., "avoidant"
adults will be skeptical about the existence of romantic
love), 4) retrospective reports of attachment relationships
with parents will correspond to current attachment styles,
and 5) "avoidant" and "anxious/ambivalent" adults should be
especially vulnerable to loneliness. They adapted the
behavioral observations of Ainsworth into a questionnaire
format that helped identify the respondents as one of the
three attachment types.

The findings of both studies (the second study being a
replication of the first) partially supported each of the
five hypotheses, with the exception of the fourth
hypothesis. In the second study, the distinctions between
the three styles was not clearly related to retrospective
reports of parent-child relationships. The authors

attribute this inconsistency to the younger age and higher

degree of defensiveness of the avoidant subjects. However,

 

39
longitudinal data is the only truly accurate manner in which
to assess the link between childhood and adult attachments
and the cross-sectional nature of this study carries with it
a number of confounding influences. In particular, it is
likely that the subjects’ recall of their past attachment
relationships with their parents was confounded by their
current attachment style.

Furthermore, these findings raise some serious
questions in regards to whether it is truly legitimate to
assume that a model of attachment that was developed within
the context of parent—infant interactions can be transferred
to complex adult-adult interactions. Hazan and Shaver admit
that two important points must be dealt with in future
research. First, while parent-child interactions tend to
reflect a "one way street", adult-adult interactions in a
romantic relationship tend to be more reciprocal (e.g.,
partners periodically switch roles as care provider, anxious
security-seeker, etc.). Secondly, their analysis ignores
sexual attraction, an important component of any adult
romantic relationship. In addition, one should realize that
intimacy is not limited to romantic relationships and it
seems important to include information concerning both
romantic, sexual relationships and non-sexual, close
friendships as well. In their analysis of several romantic
relationship questionnaires, Hendrick and Hendrick (1989)

note that while Hazan and Shaver capture the "closeness"

 

 

40
component of love, they omit both passion and communication.
They acknowledge the likelihood that "the attachment styles
are the building blocks of interpersonal relationships" but
go on to add that "future research on attachment and love
will probably need to use multiple measures to better

capture the complexity of adult life" (p. 792).

Defining intimacy for the present study. Although

intimacy is often defined in qualitatively different
manners, a common thread throughout the majority of the
literature suggests that a sense of mutuality,
connectedness, proximity, deep levels of sharing, and trust
are all aspects of intimate relationships (Bersheid, 1983;
Erikson, 1968; Dahms, 1972; Sternberg, 1986).

For the present study, intimacy was conceptualized
within a two part framework consisting of closeness and
intimacy, and conflict and conflict resolution within the
relationship.

Closeness and intimacy address relationship intimacy at
an emotionally deep level by including the amount of
respect, self-disclosure, affection, physical passion,
commitment, reciprocity, security, and trust that the
respondent associates with their most intimate
relationships.

Zick Rubin (1970; 1973) identified two fundamental
aspects of liking: affection, which implies warmth and

closeness, and respect, which implies a somewhat more

 

41
emotionally distant component of liking. He also indicates
that self-disclosure, which is actually one form of trust,
is a marker of relational growth and forward movement.
Self-disclosure involves considerable risk, since it is the
true self one is revealing and this inevitably invites the
possibility of rejection. Therefore, it is understandable
that the closer two people become emotionally, the more
trust they establish and the more they self-disclose. It is
important to note, as Rubin does, that mutual self-
disclosure is the key here. Most people could probably call
to mind a person who offers all types of self-disclosive
information but is not necessarily considered an intimate,
in part because he or she does not invite the other to do
the same.

Hazan & Shaver’s (1987) attachment styles also describe
interpersonal aspects of intimacy, but their paradigm
focuses specifically on the issues of trust and security.
They determined that the three infant attachment styles
noted by Ainsworth (1978) (secure, avoidant,
anxious/ambivalent) were also useful for describing adult
relationships. For example, they found that fear of
intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy are
characteristic of persons who consider themselves to possess
an avoidant attachment style with others.

Bartholomew (1990) argued that Hazan and Shaver's

descriptions were too narrow to adequately explain more

 

 

42
complex adult relationships. Based on a framework of
positive and negative views of self and other, Bartholomew
adapted and expanded Hazan and Shaver’s measure to include
four different styles of adult attachment. She suggests
that a person who has a positive view of self but a negative
view of others may adopt a "dismissing" style (i.e. enjoys
being independent and is comfortable without close
relationships), whereas a person who holds a negative view
of self but a positive view of other tends to adopt more
anxious styles. In addition, she goes on to note that
secure attachments are developed by those people who hold
positive views of self and other, and those who experience
both themselves and others as negative tend to form fearful
attachments.

The "triangular theory of love" (Sternberg, 1986)
provides yet another useful way of conceptualizing and
measuring deeply intimate relationships. Sternberg posits
that love is composed of "three components that together can
be viewed as forming the vertices of a triangle" (p. 119).
The three ingredients to this framework are intimacy,
passion, and decision/commitment. Similar to Rubin’s
conceptualizations, Sternberg argues that intimacy
encompasses several elements, including a desire to promote
the welfare of the loved one, mutual understanding of the
loved one, and giving emotional support to the loved one.

Two unique aspects of Sternberg's love triangle includes the

 

43
more romantic and sexual phenomena of certain relationships
and the decision/commitment component, which refers to the
individual’s decision to remain in the relationship,
potentially for a long period of time.

Finally, Ronald Rohner’s (1986) Parental Acceptance-
Rejection Theory also provides a useful paradigm for
examining current relationships between intimate peers.
Rohner contends that one can characterize close
relationships according to the components of a "warmth
dimension". This dimension consists of a continuum with
acceptance at one end and rejection at the other. Put
simply, depending on the amount of acceptance and rejection
an individual experiences within a relationship with a
significant other (in particular, Rohner notes the role of
the parent), certain ways of relating to others may develop.
For example, in a sample of 764 children between the ages of
7 and 11, Rohner found that those children whose parents
provided them with warmth and affection were significantly
more likely to deal with others in an "emotionally
responsive" manner (e.g., expressing feelings to significant
others with ease), whereas children whose parents interact
with them in a hostile or indifferent manner tend to be more
emotionally unresponsive in their interactions with others.
In addition to emotional unresponsiveness, Rohner describes
another characteristic of interpersonal style, dependency

(e.g., wanting to be provided with lots of attention, being

 

 

44
made a fuss over, relying on others to solve problems,
etc.). Although Rohner created this paradigm within the
context of parent-child relationships and children’s
interpersonal styles, he points out that the warmth-
rejection experience and the associated styles of relating
can occur throughout an individual’s development and within
many relationships. Therefore, for the present study,
Rohner’s criteria for dependence and emotional
unresponsiveness was used to assess interpersonal aspects of
late adolescents’ intimate relationships.

Conflict and conflict resolution are the final elements
of intimate relationships that will be assessed here. Both
the amount and nature of conflict within a relationship can
be an indicator of intimacy. The way in which an individual
deals with conflict, possibly even more important than
either of these, is also considered.

Two researchers that have addressed this area and
provided a measures of conflict resolution are Murray Straus
and Caryl Rusbult. Straus (1979) asserted that it was
important to differentiate between level of conflict within
a family and the way in which it is managed, the latter
being an strong indicator of whether relationship outcomes
are positive or negative. To measure the management style
within families, Straus developed the Conflict Tactics
Scale. He proposed that strategies people use can be broken

down into three categories: the use of rational discussion,

 

 

45

the use of verbal and nonverbal threats, and the use of
physical force against another person.

Following similar lines of reasoning, Rusbult, Johnson,
& Morrow (1983) developed a measure of problem solving
patterns in couples. Rusbult and her colleagues developed
four problem solving responses: exit (separating, moving
out, physical abuse of partner, divorce), voice (discussion
problems, compromising, seeking help, etc.), loyalty
(passively waiting for the situation to improve), and
neglect (refusing to discuss problems, ignoring partner,
criticizing partner, letting things fall apart). They
further designate these four responses along two dimensions:
passive (neglect and loyalty)/active (exit and voice) and
destructive (exit and neglect)/constructive (voice and
loyalty). One problem with this arrangement is that
loyalty, while it may not necessarily be destructive, and,
may in fact help to extend the duration of the relationship,
may do so at the expense of other aspects of intimacy, such
as respect. In a study comparing the responses of
distressed and nondistressed couples, Rusbult and her
colleagues found that distressed couples tended to engage in
more destructive responses; however, only a very small
effect was found between couple functioning and rate of
constructive responding. Therefore, destructive patterns
have more of an effect than constructive patterns on the

functioning of couples.

 

 

46
In sum, the present study defined both experiences of

childhood abuse and current experiences of intimacy in a
multidimensional fashion and attempted to demonstrate the
links between the two. In addition, this study examined two
other variables that may play a role in the abuse/intimacy
relationship.
The Role of Parent Conflict

The negative effects of growing up in a family
experiencing divorce and/or high levels of parental conflict
have been explored by a number of researchers. Although the
findings relating divorce to negative outcomes for children
are mixed, most researchers agree that it is not divorce,
per se, that threatens the happiness of the child, but
rather the existence and intensity of parental conflict.
Enos & Handel (1986), surveying a sample of high school
students, found that high levels of parental conflict
resulted in poor adolescent adjustment, regardless of
parental marital status. In another study, Kulka &
Weingarten (1979) posit that the outcome for children whose
parents experience significant conflict may be more
detrimental the longer the parents remain together. Some of
the effects of living in a home with parent conflict include
lower self-esteem (Long, 1986) poor adjustment and
adaptation (Chess, Mittleman, Korn, & Cohen, 1983; Kurdek &
Sinclair, 1988) difficulties adjusting to the demands of

growing up, one of which is forming intimate relationships

 

47
with other individuals. In addition, Wolf (1988) among
others notes the powerful association between the occurrence
of abuse and the presence of marital conflict. Therefore, a
question arises concerning whether the problems that the
children who are exposed to both forms of family distress
can be attributed to the effects of abuse alone.

A hypothesis that was tested in the present study was
that parent conflict accounts for some, but not all, of the
association between childhood abuse and intimacy problems.
While it is clear that it is detrimental for children to be
exposed to continual parental conflict, it is likely that
the experience of abuse is even more devastating. While
some children may seek refuge to avoid witnessing their
parents battles, the abused child is the target, and escape
can often be impossible. Because the experience of abuse is
more direct ("ypp are worthless", "I wish ypp had never been
born") than that of parental conflict, it’s effects are
possibly more pronounced and more longstanding.

Attributions Related to the Abuse and Abuser

A second set of variables that may moderate the
association between abuse and later difficulties with
intimacy are the late adolescent’s attributions about the
abuse. Attributional theories are derived from the social
psychology literature. Heider (1949, 1958) indicated that
people have a need to predict and control their

environments. One way this can be accomplished is by

 

 

48
creating reasons for others’ behavior. Two central
constructs within this theoretical framework are locus of
causality and perception of responsibility. Locus of
causality refers to the extent to which the observer
perceives the cause of the behavior as originating either
within or outside of the person. Heider also distinguished
between varying levels of perceived responsibility for
behavior. For example, a person may have performed an
action but neither intended for it to happen nor foresaw the
consequences. This person would likely be perceived as less
accountable for a behavior than if he intended to do it and
was aware of the possible consequences.

Bringing these two components of Heider’s theory
together, consider the following: you witness a motorist run
a red light and hit a pedestrian. You may make an
attribution of his behavior that is either internal (he is a
careless and despicable person) or external (his brakes
malfunctioned and he was unable to stop). Furthermore, the
extent to which you perceive him as accountable for his
actions will depend on whether his behavior was intentional
(whether or not he wanted to hit the pedestrian) and the
consequences were foreseeable (e.g., he knew his brakes
needed repair and there was a possibility of his getting
into an accident).

Another aspect of attribution, not discussed explicitly

by Heider, is self-blame. Shaver and Drown (1986) indicated

 

49
the importance of distinguishing between causality and
responsibility in attribution research. They define the
cause of an event as "that antecedent, or subset of
antecedents, that is sufficient for the occurrence of the
effect...(cause is) an entity possessing an independent
existence" (p. 701). Responsibility, on the other hand, is
"a judgment made about a stimulus person by a perceiver who
takes several different dimensions into account" (p. 701),
such as intent to bring about the event. Shaver and Drown
also suggest that attributing responsibility to oneself for
"poor character or faulty judgment" (p. 701) would be likely
to lead to present as well as future difficulties. This is
especially pertinent for victims of assault. The responses
to questions such as: Did I do something to cause my attack?
Did I fail to do something to avoid it? can potentially
affect the level of self-deprecation an individual
experiences as well as the individual’s subsequent
adjustment to the attack.

Following this line of reasoning, a young adult’s
attributions about the cause, and degree of other and self-
responsibility for an abuse experience during childhood may
serve as a strong indicator of their current adjustment.
Although no research has addressed this question directly,
several studies have explored the nature and effects of
developing certain attributions in cases of domestic

violence and sexual assault. Cohn and Sugarman (1980)

 

50

examined the responses of 72 men and women who were given
vignettes describing instances of either physical or sexual
wife abuse and then asked to make attributions of
responsibility of both offender and victim. Results
indicated that women held women more responsible for sexual
abuse than physical abuse, while men held women equally
responsible for both physical and sexual abuse. The authors
propose that women may continue to subscribe to the old myth
that women aren’t raped unless they want it, while men
generalize this to include physical assault as well. In
regards to responsibility of the offender, both men and
women hold the offender more responsible for sexual than
physical abuse, possibly due to the perceived planful nature
of the sexual assault. The major problem with this study is
that it involves observers of and not participants in
abusive situations. While it is possible that societal
attitudes reflected by an observer may be related to those
held by either a victim or an offender, this inference is
not conclusive. In addition, the effects of making certain
attributions as opposed to others remains to be determined.

Research that directly assesses the attributions of
victims suggests that victims may be better able to cope
when they attribute the blame for the act to themselves
(Lerner, 1980; Wortman, 1976). The explanation for this
outcome is that attributing blame for victimization to

oneself increases the amount of control one perceives both

 

51
for the event itself as well as for future events (e.g.,
since I am to blame, I can control whether this happens to
me again or not). However, two points must be considered
here in terms of the generalizability of these findings to
the case of the young adult abused as a child: 1) the
distinction between single and continuous occurrences of
assault, and 2) the nature of the relationship between
victim and assailant. Miller and Porter (1983) make the
distinction between single assaults and ongoing abusive
behavior. They suggest that women who are victims of
ongoing physical abuse by their husbands are "comforted by
any information that suggests that the cause of her
partner’s violence resides within him" (p. 144). The
distinction here is that women who are victims of rape in a
single instance are more concerned with why they, instead of
other women, were attacked, while the abused wife is
probably less concerned with this issue than the cause of
the violence itself.

Extending this distinction to the case of the adult
victim of child abuse, the young adult is probably less
likely to wonder why their parents abused them instead of
other children in the neighborhood (although in some cases
the parents may have been abusive to one child, while
leaving siblings alone). It is probably more important for
the young adult to consider why the parent was abusive in

the first place. In addition, the assumption that the

 

52

victim makes attributions of self-blame in order to gain
control over the situation is not as clearly relevant in the
case of child abuse. The child depends on the parent to be
in control and provide a safe and secure environment for the
child. Although the abusive parent clearly fails in
providing a safe and secure environment, does the child
therefore seek to assume control by blaming themselves for
the abuse? Or does attributing self-blame for the abuse only
perpetuate feelings of self—loathing and badness that have
been instilled by the parent? It is the latter that seems
more consistent with the literature dealing with the
negative effects of child abuse and the related variables.
Summary: Considerations for the Present Study

In conclusion, the central focus of this study dealt
with the differential effects of various types of child
abuse on young adults’ abilities to form intimate
relationships in college. Specifically, this study examined
the unique and combined effects of childhood physical,
emotional and sexual abuse on their current relationships.
For example, does the adult who was physically abused as a
child experience anger and violence in current
relationships? Does the young adult who was the victim of
constant parental denigration experience a different pattern
of difficulties, for example, does he or she have difficulty
self-disclosing and trusting others?

It is probable that in certain cases, barriers to

 

 

53
intimacy are practical. A woman who becomes involved with
abusive partners and has been threatened with harm by her
partner is probably wary of what she says and does, but does
this as much as for her own survival as because she has
learned to behave in this way due to a childhood marred by
abuse experiences. However, in another case, an individual
may be fearful of even entering into a relationship because
of a fear of losing individuality. In both cases, the way
in which people approach and maintain relationships often
can be traced back to the way in which their parents related
to them. I am not proposing that every person who has fears
of becoming intimate was abused; nor is true that all those
who have been abused fear intimacy. However, I do consider
that in those relationships that are most problematic (e.g.
physically abusive, insecure, angry) there is a greater
likelihood that one or both partners have experienced some
level of childhood abuse.

Child abuse in this study was defined fairly broadly in
an attempt to include and validate the effects of a wide
range of abusive behaviors. By assessing a broad spectrum
of abusive experiences, this study aims at avoiding the
stereotypic label of abuse as that which is necessarily
extreme. Although I expected to verify the devastating
effects of more extreme levels of abuse, I anticipated that
including a wide range of experiences would reveal that even

the less extreme forms of child abuse can have significant

 

54
negative consequences for a person’s ability to form and
maintain intimate relationships.

The present study assessed aspects of physical, sexual
and emotional abuse in the childhoods of college students
between the ages of 17 and 25.

In addition to assessing the effects of abuse on
current relationships, this study explored the potential
effects of parental conflict on young adults’ capacity for
forming intimate relationships. Finally, for those students
reporting a history of abuse, the potential moderating
effects of attributions about personal versus parental
responsibility for the abuse were assessed.

Hypotheses

1. Young adults who report that they experienced parental
emotional abuse will tend to describe their current
relationships as more anxious, more angry, less intimate,
more emotionally dismissing, and will tend to engage in
passive, rather than active, conflict resolution strategies
than young adults who experienced other forms of
maltreatment or no abuse.

2. Young adults who experienced a history of parental
physical abuse will report involvement in current
relationships that are more angry and more emotionally
dismissing than those relationships of young adults who
experienced other forms of maltreatment or no abuse. In

addition, males who were physically abused by their fathers

 

55
will be more likely than females who were physically abused
by a parent to be involved in angry relationships.
3. Young adults who experienced parental sexualization of
the relationship will report being involved in less
intimate, more angry, more anxious, and more emotionally
dependent relationships than nonabused young adults.
4. In general, young adults reporting parental maltreatment
who attribute blame for abuse to self rather than parents
will report less intimate, more angry, more anxious, more
emotionally dismissing relationships and will tend to use
passive rather than active and constructive conflict
resolution strategies.
5. Parent conflict will predict more angry, more anxious
and less intimate young adult relationships. In addition,
the contribution of parental abuse in predicting
relationship outcome factors will be, in part, independent

from the contribution made by parent conflict.

 

 

56

CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects and Procedures

Subjects were 342 students at a large, Midwestern
university (158 males and 184 females; 87.2% White, 6.4%
African American, .6% Hispanic, 2.6% Asian, and .9% Native
American).

Participants read and signed an informed consent form
and then filled out a series of self-report questionnaires
assessing history of parental abuse, current capacity to
form intimate relationships, level of parental conflict, and
attributions about self and parent responsibility for the
abuse. Participants were asked whether or not they were
currently involved in a romantic relationship. If they
were, they were instructed to complete the intimacy
questionnaires in regards to this person. If they were not,
participants were asked to think about their most intimate,
non-family current relationship and complete these
questionnaires in regards to this person. Approximately 65%
(N=221; 90 males and 131 females) indicated that they were
currently involved in an intimate relationship and 35%
(N=118; 67 males and 51 females) indicated that they were
not currently involved in a romantic relationship. Of those
participants who indicated that they were currently involved

in a romantic relationship, approximately 91% (N=202)

 

 

57
indicated that their relationships were with members of the
opposite sex, 2% (N=4) indicated that their relationships
were with members of the same sex, and 7% (N=15) did not
indicated the sex of their partner.

A series of ANOVAs were run to determine whether these
groups were statistically different in regards both to the
abuse variables and the relationship outcome variables given
the large percentage of respondents who indicated that they
were not currently involved in romantic relationships.
Whether or not the young adult was currently involved in a
romantic relationship was not significantly associated with
any of the abuse variables. However, as summarized by Table
1, whether or not participants were currently involved in a
romantic relationship accounted for a significant amount of
the variance in relationship outcome scores. Separate
factor analyses were then run using those participants who
indicated romantic or nonromantic relationships and somewhat
different factor structures were found. Given that the
primary interest of this study lies in the examination of
close, romantic relationships, all subsequent analyses that
tested the hypotheses were based on only those subjects who
indicated that they were currently involved in romantic
relationships.

Participants were tested in a group format. The entire
battery took approximately two hours to complete. Each

measure was administered separately, with the exception of

 

 

58

Table 1

Analysis of Variance Contrasting Romantic and Nonromantic
Relationships on Initial Outcome Relationship Factors

Outcome factor Group means F-value

Romantic Non-romantic

Intimate .21 -.39 46.50b
Angry .07 -.08 5.50a
Anxious . .41 .72 11.94b
Violent .00 -.07 2.14

 

Note. a p < .05; b p < .001

 

59

the items measuring sexual abuse. These questions were
embedded within one of the childhood abuse questionnaires in
order to buffer the effects of these potentially sensitive
questions. In return for their participation, students
received extra credit in their psychology class.
Measures of Abuse

Several different measures were used to assess the
nature and extent of parental abuse that these young adults
experienced. An overview of the different measures for this
sample is presentent in Table 2. Because it is important to
determine the potentially unique effects that mother and
father maltreatment can have, questionnaires that asked
about "parent" abuse were changed to "mother" and "father".
Participants were instructed to complete the parent abuse
questionnaires in terms of the parents (i.e. biological or
step) with whom they have lived the longest p; in terms of a
parental figure with whom they may have lived for a shorter
time but who also maltreated them. For example, if a female
participant’s biological parents were divorced when she was
12 years old and her mother remarried a man who maltreated
her, she was instructed to fill out the "father"
questionnaires in regards to her step-father, even though
she may have lived with her biological father for a longer
period of time. Approximately 95% (N=325) of the young
adults responded to maternal abuse questionnaires in regards

to their biological mothers, 1% (N=4) in regards to their

 

 

60
Table 2

Childhood Abuse and Attribution Measures

QuestionnairelScales Cronbach’s alpha
Mother Father

Assessing Environments III—Form SD
(AEIII; Berger & Knutson, 1984)

Perception of Discipline scale .91 .97
Physical Punishment scale .93 .97
Parental Rejection scale .89 .95
Positive Parental Contact scale .84 .95

Family Experiences Questionnaire

(FEQ; Briere & Runtz, 1988)

Psychological Abuse scale .84 .96

Parental Acceptance-Rejection Scale
(PARQ; Rohner, 1986)

Warmth/Affection scale .95 .99
Aggression/Hostility scale .88 .97
Neglect scale .87 .97
Rejection scale .79 .94

Parental Sexualization Scale

(developed for this study)

Sexualization scale . .93 .95
Perceptions of Responsibility for abuse

(developed for this study)

Personal Responsibility scale .69 .68

Parent Responsibility scale .54 .59

 

 

61

step-mothers, and 4% (N=14) in regards to adoptive mothers
or other maternal figures. Approximately 89% (305) of the
young adults responded to paternal abuse questionnaires in
regards to their biological fathers, 6% (N=20) in regards to
their step-fathers, and 5% (N=16) in regards to their
adoptive fathers or other paternal figures.

Measures of physical abuse. Participants completed two

separate scales assessing physical abuse. These scales are

part of the Assessing Environments III-Form SD (AEIII;

Berger & Knutson, 1984; See Appendix A). This self-report
questionnaire assesses the nature of the respondent’s
childhood environment using a 4 point Likert scale. The two
scales used to assess physical abuse were: Perception of
Discipline scale (14 items, e.g., "My mother used harsh
discipline with me") and Physical Punishment scale (12
items, e.g., "My mother used to spank me", "When I did
something wrong, my mother sometimes tied me up").

Measures of emotional abuse. To assess the nature and
extent of emotional abuse, participants completed a total of
six scales from several different questionnaires.
Participants responded to the 7 item Parental Rejection
scale from Berger and Knutson’s AEIII assessing the degree
of parental rejection that the respondent experienced while
growing up (e.g., "I never felt that my mother really loved
me"). In addition, the Positive Parental Contact scale from

the AEIII (9 items, scored in the direction of less positive

 

 

62

contact, e.g., "When I was a child my mother often found
time to play with me", reverse scored) measured the extent
to which young adults experienced positive and nurturing
interactions with their mother and father. Participants
also completed a portion of Briere and Runtz’s (1988) Family
Experiences Questionnaire, measuring psychological abuse.
This four point Likert type scale includes three items
(e.g., "How often did your father ridicule or humiliate
you?") that were added to the AEIII questionnaire to reduce
the number of separate questionnaires that participants
completed.

As a final measure of childhood psychological abuse,

respondents were asked to complete Rohner’s 60 item Parental

Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ; Rohner, 1986; See

Appendix B). This measure uses a 4 point Likert scale
(1=almost always true of my mother/father, 4=a1most never
true of my mother/father) to assess the extent to which
parents were experienced by the child as accepting or
rejecting as indicated by specific behaviors (e.g. "My
mother frightened or threatened me when I did something
wrong") or more global impressions (e.g. "My father liked to
spend time with me"). To measure psychological abuse, all
of the questionnaire’s four scales were be used:
warmth/affection (20 items; e.g., "My mother said nice
things about me", reversed scored), aggression/hostility (15

items; e.g., "My father nagged or scolded me when I was

 

 

63

bad"), neglect (15 items; e.g., "My mother ignored me") and
rejection (10 items; e.g., "My mother seemed to dislike
me").

Measure of sexual abuse. Since no sufficiently broad
measures of sexual abuse could be found, this researcher
developed several items to assess this type of abuse. Most
studies limit their assessment of sexual abuse to one or two
questions that ask something similar to "My parents forced
me to engage in sexual acts with them". However, clinical
evidence suggests that behaviors that are far more
surreptitious can also be harmful (Maltz, 1988; Sgroi,
Blick, & Porter, 1982). Therefore a total of 9 items
assessing overt and covert types of sexual abuse were
generated and were included in the present study (e.g., "My
mother/father watched me undress and bathe (after I had
learned to do these things myself)", "My mother/father
engaged in sexual intercourse (vaginal and/or anal) with
me", "My mother/father exposed me to pornography").

It is important to point out that the majority of
participants in this sample reported little or no overt
sexualization of the relationship by either mother (61.3%,
N=211) or father (71.2%, N=245). Furthermore, most
participants endorsed items on this scale that described
more minor, covert forms of inappropriate parent behavior
(e.g., "My father talked to me about his sex life and/or

would ask me about the sexual aspects of my relationships",

 

64
"My mother walked around the house nude") (see Table 3).
Therefore, it appears that, within this population, this
scale has tapped into students’s experiences of looser
attitudes and more permeable parent/child boundaries around
sexuality and this factor may more accurately reflect their
experience of a sexualized relationship rather than a
sexually abusive relationship.
Measure of Attributions about Abuse

Two scales, consisting of four items each, were
developed for this study to assess the nature of the
attributions young adults make in regards to their parents
maltreatment of them while they were growing up.
Participants responded to these questions on a 7 point
Likert type scale (See Appendix C).

The first scale assessed the extent to which the young
adult blames him or herself for the abuse ("To what extent
were you responsible for your mother/step-mother’s negative
behavior towards you?", "To what extent were you responsible
for your father/step-father’s negative behavior towards
you?", "To what extent could you have done something more to
prevent or escape from your mother/step-mother’s negative
behavior?", and "To what extent could you have done
something more to prevent or escape from your father/step-
father’s negative behavior?"). The second scale assessed to
what extent young adults perceive their parents as being

responsible for the abuse ("To what extent was your

 

 

65

Table 3

Percentages of Participants Endorsing Sexual Abuse Items

 

Item Percentage of subjects
endorsing item scale points
Never Rarely Occasionally
or
Frequently
M F M F M F
My mother/father...
9. would watch me undress
and bathe (after I had
learned to do these things
for myself). 86 95 11 4 3 1
14. would sometimes fondle
my genitals, buttocks, etc. 97 98 2 1 1 1
21. engaged in oral sex with
me (giving and/or receiving). 98 99 1 .3 1 .7

32. talked to me about her/his

sex life and/or would ask me

about the sexual aspects of

my relationships. 77 85 12 9 11 6

38. would expose her/his
genitals to me. 94 96 4 3 2 1

43. exposed me to
pornography (e.g., magazines,
movies, etc.). 98 97 1 2 1 1

47. engaged in sexual
intercourse (vaginal or
anal penetration) with me. 98 98 0 1 1 1

50. walked around the
house nude. 92 92 5 1 3 2

53. would kiss me in
a passionate manner. 97 97 1 2 2 1

Note. M=Mother; F=Father

 

66

father/step-father responsible for his negative behavior
towards you?", "To what extent was your mother/step-mother
responsible for her negative behavior towards you?", "To
what extent is/was your mother/step-mother’s negative
behavior towards you due to something that may have been
beyond her control (e.g., alcoholism, mental illness,
etc.)?", "To what extent is/was your father/step-father’s
negative behavior towards you due to something that may have
been beyond his control (e.g., alcoholism, mental illness,
etc.)?").
Measure of Marital Conflict

The 20 item Parent Conflict Scale (PCS; Frank and
Tatham, unpublished measure; See Appendix D), assessed the
respondents’ perceptions of the degree of conflict in their
parents’ marital disputes ("My parents are able to resolve
disagreements fairly quickly", negatively scored), without
involving the adolescent in the parents’ disputes ("My
father tries to get me to side with him when he fights with
my mother"). A validity study on a sample of 40
undergraduates and their mothers and fathers indicated that
the Parent Conflict Scale correlated with parents’ reports
of marital functioning on the widely used Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (Spanier & Cole, 1974); p for the correlation between
students’ scores on the PCS and scores averaged across
mothers and fathers on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale was -.80.

In the same study, the correlation between students’ reports

 

67

on the PCS and parents’ scores on a General Parenting
Alliance Scale (Frank, Jacobson, & Avery, 1988) describing
parents’ ability to work together as parents, was -.72. In a
study of college undergraduates from intact and non-intact
families, Frank & Burke, 1992 found that college students
from divorced families reported higher levels of parent
conflict on this measure than those from intact families.
Outcome Measures

Participants completed a total of 18 scales derived
from 5 separate questionnaires to assess their experiences
within current intimate relationships. Table 4 summarizes
these different measures and shows their respective scales

and the scale reliabilities for this sample.

Measures of closeness and intimacy. The Romantic
Relationships Questionnaire (Bartholomew, 1990; Appendix E)

assessed the young adults’ current relationship styles.

This measure is based on items developed by Hazan and Shaver
(1987) and assesses four relationship styles: Secure,
Fearful, Anxious, and Dismissing.

The Secure scale assesses the level of comfort with
emotionally close relationships (e.g., "It is relatively
easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am
comfortable depending on others and having others depend on
me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not
accept me"). The Fearful scale assess the extent to which

young adults are uncomfortable with emotional closeness in

 

68

Table 4

Breakdown of Questionnaires, Scales and Scale Reliabilities
for Measures of Relationship Outcomes

QuestionnaireslScales Cronbach’s
alpha

Relationship Styles Questionnaire
(Bartholomew, 1990)

Anxious Relationship scale N/A*
Secure Relationship scale "
Fearful Relationship scale "
Dismissing Relationship scale "

Personality Assessment Questionnaire
(PAQ; Rohner, 1986)

Dependency scale .84
Emotional Unresponsiveness scale .82

Liking and Loving Questionnaire
(Rubin, 1973)

Liking scale .92
Loving scale .86

Triangular Theory of Love Scale
(Sternberg, 1985)

Intimacy scale .94
Passion scale .97
Decision/Commitment scale .96

Conflict Tactics Scale
(CTS; Straus, 1979)

Verbal Aggression scale .89
Violence scale .91
Extreme Violence scale .70

Problem Solving Questionnaire
(Rusbult & Zembrodt, 1983)

Voice scale .84
Exit scale .88
Loyalty scale .68
Relationship Neglect scale .81

Note. * indicates that these scales contained one item
each, therefore, no alpha coefficient was calculated

 

 

 

69

relationships (e.g., "I am somewhat uncomfortable getting
close to others. I want emotionally close relationships,
but I find it difficulty to trust others completely, or to
depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I
allow myself to become too close to others"). The Anxious
scale assesses the degree to which young adults desire
extremely emotionally close relationships but feel these
will not be forthcoming (e.g., "I want to be completely
emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am
uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I
sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I
value them"). The Dismissing scale assesses the extent to
which respondents desire independence over close
relationships (e.g., "I am comfortable without close
emotional relationships. It is very important for me to feel
independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend
on others or have others depend on me"). Participants rated
on a 7 point Likert Scale the extent to which each style
accurately describes them. For the remaining
questionnaires, participants were asked to respond to
questions in terms of their current, most intimate, non-
family relationship.

Rohner’s Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ;
Rohner, 1986; See Appendix F) addressed the student’s manner

of relating within intimate relationships. Only two scales

 

 

70
that were relevant for the present study were used:
dependency (8 items, e.g., "I like (intimate partner) to
give me a lot of attention") and emotional unresponsiveness
(6 items, e.g., "It is hard for me when I try to show the
way I really feel to someone I like"). These scales used a
4 point Likert scale (1=almost always true for me, 4=almost
never true for me). Because some of these items were
written in terms of a mother-child relationship, it was
modified to appropriately address intimate relationships
between peers. For example, the question "I like my mother
to give me a lot of attention" has been modified to "I like
(intimate partner) to give me a lot of attention".

Rubin’s (1973) 26 item Liking and Loving Questionnaire
assessed two aspects of intimate relationships on two
scales: liking (13 items; e.g., " is the sort of
person whom I would like to be") and loving (13 items; e.g.,
"I greatly enjoy being confided in by ") (See
Appendix G).

Participants also completed Sternberg’s 45 item (1986)
Triangular Theory of Love Scale to assess three components
of their intimate relationships: intimacy (15 items; e.g.,
"I feel that I really understand ____"), passion (15 items;
e.g., "I find to be very personally attractive"), and
decision/commitment (15 items; e.g., "I view my relationship
with as permanent"). Students rated, on a 9 point

Likert scale (1=not at all, 5=moderately, 9=extremely), the

 

71
extent to which the statements within each scale accurately
described their current relationship (See Appendix H).

Measures of conflict and conflict resolution. Straus’
(1979) widely used Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) was used to
assess the styles of coping with conflict that participants
used within their intimate relationships (See Appendix I).
Three scales were used to assess: Verbal Aggression (12
items; e.g.,"I did or said something to spite my partner",
Violence (12 items; e.g., "I threw something at him/her")
and Extreme Violence (6 items; e.g., "I threatened him/her
with a knife or gun"). Participants rated, on a 6 point
scale, the degree to which they use each of the strategies
when dealing with conflict, both in terms of how they
respond and in terms of how their partner/friend responds.
Evidence of concurrent and construct validity is reported by
several sources, including Bulcroft and Straus (1975), and
Jorgensen (1977).

Participants also completed Rusbult and Zembrodt’s
(1983) typologies of response to relationship
dissatisfaction (See Appendix J). This 28 item
questionnaire assesses strategies for dealing with conflict
along two dimensions: activity/passivity, and
destruction/construction. The resulting four styles are:
active/constructive, or voice, (7 items; e.g., "We both
worked together to solve the problem"), active/destructive,

or exit, (7 items; e.g., "I ended the relationship"),

 

72
passive/constructive, or loyalty, (7 items; e.g., "When we
have problems in our relationship, I patiently wait for
things to improve"), and passive/destructive, or
relationship neglect, (7 items; e.g., "When I’m really
bothered about something my partner has done, I criticize
him/her for things that are unrelated to the real
problems"). Participants rated, on a 9 point scale, to what
extent each of these strategies describes their own styles

for dealing with problems in their relationships.

 

 

73

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Factor Analyses of Abuse Measures
Factor analysis was used to reduce measures of

childhood maltreatment to a smaller number of independent
dimensions. Analyses for abuse perpetrated by mother or
father were run separately. A total of 10 father abuse
questionnaire scales were factor analyzed using a varimax
rotation. This analysis resulted in two father abuse
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that, together,
accounted for 70.1 percent of the existing variance (Table
5). Two mother abuse factors were similarly extracted with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 65.5 percent

of the variance.

As can be seen in Table 5, scales that assessed
emotional abuse generally loaded on the first factor whereas
both physical and sexual abuse loaded on the second factor.
There was some overlap between factors; scales were assigned
to the factor on which they had the highest loading.

Although physical abuse and sexualization loaded on the
same (second) factor, there is significant clinical and
empirical evidence that sexual abuse involves dynamics and
effects for the child that are unique from those experienced
by children who were physically abused. Hence, these scales

were used independently in subsequent statistical analyses.

 

 

74

Table 5

Factor Analyses of Abuse Scales for Mothers and Fathers

Factor Loadings

Mother abuse scales

Factor 1 Factor 2
Warmth (*) .87 .17
Neglect .86 .20
Positive Contact (*) .79 -.08
Rejection (AEIII) .79 .08
Aggression/Hostility .75 .43
Rejection (PARQ) .75 .41
Psychological Abuse .54 .44
Punishment .20 .81
Discipline .46 .69
Sexualization -.08 .56
Eigenvalues 5.27 1.28
Percent of Variance 52.7% 12.8%
Father abuse scales
Warmth (*) .90 .20
Neglect .88 .24
Rejection (AEIII) .85 .15
Positive Parental Contact (*) .83 .00
Rejection (PARQ) .66 .56
Psychological Abuse .58 .53
Punishment .22 .80
Discipline .51 .71
Aggression/Hostility .60 .68
Sexualization -.12 .55
Eigenvalues 5.82 1.27
Percent of Variance 58.2% 12.7%

Note. * indicates that scale items were reverse scored

 

 

 

75
Description of Final Abuse Scales

Based on the results of the factor analysis as well as
theoretical considerations described above, a total of three
abuse scales were developed. Since there is considerable
evidence to suggest that children experience interactions
with mothers differently from interactions with fathers,
separate mother and father abuse scales were used in
subsequent analyses.

The Mother/Father Emotional Abuse scale consists of
items that tap into students’ childhood experiences of
parental hostility, verbal aggression, inattentiveness, and
rejection. The Mother/Father Physical Abuse scale describes
parental behaviors involving physical abuse (e.g., hitting,
slapping, kicking) and harsh discipline (e.g., locking in a
closet). Finally, the Mother/Father Sexualization scale
assesses the extent to which parents displayed permeable
parent/child boundaries around sexuality.

As one may have anticipated in a normal sample, the
number of participants endorsing more extreme levels of
abuse is relatively small (Table 6). In order to avoid a
swamping effect in the statistical analyses created by the
large number of participants experiencing relatively little
abuse, the abuse variables were transformed into a four
point scale, based on the distribution of scores for each
abuse type. These transformed variables were used in all

subsequent analyses.

 

 

76

Table 6

Percentages of Participants within Each Level of Abuse
across Abuse Type

Abuse Scale Scores
1 2 3 4
Little/No Mild Moderate Severe

Abuse Abuse Abuse Abuse

Type of Abuse

Physical Abuse

Mother 31.6% 46.6% 11.7% 10.0%
(N=108) (N=159) (N=40) (N=34)

Father 33.8% 45.1% 9.2% 11.9%
(N=114) (N=152) (N=31) (N=40)

Emotional Abuse

Mother 31.4% 48.3% 7.8% 12.5%
(N=108) (N=166) (N=27) (N=43)

Father 31.9% 45.4% 10.6% 12.1%
(N=108) (N=154) (N=36) (N=41)

Sexualization

Mother 61.7% 16.7% 16.1% 5.6%
(N=211) (N=57) (N=55) (N=19)

Father 72.7% 11.3% 6.2% 9.8%
(N=245) (N=38) (N=21) (N=33)

 

 

77
Intercorrelation of Abuse Scales and Parent Conflict

The intercorrelations between each of the parental
abuse scales and parent conflict are shown in Table 7.
Sexualization of the relationship by mothers and fathers was
only weakly correlated with other forms of abuse. However,
emotional abuse was quite strongly correlated with physical
abuse for both mothers and fathers. One would expect this
given the co-occurance of these experiences in abusive
families. Yet, research has shown that these two types of
abuse have unique as well as shared effects on the child, so
that it is conceivable that they will show unique effects in
regards to young adult relationships as well. Therefore,
emotional and physical abuse were used separately in all
analyses.

Correlations of parent conflict and types of abuse
ranged from weak to moderate. This is also expected given
that conflictual behavior between parents often sets the
stage for abusive behavior between parent and child. To
determine the unique effects of parent-child abuse, parent
conflict will be controlled for in further analyses.

Factor Analysis of Relationship Outcome Measures

Factor analysis was used to reduce measures of young
adults’ romantic relationships to a smaller number of
dimensions. A varimax rotation including a total of 18
scales resulted in five outcome factors with eigenvalues

greater than 1.04 that, together, accounted for 68% percent

 

78

Table 7

Intercorrelations (Pearson r) Between Parental Abuse and
Parent Conflict and Among the Various Types of Abuse

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. PC .28b .47b .13a .33b .54b .11a
2.MOTHPHY .56b .21b .53b .36b .18b
3.MOTHEMOT .14a .44b .60b .20b
4.MOTHSEX .10 .18b .30b
5.FATHPHY .65b .24b
6.FATHEMOT .13a

7.FATHSEX

Note. a p < .05; b p < .01

PC=Parent Conflict; MOTHPHY=Mother Physical Abuse;
MOTHEMOT=Mother Emotional Abuse; MOTHSEX=Mother
Sexualization; FATHPHY=Father Physical Abuse;
FATHEMOT=Father Emotional Abuse; FATHSEX=Father
Sexualization

 

 

 

79

of the existing variance. This analysis included only those
participants who reported on their romantic relationships.
These are as follows: Intimate Relationships, Angry
Relationships, Anxious Relationships, Distant vs. Dependent
Relationships, and Constructive vs. Palliative
Relationships. Z-scores were calculated for each
questionnaire and then scales with loadings greater than .50
were averaged together to provide a single measure of each
dimensions identified by the factor analysis. Table 8
summarizes the final factor analysis of outcome variables
for those young adults who indicated that they were
currently involved in romantic relationships.

Intimate relationships factor. This factor consists of
6 questionnaire scales: Sternberg’s Passion scale, Intimacy
scale, and Commitment scale, Rubin’s Liking scale and Loving
scale, and Rusbult and Zembrodt’s Exit scale. Since the
Exit scale was negatively loaded on this factor, this scale
was recoded so that high scores would be consistent with
intimate relationships. This factor assessed the
participants’ degree of commitment, passion, reciprocity,
caring and affection in their current relationships as well
as a disinclination to engage in passive/destructive
strategies when dealing with interpersonal conflict.

Angry relationships factor. A total of 4 questionnaire
scales and 32 items comprise this factor: Rusbult and

Zembrodt’s Relationship Neglect scale, and Straus’ Verbal

 

80

Table 8

Factor Analysis of Outcome Relationship Variables for Young
Adults Involved in Romantic Relationships

Factor Loadings

Intimate Angry Anxious Depend. Passive

Scales
Commitment/
Decision .91 .06 -.07 .03 .08
Passion .88 .02 -.10 .17 .07
Intimacy .85 -.10 -.18 .05 -.08
Love .82 -.02 .00 .26 .03
Like .72 -.14 -.12 -.03 -.16
Exit -.62 .51 .19 .13 .11
Violence -.05 .91 .05 -.08 -.05
Verbal
Aggression -.05 .80 .15 .23 -.03
Extreme
Violence .09 .61 -.12 -.44 .02
Relationship
Neglect -.34 .54 .34 .17 .40
Secure .11 —.03 -.81 .18 -.05
Fearful -.06 .04 .78 -.07 .08
Emotional
Unresponsiveness

-.38 .14 .62 -.09 .20
Anxious .01 .10 .50 .41 -.07
Dismissing -.13 .05 -.22 -.67 -.02
Dependency .49 .19 -.07 .59 -.14
Loyalty .20 -.13 .03 -.16 .82
Voice .40 -.16 -.21 -.05 -.61
Eigenvalues 5.61 2.49 1.75 1.32 1.04
Percent of
Variance 31.2% 13.9% 9.7% 7.3% 5.8%

Note. Depend.=Dependent

 

 

 

81
Aggression, Violence, and Extreme Violence scales. The
Angry Relationships scale assessed the extent to which
students’ have experienced or engaged in patterns of verbal
or physical aggression when they and their partner or friend
encounter interpersonal conflict. In addition, this scale
measures to what extent students’ respond to conflict by
behaving in a hostile manner rather than utilizing more
successful problem solving skills.

Anxious relationships factor. This factor consists of
4 scales that assessed the extent to which participants
describe themselves as anxious or fearful in relationships
and whether they perceive themselves as having difficulty
expressing their emotions within relationships. This scale
consists of Bartholomew’s Anxious scale, Fearful scale, and
Secure scale (negatively loaded and subsequently recoded to
be consistent with the factor), and Rohner’s Emotional
Unresponsiveness scale.

Dependent versus dismissing relationships factor. This
factor consists of 2 scales that assessed the level of
emotional dependency in respondents’ relationships (high
scores on this factor) versus the their tendency to dismiss
emotionally close relationships (low scores on this factor).
Bartholomew’s Dismissing scale (negatively loaded and
subsequently recoded so that high scores on this scale are
consistent with high scores on the factor) and Rohner’s

Dependency scale comprise this factor.

 

82
Palliative versus active conflict resolution factor.
This factor consists of Rusbult and Zembrodt’s Loyalty scale
and Voice scale (negatively loaded and subsequently recoded
so that high scores on this scale are consistent with high
scores on this factor). This factor assessed the extent to
which young adults tend to cope with interpersonal conflict
in their romantic relationships by either passively waiting
for the situation to improve (high scores on this scale) vs.
engaging in constructive problem solving (low scores on this

factor).

Factor Analysis of Attribution Scales

Factor analysis of participants’ attributions of mother
and father maltreatment using a varimax rotation resulted in
two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted
for 72.3 percent of the existing variance for father abuse
attributions and 71.9 percent of the existing variance for
mother abuse attributions. One factor described Personal
Responsibility for abuse and the other Parental

Responsibility for abuse (Table 9).

Descriptive Analyses

A series of t-tests were run to determine whether males
and females reported significantly different levels of
mother and father abuse. Results of these analyses are
shown in Table 10. In general males were more likely to
report mother emotional abuse and father sexualization of

the relationship, whereas females were more likely to report

83

Table 9

Factor Analysis of Attributions of Parental Abuse
Factor Loadings

Factor 1
Personal
Resp.

M F

Items

To what extent are/were you
responsible for your mother/
step—mother’s or father/step-
father’s negative behavior

(e.g, putting youd down,

using harsh discipline,

ignoring you, etc.) towards

you? .85 .85

To what extent could you

have done something more

to prevent or escape from

your mother/step-mother or
father/step-father’s negative
behavior? .85 .87

To what extent is/was your
mother/step-mother or father/
step-father responsible for

her/his negative behavior

towards you? .24 .12

To what extent is/was your
mother/step-mother or father/
step-father’s negative behavior
towards you due to something
that may have been beyond his/
her control (e.g., alcoholism,

mental illness, etc.)? -.14 -.10
Eigenvalues 1.60 1.51
Percent of Variance 40.0% 37.7%

Note. M=Mother; F=Father

 

Factor 2
Parental
Resp.
M F
-.01 .01
.09 .01
.78 .83
.84 .84
1.25 1.39
31.2% 34.7%

 

 

Table 10

84

Group T-tests: Participant Sex and Parental Abuse

Mean
(SD)

 

Males Females

Mothers
Emotional .13 -.11
(.80) (.80)

Physical .11 .18
(.84) (.07)

Sexualiz.-.10 .07
(1.16) (.83)

Fathers

Emotional .04 -.04
(.72) (.07)

Physical .07 -.05
(.81)(1.01)

Sexualiz. .13 -.12
(1.04) (.93)

Note. a p < .05; b p <
Sexualiz.=Sexualization

 

Pooled variance estimate

E df t
1.00 340 2.71b
1.33 337 1.89t
1.92c 338 -1.57
1.61b 335 .91
1.55b 334 1.30
1.24 334 2.30a
.01; c p < .001; t p <

.06

 

 

85
mother physical abuse. Therefore, in light of these
differences and also because it was very likely that abuse
differently affects males and females, data for males and
females was analyzed separately in all subsequent analyses.
Test of Hypotheses

Regression procedures. Hierarchical regression
analyses were used to determine the influence of young
adults’ experiences of childhood maltreatment in predicting
current romantic relationship styles. Parent conflict was
entered in the first step in order to control for these
effects and subsequently determine the independent effects
of parental abuse. The three types of parental abuse were
entered on the second step and attributions on the third
step. Two and three-way interactions between parental abuse
and attributions were entered stepwise on the fourth and
fifth steps, respectively. Analyses were run for mother and
father abuse scales separately. Table 11 shows regression
results for mother abuse and Table 12 shows regression
results for father abuse.

Effects of parent conflict. Parent conflict
significantly predicted more angry relationships for both
males and females and more anxious and dependent
relationships for females.

Effects of parent emotional abuse. As predicted,
mother emotional abuse significantly predicted more anxious

relationships for males and females and more angry

 

86

auuaun5m=0dmmm

HO.I No. ....
OO. NO.I oo.

40.- no.1 ....

NH.I HH.I ....
$0.! No. Ho.

mo.| $0.1 Ho.

mo.l ma.l ....

No.1 Ho. No.

vo.l 50.: ....
No.l wo.l ....
mo. No. Ho.

Ha. HH. #0.

m H mm

 

cadu=H0mwm o>quo<
.m> w>Hmmmm

 

accumum:

mo. mo. ....
v0.1 mo.l 00.

NH. ha. ....

50. Ho. ....
oo. No.l no.

mH. ma. no.

Ho.l mH.l ....
ho. mo. No.

00. #0.! ....

Ma. No. ....
Hm. ma. NO.

ON. mow. mvo.

H mm

LII

mcwmmaEmwo
.m> ucmocomoo

UUwHur—OU ucmumm EOHM mwfim: DEM mWHMF—wh HOW mmEOUUSO

Hmnuozummm :90:

HOD.
ma. No.l .... no. md.l ....
mo. mo. 00. HO.I me. No.
Ho.l mo. .... 0H. ea. ....
ha. 50.! .... mm. ad. ....
mv. omv. Dru. mm. hm. mo.
ma. ma. No. ¢m. nvm. DNH.

 

moan: new mufismwm

cfi. NO.I .... NO.I hH.I ....
no. ”0. oo. vo.l oo.l m0.
m0. mo.l .... No.1 OH.I ....
HH. «o.l .... ma. vo. ....

mm. new. 650. mm. mmm. 00.

FN. nhN. nmo. NN. MNN. nmo.

 

mmdmemm uOu muasmom

m m «m m m «a

mmmwmmm

moaannm> weoouzo

v m 0 «a0. v m a “mo. v m c
lsuuaunum:0dmmm Hm:0mummumwm mmmm auuuaucoo ucmummuom .muoz

mo.l Ho. .... mmm mmzfiox

 

oo. oo. oo. mmm mmmm
m mmum
ma. ea. .... GMNHA¢Dxmm
va.l H«.I .... QGOHm>Im
mH.I no.1 «0. Q¢ZOHBOZN
moans nonuoz mo ma>e
m doom
0H.i 0H.i Ho. on
H doom
oo. oo. .... mmm mmzfioz
ho.l .vo.l oo. mmm mmmm
m doom
mo.| mo.l .... QmNHqénxmm
50.! Ho. .... AtUHm>mm
mH.I mH.I mo. qconaozm
moans umzuo: mo mm>e
N doom
mo.| mo.| Ho. on
H doom
muouonooum
M H mm
334:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIII|IIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIlI
omznm cam meoHuanfiuuuc :mm3uon mcoHuomumucH ocm mcodusnwuuu< wmznm

   

  

unmc05umfimm

 

cfluuflcmum mom Hmcc cofimmwu mm

HH manna

 

87

~00. v m u .Ho. v m n “mo. v m a
>uw~anqmcommoz nonummummm mk<m u>uqaanwmcommmm accomummummm mmmm uuuaaucoo ucmummuom "ouoz

 

so.i mo.i .... mo. mH.I .... ma. oo. .... o“. ma.i .... wo.i mo. .... mmx mmzkmm

No.1 Ho.| oo. mo.l No. Ho. «0. No. 00. mo.| No. Ho. 00. oo. oo. mmm mmmm
n doom

mo. mo. .... AH. ca. .... oo. OH.I .... HM. OH. .... 00.: Ho.| .... omqudsxmm

-.| 0H.I .... 00. on.1 .... mm. mm. .... mH. NH.1 .... ma.| HH.i .... Adoam>zm

wo.l >0. «0. mm. mm. we. on. mm. an. vm. ma. no. SH.I OH.I mo. AdZOHBOZm
mmsné umzucm no ma>9
m doom

mo.i mo.| Ho. ma. ma. mo. ma. ma. No. Vm. nvm. nNH. OH.I 0a.! Ho. Om
H doom

moan: new mudsmwm

mo.i aN.I .... «0.: 0H.1 .... mm. Ho.| .... «0.: mmm.l .... HH.I oo. .... mmm mmmedm

mo.| no.1 mo. No. mo. No. no. mo. 00. no.1 mo.l «o. no.1 .vo.l oo. mmm mmmm
m doom

No.l 00.1 .... v0. «0. .... no.1 vH.| .... mH.| mHN.I .... mo. Va. .... QmNHqcbxmm

va. no. .... co. No. .... mm. mo. .... Hm. NH. .... mH.I 0H.i .... A<OHm>zm

SH. NH. No. mo. mo.1 00. mv. new. Una. mm. ha. mmo. VN.I MN.I who. AdZOHBOZm
mmsn< nozumm uo wd>e
N doom

Ha. Ha. Ho. ON. mow. ovo. SN. new. nmo. mm. mmm. nmo. mo.l mo.| Ho. on
H mmum

 

moamewh MOM muasmmm

 

mucuqumum

 

 

M H mm m H mm M m Nu m m «m M m mm
coauDHOmom w>flu0¢ ucmumfio
.m> w>ammmm .m> ucmocmmma msoMx:¢ Numcc mumEHucH

 

mwdnmaum> meoouzo

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIII
wasps pcm mcoflusnduuum cmo3uon occauumuoucH ocm mcofiusnwuuuc omzbt

uoHHucoo ucmumm Eouw mwam: cam mmfimemm new mmeoouso uzmcoflumHmm cfiuudomum mom Hmcc commmou Mm

 
 
 

ANCHmumm

NH OAQMH

 

 

88
relationships for females. However, mother emotional abuse
was not directly related to dismissing relationships or
palliative vs. constructive styles of conflict resolution
for males or females. Furthermore, mother emotional abuse
was unrelated to angry relationships for males.

However, an interaction between mother emotional abuse
and attributions of personal responsibility was significant
for this factor for females (Figure 1). Among females not
blaming themselves for their mother’s emotional abuse,
increasing abuse was associated with increasingly palliative
conflict resolution styles. Alternatively, among females
taking personal responsibility for mother emotional abuse,
increasing abuse was associated with more active rather than
palliative conflict resolution styles.

As predicted, young adult women who experienced father
emotional abuse reported anxious relationships. In
addition, an interaction between father emotional abuse and
attributions of father responsibility was significant for
females’ angry relationships (Figure 2). Among females who
did not blame their fathers for emotionally abusing them, as
reported levels of abuse increased, levels of reported anger
increased. Among females who did blame their fathers for
their emotional abuse, as abuse increased, reported anger
increased slightly.

The main effects of emotional abuse by fathers was

unrelated to intimacy, anger, anxiety, emotional dependence

 

Palliative vs. Active
Conflict Resolution

89

 

0 +1

Mother Emotional Abuse

fl Attributions

I Attributions

Figure 1

Interaction between Mother
of Personal Responsibility

of Low Personal Responsibility

of High Personal Responsibility

Emotional Abuse and Attributions
for Females

 

 

90

Angry Relationship

 

-l 0 +1

Father Emotional Abuse

Attributions of Low Father Responsibility

I Attributions of High Father Responsibility

Figure 2

Interaction between Father Emotional Abuse and Attributions
of Father Responsibility for Females

 

91
versus dismissing, or the tendency to use palliative vs.
active conflict resolution styles romantic relationships for
males. However, an interaction between father emotional
abuse and attributions of personal responsibility as well as
an interaction between father emotional abuse and
attributions of father responsibility were significant for
males. Specifically, among males who did not blame
themselves for their fathers’ emotional abuse (Figure 3), as
levels of abuse increased, levels of reported intimacy
increased. Alternatively, among males who blamed themselves
for their fathers’ emotional abuse, as abuse increased,
levels of reported intimacy decreased. In regards to
anxious relationships, among males who did not blame their
fathers for the emotional abuse they experienced (Figure 4),
as reported levels of abuse increased, reported anxiety
increased. Alternatively, among males who blamed their
fathers for the emotional abuse they experienced, as
reported levels of abuse increased, anxiety slightly
decreased. Notably, males who experienced high levels of
father emotional abuse and did not blame their fathers for
this abuse reported the most anxious relationships.

Effects of parent physical abuse. Mother physical
abuse and father physical abuse were not directly related to
angry or emotionally dependent vs. dismissing relationships
for either males or females. However, an interaction

between mother physical abuse and attributions of

 

 

Intimate Relationship

92

 

0 +1

Father Emotional Abuse

.4
.2
O
-.2
-.4
-1
fl Attributions
I Attributions
Figure 3

Interaction between Father
of Personal Responsibility

of Low Personal Responsibility

of High Personal Responsibility

Emotional Abuse and Attributions
for Males

 

93

Anxious Relationship

 

-1 0 +1

Father Emotional Abuse

Attributions of Low Father Responsibility

I Attributions of High Father Responsibility

Figure 4

Interaction between Father Emotional Abuse and Attributions
of Father Responsibility for Males

 

94
personal responsibility was significant for emotionally
dependent vs. dismissing relationships for females (Figure
5). Among females who did not blame themselves for their
mothers’ physically abusive behavior, as abuse increased,
reported emotional dependency increased. Alternatively,
among females who blamed themselves for their mothers’
physically abusive behavior, as reported abuse increased,
reported levels of dismissal increased.

Furthermore, an interaction between father physical
abuse and attributions of personal responsibility was
significant for emotionally dismissing vs. emotionally
dependent relationships for both females and males.
Specifically, among females and males who blamed themselves
for their fathers’ physically abusive behavior (Figures 6
and 7, respectively), as reported physical abuse increased,
they tended to dismiss close relationships. Alternatively,
among females who did not blame themselves for their
fathers’ physically abusive behavior, as reported physical
abuse increased, so did emotional dependency. However,
among males who did not blame themselves for their fathers’
physically abusive behavior, levels of abuse was unrelated
to levels of emotional dependency.

Effects of parent sexualization. The main effects of
mother sexualization were not directly related to intimate,
angry, anxious or emotionally dependent vs. dismissing

relationships for males or females. However, an

 

Dependent vs. Dismissing
Relationship

95

 

0 +1

Mother Physical Abuse

E Attributions

I Attributions

Figure 5

Interaction between Mother
of Personal Responsibility

of Low Personal Responsibility

of High Personal Responsibility

Physical Abuse and Attributions
for Females

 

Dependent vs. Dismissing
Relationship

96

 

0 +1

Father Physical Abuse

fi Attributions

I Attributions

Figure 6

Interaction between Father
of Personal Responsibility

of Low Personal Responsibility

of High Personal Responsibility

Physical Abuse and Attributions
for Females

 

97

Dependent vs. Dismissing
Relationship

 

-1 0 +1

Father Physical Abuse

fl Attributions of Low Personal Responsibility

I Attributions of High Personal Responsibility

Figure 7

Interaction between Father Physical Abuse and Attributions
of Personal Responsibility for Males

 

 

 

98
interaction between mother sexualization and attributions of
mother responsibility was significant for emotionally
dependent vs. dismissing relationships for females (Figure
8). Among females who did not blame their mothers for their
sexualizing behavior, as sexualization increased, levels of
reported relationship dismissal increased. Alternatively,
among females who held their mothers accountable for their
sexualizing behavior, as sexualization increased, emotional
dependency increased.

Father sexualization was, unexpectedly, related to less
angry relationships for females. However, father
sexualization was unrelated to any other relationship
outcome variables for either males or females.

Direct effects of attributions. Although the great
majority of effects associated with attributions about abuse
occurred indirectly in interactions with different forms of
abuse, there was a direct effect between attributions of
father responsibility and young women’s involvement in angry
relationships. Specifically, young women who did not blame
their fathers for "negative behaviors" (defined as including
hitting, yelling, rejecting, etc.) were more likely to be

involved in angry relationships.

 

99

Dependent vs. Dismissing
Relationships

 

-1 0 +1

Mother Sexualization

Attributions of Low Mother Responsibility

I Attributions of High Mother Responsibility

Figure 8

Interaction between Mother Sexualization and Attributions of
Mother Responsibility for Females

 

 

100

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION
Abuse, Parent Conflict, Attributions, and Relationship
Memes

In general, this researcher hypothesized that a history
of parental maltreatment would be related to young adults’
difficulties in current romantic relationships. In
addition, young adults who make attributions of self blame
for abuse rather than blaming their parents were
hypothesized to report more difficulties in their
relationships.

Parent conflict was clearly an important factor in the
prediction of relationship experiences. This was expected
given the established clinical and empirical evidence that
supports the notion that, simply put, children learn how to
relate by watching their parents. Therefore, one would
expect that a child whose parents were in constant conflict
would have difficulty using more appropriate and effective
strategies when relating to peers.

It is interesting to note that parent conflict
predicted angry relationships for both males and females as
well as anxious relationships for females. This suggests
that both boys and girls learn the aspects of angry
relationships, in particular, (e.g., criticizing, poor

problem solving, avoidance, violence etc.) from the modeling

 

 

101
effects of their parents’ behavior with one another. In
addition, for females, the exposure to parental conflict is
also making them extremely ambivalent about being involved
in close relationships. Young women who reported parent
conflict tended to both emotionally depend on their partners
to a great extent as well as experience considerable
ambivalence about being involved in intimate relationships.
It is possible that these young women, on the one hand seek
the interpersonal security that had been threatened by their
own parents’ distress; on the other hand, having been
exposed to parent conflict understandably makes young women
dubious about their own willingness to risk entering into a
romantic relationship of their own, given their original
model for a romantic relationship was so conflictual.

Nevertheless, given the wide range of findings
involving the effects of parental abuse on relationship
outcomes, it is clear that parent abuse has effects
independent of parent conflict.

In regards to the effects of mother emotional abuse,
females, to a greater extent than males, were directly
affected by this type of abuse. As predicted, mother
emotional abuse was related to more anxious and more angry
relationships for females. This finding makes sense, given
that there is considerable theoretical and anecdotal support
for the notion that daughters learn the meaning of

interpersonal relationships, as well as the primacy of the

 

 

102

interpersonal realm, within the traditional female societal
role. It is possible that females learn angry and
ambivalent styles (and likewise enter into relationships
that may be marked by these characteristics) of relating
from emotionally abusive mothers. In addition, it is likely
that these daughters fail to learn appropriate strategies of
conflict resolution. Furthermore, this research suggests
that young women who experienced maternal emotional abuse
have developed a general level of anxiety and ambivalence
about close relationships as a result of their negative
experience with their mothers.

Males also reported experiencing anxious relationships
as a result of maternal emotional abuse; however, they did
not report either more angry or more dependent
relationships. This may reflect, in part, the differing
dynamics of the mother-daughter and mother-son relationship.
Although there are widely accepted theories that one of the
most important, and most intense, familial relationships
exists between mother and son, for this sample it appears
that the mother-daughter dyad was the one most directly
affected by maternal abusive behavior. This pattern may be
understood within the context of traditional as well as
neoanalytic theories which support the notion that boys are
able to more easily separate emotionally from their mothers
(via identification with a father figure), whereas girls

remain connected to their mothers, and therefore more

 

103
affected by this bond.

The findings regarding attributions of personal and
parental responsibility were more complex than hypothesized.
As predicted, a young adult’s ability to assign blame to his
or her parent for abusive behavior proved to have a
buffering effect against current relationship difficulties.
However, there was also some evidence that the ability to
take some personal responsibility for abuse is also helpful
in some circumstances.

In particular, young women who were able to take some
personal responsibility for their mothers’ emotionally
abusive behavior towards them reported engaging in an active
conflict resolution style, rather than a palliative one,
within their romantic relationships. It is possible that
the act of "owning", at least in part, one’s past
interpersonal experiences allows one to take a more
responsible and active role in current interpersonal
situations. There is some evidence which suggests that, for
women in particular, taking partial responsibility for past
trauma, rather than fully identifying oneself as the victim,
can be an empowering experience.

It is interesting to note that, for males, this pattern
was somewhat different. In particular, young men who blamed
themselves for their fathers’ emotionally abusive behavior
reported Ipss intimate relationships than those who did not

blame themselves. Young men suffer from the negative

 

 

104

internalizations that result from father emotional abuse
rather than gaining power from assuming responsibility for
the abuse. This may occur, in part, because the abuser in
this situation is also the figure with whom he was trying to
identify. It appears that the young man who was able to
relinquish his personal role in causing his father’s abusive
behavior was more able to maintain relationships that were
emotionally committed, loving, and mutually caring
relationships than a young man who perceived himself as
deserving the abuse he experienced as a child.

Alternatively, the ability to hold one’s parents
responsible for their abusive behavior can also clearly
function as a buffer to the negative effects of abuse. For
the young men and women in this study, the ability to blame
their fathers for their emotionally abusive behavior emerged
as the factor which influenced the difficulty they
experienced within their current romantic relationships. In
particular, when young women hold their fathers accountable
for their emotionally abusive behavior, they report less
angry relationships, whereas young women who do not blame
their fathers report involvement in very angry
relationships, characterized by hostile, rejecting and
violent behavior. It appears that young women who attribute
blame to their fathers for emotional abuse are, in part,
distancing themselves from the abusive dyad and subsequently

may be less likely to initiate, maintain, or even tolerate

 

 

105
relationships that mirror their childhood one.

Similarly, young men who are unable to blame their
fathers for their emotionally abusive behavior report more
anxious relationships. In this situation, it is conceivable
that young men, who are unable to hold their fathers
responsible for this behavior, and are unable to isolate
this behavior as originating from within their fathers, are
understandably ambivalent about engaging in other
emotionally close relationships. These young men may, on
the one hand, desperately want the support and love that
their fathers did not adequately supply, but on the other
hand may perceive all close relationships as potentially
emotionally traumatic and, therefore, necessarily avoided.

In sum, it is clear that parental emotional abuse is
the most salient form of abuse for this sample. This may be
related to the middle to upper SES levels that characterize
a college sample. In particular, there is some evidence
that parents in lower SES levels tend to be more
authoritarian (and possibly more likely to use physical
discipline and potential abuse), while parents in higher SES
levels tend to be less authoritarian, and possibly more
likely to engage in emotional rather than physical forms of
abuse. In addition, the most common direct effect of
parental emotional abuse was more anxious relationships,
Young adults may be more likely to report ambivalence and

anxiety (as a result of their earlier abuse) rather than

 

 

106
anger because they, for the first times in their lives, are
beginning to form more adult romantic relationships.
Finally, the effects of father emotional abuse were more
likely to be experienced through the effects of personal and
parental attributions of blame than the effects of mother
emotional abuse. It appears that one’s internal
understanding of the abuse is more important in the case of
fathers, possibly because the fathers may be more
inaccessible.

Although there were few main effects for mother or
father physical abuse, one interaction between mother
physical abuse and attributions of personal responsibility
was significant for females. Here again, the buffering
effects of personal attributions are apparent. In this
case, young women who blame themselves for their mothers’
physically abusive behavior report emotionally distant
relationships, whereas young women who do not blame
themselves report emotionally dependent relationships. In
addition, both males and females who blamed themselves for
their fathers’ physically abusive behavior tended to dismiss
emotionally close relationships. Notably, although women
who did not blame themselves for their fathers’ physically
abusive behavior reported emotionally dependent
relationships, low self blame was not related to increasing
dependency across levels of abuse for males. Emotional

dependency appears to be a more salient construct for women.

 

 

107
This was also apparent in regards to the effects of parent
conflict. This may, in part, be due to the fact that it is
more socially acceptable for women to deeply invest
themselves emotionally in their romantic relationships
(i.e., in a somewhat dependent manner), than it is for women
to value interpersonal independence and dismiss the
importance of close relationships. However, it is probably
debatable whether dependency as defined by this study is
better or worse than distance, and, these styles may even be
adaptive depending on the situation.

Nevertheless, it is clear that, for both young men and
young women, continuing to blame oneself for childhood
physical abuse increases the likelihood that one will
dismiss close relationships as unnecessary, which may be
adaptive given their past experiences.

The effects of parent sexualization were surprising.
Females who reported high levels of father sexualization
reported less angry relationships. This tendency may
reflect the nature of father sexualizing relationships,
which tend to be seductive and intimate rather than angry or
overtly conflictual. In addition, it may indicate that women
who experienced this type of relationship are less likely to
actively engage in overt conflict within their romantic
relationships and instead adopt a somewhat passive style of

relating.

An interesting interaction also emerged between

 

 

108
attributions of mother responsibility and sexualization for
females. Young women who held their mothers accountable for
their sexualizing behavior reported emotionally dependent
relationships.

Finally, the direct effect between level of
attributions of father responsibility for their generally
negative behavior and young women’s involvement in angry
relationships may indicate that it is more important for
women to learn to assign blame for childhood maltreatment to
their perpetrators. That is, women who are able to hold
their fathers accountable for their behavior may be
subsequently more able to develop healthy relationships.
Methodological Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to this research and
these findings. Generalizability, a common issue with most
research, is one weakness of this study. One cannot be
certain that the findings generalize to a more diverse, non-
college population. It is possible that this sample is
unique in some ways. For example, although a certain
percentage of these students had experienced childhood
abuse, it can be assumed that they also possess a certain
amount of internal and/or external support or resilience
that helped them succeed academically. However, there are

two reasons, beyond its convenience, that make a college
population an important group to consider. First, although

generalizability is limited somewhat, it serves as a

 

 

109
nonclinical sample which made the results more generalizable
than those of many prior studies that used only clinical
data. Secondly, the primary outcome variable which was
examined was capacity to form intimate relationships and
resolve conflict within the relationship. Intimacy is a
developmental challenge for this age group. In addition,
for many college students, this is the first time that they
have attempted to form intimate relationships in a context
that is relatively removed from parental scrutiny.

It is also important to point out the lack of findings
regarding sexual abuse. In part, this was probably related
to the issue of self-selection for this study. Students
signed up for this study on a sheet which read "Childhood
maltreatment and current relationships". As a result, a
person who was unable or unwilling to reflect on his or her
experiences of abuse could easily have not participated. It
is possible that this is what occurred with young women who
had been sexually abused by a parent. It has been well
documented that this occurrence is not rare and occurs
across SES, race, and other demographic characteristics,
therefore, the lack of findings in this study does not
preclude the importance of the detrimental effects this
experience has on the child and, later, the adult.

Another limitation of this study is that it used cross-
sectional, retrospective data. Although any longitudinal

study involving abuse poses some inherent ethical problems,

 

 

110
it would be useful in future research to provide a two or
three point assessment of relationships and attributions for
the abuse. In addition, recall of parent-child
relationships are potentially confounded by the person’s
current relationship with the parent. Although I attempted
to reduce this perception bias by asking for the number of
times and intensity of specific behaviors (rather than
impressions of whether their parents had been "abusive"),
this remains a problem nonetheless.

Any future research would do well to interview the
current friend or partner as well. The relationship
obviously does not occur within a vacuum of the young adult
and his or her parent. The partner or friend’s perceptions
of the relationship as well as his or her childhood
experiences also factor into the current relationship
dynamic. In addition, given that these findings focused on
how patterns in romantic relationships were affected by
parental abuse, future research to determine the way in
which nonromantic relationships are affected would be
worthwhile.

As indicated earlier, emotional abuse emerged as the
salient type of abuse for this sample. This supports
Garbarino’s, as well as others’, belief that emotional abuse
is the "core" issue of all forms of parental abuse.
Therefore, future research that examines this form of abuse,

rather than focusing only on the more overt and sensational

111
forms of abuse is necessary.

Finally, this study highlighted the importance of
cognitive mechanisms in moderating the detrimental effects
of abuse. These findings have both theoretical and
practical implications. For example, it is possible, in
light of the findings involving attributions about abuse,
that a therapist may be well advised to consider not only
the sex of his or her client, but also the sex of the
abusive parent and the personal and parental attributions
held by the client and how these factors relate to the
presenting problem. In addition, it is clear that
researchers should consider the role of attributions to
accurately decipher the relationship between childhood abuse

and later effects.

 

 

LI ST OF REFERENCES

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).

Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Aizenman, M., & Kelly, G. (1988). The incidence of violence
and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among
college men and women. Journal of College Student
Development, 22, 305-311.

Anderson, S.C., Bach, C.M., & Griffith, S. (1981).
Psychosocial sequelae in intrafamilial victims of
sexual assault and abuse. Paper presented at the Third
International Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Augustinos, M. (1987). Developmental effects of child abuse:
Recent findings. Child Abuse and Ne lect, 11, 15-27.

Bagley, C., & Ramsay, R. (1985). Disrupted childhood and
vulnerability to sexual assault: Long-term sequels with
implications for counseling. Paper presented at the the
Conference on Counselling the Sexual Abuse Survivor,
Winnipeg, Canada.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment
perspective. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 1(2), 147-178.

Berger, A. & Knutson, J.F. The Assessing Environments III:
A questionnaire for assessing punitive and abuse-
related childhood histories. Department of Psychology,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Bersheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H.H. Kelly, E. Berscheid,
A. Christensen, J.H. Harvey, T.L. Huston, G. Levinger,
E. McClintock, L.A. Peplau, & D.R. Peterson, Close

Relationships (pp. 110-168). New York: Freeman.

Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (1989). The
relationship closeness inventory: Assessing the
closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 792-807.

Billingham, R.E., & Gilbert, K.R. (1990). Parental divorce
during childhood and use of violence in dating

relationships. Psychological Reports, §§(3, Pt. 1),
1003-1009.

112

 

 

113

Bogal-Allbritten, R., & Allbritten, W. (1985). The hidden
victims: Courtship violence among college students.

Journal of College Student Personnel, ;§(3), 201-204.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume I:

Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.

---------- (1977). The making and breaking of affectional
bonds. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.

Breslin, F., Riggs, D., O’Leary, K., & Arias, I. (1990).
Family precursors. Journal of Inter ersonal Violence,
5(2), 247-258.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and

prospect. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 59(1-2), 3-35.

Briere, J. (1984). The effects of childhood sexual abuse on
later psychological functioning: Defining a "post-
sexual-abuse syndrome". Paper presented at the Third
National Conference on Sexual Victimization,
Washington, DC.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1988). Multivariate correlates of
childhood psychological and physical maltreatment among
university women. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1;, 331-341.

Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult
symptomatology child abuse histories. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 11, 357-364.

Browne, A. & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual
abuse: A review of the research. Psychological
Bulletin, 29(1), 66-77.

Bulcroft, R. & Straus, M. (1975). Validity of husband, wife,
and child reports of intrafamilial violence and power.
University of New Hampshire, Family Violence Research
Program, mimeographed paper V16.

Caffaro-Rouget, A., Lang, R., & van Santen, V. (1989). The
impact of child sexual abuse on victims’ adjustment.
Annals of Sex Research, 2(1), 29-47.

Carlson, B. (1987). Dating violence: A research review and
comparison with spouse abuse. Social Work: The Journal

of Contemporary Social Work, §§(1), 16-23.

Cate, R.M., Henton, J.M., Koval, J., Christopher, F.S., &
Lloyd, S. (1982). Premarital abuse: A social
psychological perspective. Journal of Famil Issues,
3(1), 79-90.

 

 

114

Chess, 8., Thomas, A., Mittleman, M., Korn, S., & Cohen, J.,
(1984). Early parental attitudes, divorce and
separation and young adult outcome: Findings of a

longitudinal study. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry
and Child Development, 281-289.

Ciccheti, D., & Carlson, V. (Eds). (1989). Child
Maltreatment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, M.S., & Reis, H.T. (1988). Interpersonal processes in
close relationships. Annual Review of Ps cholo , 22,
609-672.

Cohn, E.S., & Sugarman, D.B. (1980). Marital abuse: Abusing

the one you love. Victimology: An International
Journal, 2, 203-212.

Courtois, C. (1979). The incest experience and its

aftermath. Victimology: An International Journal, 2,
337-347.

Crittenden, P.M. (1981). Abusing, neglecting, problematic
and adequate dyads: Differentiating by patterns of

interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 210-218.

---------------- (1985). Maltreated infants: Vulnerability

and resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 22(1), 85-96.

---------------- (1986). Final Project Report. HHS Grant
#90-CA-844: Differential assessment of maltreating
families using interaction, attachment and family
systems.

Curtis, W.J., Maguin, E., & Stollak, G. (1987). A
developmental model of coerciveness in dating
relationships. Paper presented at the annual convention
of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.

Dahms, A.M. (1972). Emotional intimacy: Overlooked
reguirement for survival. Boulder, CO: Pruett

Publishing.

Damon, L., Todd, J., & MacFarlane, K. (1987). Treatment
issues with sexually abused young children. Child
Welfare, 22(2), 125-137.

Egeland, B. & Sroufe, L.A. (1981). Developmental sequalae of
maltreatment in infancy. In R. Rizley and D. Cicchetti

(Eds.), New directions in child development:

Developmental perspectives in child maltreatment. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

115

Egeland, B., Sroufe, A., & Erickson, M. (1983). The
developmental consequence of different patterns
of maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1, 459-469.

Elmer, E. (1977). A follow-up study of traumatized children.
Pediatrics, 22(2), 273-279.

Enos, D.M., & Handel, P.J. (1986). The relation of parental
marital status and perceived family conflict to
adjustment in white adolescents. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 22, 820-824.

Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W.W.
Norton & Co.

----------- (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York:
W.W. Norton & Co.

Farber, E., & Joseph, J. (1985). The maltreated adolescent:

Patterns of physical abuse. Child Abuse and Ne lect, 2,
201-206.

Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and
research. New York: The Free Press.

------------- (1990). Early and long-term effects of child
sexual abuse: An update. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 22(5), 325-330.

Follingstad, D., Rutledge, L., Polek, D., & McNeill-Hawkins,
K. (1988). Factors associated with patterns of dating
violence toward college women. Journal of Family
Violence, 2(3), 169-182.

Frank, S.J. & Burke, L.E. (1992). Deidealization and
autonomy in late adolescence: Replications and
extensions of earlier findings. Paper presented at the
Biannual Conference of the Society for Adolescent
Research, Washington, DC.

Freud, A. (1981). A psychoanalyst’s View of sexual abuse by
parents. In P.B. Mrazek and C.H. Kempe (Eds.), Sexually
abused children and their families (pp. 33-34). Oxford:
Pergamon Press.

Friedman, S.B. & Morse, C.W. (1974). Child abuse: A five-
year follow-up of early case finding in the emergency
department. Pediatrics, 22(4), 404-410.

Friedrich, W.N., Urquiza, A.J., & Beilke, R.L. (1986).
Behavior problems in sexually abused young children.

Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22(1), 47-57.

 

116

Gaensbauer, T.J., & Harmon, R.J. (1982). Attachment behavior
in abused/neglected and premature infants: Implications
for the concept of attachment. In R.N. Emde and R.J.

Harmon (Eds.), The development of attachment and
affiliative systems (pp. 263-280). New York: Plenum.

Gagliano, C.K. (1987). Group treatment for sexually abuse

girls. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary
Social Work, 22(2), 102-108.

Garbarino, J. (1987). Troubled youth, troubled families: The
dynamics of adolescent maltreatment. In D. Cicchetti

and V. Carlson (Eds.) Child maltreatment: Theory and
research on the causes and conseguences of child abuse
and neglect (pp.685-706).

Garbarino, J., & Gilliam, G. (1980). Understanding abusive
families. Lexington, MA: Lexington Press.

Garbarino, J. & Vondra, J. (1987). Psychological
maltreatment: Issues and perspectives. In M. Brassard,
B. Germain, S. Hart (Eds.), Psychological maltreatment
of children and youth. New York: Pergamon.

Garrison, E.G. (1987). Psychological maltreatment of
children: An emerging focus for inquiry and concern.

American Psychologist, 22(2), 157-159.

Giblin, P.T., Starr, R.H., & Agronow, S.T. (1984). Affective
behavior of abused and control children: Comparisons of
parent-child interactions and the influence of home

environment variables. Journal of General Psychology,
144(1), 69-82.

Gil, D.G. (1970). Violence against children: Physical child
abuse in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Gil, D.G. (1979). Unraveling child abuse. In D. Gil (Ed.)
Child abuse and violence(pp. 3-17). New York: AMS
Press.

Gil, E. (1988). Treatment of adult survivors of child abuse.
Walnut Creek, CA: Launch Press.

Hart, S.N., Germain, R., & Brassard, M.R. (1987). The
challenge: To better understand and combat the
psychological maltreatment of children and youth. In
M.R. Brassard, R. Germain, & S.N. Hart (Eds.),

Psychological maltreatment of children and youth (pp.
3-24). New York: Pergamon Press.

 

117

Harter, S., Alexander, P.C., & Neimeyer, R.A. (1988). Long-
term effects of incestuous child abuse in college
women: Social adjustment, social cognition, and family

characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 22, 5-8.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized
as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 22(3), 511-524.

Hazzard, A., King, R.E., & Webb, C. (1986). Group therapy
with sexually abused adolescent girls. American Journal

of Psychotherapy, 22(2), 213-223.

Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal
causality. Psychological Review, 22, 358-374.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal
relations. New York: Wiley.

Helfer, R.E., McKinney, J.P., & Kempe, R. (1976). Arresting
or freezing the developmental process. In R.E. Helfer &

C.H. Kempe (Eds.), Child abuse and neglect: The family
and the community (pp. 55-73). Cambridge, MA:

Ballinger.

Hendrick, C. & Hendrick, 8.8. (1989). Research on love: Does

it measure up? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 22(5), 784-794.

Herman, J. (1981). Father-daughter incest. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Herzberger, S.D., Potts, D.A., & Dillon, M. (1981). Abusive
and nonabusive parental treatment of from the child’s

perspective. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 22, 81-90.

Hetherington, E.M. (1989). Coping with family transitions:

Winners, losers, and survivors. Child Development, 22,
1-14.

Hoffman-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, C. (1984). A multimodal
assessment of behavioral and cognitive deficits in

abused and neglected preschoolers. Child development,
22, 794-802.

Holter, J.C. & Friedman, S.B. (1968). Child abuse: Early
casefinding in the emergency department. Pediatrics,
22(128), 120-132.

 

 

118

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1979). Characterological vs. behavioral
self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 1798-1809.

Jehu, D., Gazen, M., & Kassen, C. (1985). Common therapeutic
targets among women who were sexually abused in

childhood. Feminist Perspectives on Social Work and
Human Sexuality, 2(2-3), 25-45.

Jorgensen, S.R. (1977). Societal class heterogamy, status
striving, and perception of marital conflict: A partial
replication and revision of Pierlin’s contingency

hypothesis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22,
653-689.

Kempe, R.S., & Kempe, C.H. (1984). The common secret: Sexual
abuse of children and adolescents. New York: W.H.
Freedman.

Kulka, R.A., & Weingarten, H. (1979). The long-term effects
of parental divorce in childhood on adult adjustment.
Journal of Social Issues, 22(4), 50-78.

Kurdek, L.A., & Sinclair, R.J. (1988). Parental discord vs.
family structure: Effects of divorce on the self-esteem
of daughters. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 22,
19-28.

Landau, H.R., Salus, M.R., Stiffman, T., & Kalb, N.L.
(1980). Child protection: The role of the courts.
Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.

Laner, M., & Thompson, J. (1982). Abuse and aggression in
courting couples. Deviant Behavior: An

Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 229-244.

Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world. New York:
Plenum.

Levay, A.N., & Kagle, A. (1977). Ego deficiencies in areas
of pleasure, intimacy, and cooperation: Guidelines in
the diagnosis and treatment of sexual dysfunction.
Journal of Sex Research, 2, 10-18.

Lindberg, F.H., & Distad, L.J. (1985). Survival responses to
incest: Adolescents in crisis. Child Abuse and Ne lect,
2, 521-526.

 

119

Long, B.H. (1986). Adjustment of young adolescents in two-
parent nuclear, stepfather, and mother-custody

families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 22, 91-96.

Lukianowicz, N. (1972). Incest. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 120, 301-313.

Makepeace, J. (1981). Courtship violence among college
students. Famil Relations, 22, 97-102.

Maltz, W. (1988). Identifying and treating the sexual
repercussions of incest: A couples therapy approach.

Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 22(2), 142-170.

Marshall, L., & Rose, P. (1988). Family of origin violence

and courtship abuse. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 22, 414-418.

Martin, H.P. (1976). The abused child. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.

Martin, H.P., & Beezley, P. (1977). Behavioral observations
of abused children. Developmental medicine and child
neurology, 22, 373-387.

Martin, H.P., & Rodeheffer, M.A. (1980). The psychological
impact of abuse on children. In G.J. Williams & J.

Money (Eds.), Traumatic abuse and neglect of children
at home (pp.205-212). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins

University.

Martinez-Roig, A., Domingo-Salvany, F., & Llorens-Terol, J.
(1983). Psychologic implications of the maltreated-
child syndrome. Child Abuse and Neglect, 1, 261-263.

Matthews, W. (1983). Violence in college couples. College
Student Journal, 22(2), 150—158.

McCarthy, J.B. (1990). Abusive families and character

formation. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis,
22(2), 181-186.

Meiselman, K. (1978). Incest: A psychological study of
causes and effects with treatment recommendations. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, D.T. & Porter, C.A. (1983). Self-blame in victims of
violence. Journal of Social Issues, 22(2), 139-152.

 

 

120

Mueller, E., & Silverman, N. (1989). Peer relations in
maltreated children. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson

(Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the

causes and conseguences of child abuse and neglect
(pp.529-578). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mullahy, P. (Ed.). (1952). The contributions of Harry Stack
Sullivan. New York: Hermitage House.

Oates, R., Forrest, D. & Peacock, A. (1985). Self-esteem of
abused children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 2, 159-163.

Orlofsky, J. (1978). The relationship between intimacy
status and antecedent personality components.
Adolescence, 2, 420-441.

Peters, J.J. (1976). Children who are victims of sexual
assault and the psychology of offenders. American

Journal of Psychotherapy, 22, 398-421.

Pianta, R., Egeland, B., & Erickson, M.F. (1989). The
antecedents of maltreatment: Results of the mother-
childinteraction research project. In D. Cicchetti and

V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and

research on the causes and conseguences of child abuse
and neglect (pp.203-253). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Pierce, R., & Pierce, L. (1985). The sexually abused child:
A comparison of male and female victims. Child Abuse

and Neglect, 2, 191-199.

Polansky, N.A., Chalmers, M., & Williams, D.P. (1981).

Damaged parents: An anatomy of child neglect. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Polansky, N.A., Hally, C., & Polansky, N.F. (1975).
Profile of neglect. Washington, D.C.: Public Services
Administration, Department of H.E.W.

Porter, F.S., Blick, L.C., & Sgroi, S.M. (1982).
In S.M. Sgroi (Ed.), Handbook of clinical intervention
in child sexual abuse (pp. 109- 145). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Powers, J., & Eckenrode, J. (1988). The maltreatment of
adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 189-199.

Reidy, T. (1977). The aggressive characteristics of abused

and neglected children. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
22(4), 1140-1145.

 

121

Riggs, D.S, O’Leary, K.D., & Breslin, F.C. (1990). Multiple
correlates of physical aggression in dating couples.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 61-73.

Rohner, R.P. (1986). The warmth dimension. Beverly Hills:
Sage.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 265-273.

Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to social
psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rusbult, C.E., Johnson, D.J., & Morrow, G.D. (1986). Impact
of couple patterns of problem solving on distress and
nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 22(4), 744-753.

Rusbult, C.E. & Zembrodt, I.M. (1983). Responses to
dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A
multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 274-293.

Sedney, M.A., & Brooks, B. (1984). Factors associated with a
history of childhood sexual experience in a nonclinical

female population. Journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychiatry, 22, 215-218.

Sgroi, S.M., Blick, L.C., & Porter, F.S. (1982). A
conceptual framework for child sexual abuse. In S.M.
Sgroi (Ed.), Handbook of clinical intervention in child

sexual abuse (pp. 9-37). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

Shaver, K.G. & Drown, D. (1986). On causality,
responsibility, and self-blame: A theoretical note.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(4),
697-702.

Siegelman, C., Berry, C., & Wiles, K. (1984). Violence in
college students’ dating relationships. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 2(6), 53-548.

Steele, B.F., & Alexander, H. (1981). Long term effects of
sexual abuse in childhood. In P.B. Mrazek and C.H.

Kempe (Eds.), Sexually abuse children and their
families (223-234). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Sternberg, R. (1986). A triangular theory of love.
Psychological Review, 22(2), 119—135.

 

122

Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and
violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales. Journal of

Marriage and the Family, 22(1), 75—88.

Tatham, L. & Frank, S.J. The Family Situation Inventory.
Michigan State University Department of Psychology,

East Lansing, Michigan.

Tong, L., Oates, K., & McDowell, M. (1987). Personality
development following sexual abuse. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 22, 371-383.

Tufts’ New England Medical Center, Division of Child

Psychiatry. (1984). Sexually exploited children:

Service and research project. Final report for the
Office of Jevenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Wallerstein, J. (1985). The overburdened child: Some long
term consequences of divorce. Social Work, 22, 116-123.

Weiss, R.S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. Parke &
J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.) The place of attachment in
human behavior (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books.

Welsh, R. (1976). Severe parental punishment and
delinquency: A developmental theory. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 2(1), 17-21.

Wolf, D.A. (1985). Child-abusive parents: An empirical
review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 21(3),
462-482.

Wortman, C.B. (1976). Causal attributions and personal
control. In J.H. Harvey, W.J. Ickes and R.F. Kidd
(Eds.), New directions in attribution research, Vol. 1.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

 

 

APPENDICES

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTS III-FORM SD

 

123
Appendix A

Assessing Environments Scale III-Form SD

This is a questionnaire about your childhood environment. Most of
the questions refer to experiences that occurred during your
childhood (before age 18, or before you left your parents’ house---
whichever came first), in particular involving your mother or step-
mother. Many of the questions refer to your pegceptiop of events
or people, so they have no right or wrong answers. Please answer
the questions as accurately and as honestly as you can. Remember,
this questionnaire is anonymous and confidential.

Please answer the following questions on both t s eet ut t e
a re riate number e t to the estio an o the a o r te
scantron sheet. NOTE: most of the questions require you to

estimate the number of times that an event has occurred (e.g.
rarely) while a few questions will require you to make a judgment

(e.g. very true). Use the following guide when answering
questions.

1=never/very untrue

2=rare1y (approximately 1-5 times)/somewhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/somewhat true
4=frequent1y (more than 20 times)/very true

1. My family often did things together.

2. When I was a child, I shared a lot of activities with my
mother.

3. When I was a child, if my mother had a problem, she would
sometimes talk to me about it.

4. My mother was too strict with me.

5. My mother used physical discipline with me.

6. My mother used to hug me when I was a child.

7. My mother used to give me piggyback rides when I was small.

8. My mother always expected more from me than I was capable of
doing.

9. My mother would watch me undress and bathe (after I had
learned to do these things for myself).

10. I had a lot of freedom when I was a child, but if my mother
did decide to punish me she was very harsh.

 

 

124

=never/very untrue

2=rare1y (approximately 1-5 times)/somewhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/somewhat true
4=frequently (more than 20 times)/very true

11. I required medical attention (at least once) for injuries
- caused by my mother.

12. At night, our family often did things together such as
playing cards or a game, working on a project together, etc.

13. My mother was inconsistent in her discipline of me. I
never knew whether or not I would be punished for a
particular behavior.

14. My mother would sometimes fondle my genitals, buttocks, etc.

15. I think my mother has/had a good attitude toward me.

16. My mother did a good job of raising me.

17. My mother used to spank me.

18. My mother used to kiss me when I was a child.

19. My mother used to hold me on her lap.

20. My mother used to hit me with something other than her hands
when I did something wrong.

21. My mother engaged in oral sex with me (giving and/or
receiving).

22. My mother used harsh discipline with me between the ages of 5
and 10.

23. When I was a child, my mother often found time to play with
me.

24. My mother was very harsh with me.

25. When I was a young child, my mother used to leave me (and my
young brothers and sisters) alone when she went out.

26. When my mother was angry, she sometimes grabbed me by
the throat and started to choke me.

27. I never felt that my mother really loved me.
28. My mother’s use of discipline was very reasonable.

29. I would describe my relationship with my mother as very
close.

 

 

125

1=never/very untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 times)/somewhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/somevhat true
4=trequently (more than 20 times)/very true

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

My mother was a very strict disciplinarian.

I never received any kid of injury from the discipline used
by my mother.

My mother talked to me about her sex life and/or would ask
me about the sexual aspects of my relationships.
My mother used to kick me when she got angry with me.

My mother often took me along with her to visit friends or
relatives.

I was rarely punished when I was a child.

My mother used to punch me when she got angry with me.
Sometimes my mother would complain to me about my father.
My mother would expose her genitals to me.

When I was bad, my mother used to look me in a closet.

My mother used to hit me with her hands (other than
spanking).

I felt rejected by my mother.

I was severely beaten by my mother.

My mother exposed me to pornography (e.g., magazines, movies
etc.)

My mother used harsh discipline with me before the age of 5.

My parents usually seemed to agree on when I needed to be
disciplined.

I was rejected by my mother when I was a child.

My mother engaged in sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal
penetration) with me.

My mother never used harsh discipline with me.

When I did something wrong, my mother sometimes tied me up.

My mother walked around the house nude.

 

126

1=neverfvery untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 timea)/somevhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 timee)/somevhat true
4=trequently (more than 20 times)/very true

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

I was mistreated by my mother.

My mother
My mother
My mother
My mother

My mother

used harsh discipline with me during adolescence.
would kiss me in a passionate manner.

used to insult me.

tried to make me feel guilty.

criticized me.

 

 

127

This is a questionnaire about your childhood environment. Most of
the questions refer to experiences that occurred during your
childhood (before age 18, or before you left your parents’ house---
whichever came first), in particular involving your father or step-
father. Many of the questions refer to your perception of events
or people, so they have no right or wrong answers. Please answer
the questions as accurately and as honestly as you can. Remember,
this questionnaire is anonymous and confidential.

Please answer the following questions on both this sheet (write
on a swe next to t e e o a on t e a re r'ate scantro

sheet. NOTE: most of the questions require you to estimate the
number of times that an event has occurred (e.g. rarely) while a
few questions will require you to make a judgment (e.g. very true).
Use the following guide when answering questions.

=never/very untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 times)/somewhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/somevhat true
=trequent1y (more than 20 timee)/very true

1. My family often did things together.

2. When I was a child, I shared a lot of activities with my
father.

3. When I was a child, if my father had a problem, he would
sometimes talk to me about it.

4. My father was too strict with me.

5. My father used physical discipline with me.

6. My father used to hug me when I was a child.

7. My father used to give me piggyback rides when I was small.

8. My father always expected more from me than I was capable of
doing.

9. My father would watch me undress and bathe (after I had
learned to do these things for myself).

10. I had a lot of freedom when I was a child, but if my father
did decide to punish me he was very harsh.

11. I required medical attention (at least once) for injuries
caused by my father.

 

128

1=never/very untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 times)/aomewhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/somewhat true
4=frequently (more than 20 times)/very true

12. At night, our family often did things together such as
playing cards or a game, working on a project together, etc.

13. My father was inconsistent in his discipline of me. I
never knew whether or not I would be punished for a
particular behavior.

14. My father would sometimes fondle my genitals, buttocks, etc.

15. I think my father has/had a good attitude toward me.

16. My father did a good job of raising me.

17. My father used to spank me.

18. My father used to kiss me when I was a child.

19. My father used to hold me on his lap.

20. My father used to hit me with something other than his hands
when I did something wrong.

21. My father engaged in oral sex with me (giving and/or
receiving).

22. My father used harsh discipline with me between the ages of 5
and 10.

23. When I was a child, my father often found time to play with
me.

24. My father was very harsh with me.

25. When I was a young child, my father used to leave me (and my
young brothers and sisters) alone when he went out.

26. When my father was angry, he sometimes grabbed me by
the throat and started to choke me.

27. I never felt that my father really loved me.
28. My father's use of discipline was very reasonable.

29. I would describe my relationship with my father as very
close.

30. My father was a very strict disciplinarian.

 

129

1=never/very untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 times)/somevhat untrue
3=occasionally (approximately 6-20 times)/eomewhat true
4=frequently (more than 20 times)/very true

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

I never received any kid of injury from the discipline used
by my father.

My father talked to me about his sex life and/or would ask
me about the sexual aspects of my relationships.

My father used to kick me when he got angry with me.

My father often took me along with him to visit friends or
relatives.

I was rarely punished when I was a child.

My father used to punch me when he got angry with me.
Sometimes my father would complain to me about my mother.
My father would expose his genitals to me.

When I was bad, my father used to lock me in a closet.

My father used to hit me with his hands (other than
spanking).

I felt rejected by my father.

I was severely beaten by my father.

My father exposed me to pornography (e.g., magazines, movies
etc.)

My father used harsh discipline with me before the age of 5.

My parents usually seemed to agree on when I needed to be
disciplined.

I was rejected by my father when I was a child.

My father engaged in sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal
penetration) with me.

My father never used harsh discipline with me.

When I did something wrong, my father sometimes tied me up.
My father walked around the house nude.

I was mistreated by my father.

 

130

1=neverlvery untrue

2=rarely (approximately 1-5 timea)/aomewhat untrue
3=occasiona11y (approximately 6-20 times)/somewhat true
4=frequently (more than 20 times)/very true

52. My father used harsh discipline with me during adolescence.
53. My father would kiss me in a passionate manner.

54. My father used to insult me.

55. My father tried to make me feel guilty.

56. My father criticized me.

 

 

APPENDIX B

PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE-REJECTION QUESTIONNAIRE

 

131

Appendix B

Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire

PARQ-M

Answer the following questions by both circling the appropriate
item and then copy this gppe nppper opto the appropriate scapgrop
sheet. If you spent time with both a biological mother and a step-
mother, answer the questions in terms of the parent with whom you
spent the most time while you were growing up.

While I was growing up my motherzstep-mother:

almost sometimes rarely never

always true true true
true
1. said nice things about me 1 2 3

2. nagged or scolded me when I

was bad 1 2 3
3. totally ignored me 1 2 i 3
4. did not really love me 1 2 3

5. talked to me about our plans
and listened to what I had to

say 1 2 3
6. complained about me to others

when I did not listen to her 1 2 3
7. took an active interest in me 1 2 3

8. encouraged me to bring my
friends home, and tried to
make things pleasant for

me 1 2 3
9. ridiculed me and made fun
of me 1 2 3

10. ignored me as long as I did
not do anything to bother
her 1 2 3

11. yelled at me when she was
angry l 2 3

12. made it easy for me to tell
her things that were
important 1 2 3

13. treated me harshly 1 2 3

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

132

enjoyed having me around
her

~made me feel proud when I

did well

hit me, even when I did not
deserve i:

forgot things she was
supposed to do for me

saw me as a big
brother/sister
praised me to others

punished me severely when
she was angry

made sure I had the right
kinds of food to eat

talked to me in a warm and
loving way

got angry easily with me

was too busy to answer my
questions

seemed to dislike me

said nice things to me when
I deserved them

got mad quickly and picked
on me

was concerned about who my
friends were

almost
always
rue

l

was really interested in what

I did

said many unkind things to
me

ignored me when I asked for
help

sometimes
true

rarely
true

never
true

 

 

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

133

thought it was my own fault
when I was having trouble

made me feel wanted and
needed

told me that I got on her
nerves

paid a lot of attention
to me

told me how proud she was of
me when I was good

went out of her way to hurt
my feelings

forgot important things I

thought she should
remember

made me feel I would not be
loved anymore if I
misbehaved

made me feel what I did was
important

frightened or threatened me
when I did something wrong

liked to spend time with me

tried to help me when I was
scared or upset

shamed me in front of my
friends when I misbehaved

tried to stay away from me
complained about me

cared about what I thought
and liked to talk about it

felt other children were
better than I was no matter
what I did

almost
always
true

1

sometimes
true

rarely
true

never
true

134

almost sometimes rarely never
always true true true
true

49. cared about what I would like
when she made plans 1 2 3

50. let me do things I thought were
important, even if it was
inconvenient for her 1 2 3

51. thought other children behaved
better than I did 1 2 3

52. made other people take care of
me (e.g., a neighbor or a
relative) 1 2 3

53. let me know I was not
wanted 1 2 3

54. was interested in the things
I did 1 2 3

55. tried to make me feel better
when I was sick or hurt 1 2 3

56. told me how ashamed she was
when I misbehaved l 2 3

57. let me know she loved me 1 2 3

58. treated me gently and with
kindness l 2 3

59. made me feel ashamed or
guilty when I misbehaved l 2 3

60. tried to make me happy 1 2 3

 

 

135

PARQ-E'

Answer the following questions by both circ in the a o r ate
item and thep copy thig apps pppper onto the appropriate scaptrop
sheet. If you spent time with both a biological father and a step-
father, answer the questions in terms of the parent with whom you
spent the most time while you were growing up.

While I was growing up my fatherzstep-father:

almost sometimes rarely never

always true true true
true
1. said nice things about me 1 2 3

2. nagged or scolded me when I

was bad 1 2 3
3. totally ignored me 1 2 3
4. did not really love me 1 2 3

5. talked to me about our plans
and listened to what I had to

say 1 2 3
6. complained about me to others

when I did not listen to him 1 2 3
7. took an active interest in me 1 2 3
8. encouraged me to bring my

friends home, and tried to
make things pleasant for
me 1 2 3

9. ridiculed me and made fun
of me 1 2 3

10. ignored me as long as I did
not do anything to bother
him 1 2 3

11. yelled at me when he was
angry 1 2 3

12. made it easy for me to tell
him things that were
important 1 2 3

13. treated me harshly l 2 3 A

 

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

136

enjoyed having me around
him

made me feel proud when I
did well

hit me, even when I did not
deserve it

forgot things he was
supposed to do for me

saw me as a big
brother/sister
praised me to others

punished me severely when
he was angry

made sure I had the right
kinds of food to eat

talked to me in a warm and
loving way

got angry easily with me

was too busy to answer my
questions

seemed to dislike me

said nice things to me when
I deserved_them

got mad quickly and picked
on me

was concerned about who my
friends were

almost
always
rue

1

was really interested in what

I did

said many unkind things to
me

ignored me when I asked for
help

sometimes
true

rarely
true

never
true

 

 

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

45.

47.

48.

137

thought it was my own fault
when I was having trouble

made me feel wanted and
needed

told me that I got on his
nerves

paid a lot of attention
to me

told me how proud he was of
me when I was good

went out of his way to hurt
my feelings

forgot important things I
thought he should

remember

made me feel I would not be
loved anymore if I
misbehaved

made me feel what I did was
important

frightened or threatened me
when I did something wrong

liked to spend time with me

tried to help me when I was
scared or upset

shamed me in front of my
friends when I misbehaved

tried to stay away from me
complained about me

cared about what I thought
and liked to talk about it

felt other children were
better than I was no matter
what I did

almost
always
true

1

sometimes
true

rarely
true

(J

never
true

 

 

138

almost sometimes rarely never

always true true true
true
49. cared about what I would like
when he made plans 1 2 3

50. let me do things I thought were
important, even if it was
inconvenient for him 1 2 3

51. thought other children behaved
better than I did 1 2 3

52. made other people take care of
me (e.g., a neighbor or a
relative) 1 2 3

53. let me know I was not
wanted 1 2 3

54. was interested in the things '
I did 1 2 3

55. tried to make me feel better

when I was sick or hurt I 2 3
56. told me how ashamed he was

when I misbehaved 1 2 3
57. let me know he loved me 1 2 3

58. treated me gently and with
kindness 1 2 3

59. made me feel ashamed or
guilty when I misbehaved 1 2 3

60. tried to make me happy 1 2 3

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

PERCEPTION OF PARENT/STEP-PARENT BEHAVIOR

 

 

139

Appendix C

Perception of Parent/Step—Parent Behavior

Perceptions of Parent/Step-Parent Behavior

When answering the following questions, consider your responses to
the previous questionnaires that dealt with your parent’s behavior

toward you as you were growing up. Indicate your responses on both
this sheet (write your response next to the question) and the

appropriate scantron.

1. For the questions dealing with your mother’s behavior towards
you, please indicate whether your responses referred to your:

 

* biological mother (fill in 1 on your scantron)
* step-mother (fill in 2 on your scantron)

* other, please indicate (fill in 3 on your
scantron)

2. For the questions dealing with your father’s behavior towards
you, please indicate whether your responses referred to your:

* biological father (fill in 1 on your scantron)
* step-father (fill in 2 on your scantron)

* other, please indicate (fill in 3 on your
scantron)

3. Given your descriptions of your mother/step-mother’s behavior
toward you, overall, would you characterize these behaviors as:

* mainly occurring before you were 10 years old (fill in 1)

* mainly occurring after age 10 (fill in 2)

* remained consistent throughout your childhood and
adolescence (fill in 3)

4. Given your descriptions of your father/step-father’s behavior
toward you, overall, would you characterize these behaviors as:

* mainly occurring before you were 10 years old (fill in 1)
* mainly occurring after age 10 (fill in 2)

* remained consistent throughout your childhood and
adolescence (fill in 3)

5. Did you ever seek counseling as a result of your mother/step-
mother’s behavior towards you?

* NO (fill in 1)
* yrs (fill in 2)

 

140

6. If you answered yes to the previous question, do you think
that the counseling was helpful?
* NO (fill in l)
* YES (fill in 2)
* not applicable (fill in 3)

7. Did you ever seek counseling as a result of your father/step-
father’s behavior towards you?
* NO (fill in 1)

* yrs (fill in 2)
8. If you answered yes to the previous question, do you think
that the counseling was helpful?
* NO (fill in 1)
* YES (fill in 2)
* not applicable (fill in 3)

9. If you were maltreated by one of your parents/step-parents, did
you at any later time experience a more positive relationship
with a nonabusive parent figure (e.g., your mother was abusive,
then your parents divorced, you lived with your father, he
remarried, and you formed a positive relationship with this
step—parent)?

*NO (fill in 1)
*YES (fill in 2)
*not applicable (fill in 3)

For the following questions, fill in the appropriate number both on

this sheet (circle the number) and on the appropgiate scantron.

10. To what extent are/were you responsible for your mother/step-

mother's negative behavior (e.g., putting you down, using harsh
discipline,‘ignoring you, etc.) towards you?

Not at all Somewhat Completely

l 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. To what extent are/were you responsible for your father/step-
father’s negative behavior (e.g., putting you down, using harsh
discipline, ignoring you, etc.) towards you?
Not at all Somewhat Completely
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

141

12. To what extent is/was your mother/step-mother responsible for
her negative behavior towards you?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. To what extent is/was your father/step-father responsible for
his negative behavior towards you?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. To what extent is/was your mother/step-mother’s negative
behavior towards you due to something that may have been beyond
her control (e.g., alcoholism, mental illness, etc.)?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. To what extent is/was your father/step-father’s negative
behavior towards you due to something that may have been beyond
his control (e.g., alcoholism, mental illness, etc.)?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. To what extent could you have done something more to prevent or
escape from your mother/step-mother’s negative behavior?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. To what extent could you have done something more to prevent or
escape from your father/step-father’s negative behavior?

Not at all Somewhat Completely
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

PARENT CONFLICT SCALE

 

 

142

Appendix D

Parent Conflict Scale

Answer each statement in terms of your parents'

current relationship (circle the correct response).

10.
11.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

Hy parents argue with each other in front of me.
I stay out of my parents' arguments.
I worry about my mother.

My parents hold grudges for a long time when
fighting. '

By mother asks me for advice.

My parents fight verbally with each other.

I take my mother’s side when my parents fight.
I worry about my father.

I have alot of responsibility in the family.

I enjoy being with my mother.

My mother tries to get me to side with her when
she fights with my father.

Hy parents fight about money and possessions.
I irritated when my parents fight.

My parents are able to resolve disagreements
fairly quickly .

My parents fight physically with each other.

My father~tries to get me to side with me when
he fights with my mother.

I enjoy being with my father.
I take my father's side when my parents fight.
My parents talk together about my future.

My parents are able to discuss and resolve their
disagreements.

.4

r)

F.)

f.)

I»)

I0

F)

 

 

143

21. Hy father asks me for advice. 4 3 2

2. My parents work together as parents. ~ 4 3 2

23. I am embarrassed when my parents fight. 4 3 2

24. My parents never fight.' 4 3 2

25. My father says negative things to me about my 6 3 2
mother.

26. I an upset by my parents fighting. 4 3 2

27. Even if my parents fight about other things they 4 3 2
respect each other as parents.

28. My mother says negative things about my father. 4 3 2

29. How well do you think your parents get along with each other?

1 2 3 a 5
very well badly

30. How often do your parents get angry with one another or disagree?

1 2 3 5 5
never all the time

...

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E

ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Appendix E

144

Romantic Relationships Questionnaire

This questionnaire is similar to the previous one, but it has been changed in
various ways.
descriptions are now worded differently. This questionnaire applies to all
emotionally close relationships, not just romantic ones.

A fourth relationship style has been added and the other three

1. Following are descriptions of four general relationship styles that people
often report. Please place a checkmark next to the letter corresponding
to the style that best describes you or is the closest to the way you are
and fill in the corresponding circle on the gppggprig§§_§ggngrgn.

A.

It is relatively easy for me to become emotionally
close to others. I am comfortable depending on
others and having others depend on me. I don’t

worry about being alone or having others not accept
me.

I am somewhat uncomfortable getting close to others.
I want emotionally close relationships, but I find
it difficult to trust others completely, or to
depend on them. I sometimes worry that I will be
hurt if I allow myself to become too close to
others.

_I want to be completely emotionally intimate with

others, but I often find that others are reluctant
to get as close as I would like. I an uncomfortable
being without close relationships, but I sometimes
worry that others don’t value me as much as I value
them.

I am comfortable without close emotional
relationships. It is very important for me to feel
independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to
depend on others or have others depend on me.

Now please rate each of the relationship styles above according to
the extent to which you think each description corresponds to your
general relationship style and fill in the appropriate scantron.

Not at all Somewhat Very much
like me like me like me
2. Style A 1 2 3 4 s 6 7
3. Style B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Style c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Style D

 

 

 

APPENDIX F

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

145

Appendix F

Personality Assessment Questionnaire

Everyone has their own styles of interacting with people who are
important to them. Think about the way in which you relate to
other people. In particular consider how you interact with the
person you indicated earlier on the "Current Relationships status"
questionnaire. Answer the following questions on both this speet
(circle the appropgiate nppper) and op the appropgiate sgpptgop.

For those questions that include a blank line (" "), answer in
terms or the person you indicated earlier.

1. I like to feel sorry for me when I am feeling sick,
blue, etc.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never

true true true true,

1 2 3 4

2. I have trouble showing people how I feel.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true

1 2 3 4

3. I like __ to give me a lot of love.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true

1 2 3 4

4. It is easy for me to be loving with .

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

5. When I an unhappy I like to work my problems out by myself.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

 

 

146

5. I feel I have trouble making and keeping good friends.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true

1 2 3 4

7. I like to give me a lot of attention.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true . true

1 2 3 4

8. It is easy for me to show that I love him/her.
Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true

1 2 3 4

9. I like to be given encouragement when I am having trouble
with something.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

10. It is hard for me when I try to show the way I really feel to
someone I like.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true

1 2 3 4

11. I like to make a fuss over me when I am sick, feeling

down, etc.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

12. It is easy for me to show my friends that I really like them.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

 

 

14. I don't know what I would do without __________.

Almost always Sometimes Rarely Almost never
true true true true
1 2 3 4

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

LIKING AND LOVING QUESTIONNAIRE

 

148

Appendix G

Liking and Loving Questionnaire

Thinking about your relationship with the person you indicated on
the "current relationship status" questionnaire, indicate your

answers to the following questions on both this sheet and on the
appropriate scgntron sheet.

1. If were feeling bad, my first duty would be to cheer
him/her up.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
2. I feel that I can confide in about virtually

everything.

01 O2 03 04 05 06 07 08 99 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
3. When I am with , we almost always are in the same

mood.

01 02 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
4. I think that is unusually well-adjusted.

01 02 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
5. I find is easy to ignore 's faults.

01 02 03 O4 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely

true true true

 

149

6. I would do almost anything for

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 O8 O9 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
7. I would highly recommend for a responsible job.

01 02 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
8. In my opinion, is an exceptionally mature person.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 O9 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
9. If I could never be with , I would feel miserable.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 O9 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true

10. I feel very possessive towards

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
11. I have great confidence in '3 good judgment.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
12. Most people would react favorably to after a

brief acquaintance.

Ol 02 O3 04 05 06 07 O8 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true

 

150

13. If I were lonely, my first thought would be to seek

out.

01 02 03 O4 05 06 O7 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
14. One of my primary concerns is _________’s welfare.

01 02 03 O4 05 06 O7 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
15. I think that and I are quite similar to one

another.

01 02 03 04 05 06 O7 08 99 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
16. I would vote for in a class or group election.

01 02 O3 O4 05 06 O7 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
17. I would forgive for practically anything.

01 02 O3 O4 05 06 O7 08 O9 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
18. I feel responsible for ’s well-being.

Ol 02 03 O4 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely

true true true

 

 

 

151

19. I think that is one of those people who quickly
wins respect.

01 O2 O3 04 05 06 07 O8 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
20. I feel that is an extremely intelligent person.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
21. When I am with , I spend a good deal of time just

looking at him/her.

- 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true

22. I would/do greatly enjoy being confided in by

01 02 03 04 05 06 O7 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
23. . ___ is one of the most likable people I know.

01 02 O3 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
Not at all Moderately Definitely
true true true
24. Via the sort of person whom I myself would like to

be.

01 02 O3 O4 05 06 07 08 09 10

Not at all Moderately Definitely

true true true

 

 

152

25. It would be hard for me to get along without

01 02 03 O4 05 06 07
Not at all Moderately
true true

26. It seems to me that is is very easy for

admiration.
01 02 03 O4 05 06 07
Not at all Moderately

true true

08

08

09 10
Definitely
true

to gain

09 10
Definitely
true

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE SCALE

 

 

153

Appendix H

Triangular Theory of Love Scale

The blanks represent the person who you indicated earlier in the
"Current Relationship Status" questionnaire.

The statements are rated on a 1-9 scale where 1=not at all,
5=moderately, and 9=extremely. Use the intermediate points on the
scale to indicate intermediate levels of feelings.

Please answer the following questions on both the questionnaire
(next to the question) and on the appropriate scantrop.

1. I am actively supportive of 's well-being.
2. I have a warm relationship with .

3. I am able to count on in times of need.
4. is able to count on me in times of need.

5. I am willing to share myself and my possessions with .
6. I receive considerable emotional support from .

7. I give considerable emotional support to

8. I communicate well with

9. I value greatly in my life.

10. I feel close to

11. I have a comfortable relationship with

12. I feel that I really understand

13. I feel that really understands me.

14. I feel that I really can trust .

15. I share deeply personal information about myself with

16. Just seeing excites me.

17. I find myself thinking about frequently during the
day.

18. My relationship with is very romantic.

19. I find to be very personally attractive.

 

 

20.

154

I idealize

21. I cannot imagine another person making me as happy as

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

does.

I would rather be with than with anyone else.

There is nothing more important to me than my relationship
with

I especially like physical contact with

There is something almost "magical" about my relationship
with

I adore
I cannot imagine life without .
My relationship with is passionate.

When I see romantic movies or read romantic books I think of

~

I fantasize about
I know that I care about
I am committed to maintaining my relationship with

Because of my commitment to , I would not let other
people come between us.

I have confidence in the stability of my relationship with
I could not let anything get in the way of my commitment to

I expect my love for to last for the rest of my
life.

I will always feel a strong responsibility for
I View my commitment to as a solid one.
I cannot imagine ending my relationship with

I am certain of my love for
I view my relationship with as permanent.

I view my relationship with as a good decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES

 

156
Appendix I

Conflict Tactics Scales

No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree on
major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just
have spate or fights because they are in a bad mood or tired or for some other

reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their
differences.

The following is a list of things you and a partner/friend might have done
when you had a dispute. Answer these questions in terms of the person you
indicated on the “Current Relationship Status" questionnaire. Reed each

possible response and indicate on both this sheet and on the appropriate
scantron sheet has often you did this in the past year. Then indicate how

often your partner/friend responded in these ways in the past year.

When you and your partner/friend disagree, how often,
in the past year, have you:

Never Once 3-5 6-10 11-20 More than
Times Times Times 20 Times

1. Discussed the issue calmly. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. Got information to back up
your side of things. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Brought in or tried to
bring in someone to help

settle things. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Insulted or swore at him/

her. 1 2 3 4 5 6
S. Sulked and/or refused to

talk about it. 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. stomped out of the room,

house, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Cried. _ 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. Did or said something to
spite him/her. l 2 3 4 5 6

9. Threatened to hit or throw

something at him/her. 1 2 3 4 S 6
10. Threw or smashed or hit

or kicked something. 1 2 3 4 5 6
ll. Threw something at him/her. l 2 3 4 5 6

l2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved
him/her. l 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

157

Never Once 3—5 6-10 11-20 More than
Times Times Times 20 Times

13. Slapped him/her. l 2 3 4 5 6
14. Kicked, bit, or hit with

a fist. 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Hit or tried to hit with

something. 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Beat up him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 I

17. Threatened him/her with
a knife or gun. l 2 3 4 5 6

18. Used a knife or gun. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

when you and your partner/friend disagree, how often,
in the past year, has your partner/friend:

Never Once 3-5 6—10 11-20 More than
Times Times Times 20 Times

19. Discussed the issue calmly. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. Got information to back up
his/her side of things. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21. Brought in or tried to
bring in someone to help
settle things. 1 2 3 4 S 6

22. Insulted or swore at
you. 1 2 3 4 5 6

23. Sulked and/or refused to
talk about it. 1 2 3 4 5 6

24. stomped out of the room,
house, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6

2S. Cried. l 2 3 4 S 6

26. Did or said something to
spite you. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27. Threatened to hit or throw
something at you. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28. Threw or smashed or hit
or kicked something. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

158

Never Once 3-5 6—10 11-20 More than
Times Times Times 20 Times

29. Threw something at you. 1 2 3 4 5 6
30. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved

you. 1 2 3 4 5 6
31. Slapped you. 1 2 3 4 5 6
32. Kicked, bit, or hit with

a fist. 1 2 3 4 5 6
33. Hit or tried to hit with

something. 1 2 3 4 5 6
34. Beat you up. 1 2 3 4 5 6

35. Threatened you with
a knife or gun. I 2 3 4 5 6

36. Used a knife or gun. l 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

APPENDIX J

PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE

 

159

Appendix J

Problem Solving Strategies Questionnaire

Problem-Solving strategies

There are many different ways to approach problems in
relationships. Consider the person whom you indicated earlier on
the "Current Relationship status" questionnaire. Indicate on this
sheet as well as the appgoppiate scaptron speet how often you deal

with problems in this relationship in the ways described by the
following sentences.

1. When I’m unhappy with my partner, I consider ending the

relationship.
Never do Sometimes do hhaysdo
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. When my partner says or does things I don’t like, I talk to
him/her about what’s upsetting me.

Never do Sometimes do Ahays do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. When we have problems in our relationship, I patiently wait for
things to improve.

Never do Sometimes do All-BYE do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. When I an upset with my partner, I sulk rather than confront the

issue.
Never do Sometimes do Ahiqs do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. When I’m angry at my partner, I talk to him/her about ending the

relationship.
Never do Sometimes do Alsays Cb
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

160

6. When my partner and I have problems, I discuss things with

him/her.
Never do Sometimes do Abays Cb
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. When I'm upset about something in our relationship, I wait

awhile before saying anything to see if things will improve
on their own.

Never do Sometimes do Ahays d3
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9

8. When I'm really bothered about something my partner has done, I
criticize him/her for things that are unrelated to the real

problem.
Never do Sometimes do Always do
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9

9. When we have had serious problems in our relationship, I take
action to end the relationship.

Never do Sometimes do Alyays m
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10. When I am unhappy with my partner, I tell him/her what’s
bothering me.

Never do Sometimes do Alvays (b
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. When my partner hurts me, I say nothing and simply forgive
him/her.

Never do Sometimes do Alvays Cb
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

161

12. When I am upset with my partner, I ignore him/her for a

while.
Never do Sometimes do Ahays Cb
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. When I’m irritated with my partner, I think about ending our

relationship.
Never do Sometimes do Alhays do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. When things aren’t going well between us, I suggest changing
things in the relationship in order to solve the problem.

Never do Sometimes do Alvays d3
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. When my partner and I are angry with each other, I give things
some time to cool off on their own rather than take action.

Never do Sometimes do Almys Cb
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. When I’m really angry, I treat my partner badly (e.g., by
ignoring him/her or saying cruel things).

Never do ‘ Sometimes do Alsays d3
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. When we have problems, I discuss ending our relationship.

Never do Sometimes do Ahays Cb
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

162

18. When my partner and I are angry with one another, I suggest a
compromise solution.

Never do Sometimes do Almys do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

19. When there are things about my partner that I don’t like, I
accept his/her faults and weaknesses and don’t try to change

him/her.
Never do Sometimes do Mays ch
this this this
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9

20. When we have a problem in our relationship, I ignore the whole
thing and forget about it.

Never do Sometimes do Abays «in
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. When things are going really poorly between us, I do things to
drive my partner away.

Never do Sometimes do Abays do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22. When we’ve had an argument, I work things out with my partner

right away..
Never do sometimes do Always do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23. When my partner is inconsiderate, I give him/her the benefit of
the doubt and forget about it.

Never do Sometimes do Always Cb
this this this

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 

 

163

24. When I’m angry at my partner, I spend less time with him/her

(e.g., i spend more time with my other friends, watch a lot
of television, work longer hours, etc.) .

Never do Sometimes do Abays do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25. (for romantic relationships only) When I’m dissatisfied with
our relationship, I consider dating other people.

Never do Sometimes do Always cb
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

26. When we have serious problems in our relationship, I consider
getting advice from someone else (friends, parents,
counselor, etc.) .

Never do Sometimes do Almys m
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. When we have troubles, no matter how bad things get I am loyal
to my partner.

Never do Sometimes do Almys b
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28. When my partner and I have problems, I refuse to talk to him/
her about it.

Never do Sometimes do Alhays do
this this this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

f. Hill's,
‘ HN‘é'f- n. r

.noiflvulo '

02- am!
0:11:

 

 

 

 

 

17:1... .n.,

. I .4; .21.;2»:
x (... .7

l}... 1.“.

.. .. ... ... :Ii\

1 . ......
7)

.r ....
.29.};

”uh,

.I...