W few 13'"; P f"r"‘" ’ x. ..‘i .. «.~ ’. ' "u . (L III-cup .r~r --‘~— 4 p ---‘.~’3'."-:!’1 '- Vgi‘. gv_v . H . 4; {4"- K‘ -: - - '» .- , ' " ,_. . S... A; 9'; - E “ " J This is to certify that the thesis entitled PARENTAL PUNISHMENT OF IDENTIFICATION AND DISPARAGEMENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX presented by MELANIE ANN ST. BERNARD has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master” gegree in Psychology ajor professor Date 7/l5r/85/ 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution TV‘ESI.) RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from ”- your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. PARENTAL PUNISHMENT OF IDENTIFICATION AND DISPARAGEMENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX By MELANIE ANN ST. BERNARD A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1984 ABSTRACT PARENTAL PUNISHMENT OF IDENTIFICATION AND DISPARAGEMENT OF THE OPPOSITE SEX BY Nelanie Ann St. Bernard The hypothesis that subjects who are punished for identification with the opposite-sex parent produce disparagement toward the opposite sex was tested through the use of narrated stories. These narrated scenes were intended to induce a desire to identify with parents and the effects of punishment for this desire. Subjects were then given a projective technique in which disparagement was measured in two ways. The hypothesis was not supported; however, a planned comparison found that males, especially those who were punished by their fathers, tended to produce more disparagement than females. Subjects also indicated whether they had a successful visualization, an image substitution, or an image failure. While males and females had an equal amount of image substitution, males had significantly more image failure than substitution, and females had significantly more image substitution than failure. An informal exploration of type of image substitution suggested marked differences in type of defense. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Joe Reyher, who as chairperson, not only offered his own suggestions, guidance, and time, but who also encouraged me to explore and develop my own ideas. I would also like to thank Norm Abeles and Ray Frankman who served as committee members and offered their expertise. Recognition also goes to the many undergraduates who served as subjects in this research. My appreciation is also extended to my friend, Lisa Blank, who contributed her insights and support and to Kim Kasischke, who helped me gather my data. I would also like to acknowledge Gersh Kaufman, whose work on shame helped me in developing my original ideas for my research. And a final thanks to my husband, Mike, who put up with me throughout all the phases of this work. ii LIST OF TABLES. INTRODUCTION. NETHOD. Participants Apparatus. Procedure. Scoring. RESULTS DISCUSSION. APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: REFERENCES. TABLE OF CONTENTS Stimulus Narratives . . . . . . Interpersonal Projective Cards. Disparagement Scoring Criteria. Adjective Checklist . . . . . . Experimental Group Means and Standard Deviations . . . . . . iii Page iv 12 12 12 13 16 17 20 32 34 35 38 39 41 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page Evidence of Punishment for Opposite-Sex Identification. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 Experimental Group Means and Standard Deviations. 39 Image Disparity Means for Experimental Groups . . 40 iv INTRODUCTION Identification, a process where one assumes certain characteristics of the identified object as one's own, has been studied extensively in terms of Freudian theory and Social Learning theory, but there has been little effort to integrate identification processes with Sullivanian concepts. The specific Sullivanian concept which is relevant to this study is the security operation of disparagement. According to Sullivan (1953), security operations are behaviors and/or thoughts which are used to protect against rejection or disapproval and/or to produce acceptance and approval. Leary (1957) indicates that the development of security operations is a response to the anxiety aroused in interpersonal situations. Sullivan regarded disparaging attitudes as common security operations used to offset decreases in self-esteem. Disparagement of others as a security operation consists of two components: the stance taken against the other parallels that which one despises about oneself: and the contemptuous attitude directed toward another enables one to feel better about the self. As Sullivan relates, "we are apt to be most severely critical of others when they are thought to be showing an instance of something of which we ourselves are secretely ashamed, and which we hope we are concealing"(p. 380). Reyher (1978) attests that the persistance and intensity of 1 2 security operations is a measure of the degree of underlying feelings of inadequacy and self—derogation which developed in childhood. The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that a disparaging attitude toward the opposite sex is a result of parental punishment for opposite-sex identification in childhood. Identification with both parents occurs; however, identification with the opposite-sex parent is discouraged or punished. Disparagement may be utilized as a security operation to counteract the unpleasant affects which result from punishment for identification with the opposite-sex parent. Identification Kagan (1958) has defined identification as an acquired, cognitive response that is part of an individual's psycholo- gical organization; the content of this response consists of parts of attributes, motives, characteristics, and affective states of a model. Freud (1949) defines (seconday) identification as an individual's attempt to mold his ego after the fashion of one who has been taken as a model. Kagan proposes that identification can occur to different degrees with different models. Freud (1927) also recognized that a child identifies in varying degrees with both parents when he stated, "in both sexes, the relative strength of the masculine and feminine sexual dispositions is what determines whether the outcome of the individual situation shall be an identification with father or with mother" (p. 42). That an individual does identify with both 3 parents to varying degrees is supported by Lyke (1963), who found that in order to facilitate the identification process, it is important for individuals to perceive both their mothers' and fathers' self-concepts and ego ideals as congruent, since greater divergence, in combination with the identification variable, was associated with psychopathology. Lyke also found that when individuals see their self-concepts as similar to the way they perCeive their opposite-sex parents' self-concepts, they also see their same-sex parent as being similar to their opposite-sex parent in those attributes. This suggests that identification occurs with both parents and there is little evidence that there is a dramatic and complete incorporation of one parental figure to the exclusion of the other. This evidence also suggests that an individual's identification with the opposite-sex parent is enhanced when those attributes also occur in the same-sex parent. Helper (1955) found that the tendency of boys to assume similarity to their father was related to their mother’s approval of the father as a model for the child. There was also some indication that a daughter's tendency to identify with her father was also related to the indicated reward for such behavior by the mother. These studies indicate that a child desires to posses characteristics of both parents, but that the degree to which the child actually does adopt characteristics from both parents depends upon environmental response to the child's attempt to fulfill this desire. Biller and Bahm (1971) provide further evidence that 4 both the opposite-sex and same-sex parents contribute to a child's identification. They studied the effects of the absence of fathers on sons. They found that not only was the father's presence important for the son's sex-role development but also that a son's relationship with his mother was important. Stephens and Day (1979) found that a daughter in an intact family (both mother and father present) identifies with both her mother and her father significantly more than a daughter in a father-absent family identifies with her mother. Punishment of Opposite-Sex Identification Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) note that children's identification with both parents depends upon the environ- mental response they receive with regard to their attempts at identifying. They report that children freely play with toys of the opposite-sex, and that under certain conditions they will imitate models of both sexes. Thus children must learn not only how to engage in behaviors, but also how to discriminate between gender-appropriate and gender-inappro- priate behaviors. Kagan believes that in order for identifi- cation to be acquired and maintained, the individual's perceptions of similarity between himself and the model must be reinforced. An important aspect of identification is sex-role identification. Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) define this aspect of identification, termed sex-typing, as the develop- ment of social behavior which is appropriate to the individual's sex. There is evidence that both parents, peers, and teachers 5 reinforce appropriate sex—typing and punish inappropriate sex-typing in children. The literature suggests that the extent to which a child is reinforced and punished is a function of the sex of the reinforcer and the one being reinforced. Lamb, Easterbrooks, and Holden (1980) found that among preschoolers, children reinforced one another primarily for gender-appropriate activities. Most reinforce- ments and punishments were received from same-sex peers. Fagot (1974) conducted a study of parental reaction to sex differences in toddler's behavior. She found that fathers restrict more sex-linked behaviors than did mothers, with fathers naming an average of 2 behaviors appropriate for "boys only" and 5.7 behaviors appropriate for "girls only". Mothers reported an average of one behavior appropriate for "boys only" and 3.5 behaviors appropriate for "girls only", meaning that boys should not participate in these behaviors. Both parents place more restrictions on boys' behavior than on girls' behavior. Boys' sex—role behaviors were also found to be more restricted than were girls'in a later investigation by Fagot (1977) which studied the consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in preschool children and found that boys received significantly more peer and teacher criticism than girls for engaging in stereotypic Opposite-sex-role behaviors. In contrast, girls received more teacher criticism when they played in role activities with groups of boys: girls who showed cross-gender preferences were given significantly less peer criticism. Thus girls with cross-gender preferences 6 received some differential criticism from teachers (although not as much as boys received) but did not receive differential peer reaction. Langlois and Downs (1980) studied sex-typed play behavior in young children. They found that both mothers and peers differentially rewarded and punished girls' sex-typed play but boys received only differential punishment from peers. In other words, mothers rewarded boys for cross-sex play. Fathers were generally more rewarding to girls and more punishing to boys. Fathers differentially rewarded play with same-sex toys and punished play with cross-sex toys for both sons and daughters. Thus, when boys exhibited masculine—type play, they encountered modest approval from mother, were generally ignored by peers and received approval from fathers. When boys played with feminine-typed toys, they received reward from mothers and punishment from peers and fathers. Langlois and Downs propose that these cross pressures create a conflict for boys in that they are both rewarded and punished for exhibiting feminine-type behavior. However, Fling and Nanosevitz (1972) found that the same-sex parent reported significantly more encouragement of sex-typing for a child. There was a tendency (which was not significant) for the opposite—sex parent to report more discouragement of sex-inappropriate interests. (See Table 1 for a summary of the above studies.) These studies indicate the tendency of children to engage in both gender-appropriate and gender-inappropriate behaviors and that these behaviors are differentially rewarded and punished by significant others, although the extent and 7 manner in which others reward and punish these behaviors is inconsistent across studies. Table 1 Evidence of Punishment for Opposite—Sex Identification Source Age Group Punisher Males Females Fagot (1977) Preschoolers Peers Yes No Teachers Yes Yes Fling & Preschoolers Opposite- Yes Yes Nanosevitz sex parent (1972) Lamb, Preschoolers Peers Yes Yes Easterbrooks, & Holden (1980) Langlois & Preschoolers Peers Yes Yes Downs (1980) Mothers No Yes Fathers Yes Yes Effects of Punishment of Identification with Opposite-Sex Parent There is evidence that suggests that identification with both parents is related to self-esteem and self-concept. Hollander (1973) studied the relationship between parental identification and self-concept, as measured by discrepancies between ratings of Self and Ideal Self. He found that for females, self-concept was positively correlated with both paternal and maternal identification and that for males, self- concept was positively correlated with maternal identification and there was a slight trend toward positive correlation with paternal identification also. Hollander also studied the 8 relationship between parental identification and obvious social self-esteem, as measured by an agreement scale to questions such as "I feel capable of handling myself in most social situations". He found that for females there was a significant positive correlation between obvious self-esteem and maternal identification and there was a trend toward a positive correlation between obvious self-esteem and paternal identification. However, for males, there was a significant negative correlation between obvious self-esteem and maternal identification and no relationship between obvious self- esteem and paternal identification. The issue relevant to this study is the relationship between self-esteem and discouragement of opposite-sex identification. If identification with the opposite-sex parent is punished, Sullivan would predict that the security operation of disparagement may occur to offset "that which one 'despises' about oneself" and to enhance one's self- esteem. A study by Canter (1976) provides evidence that degrading members of the opposite sex increases one's feelings of adequacy and security. She found that subjects perceived cartoon characters as more intelligent when they dominated the opposite-sex rather than their own sex. Harrington (1970) has suggested that both feminine behavior and exaggerated and compensatory masculine behavior are errors in sex-role behavior of males. Brown (1956) agrees with this position. He studied sex-role preference in young children and found that boys showed a significantly greater preference for the masculine role than girls showed for the feminine role. He suggested that the data. .. might be interpreted as bearing out the view of Gorer (1948) and Parsons (1947) that boys are compulsively masculine, i.e., will show exaggerated tendencies in this direction, in part because they are less sure in their sex—role identification than girls and in part because they sense the less favored position of the female. Thus boys might be expected to be overtly assertive and impelled toward over- compensation in their masculine strivings. And for the same reasons, girls, being more secure in their feminine identification but at the same time being aware of greater male prerogatives, might be expected to express more freely preferences for certain aspects of the masculine role. These considerations seem to lead to the assumption that in sex-role development, girls compared to boys would have an easier course in terms of role identification, but at the same time experience more difficulty relative to role preference: and, conversely, boys compared to girls would have a more difficult course relative to identification, but would experience an easier one in terms of role preference. (p. 10) The conflict between role identification and role preference is addressed by Rosenfeld (1967) who examined the relationship of delinquent acting out to male adolescent sex-role identification. He proposed that an adolescent male who is struggling with unacceptable feminine strivings will experience increased tension and anxiety due to this conflict and may employ delinquent acting-out to reduce anxiety. Rosenfeld suggests that this acting—out behavior may be interpreted as a form of hypermasculine restitution. Rosenfeld did, in fact, find that delinquent subjects possessed more unconscious femininity and more conscious masculinity than did the nondelinquents. It seems likely then, according to Sullivan's theory, that if a child's attempt to identify with the opposite-sex 10 parent is punished, the child may develop security operations, specifically disparagement, to ward-off the anxiety now related to the identification with the opposite-sex parent. Thus any of the child's characteristics that the child views as belonging exclusively to the opposite-sex role create anxiety and a security operation may develop. It seems plausible then that males who cannot accept in themselves what they consider to be feminine traits and females who cannot accept in themselves what they consider to be masculine traits might develop a disparaging attitude towards the opposite sex. In this study, a stimulus narrative was used to induce the desire for parental identification (both same- and opposite—sex parent) and the ensuing affects resulting from the discouragement of this identification. Narrated visual imagery has been found to induce target emotional strivings and/or affects in subjects by a number of investigators (Grayson, 1982: Julien and Over, 1981: Moses and Reyher, in press). A projective technique (similar to a Thematic Apperception Test) was then used to assess the effect of the stimulus narrative. The protocols derived from the projective technique were analyzed using a Disparagement Scale. An Adjective Checklist was then administered to obtain another disparagement measure. It was hypothesized that both male and female subjects who were given a stimulus narrative in which identification with the opposite-sex parent was punished would produce more disparagement towards the opposite sex on two measures derived from the projective test than those 11 subjects given a stimulus narrative in which same-sex identification was punished. Planned comparisons were also made involving the sex of the subject, the sex of the parent identified with, and the sex of the punitive parent. A variety of tests were performed to verify the influence of the stimulus narratives. METHOD Participants Thirty male and thirty female undergraduate students in introductory psychology courses at Michigan State Univer- sity participated. They volunteered to participate in an experiment entitled "Visual Imagery" and received extra credit toward their course grade. Males and females were randomly assigned to two mixed-sex groups under the constraint that both groups consist of an equal number of males and females. .One group received a set of stimulus narratives depicting punished identification with the opposite-sex parent, while the second group received a set of stimulus narratives depicting punished identification with the same- sex parent. Apparatus Stimulus Narratives. Four stimulus narratives were used to elicit the subjects' reactions to discouragement of parental identification. Subjects were asked to visualize the content of the stimulus narratives. Each subject received two stimulus narratives. One half of the subjects received a stimulus narrative consisting of maternal punishment for opposite-sex role behavior and a second stimulus narrative consisting of paternal punishment for opposite-sex role behavior. The remaining subjects received a stimulus narrative consisting of maternal punishment for same-sex role behavior and a second stimulus narrative consisting of paternal 12 13 punishment for same—sex role behavior. Appendix A contains the actual stimulus narratives used for this experiment. Interpersonal Projective Cards. Two cards, each a different sketch of a male-female interaction were counter- balanced and used as a vehicle to portray the projected effect of the experimental manipulation of parental punishment from the four stimulus narratives. (See Appendix B.) Disparagement Scale. This scale was devised by the investigator and tested for reliability in a pilot study. This scale measured disparaging attitudes toward the characters in the stories told in response to the projective cards. The protocols were given a score of "O" or "1" to indicate absence or presence of disparagement. (See Appendix C.) Adjective Checklist. A semantic differential scale consisting of twenty-five pairs of adjectives (i.e. "wise-- unwise") was given to each subject, who was asked to rate the characters in their own projective story on the check- list. The rating consisted of a four-point range between each positive adjective and its corresponding negative adjective. These ratings were then summed to give a total score which served as another disparagement measure. (See Appendix D.) Procedure Participants were interviewed individually. They were each informed that they could terminate the experiment at any time and still receive full credit. They were asked to sit in a reclining chair and to put both of their hands 14 on the arm rests of the chair. In order to test for resistance to visual imagery, they were given the following instructions: I am going to ask you to visualize an object in your mind. If you are able to visualize the object I describe, raise your right hand and hold it up for as long as you are visualizing what I am describing. Anytime you visualize any other image that is different from the one I am describing, raise your left hand and keep it raised. When you do not see any images, keep both hands down. Let me briefly review that. Only the right hand is raised whenever you see the images that I am describing. Only the left hand is raised when you are visualizing images different from my directions. For example, if I am describing an image of a tree and you are able to visualize that tree, you would raise your right hand. If you suddenly get a different image, for example, you see a book, then you would put down your right hand and raise your left hand. And finally, whenever there are no images in your mind's eye, simply keep both hands down. Do you understand? Now I want you to close your eyes and visualize the image of an automobile. (Wait five seconds.) Please describe it for me when you see it. (Subjects were given thirty seconds in which to describe the image.) (If the subjects stopped describing the image or if they asked what they should do next, the experimenter replied.) I want you to describe the automobile for a little while longer. (If the subjects asked about the procedure or opened their eyes, the experimenter responded,) I'll answer any questions you have at the end of the experiment. Please close your eyes and form an image of a car and describe it to me. (If subjects reported being unable to form any image, the experimenter responded,) Just wait for the image of a car or any other image to come into your mind and describe it. (If the subject was still unable to form any images after one minute, the experimenter responded,) O.K. That's enough. Now I'd like you to tell me how you felt when I asked you to close your eyes and when I asked you to image. (Subjects who were unable to visualize anything were to complete the entire experiment but were to be excluded from the statistical analysis. However, in this study all subjects were able to visualize the car. 15 Subjects who visualized anything other than a car were asked to describe what they had visualized.) All subjects were then given the following instructions: Now I am going to describe a story and I want you to visualize it while your eyes are closed. Anytime you get the same imagery that I am describing, raise your right hand and keep it raised. Anytime you visualize any other image, please raise your left hand and keep it raised. When you do not see any images, keep both hands down. Are there any questions? Remember, if you do not visualize anything, what do you do? (Subject should respond by indicating that no hands are raised.) And if you visualize what I am describing, what do you do? (Subject should reSpond by indicating that the right hand should be raised.) Now I want you to close your eyes and follow in your imagery the following story. The first stimulus narrative was then administered and any image failure or substitution recorded. The experimenter inquired where appropriate, "I noticed when I described the image , you signalled that you were seeing some other image. Can you recall what it was?" Also, where appropriate, the experimenter inquired, "I noticed when I described the image , you signalled that you were not having any images", to confirm the absence of a raised hand. After the completion of the stimulus narrative, the experimenter then administered the projective card by giving the following instructions: I am going to show you a picture and your task will be to make up a story for this picture. Tell what has led up to the event shown in the picture, describe what is happening at the moment, what the characters are feeling and thinking, and then give the outcome. Speak your thoughts as they come to your mind. Do you understand? Here is the first picture. 16 The second stimulus narrative was administered to the subject and the appropriate questions regarding image failure and substitution asked. The second projective card was then administered with the following instructions: I am going to show you another picture and I want you to make up another story for this picture. Remember to tell what has led up to the event shown in the picture, describe what is happening at the moment, what each character is thinking about and feeling ‘ toward the other, and then give the outcome. Here is the picture. When the subject completed the experiment, the experi— menter asked, "What did you think the purpose of this experiment was?" and "What were your reactions to this experiment?" Scoring Image failure was scored by summing the number of sentences in the stimulus narrative which the subject failed to visualize. Thus a subject could receive a score from one to eleven. Image substitution was scored in a similar manner. The Projective Protocols were scored for disparaging attitudes toward the opposite-sex character. The information identifying subjects' group membership was removed during scoring. An analysis of variance was used to analyze this 2-by-2-by-2 factorial design. (Sex of parent giving punishment was a within—subject variable.) RESULTS Disparagement Scale Reliability A 94% agreement was found between two raters' (the principal researcher,and an undergraduate assistant) scorings on the Projective Protocol for disparagement. Experimental Hypothesis A MANOVA revealed that the experimental hypothesis was not supported (F(4, 53) = .75, p = .56). Neither male subjects nor female subjects who were punished for opposite—sex parental identification produced significantly more disparagement towards the opposite-sex on the Projective Protocol or the Adjective Checklist than subjects who were punished for same-sex parental identification. Planned Comparisons Only one of the planned comparisons was found to be associated with a significant A. Males produced more disparagement towards the opposite sex than did females on the Adjective Checklist and Projective Protocol combined (3(4, 53) = 2.52, p = .05). This is construed as weak support because of the large number (six) of planned comparisons that were performed. Univariate analyses showed that the male subjects who were punished by fathers contributed most to this significant finding. They also tended to produce more disparagement on the Adjective Checklist than they did on the Projective Protocol (F(1, 56) = 5.08, p = .03). A Pearson Correlation between the two dependent measures 17 18 (Projective Protocol and Adjective Checklist) was significant (2 = .39, p <:.001): however, their shared variance only amounts to .16 (.392). Manipulation Checks The above findings are qualified by post hoc manipulation checks on image failure and image substitution. According to Moses and Reyher (in press), image failure is thought to be an indication that the stimulus narrative was not induced: but image substitution is thought to be an indication that the intended effects were indeed induced but then defended against. In an attempt to determine whether the stimulus narratives produced the intended effect (i.e. induced the effects of punishment for opposite-sex parental identification), several tests were performed. The data consisted of the subjects' reports of image failure and substitution during the administration of the stimulus narratives. Nonparametric tests were utilized to assess the data because the data was markedly skewed. The analyses produced some interesting and puzzling results. In comparisons utilizing the Mann Whitney U—test, males produced more image failure than females when they 1) identified with the same-sex parent and were punished by the opposite- sex parent (z(1) = 1.74, p = .04): 2) identified with the same-sex parent and were punished by the same-sex parent (z(1) = 2.20, p = .01): and 3) identified with the opposite- sex parent and were punished by the opposite-sex parent (2(1) = 1.60, p = .05). These findings suggest that males were more willing to admit to image failure or that they 19 experienced image failure more often. The pattern of results was puzzling. Using the Mann-Whitney U-test, females who identified with the same-sex parent and were punished by the opposite- _ sex parent produced more image disparity (image failure plus substitution) than females who identified with the opposite-sex parent and were punished by the opposite-sex parent (g(1) = 1.61, p = .05). The Wilcoxon signed—rank test was used to compare image failure and image substitution. Males produced significantly more image failure than image substitution when they identified with the same-sex parent and the opposite-sex parent (z(1) = 3.23, p = .001, z(1) = 2.99. 2 = .001, respectively). In contrast to males, females produced significantly more image substitution than image failure when they identified with the same-sex parent and the opposite—sex parent (z(1) = 4.60, p = .001, z(1) = 3.06, p = .001, respectively). Based on visual inspection of the data, it was clear that males and females had an equal amount of image substitution. For males and females who identified with the same-sex parent, coefficients of correlation between image failure and image substitution were .46 and .47 respectively. These were significant at the .05 level. There were no other significant correlations. Other findings revealed by the attempts to assess the manipulation will be considered later. (See Appendix E for means and standard deviations.) DISCUSSION The findings did not support the theory that punished identification with the opposite-sex parent leads to disparagement of the opposite sex. However, males produced more disparagement towards the opposite—sex than did females, regardless of whether they were punished for opposite- or same-sex parental identification. If we ignore the possibility that this finding could be attributed to chance, it might imply that males who are punished, especially those who are punished by their fathers, have a greater tendency to utilize diSparagement as a security operation than do females. This finding may imply that males are simply more openly critical, hostile or contemptuous than are females. The fact that significant results were found in male subjects who were punished by fathers is also compatible with studies which found that fathers mold the child's sex-role identification more than do mothers (Fagot, 1974: Langlois and Downs, 1980) and that more restrictions are placed on boys' sex-role behaviors than on girls' sex-role behaviors (Fagot, 1974, 1977: Langlois and Downs, 1980). The results found in the present investigation could be interpreted to mean that when fathers mold their sons' sex—role identificaion, they may use techniques which induce shame and may enhance the development of the security operation 0f disparagement in their sons. Another implication of the planned comparison can be 20 21 deduced from the fact that disparagement manifested itself to a greater degree on the Adjective Checklist than it did on the Projective Protocol. This disparity implies that the Projective Protocol and Adjective Checklist index different processes. This is further supported by the small amount of shared variance (r2 = .15). Confounding Variables A proper evaluation of the results is contingent upon recognizing the impact of possible confounding variables. A potential confounding variable was the sex of the experimenters. Male and female subjects could have been differentially affected by participating in an experiment with female experimenters. The presence of female experimenters (the object of males' disparagement) may have inhibited or enhanced the amount of disparagement male subjects produced. More information on the effects of the sex of the experimenter could be obtained by including experimenters of both sexes and analyzing the results with respect to this variable. Subjects' anxiety increases when they are motivated to make a favorable impression on those with whom they interact. Schlenker and Leary (1982) contend that the motivation to impress is elevated when one is relating to someone who is an expert, in a position of authority, or high in status. Subjects' perception of the experimenters as possessing these character— istics may have increased their anxiety and motivation to make a favorable impression upon the experimenter. Also the ambiguity and novelty of the task of visualizing a stimulus narrative and producing a story may have contributed to 22 subjects' anxiety and increased subjects' motivation to make favorable impressions. Subject variables such as self- esteem, need for approval, and expectations for success or failure in making a favorable impression influence the extent to which a subject participates psychologically in the assigned task and thus these variables might have affected the accuracy of subjects' reports of successful visualizations. It might have been useful to obtain subjects' perceptions of their performances and analyze these with respect to the dependent measures and the reports of image substitution and failure. The two interpersonal projective cards were created for this experiment and were not tested in any other context. While they were counter—balanced to negate any differential effects, they may have elicited certain themes which influenced the subjects' Projective Protocols. An attempt was made to induce opposite- or same-sex parental identification through the use of certain sex-role behaviors (use of make-up or razor). However, since both men and women use razors, this may be more of an androgynous rather than masculine behavior. Also, these behaviors might not have been central enough to the identification process for a successful manipulation to occur. Other sex- related behaviors may have been more successful in indubing parental identification. The type of punishment may also have been an influencing factor. Perhaps a more shame— inducing punishment for parental identification (such as a parent's ridicule or contempt at the child's modeling) would 23 have evoked stronger affects in the subjects and resulted in more disparagement. Another factor influencing the accuracy of the image failure and image substitution data was the method in which the subjects reported the type of visualization. Subjects indicated a successful visualization or an image substitution by raising their right or left hand, respectively: an image failure was indicated when no hand was raised. Some visualization indicators were difficult to record because subjects were hesitant, unclear, or indecisive in reporting their visualization. Another method of reporting visuali- zations (such as pressing one of three buttons after a short interval in which the visualization was attempted) might have resulted in a more accurate assessment of the amount of image failure and image substitution. Another interesting finding which the manipulation check revealed was that when females were punished by their fathers, they produced more image disparity (image failure plus image substitution) for same-sex identification than for opposite— sex identification. Since all female subjects were career- oriented college students, role-conflicts may have been present in these subjects. It may have been easier to tolerate the ambivalence about paternal identification rather than deal with the anxiety about accepting or rejecting identification with traditional maternal roles. This could explain the increased defensive use of image disparity for those females whose fathers punished them for same-sex identification in the stimulus narratives. 24 Another possible influencing factor is the plausibility of the narrated scenes. It is reasonable to assume that the more implausible a stimulus narrative is, the more difficult it is to visualize it. Furthermore, the stimulus value of the visualized scenes with regard to plausibility might have interacted with subject variables. Moses and Reyher (in press) reported that plausibility was a factor in emotionally-neutral as well as conflict-inducing stimulus narratives. They contend that subjects, especially those with low self—esteem, are more likely to avoid psychological participation in implausible stimulus narratives. To avoid risking the failure they tend to expect, they refrain from becoming psychologically involved with the stimulus narrative and thus the effects embodied in the stimulus narrative would have no impact on these subjects. Consonant with Moses and Reyher's findings, subjects in the present investigation reported that it was indeed difficult to visualize something they thought their own parents would not do. More information could be obtained to assess the relationship between plausibility, self-esteem and image failure. A potential source of error might have resulted from both experimenters' knowledge of the experimental hypothesis. While it could not have biased protocol scoring because the experimenters had no knowledge of which experimental group to which any particular protocol belonged, it could have influenced the administration and caused subjects' responses to be subtly influenced. 25 Manipulation Checks While the manipulation checks offer several different interpretations, none are definitive. Unfortunately, there is no direct way to assess the effect of the stimulus narrative. The manipulation checks are in indirect assess— ment of the success of the manipulation, and there are undoubtably other variables that influence these measures. The low Spearman correlation (r = .46, r = .47) between image failure and image substitution indicates that the two types of image disparity may index different self-protective processes. Seventy-nine percent of the variance is unaccounted for. Furthermore, the fact that prevalent sex differences exist between image failure and substitution indicates that the low correlation reflects two sex-related, self-protective responses to the induced effects of the stimulus narratives. While males and females had an equal number of image substitutions, males had significantly more image failure than image substitution, and females had significantly more image substitution than image failure. Thus, males' predominant defense was image failure while females' predominant defense was image substitution. Therefore, females' major defense was equivalent to males' least used defense. According to Moses and Reyher (in press), image substitution may indicate the successful inducement of the target effects of the stimulus narratives (as evidenced by the activation of defensive substitution) and image failure may indicate failure to induce the effects embodied in the 26 stimulus narratives due to the subject's defensive posture. If we assume, as Moses and Reyher propose, that image substitution is evidence that the manipulation was successful, and image failure is evidence that it was not successful, then we could surmise that the manipulation was more successful for females than for males. This implies that females were less defensive and thus more receptive to the inducement of the target affects embodied in the stimulus narratives. Not only did females defend less, but the type of defense they tended to use allowed them to become more psychologically involved with the required task than were males. This interpretation has relevance to the results found in the planned comparison. Since the only finding which approached significance was for male subjects, and according to the evidence that indicates that the manipulation was not as successful for males as it was for females, this could either mean that the finding might have been more significant had the manipulation been more successful or that the finding was not related to the intended manipulation. An analysis of the relationship between males' disparagement scores and image failure scores would be needed to further assess the significance of the planned comparison which found that males who were punished by their fathers produced more diSparagement. A negative correlation between male subjects' disparagement scores and their image failure scores would indicate that when the manipulation was successful, it increased the ‘ probability that a significant finding occurred. However, 27 this analysis was beyond the scope of this study. Image failure seems to be a defense which allows subjects to avoid psychological participation and involvement with affects embodied in the stimulus narrative. 0n the other hand, Moses and Reyher assume that because subjects produce image substitution, it implies that the target affects embodied in the stimulus narrative was indeed induced, but then defended against in the form of a substitution. An alternative explanation might be that image substitution itself is a defense which allows the subject to reject the inducement of affects embodied in the stimulus narrative. Thus image failure and image substitution might be considered two different partially-sex-linked ways of defending against the effects of the manipulation. According to this line of thinking, both image failure and image substitution could be regarded as valid indexes of the failure of the manipulation to induce the target affects. The above speculations rest on the presupposition that the manipulation was successful for those subjects who reported no image disparity. However, there is no way of verifying whether the manipulation was indeed successful for these subjects. Thus the above speculations must be considered in the light of this lack of verification. Subjects may have been inaccurate in reporting a visualization of a narrated scene in an attempt to gain approval. They may have been too anxious to report image failure: instead as a self-protective function to avoid possible disapproval, they reported a successful visualization by not raising either 28 hand. Females might have a greater tendency to seek approval through compliance. Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) show that females tend to have lower self—esteem and are more easily intimidated. Males, who tend to be more assertive, may have been more forthright in reporting their lack of success in the visualization task and thus they reported more image failure. The experimental hypothesis may have failed to produce significant results because the manipulation may have failed to induce the target effects. Clearly there needs to be more research on the manner in which security operations and implausibility affect the inducement of target affects and strivings embodied in the stimulus narratives. If raising a hand produces more acute, objective self- awareness than not raising a hand, then the index of image failure (raising neither hand) is confounded. This is further complicated by the social anxiety of not succeeding on the assigned task. Also, the more novel (implausible) stimulus narrative would be expected to produce more anxiety (Schlenker and Leary, 1982). Thus, the apparent chaotic pattern of results may reflect the interplay between objective self—awareness, social anxiety, and sex differences in subjects interacting with the sex of experimenter and the induced effects of the stimulus narrative. These confounding sources are probably common in psychological research rather than being specific to the present investigation. 29 Exploratory Findings A recent study by Moses and Reyher (in press) showed a relationship between types of defenses and image disparity. Green (1982) also found that the type of defense related to image failure and image substitution varied across clinical groups. Although the following comparison was not conducted to assess these data, a post hoc analysis was made to determine whether there were differences between males and females in the type of defense they used in forming an image substitution. Since these data were not systematically recorded and reliability was not assessed, the obtained differences can only be considered to be suggestive. At the end of each stimulus narrative, the experimenter asked those subjects who reported image substitution what they visualized in place of the directed imagery. The subject usually gave a general remark which referred to all image substitution in that particular stimulus narrative, whether it was one or eleven substitutions. These comments fell into three of five categories reported by Moses and Reyher: Reaction Formation: the substitution of an affect or behavior which is opposite to that which is portrayed in the stimulus narrative, such as "Mother laughed instead of getting angry". Denial: the omission or rejection of an affect-laden component of the stimulus narrative, such as "I could only see the room, not my mother scolding me." 30 Taming of Affect: the substitution of a less affect- laden image for the more affect-laden image depicted in the stimulus narrative, such as "Father didn't get mad, but just sent me to my room". It is noteworthy that the image substitutions usually characterized the parents' affects and behaviors. In other words, instead of subjects changing their own affects and behaviors, they changed their parents' affects and behaviors. For example, a subject would visualize a parent laughing instead of an angry parent scolding. This startling result suggests that our own security is dependent upon unconscious attempts to alter affects and behaviors in others which are anxiety-provoking for us. Thus we rely on the defenses of others with respect to their treatment of us. For example, if we suspect another is angry at us, we become apologetic or excessively considerate to elicit guilt in the other in the hope that they will deny or suppress their own anger. In the assigned task in this study, it was only necessary for subjects to substitute images to replace parents' dreaded affects and behaviors with more tolerable ones. But in actual interpersonal encounters one may engage in behaviors (security operations) designed to elicit or trigger specific security operations in others which will prevent one from experiencing an anxiety—provoking situation. This defense is interpersonal in nature. If individuals merely change their perceptions of others' affects and behaviors, the defense would be intrapsychic in nature. 31 There were interesting sex differences in the type of image substitution subjects utilized. Females' predominant defenses were reaction formation and taming of affect: in other words, females tended to substitute a more affect— laden behavior with a less intense one and tended to gloss over more negative interpersonal affects in relationships and focus on more positive affects in interpersonal relationships. The fact that females' focus was on affective components in this study agrees with the general view that women are more attentive than men to affects in others. In contrast, males' predominant defense was denial; they tended to focus on the objective-situational features of the stimulus narratives and to deny or ignore the affective components. The type of image substitute males and females produced parallels the type of image disparity they produced. Males' elevated amount of image failure is similar in character to their use of denial. Both defenses prevent psychological involvement with an affect-laden component. In contrast, females employ alterations of affect-laden components, whether it is in the type of image disparity they produce (image substitution) or the type of image substitution they produce (reaction formation and taming of affect). If verified, these findings require us to view defenses as interpersonal as well as intrapsychic and to recognize marked differences in the self-protective mechanisms of males and females. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Stimulus Narrative Used to Elicit Paternal Identification 1. Imagine that you are a child again, about four or five years old. 2. You are with your father and you see him shaving with an electric razor and you want to be like him and do the same thing. 3. Your father leaves the room and you pick up the razor and you go to the mirror. 4. You pretend to shave with the razor. 5. You see yourself in the mirror pretending to shave your face with the razor. 6. Then your (mother/father)* comes in and sees what you're dding. 7. You see from the expression on (her/his) face that (she/ he disapproves of what you are doing. 8. (She/He) approaches you and reaches out to take the razor away from you as (she/he) scolds you with a raised voice. 9. With a stern look on (her/his) face, (she/he) tells you that little (boys/girls) don't play with razors and that you are pgver, pezeg to do it again. 10. (She/He) shakes (her/his) finger at you, then with a motion of (her/his) arm, tells you to go to your room. 11. You run to your room and begin to cry while feeling guilty and ashamed. * This stimulus narrative was administered twice to each subject to whom it was given. One administration consisted of maternal punishment and the other of paternal punishment. 33 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B Interpersonal Projective Cards APPENDIX C APPENDIX C Disparagement Scoring Criteria Disparagement is defined as: to demean, to degrade, to depreciate, to speak slightingly of. It may be conveyed by the following means: 1. Attitudes, opinions, and thoughts about a character which convey a critical or negative connotation. Examples: "He thinks she is rude, dull, aloof." "She views him as obnoxious, foolish, mean, or cold." Any opinion or attitude conveying an extreme characteristic is included in this category. Examples: "She's overly formal." "He's too sensitive." (The characteristics themselves may be positive or neutral but the indication that it is "too" extreme denotes a flawed characteristic. Example: "She's too friendly." 2. Views that a character is inferior or inadequate in some way. Examples: "He just doesn't measure up." "She knows he is not as good as she is." 3. Affects which convey a disparaging attitude. Examples: disgust, contempt, dislike, hatred, despisement, and scorn. (Anger is not included unless it is associated with a disparaging attitude.) 4. Verbal remarks which convey a critical, demeaning connotation. Any of the above disparaging attitudes, views, or affects which are stated directly to another character are included in this category. Examples: "I think you're disgusting." "You're too demanding." "You're just not 35 36 good enough." 5. Rejection of a character. Rejection is defined as a denial or withholding of another character's request or desire. The rejection must be due to a dislike or a disparaging attitude. Rejection can be conveyed by the following means: a) Physical or non-verbal. This would include physical attacks which are a result of dislike or disgust. This would also include behaviors such as one character walking away from another. b) Direct verbal rejection. Examples: "I don't like you." "I don't want to go with you." c) Cryptic verbal rejection. This is a vague rejection. Example: "There are just certain things about you that I'm not too sure I like." 6. Candy-coated rejection. This is a rejection which is hidden in a positive evaluation. It may be verbally addressed to one character by another or it may be in the form of attitudes, views, or affects. Example: "I really like you but I just can't go." "She thought he was a good man but decided not to give him a job." (This form of rejection does not include a reticent attitude towards an interaction with another which is the result of anxiety or fear. Examples: "He doesn't want to talk to her because he is shy." "She decided not to go with him because she was afraid of him.") Each character is given either a score of "0", which means there is no disparagement directed toward him/her, or a score of "1", which means there is disparagement directed 37 toward him/her. If additional characters are introduced into the story by the subject, these characters are considered extensions of the same—sex characters portrayed in the card. Thus if the male in the card received no disparagement, but another male, who was introduced into the story, received disparagement, the score for "male“ would be "1". The disparagement may be directed from one character to another, or may be evident from the subject's description of the characters, or additional characters who are introduced into the story by the subject may disparage one of the characters. Disparagement is not scored if the subject only describes a negative, degrading or unpleasant inner state of a character (i.e. their reactions or thoughts or feelings about themselves) where the character only "feels" inferior or rejected or uncomfortable and there is no evidence that the subject or the other character holds a critical view of the character. If, however, a description of an unpleasant inner state is accompanied by evidence that the subject or the other character holds a disparaging attitude toward the character, disparagement for this character is scored. APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Adjective Checklist VERY MODERATELY MODERATELY VERY Example: unwise _ _ _ __ wise 1. helpful _ _ _ _ unhelpful 2. unrespectable _ __ _ __ respectable 3. not intelligent _ _ _ _ intelligent 4. acceptable ____ _____ ____ ____ unacceptable 5. reasonable _ __ _ __ unreasonable 6. inappropriate __ _ _ __ appropriate 7. adequate _ _ _ _ inadequate 8. inferior .____ .____ ____ ____ superior 9. honest _ _ _ __ dishonest 10. unloving ____ .____ ____ ____, loving 11. friendly __ __ _ __ unfriendly 12. negative ____ ____ ____ ____, positive 13. not polite __ __ _ __ polite 14. attractive ____ ____ ____ ____ unattractive 15. undesirable ____ ____ ____ ____ desirable 16. pleasant __ _ __ __ unpleasant 17. uninteresting __ _ __ __ interesting 18. bad _ _ __ __ good 19. kind __ __ _ __ unkind 20. fun-to-be—with _ _ _ _ not fun-to-be-with 21. not well-thought—of _ _ _ __ well-thought-of 22. not stupid _ __ _ __ stupid 23. irresponsible ____ ____ ____, ____ responsible 24. mean _ _ __ __ not mean 25. selfish _ _ _ _ unselfish 38 APPENDIX E APPENDIX E Table 2 Experimental Gropp Means and Standard Deviations Projective Protocol Adjective Checklist Group* Mean SD Mean SD 1 .53 .52 44.93 12.49 2 .27 .46 42.33 12.30 3 .47 .52 44.93 15.36 4 .33 .49 42.07 13.02 5 .33 .49 52.60 11.12 6 .27 .46 48.13 10.23 7 .27 .46 45.40 10.55 8 .40 .51 48.93 9-95 *Group 1 consists of females who identified with mother and were punished by mother. Group 2 consists of females who identified with father and were punished by mother. Group 3 consits of females who identified with mother and were punished by father. Group 4 consists of females who identified with father and were punished by father. Group 5 consists of males who identified with father and were punished by father. Group 6 consists of maIes who identified with mother and were punished by father. Group 7 consists of maIes who identified with father and were punished by mother. Group 8 consists of males who identified with mother and were punished by mother. 39 40 Table 3 Image DiSparity Means for Experimental Groups Group* Image Failure Mean Image Substitution Mean 1 -33 .80 2 .53 .60 3 .87 1.13 4 .13 .40 5 2.50 .71 6 1.63 .94 7 2-36 -57 8 1.63 .56 *See footnote on page 39. REFERENCES REFERENCES Biller, H.B., & Bahm, R.M. (1971). Father absence, perceived maternal behavior, and masculinity of self- concept among junior high school boys. Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 178—181. Brown, D.G. (1956). Sex-role preference in young children. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79 (14, Whole No. 421). Canter, J.R. (1976). What is funny to whom? The role of gender. Journal of Communication, 26(B), 164-172. Fagot, B.I. (1974). Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental rejection. Developmental Psychology, 19(4), 554-558- Fagot, B.I. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in preschool children. Child Develgpment, i8—’ 902-907. Fling, S., & Manosevitz, M. (1972). Sex-typing in nursery school children's play interests. Developmental Psychology, IZ(4), 146-152. Freud, S. (1927). The ego and the id. London: Institute of Psychoanalysis and Hogarth Press. Freud, S. (1949). Group psychology and the analysis of the eg . London: Hogarth. Gorer, G. (1948). The americangpegple. New York: Norton. Grayson, J. (1982). The elicitation and habituation of orienting and defense responses to phobic imagery and incremental stimulus intensity effect, Psychophysiology, 19, 104-111. Green, D. (1982). Instructed imagination, visual imagery, drive intensification, and defensive imagery. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Harrington, C.C. (1970). Errors in sex-role behavior in teen-age boys. New York: Teacher's College Press. 41 42 Helper, M.M. (1955). Learning theory and the self-concept. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 59, 184—194. Hollander, J. (1973). Self-esteem and parental identification. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 122, 3-7. Julien, E., & Over, R. (1981). Male sexual arousal and the law of initial value. Psychpphysiology, 19, 709-711. Kagan, J. (1958). The concept of identification. Psychological Review, 65(5), 296-305. Lamb, M.E., Easterbrooks, M.A., & Holden, G.W. (1980). Reinforcement and punishment among preschoolers: Characteristics, effects, and correlates. Child Development, 5;, 1230-1236. Langlois J.H., & Downs, A.C. (1980). Mothers, fathers, and peers as socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviors in young children. Child Develppment, 51, 1238-1247. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press. Lyke, H.J. (1963). The Lyke likeness inventory: A study of identification. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.H. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Moses, I., & Reyher, J. (in press). Spontaneous and directed visual imagery: Image failure and image substitution. Journal of Personality and Social Psyphology. Parsons. T. (1947). Certain primary sources and patterns of aggression in the social structure of the western world. Psychiatry, 19, 167—181. Reyher, J. (1978). Emergent uncovering psychotherapy: The use of imagoic and linguistic vehicles in objectifying psychodynamic processes. In J.L. Singer and K.S. Pope (Eds.), The power of human imagination (pp 51—93). New York: Plenum Press. Rosenfeld, H.M. (1968). Delinquent acting out in adolescent males and its relationship to the task of sexual identification. Dissertation Abstracts, 99, 4301B. (University Micro 1 ms 0. - , L— 43 Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self—presentation: A conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 641-669. Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E., & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of childrearing. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson & Co. Stephens, N., & Day, H.D. (1979). Sex-role identity, parental identification, and self-concept of adolescent daughters from mother-absent, father-absent, and intact families. The Journal of Psychology, 103, 193-202. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The inteppersonal theory of psychiatpy. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. mellllllllllllllllllll llllllilllllllll Will!“ 3 1293 03015 5119