It

o

. :13 t ”.2. .1;

Iii} 1 iv.
O.

 

:53: 21,.5633...
9 on L . Ia {Irr-

.5..: . . 1..
priivzv.‘ r.
. ..c:):.¢.r.492

u' 1...}.ng;

.QO.110‘_0;11
15......

r

I uklzrl‘rtl.

15.....117’1,‘ . 1!.

Ila !’tc¢.| Viol). :3,
to!!!

vent]
. \lfltr v 1
3,1. 175,...

 

"ENE”

TTEWVE

”Willi/luluWWW!

19300 110

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERCEPTIONS OF
PERSONAL AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING,
DEFENSIVE FUNCTIONING, AND WORKING
MODELS OF CAREGIVING

presented by

Steven Alan Meyers

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Mastergof Arts Psychology

degree in

 

 

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

 

 

 

i’ i

 

LIIRAIIY
chhlgu ltetc
Unlveulty
K A

 

 

-—

u’r- ' w—nc-c

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

 

l DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C—i—F

MSU is An Atflrmetive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
cm“.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL AND
FAMILY FUNCTIONING, DEFENSIVE FUNCI‘IONING, AND
WORKING MODELS OF CAREGIVING
By

Steven Alan Meyers

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1992

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONAL AND
FAMILY FUNCTIONING, DEFENSIVE FUN CI'IONING, AND
WORKING MODELS OF CAREGIVING

By

Steven Alan Meyers

This study was designed to examine the relationship among self-
perceptions, perceptions of family functioning, defensive functioning, and
caregiving schemata in a sample of 618 college undergraduates. It was
hypothesized that mental representations of personal characteristics (e.g.,
perceptions of an agentic versus a neurotic self) and representations of family
functioning (e.g., perceptions of a psychologically healthy versus unhealthy
family) would be systematically associated with the characteristics of
respondents’ ”working model" of caregiving. It was further hypothesized
that this relationship would be affected by defensive operations which allow
the individual to regulate anxiety. Although results indicated that
perceptions of personal functioning, perceptions of family functioning, and
defensive functioning are systematically related, no consistent evidence was
found to support the hypothesis that perceptions of personal and family
system characteristics relate to aspects of respondents' ”working models" of
caregiving assessed via subject responses to a series of hypothetical parent-
child problem situations. Limitations of sample and methodology are

discussed, and directions for future research are suggested.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to those people who
helped in the completion of this project.

I am most indebted to the chairperson of my committee, Dr. Gary
Stollak. His research was the impetus for this thesis, and he provided me
with continuous support and assistance from the start to the finish. Gary has
been influential in my development not only as a researcher, but also as a
teacher, clinician, and an individual.

I am indebted to Dr. Larry Messé and Dr. Joel Aronoff, who served as
committee members. I am grateful for Larry’s eloquence in explaining
statistical procedures and his commitment to my understanding. I am also
thankful for Joel’s interest in this project, his patience, and assistance in
conceptualizing the ideas behind this study.

I appreciate the efforts of fifteen undergraduates who assisted with data
collection, questionnaire coding, and clerical responsibilities. Finally, I thank
my family and friends for providing me with support that I needed. In
particular, I am indebted to John Loraas for his help with computer analyses,
and Mollie Poorman for her understanding and caring. Lastly, I thank Elaine
Allensworth for the love, friendship, and warmth that she shares with me.

Her continual support makes many stressful times much, much brighter.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Characteristics of the sensitive parent
Origins of sensitive parenting

Impact of family perceptions on caregiving working models
and behavior

Impact of personal perceptions on caregiving working
models and behavior

Defensive functioning and caregiving working models
and behavior

Hypotheses
METHOD
Subjects
Procedure
Measures
RESULTS
Initial analyses
Analyses of PPFC data
Analyses of DMI data
Analyses of ST C data

Refined analyses
i v

vi

10

11
13
14
14
14
14
19
19

19

iii

27

Relationships between constructs

DISCUSSION
APPENDICES
A. Sensitivity to Children (STC) Questionnaire
B Sensitivity to Children (ST C) Coding Manual
C. Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) Questionnaire
D

Perceptions of Personal and Family Characteristics (PPFC)
Questionnaire

E. PPFC Cluster Typology
LIST OF REFERENCES

27

E

74

79

Table 1.

LIST OF TABLES

Factor analysis of the PPFC

PPFC factor intercorrelations

Factor analysis of ST C: 9 factor solution

ST C factor intercorrelations

Correlations between PPFC, DMI, and ST C factors

Stepwise multiple regression analyses:
Prediction of DMI composite scales from PPFC

Stepwise multiple regression analyses:
Prediction of ST C scales from DMI and PPFC

Page
20

25

28

31

31

The goal of understanding the causes and concomitants of future
sensitive and insensitive parenting is intriguing from both a clinical and
research perspective. It would be of great utility to be able to discriminate
between those individuals who are ”at ris ” for later non-optimal caregiving
and those who most likely will be sensitive, effective caregivers. As
cognitions guide parenting behavior and are predictive of child outcomes
(McGillicuddy-Di Lisi, 1985), the assessment of an individual’s ”working
model" of caregiving may provide insight into his/ her later effectiveness as a
parent. Consequently, the study of the cognitive antecedents of these
“working models" of caregiving might be a fruitful endeavor. This work
addressed these topics and explored possible relationships among
undergraduates’ reports of their personal characteristics and family
functioning, defensive functioning, and their responses to children in

hypothetical problem situations.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

a eris 'cs 0 esensitive ent

One popular line of research and theorizing in developmental and
clinical psychology has been the delineation of parenting behaviors or
”styles" that are associated with rearing children who are labeled by teachers
and others as ”competent” in terms of personal and social behaviors. For
example, in an effort to determine which caregiving behaviors were related
to social responsibility, achievement orientation, vitality, and independence

in children, Baumrind (197 3, 1989) assessed a sample of nursery-school aged

2

children along the dimensions of instrumental competence, and coded
parent-child interaction behaviors in terms of parental control, maturity
demands, clarity of communication, nurturance, warmth, and involvement.
Three composites, or caregiving ”styles," emerged from her analyses.

One style which was characterized by the coupling of firm control with
warmth, nurturance and sensitivity in parent-child interactions, the active
enforcement of limits, demands for mature behavior; the encouragement
verbal give and take, the clear statement of values, and the sharing of
reasoning behind parental policies was labeled “authoritative." Children of
”authoritative" parents, as compared to children whose parents were either
”authoritarian” or ”permissive" (see below) were the most self-reliant,
competent, and affiliative in Baumrind’s samples.

Another parental style which emphasized obedience as a virtue, utilized
punitive, forceful measures to obtain compliance with absolute standards,
did not encourage child independence, and was characterized by a lack of
responsiveness in parent-child interactions was labeled ”authoritarian."
Boys from ”authoritarian” households were found to be relatively hostile,
while girls were lacking independence and dominance (Baumrind, 1989).

The third style which consisted of parental behavior that was somewhat
warm but did not exert control over children’s behavior, which made the
fewest maturity demands of children, and was nonpunitive and accepting
was labeled ”permissive." Compared to children of “authoritative" and
”authoritarian" parents, children of ”permissive" parents were found to
score lowest on measures of self-control and self-reliance.

The communication of sensitivity in parent-child interactions has been
further delineated by Stollak and his colleagues (Stollak, 1992; Stollak,

3

Scholom, Kallman, 8t Saturansky, 1973; Wright & Stollak, 1991). He and
other theorists (e.g., Gordon, 1970) state that empathic communications
entail (a) clearly indicating awareness of the child's feelings; (b) helping the
child understand the relationship between his/ her feelings and behavior and
the adult’ 8 feelings and behavior; and, (c) helping the child find appropriate
outlets for the expressions of his/ her feelings, needs, and wishes.

Although research has described characteristics and consequences of
optimal parenting, the process by which an individual becomes a sensitive,
“authoritative" parent has remained less clear. How does an individual
become a sensitive caregiver? What are the origins of warmth, control, and
involvement in parent-child interactions and “working models" of parent-
child interaction? This section reviews several theoretical paradigms which
elucidate the processes by which an individual's ”working model" of
caregiving can be influenced by cognitions, including perceptions of personal
characteristics, perceptions of family functioning, and defensive functioning.

Social Learning Theory. One framework for analyzing the acquisition of
caregiving styles is provided by social learning theory, which asserts that any
given behavior is obtained through reinforcement principles and/ or
observational learning. Such theorists stress that through observing the
behavior of others, ”children can acquire novel behaviors, can discover ways
to recombine elements in their existing repertoires, and can become aware of
the consequences of their behaviors" (Maccoby 8: Martin, 1983).

Characteristics of models influence learning, for imitation is most probable if

4

the model is prestigious, nurturant, and skillful relative to the child’s
preexisting level of ability. With this profile in mind, it is probable that
parents represent powerful and salient models whose interactional styles and
caregiving behaviors may be emulated by their children. Thus, parenting
styles can be transmitted from one generation to the next via modeling
processes. It is probable that recipients of sensitive parenting become
sensitive parents. Conversely, Simons, Whitbeck, Conger, and Chyi-In (1991)
report that observing ”harsh parenting” provides children with a “script for
the parent role that they enact with their own children." After repeated
exposure to insensitive parenting, children may acquire insensitive

parenting schemas which may be reflexively employed at a later time.

Attachment Theory. More ”dynamic” theories of the acquisition of
representations of sensitive caregiving which stress emotion, arousal, and
the developing self-system are provided by attachment theorists (e.g., Belsky
& Pensky, 1988). Influenced by the ethological literature, Bowlby (1982)
advanced the idea that behavior is the product of instinctual systems. The
infant’ s tendency to both maintain proximity to the caregiver and to explore
the environment serve as the basis for categorizing attachment security
(Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

Based on his/ her relationship history, the child develops expectations
concerning the self and others termed the ”internal working model" (Bowlby,
1982). Thus, mental representations originating from infant-caregiver
interaction serve as the basis for the formation of relationship schemata from
which the child brings forward a specific organization of ”feelings, needs,
attitudes, expectations, cognitions, and behaviors" (Sroufe 6r Fleeson, 1986).

5

This has direct implications for future relationships, as schemata affect the
way in which relationship-relevant information is perceived,
comprehended, remembered, and learned throughout childhood and
adulthood (Rumelhart, 1980). Moreover, these templates contain
internalized representations of relationships as wholes, as such the roles of
both caregiver and “care—receiver" are retained by the child (Sroufe 6t
Fleeson, 1986, 1988).

Empirical support of attachment theory. As the manner in which the
child relates to others is assumed to be consonant with early attachment
experience, researchers have attempted to empirically substantiate the degree
to which interactional styles generalize. Sroufe, Fox, and Pancake (1983)
found that children from an urban poor sample classified at 12 and 18
months as anxiously attached were overly dependent on preschool teachers
at 52 months, based on teacher ratings and behavioral observations.
Similarly, Sroufe and Fleeson (1988) report that the relationships of children
who as infants were securely attached to their mothers were ”warm,
mutually respectful, agreeable, ageoappropriate, and matter of fact" with their
teachers. Meanwhile teachers characterized children who as infants were
avoidantly attached to mother as noncompliant and needing control.

Secure attachment in infancy is similarly related to positive peer
relations. These children were rated as socially competent, popular; and
highly involved with age-mates (Sroufe 8: Fleeson, 1988). Similarly, Sroufe,
Egeland, and Kreutzer (1990) report that those children identified as securely
attached at age one-year are considered well liked by peers and possessed
clearly identifiable mutual friends at age six. Conversely, avoidant

attachment has been associated with frequent hostility, unprovoked

6

aggression, and generally negative peer interactions (LaFreniere 8r Sroufe,
1985).

Moreover; attachment quality is related to sociability with unfamiliar;
friendlyzstrangers. Twelve-month-old infants who were securely attached to
mother were more likely to engage in positive eye contact, respond in an
affectively positive fashion, and interact/ engage emotionally and physically
with an adult clown than were insecurely attached infants (Main 6: Weston,
1981).

To summarize, those individuals who were the recipients of sensitive
caregiving during early childhood are more likely to be categorized as
“securely attached" and have many psychosocial and psychoeducational skills
in their early school years. Specifically, these individuals may perceive
themselves as worthy and potent, perceive others as dependable, and are
likely to possess the ability to establish healthy, supportive relationships in
the spirit of their past relationships. Those individuals who received
insensitive parenting (without substitute sensitive caregiving from others)
may suffer from broad impairments that affect the development of social
skills in childhood and future caregiving abilities: they may perceive
themselves as unworthy of care, perceive others as untrustworthy, and
consequently have a great deal of difficulty in establishing healthy,
supportive relationships.

Adult attachment: Retrospective analysis. Instead of assessing parent-
child interactions and longitudinally following the sample to observe later
parenting, an alternative approach is to assess retrospectively an adult’ 8

perceptions of characteristics of his / her family of origin and to observe

7

his/ her present functioning as a caregiver.

The Adult Attachment Interview, used by Mary Main and her colleagues
(Main & Goldwyn, 1984; Main, Kaplan, and Cassidy, 1985), asks respondents
to describe close relationships, supportive memories, contradictory
memories, and assessments of relationships in childhood, and current
assessments of the same experiences and relationships. Respondents are
further asked whether their parents threatened separation, and whether they
ever had felt rejected during childhood. Interviews were rated with respect
to (a) the extent to which adults value attachment relationships, and regard
experiences related to attachment as influential, (b) the ease in discussing
attachment relationships, and (c) the readiness to recall attachment related
information.

Main, Kaplan, 82 Cassidy (1985) report that those mothers who valued
attachment relationships and readily recalled attachment-relevant
information were sensitive caregivers with their own children. Conversely,
those mothers who perceived that they were rejected during childhood
appeared to defensively distort, idealize, and repress information during the
interview, and tended to reject their own infants in observed interactions.

Using similar, but not identical, criteria to judge mothers'
representations of received caregiving, Grossmann, et al. (1988) derived four
classifications: a positive representation (characterized by the presence of at
least one supportive caregiver; the ability to reflect about childhood
experiences, realistic views of parents, and the ability to focus on the topic of
attachment), a non-defensive representation (characterized by openness and
thoughtful descriptions of early relationships, however individuals lacked a

clearly supportive parent), an idealizing, incoherent, or intellectualizing

8

representation, and a repressive representation (indicated by the individual’s
inability, recalcitrance, or detachment in remembering early childhood
experience). They report strong connections between positive maternal
relationship representation and mother-infant interactions marked by
sensitivity, understanding, cooperation, and child-centeredness when infants
were 2, 6, and 10 months old.

- act of f- ' o-ce'o on .15? ' :worc'i- mnels. . o-havm

One important determinant of ”working models" of caregiving
behavior suggested by theorizing and research is the individual's perception
of his/ her family functioning. Thus, the impact of family variables on an
individual’s later caregiving is ”mediated both by his childhood and by his
adult perceptions of his parents’ behaviors and attitudes" (Bronson, Katten,
8r Livson, 1959). Specifically, it has been argued that an individual's
perception of a phenomenon is the most important variable affecting his/ her
own behavior (Gecas 6r Schwalbe, 1986). Sroufe and his colleagues advance
that mental representations of family interactions determine expectations for
future relationships (Sroufe, 1988; Sroufe Gr Fleeson, 1986). Similarly,
mothers' recollections of relationships with their mothers (i.e., their
children’s maternal grandmothers) were predictive of current caregiving
behaviors in retrospective studies of attachment (Grossmann, et al., 1988;
Main, Kaplan, 81: Cassidy, 1985).

Conceptualizations of perceptions of family functioning. Researchers
have demonstrated that perceptions of family health and family
environment correlate with individual characteristics which may have an

impact on later caregiving behavior (Billings 8: Moos, 1982). One

9

conceptualization of the major dimensions of family functioning has been
advanced by Olson and his colleagues (e.g., Olson, 1986; Olson, Russell, 8:
Sprenkle, 1983; Olson, Sprenkle, 8: Russell, 1979) who view perceptions of
family functioning in terms of two orthogonal variables, family cohesion and
family adaptability. They view family cohesion as ”the emotional bonding
members have with one another and the degree of individual autonomy a
person experiences in the family system." Perceptions of family cohesion
range from low (”disengaged families") to high (“enmeshed families”). The
second dimension that Olson describes is family adaptability, which refers to
”the ability of a marital / family system to change its power structure, role
relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and
developmental stress." Perceptions of family adaptability similarly range
from low (”rigid families") to high (”chaotic families"). Although
perceptions of moderate levels of family cohesion and moderate levels of
family adaptability are hypothesized to be most adaptive and have been
associated with optimal intrapsychic and interpersonal functioning (Olson,
1985; Olson, Sprenkle, 8: Russell, 1979), a linear relationship for family
adaptability has been documented as well (Green, Harris, Forte, 8: Robinson,
1991; Perosa 8: Perosa, 1990).

Consistent relationships have been reported between perceptions of
parental availability, trust, communication, and connectedness, and
adolescent social competence, self esteem, and emotional adjustment
(Armsden 8: Greenberg, 1987; Greenberg, Siege], 8: Leitch, 1983; Rice, 1990).
Similarly, Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, and Dornbusch (1991) report that
adolescents (aged 14-18) who characterize their parents as “authoritative"
appear self-confident, academically oriented, and socially adapted, while

10

those adolescents who perceive their parents as ”neglectful” display lower
levels of competence and higher levels of misbehavior and psychological
distress compared to their peers.

111- ct o ore-1m a1 1‘ '9 '0 <1 119:4 ’. wor <1: - .. ls ano be . '<r
In addition to perceptions of family functioning, a second influential
determinant of ”working models" of caregiving suggested by psychological
theory and research is the individual's perception of his/ her personal
functioning. The relationship between individual adjustment (assessed
through self perceptions) and caregiving attitudes and behaviors has been
well documented (Belsky, 1984; Lamb 8: Easterbrooks, 1981).
Conceptualizations of personal functioning. The concept of personal
boundaries (Block 8: Block, 1980a) provides a useful heuristic in delineating
the effects of self perceptions on interpersonal and caregiving attitudes and
behaviors. The Blocks conceptualize boundaries in terms of permeability
(ego-control) and elasticity (ego-resiliency). The construct of ego-control,
referring to the balance of an individual’s internal states, environment, and
behavior; ranges from overcontrol (i.e., excessive boundary impermeability
resulting in containment of impulse and inhibition of action and affect) to
undercontrol (i.e., excessive boundary permeability resulting in the inability
to contain impulse and delay gratification). Ego resiliency refers to the
individual’s ability to sufficiently accommodate the environmental
demands by changes in the level of ego control (Block 8: Block, 1980a).
Stollak, Crandell, and Pirsch (1991) have noted that:

The construct of boundaries also provides an alternate
way of conceptualizing the theoretical domains of
attachment, parenting styles, and family structure and
dynamics. For example, concepts within each of these

11

domains also describe characteristics of the boundaries
among family members. Secure attachment,
authoritative caregiving, and optimal levels of cohesion
and adaptability may imply optimally permeable and
resilient boundaries. Insecure and anxious attachment
between parent and toddler/ infant, excessively
permissive] submissive caregiving, and rigidly enmeshed
relationships may imply chronically and excessively
permeable and / or brittle boundaries among family
members (p. 532).

Alternatively, optimally permeable and resilient boundaries may be reflective
of an underlying dimension of personal and interpersonal competence,
which is similarly manifested in the context of parent-child interactions and

the cognitive representations of these interactions.

Defensive fungg' g_n_n1' g and garggimg’ worm g models and behavior
Inherently associated with adults’ recollection of childhood experiences

are defensive processes which limit the individual’s perceptual awareness.
Regulatory processes emerge from interpersonal interactions (Sroufe, 1989)
and shape social behavior vis a vis expectancies and distortions in
perceptions.

Regulatory structures have been conceptualized in terms of cognitive
operations (i.e., defense mechanisms) that are designed to moderate the
experience of painful thoughts and affects evoked by a threatening stimulus
(Cramer; 1988, 1991 ; Freud, 1946; Vaillant, 1977, 1986). These different forms
of defense mechanisms are often thought to form a continuum, ranging
from those more "primitive” defenses which severely restrict the experience
and response of individuals within stressful situations to those more

"mature” defenses which permit the individual to enjoy those aspects of an

12

experience that arouse difficult thoughts and affects (Aronoff 8: Stollak,
1991).

Millon (1990) proposes that a consonance exists between an individual's
regulatory structures, interpersonal behaviors, perceptions of others, and self-
perceptions. Moreover, researchers have suggested that mothers who are
insensitive caregivers tend to distort, dismiss, and repress recollections of
early interactions with their own mothers (see above).

One illustration of the relationship between perceptions of family
functioning, defensive functioning, and caregiving schema that is provided
by psychoanalytic theory is the work of Fraiberg, Adelson, 8: Shapiro (1975),
who assert that a mother ’8 childhood experiences unconsciously shape the
dynamics of her interactions with her infant. These ”ghosts in the nursery”
compel mothers, to varying extents, to re-enact scenes from their own
childhood in the course of caregiving through the mediation of cognitive
structures formed earlier in life. Thus, by virtue of receiving extremely
insensitive caregiving, mothers in Fraiberg’s research program developed
mental representations of insensitive parent-child interaction that
subconsciously guided their own caregiving attitudes and behaviors. The
defense mechanisms of repression and identification with the aggressor
enable the transmission process by maintaining noxious memories outside
the mother’s realm of awareness.

Thus, as regulatory functioning parallels perceptions of self and others
and influences schemata of interpersonal behavior, the assessment of
defensive structures is a helpful and important element in predicting
working models of caregiving behaviors.

13

W
The above theorizing and research suggest the following hypotheses:

(1) Positive perceptions of personal functioning (e.g., personal agency)
will relate positively to positive components of the respondents' "working
model" of caregiving, whereas they will relate negatively to negative
components of the respondents' "working model" of caregiving. In contrast,
negative perceptions of personal functioning (e. g., neuroticism) will relate
negatively to positive components of the respondents' "working mode " of
caregiving, but positively to negative components of the respondents'
"working model" of caregiving.

(2) Similarly, positive perceptions of family functioning (e.g., high
family health) will be positively related to positive components of the

0 N

respondents working model" of caregiving and negatively related to
negative components of the respondents' "working model" of caregiving. In
contrast, negative perceptions of family functioning (e. g., low family health)
will be negatively related to positive components of the respondents'
"working model" of caregiving and positively related to negative
components of the respondents' "working model" of caregiving.

(3) Uh'lization of immature defenses (i.e., defense mechanisms) will be

negatively related to positive components of the respondents working

model" of caregiving and positively related to negative components of the

0"

respondents working model" of caregiving.

METHOD
Meets
Subjects for the project were 618 undergraduate students (437 females,
181 males) enrolled in Introductory Psychology courses at Michigan State
University. Participation in this study fulfilled research experience
requirements of these courses. Subjects were informed that their

participation was voluntary and that their responses were to remain

confidential.

Procedure

Data collection involved 15, two-hour testing sessions. The number of
subjects present at each testing session varied between 30 and 70. Before
completing three questionnaires (described below) which were distributed in
random order; the subjects first completed a demographics questionnaire.

MESH—IQ

CAREGIVING STYLES: Sensitivity to Children (STC) questionnaire.
The Sensitivity to Children questionnaire is a projective measure which asks
respondents to indicate his/ her response as a parent in ten hypothetical
parent-child conflict situations. This format, first introduced by Jackson
(1956), represents a compromise between the accuracy provided by direct
observation for measuring parent attitudes and the convenience of self-report
measures. Developed by Stollak, Scholom, Kallman, 8: Saturansky (1973), the
ST C items include themes of sibling fighting, stealing, hiding an accident,
masturbation, etc. The ST C questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

14

15

Scoring categories for the STC were first developed by Gordon (1970,
1975) and Stollak, et a1. (1973) to address both theoretically and empirically
derived positive and negative aspects of caregiving behavior. These
categories were altered in subsequent studies by Teyber; Messé, and Stollak
(1977), and Wright and Stollak (1991), and appear in a modified form in the
present investigation. Raters were instructed to read the entire protocol to
develop a global impression of the respondent’ s caregiving style, and then to
score each protocol using 42 scoring categories on a five point scale. The STC
Scoring Manual can be found in Appendix B.

The scoring of the Sensitivity to Children Questionnaire was
completed by twelve undergraduates who received approximately seven
weeks of training. Each protocol was independently scored by three
undergraduates. Responses to each of the 42 scoring categories were averaged

across raters.

DEFENSIVE FUNCTIONING: Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI).
The Defense Mechanism Inventory (Ihilevich 8: Gleser, 1986) is a well
established instrument that can be used to identify those individuals in a
nonclinical population who possess more or less adaptive defensive
structures.

The DMI consists of ten vignettes which require the respondent to
imagine him/ herself in a variety of difficult or frustrating situations
(Ihilevich 8: Gleser, 1986). Each vignette is followed by four subsections
regarding the person's actual reaction to the situation, the nature of the
person’s impulsive reaction or behavioral fantasy in the situation, the

person’s thoughts in regard to the situation, and the person’s affective

16

experience and rationale for feeling the way they would in reaction to the
situation. Each subsection has five alternative solutions that the person may
choose; these five choices represent the five major clusters of defense
mechanisms assessed by the DMI.

Subjects are instructed to select the statement that is the most
representative and the least representative of how they would react (scored 2
and 0, respectively). The remaining three choices and scored as 1. The scores
for the five defense mechanisms are summed separately over the ten
vignettes (see Cramer; 1988 for a review).

Five clusters of defense mechanisms are identified by the DMI: (1)
Principalization (PRN) is a defensive operation which involves controlling
anxiety through cognitive maneuvers and use of intellect. Examples of the
defense mechanisms subsumed by PRN include intellectualization,
rationalization, and isolation. (2) Reversal (REV) implies the generation of
responses to internal threats to minimize the severity of perceived conflicts
and to block anxiety arousing stimuli from reaching awareness. Examples of
the defense mechanisms subsumed by REV include denial, repression, and
reaction formation. (3) Turning against the self (I AS) involves the
generation of negative expectations to cushion self esteem against the effects
of anxiety-producing experiences. These defenses are frequently expressed in
exaggerated and persistent self-criticism, and depressed affect. (4) Projection
(PRO) involves the attribution of personally unacceptable states to others, and
is used to justify the expression of hostile thoughts, behaviors, and feelings
directed towards others. (5) Turning against the object (TAO) is a cognitive
operation involving the expression of direct or indirect aggression which

serves to master perceived external threats or to mask inner conflicts which

17

are too painful to confront consciously. The DMI can be found in Appendix
C.

PERCEPTIONS OF SELF AND FAMILY FUNCTIONING: Perception
of Personal and Family Characteristics (PPFC). Items comprising the
Perception of Personal and Family Characteristics questionnaire (PPFC)
(Stollak, Aronoff, Loraas, Woike, Meyers, 8: Messé, 1991; Meyers, Stollak,
Aronoff, Messé, Loraas, 8: Woike, 1992) were derived from the California
Adult and California Child Qsets (Block 8: Block, 1980b, 1980c) (the initial
items, stated in the third-person, were written in the first-person so that they
could be completed by the subject), the Family Adaptability and Cohesion
Evaluation Scales (FACES) III (Olson, Partner; 8: Lavee, 1985), and the Family
Self Report Inventory (Beavers, Hulgus, 8: Hampson, 1986). The respondents
were asked to rate each of the statements on a five-point scale (see Appendix
D for a copy of this questionnaire).

In the first psychometric study of the properties of this instrument
(Stollak, et al., 1991) questionnaire items were submitted to factor analysis,
using varimax rotation of the principle components. This analysis resulted
five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Three factors pertained to
perceptions of family functioning (Family Health, Closeness/ Enmeshment,
and Expressiveness) and two factors pertained to perceptions of personal
functioning (Neuroticism and Competence). Cluster analytic procedures
were then carried out on these five factors in order to relate the PPFC with the
DMI instrument for purposes of validation. Prior to conducting this analysis,
each subject’ s scores on each of the five PPFC scales were computed and

converted to Z-scores. Cluster analytic procedures resulted in six separate

18

patterns of five mean-composite, PPFC subscale scores (see Appendix E)
which integrate individual and social characteristics into typologies of
interpersonal styles based on the degree to which each scale was positive or
negative.

To examine the construct validity of the PPFC instrument, a bivariate
crosstabulation was performed to elucidate the relationship between adaptive
functioning on the PPFC and adaptive (i.e., ”mature”) defensive functioning
on the DMI. It was found that 21 of the 28 persons in the most adaptive
clusters on the PPFC (e.g., Competent/Secure, Independent) were
characterized by the most ”adaptive” defenses on the DMI (e.g.,
Principalization, Reversal). Furthermore, 21 of the 27 persons in the least
adaptive PPFC clusters (e.g., Disengaged/Avoidant, Volatile] Chaotic,
Enmeshed) utilized the least ”adaptive” of defenses on the DMI (e.g., Turning
Against Self, Projection, Turning Against Other) (p<.005) (Aronoff 8: Stollak,
1991).

RESULTS

Initial analyses
Analyses of PPFC data. The analyses of the data in the present study

included, first, a replication of the factor analysis of a slightly revised PPFC. A
principle components factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded a five
factor solution, similar to that found in the the previous study (Stollak, et a1,
1991). Items were included on one of the following five factors if the absolute
value of the loading was equal to .50 or higher: Family Health1 (e.g., ”Our
family is good at solving problems together” ), N euroticism (e.g., ”I am fearful
and anxious”), Agency (e.g., ”I am vital, energetic, lively”),
Cohesion/ Enmeshment (e.g., "We like to do things only with our family but
not with others outside the family”), and Family Expressiveness (e.g., ”We
speak our mind, no matter what”) (See Table 1 for the factors, and the items
that comprise them, obtained in this and in the previous study).

Reliability coefficients were computed for the PPFC instrument and the
five subscales and were found to demonstrate adequate internal consistency.
The Cronbach’s a for the instrument = .80, Family Health a = .75,
Neuroticism a = .70, Agency or = .76, Cohesion/ Enmeshment a = .77, and
Family Expressiveness a = .69.

An analysis of the relationships between perceptions of personal and

family functioning revealed low but statistically significant positive

 

‘ As the large Family Health scale of the PPFC correlated positively with both the
Mature Defenses and Immature Defenses composites of the DMI (to be described below), the
factor was broken down into two groupings, Family Health and Defensive Perceptions of
Family Health, and was further refined through regression analyses. Correlation coefficients
pertaining to these two composites in the subsequent tables therefore utilize partial
correlations rather than zero-order correlations.

19

20

TABLE 1
Factor Analysis of the PPFC
Factors I and II: Family Health Factor loadings
Family Health
63. Our family is good at solving problems together. .770
59. The future looks good to our family. .742
28. When there are problems and stresses in our lives our family has .647
been able to resolve and overcome them very well.
45. We all have a say in family plans. .633
57. Our happiest times are at home. .600
58. The grownups in my family are strong leaders. .562
30. Our family changes its way of handling tasks when necessary .545
to solve a problem or to reduce stress.
29. Family members feel closer to other family members .510
than to people outside the family.
Defensive Health
54. In our home, we feel loved. .780
75. My family is happy most of the time. .776
70. Family members pay attention to each other and listen to what is said. .751
43. Family members pay attention to each other’s feelings .750
62. Our family is proud of being close. .744
77. On a scale of l to 5, I would rate the functioning of my family as: -.714
l 2 , 3 4 5
My family My family does not function
functions well very well together. We
together really need help.
41. Family togetherness is very important. .689
48. There is closeness in my family but each person is .688
allowed to be special and different.
56. We argue a lot and never solve problems. -.683
72. The mood in my family rs usually sad and blue. -.680
64. Family members easily express warmth and caring towards each other. .668
73. We argue a lot. —.613
46. The grownups in my family understand and agree on family decisions. .596
51. Our family members touch and hug each other. .596
47. Grownups in my family compete and fight with each other. -.553
49. We accept each other’s friends. .552
52. Family members put each other down . -.551
76. Each person takes responsibility for his/her behavior. .538
69. Our family members would rather do things with other people than together. - .536
67. When things go wrong we blame each other. - 5.24
40. When there are stresses or problems it is hard to identify the leader(s) —.523

in our family and we often experience further stresses and problems.

21

Factor Ill: Neuroticism

21.
22.

08.
10.
O9.
12.
01.
02.
13.
05.

I go to pieces under stress. I become rattled and disorganized
When I am under stress, I turn to and depend on others to help me
and protect me. I become dependent.

I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily irritated and/or angered.
I become rigidly repetitive or immobilized when under stress.

I have rapid shifts in mood. My emotions change easily.

I am self-reliant, confident, and trust my own judgment.

I am fearful and anxious.

I feel unworthy. I think of myself as "bad".

I withdraw and disengage when under stress.

I have bodily symptoms when I am tense and in conflict (for example,
headaches, stomach aches, nausea, etc.).

Factor IV: Agency

I am vital, energetic, lively.
I am self-assertive.

. I am resourceful in initiating activities.

I am aggressive (physically or verbally).

. I have a rapid personal tempo. I react and move quickly.

I am creative in perception, thought, or play.

. I am emotionally expressive (facially, gesturally, or verbally).

Factor V: Cohesion/Enmeshment

37.
27.
39.
3 l .

44.
33.

We can easily think of things to do together as a family
but not when with outsiders.
We like to do things only with our family but not with
others outside the family.
Family members consult other family members on their decisions
but not outsiders.
Family members like to spend free time only with each other and not
with others outside the family.
Our family would rather do things together than with other people.
Family members feel very good about each other and easily share
their feelings with each other but not with outsiders.

Factor VI: Expression

53.
68.
65.

We speak our mind, no matter what.
We say what we think and feel.
It’s okay to fight and yell in our family.

.719

.641
.622
.61 l
.596

3527
.507

.678
.650
.626
.61 1
.591

.543
.533

22

correlations between Family Health and Personal Agency (r = .15, p < .001),
Family Cohesion (; = .30, p <.001), and Family Expression (_1; == .21, p < .001).
Moreover; Personal Agency was positively, and statistically significantly,
correlated with Family Cohesion (r = .10, p < .01) and Family Expression (r =
.27, p < .001) (See Table 2 for the intercorrelation matrix).

Analyses of DMI data. A principle components factor analysis with
varimax rotation of the DMI subscale scores yielded a three factor solution, in
accordance with several previous investigations and reiterates the lack of
independence of the scales (see Cramer, 1988). PRN and REV loaded
substantially on the first factor, labeled ”Mature Defenses;” TAO and PRO
loaded substantially on the second factor; labeled ”Immature Defenses;" and
TAS loaded on the third factor. Factor naming was guided by previous
theoretical and empirical work which suggests that individuals who score
highest on PRN are the most ”psychologically mature" and are most
successfully able to contain affective experience, while individuals who score
highest on PRO and TAS are the least ”psychologically mature” and are less
able to successfully contain affective experience (Cramer; 1988, 1991; Aronoff
8: Stollak, 1991).

Analyses of STC data. The average scores across three raters for each of
the 42 scoring categories of the ST C were submitted to a principle components
factor analysis with varimax rotation. The analyses yielded nine factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Scoring categories were considered reflective of
one of the following nine “modes of caregiving" if the absolute value of the
loading was equal to .40 or higher: Empathic Communication (e.g., "The

23

Table 2. PPFC Factor lntercorrelatlone

 

 

 

 

limitations: Health Neuroticism Agency Cohesion emission
Fam Heam Wes“ ....... .01 15“” .aom 21....
MW 45"" 39912:“ .......... -oa -.11*" .12.“
Neuroticism m 42*“ 1.0324“ ......... -°°
Agency .15“ -03 -24'*“ 1M ,,,,,,,,, : 1°". ...... 27““
Cohesion .30“ 41" 04 10" m ................ 9.9. ............. 1
Expression 21"" - 12*“ .oo 27"" Ni‘

““p<.001,lwotalled ”p<.01,lwotailed

*"p<.005,twotalled *p<.05,twotailed

Note: ltalirs indicatepatialcorrelation ooellieientsinsleadoizero-orderconelatloncoellicients

24

person attempts to obtain more information in a genuinely caring manner” ),
Anger Communication (e.g., ”The person lets the child know that s/he is
angry with him/her”), Preaches (e.g., ”The person exhorts, moralizes, or
preaches"), Teases Child (e.g., ”The person teases or makes frm of the child"),
Withdrawal (e.g., ”The person withdraws, submits, avoids confronting the
child"), Power Assertion (e.g., "The person gives the child specific directions
regarding expected future behavior”), Psychologizes (e.g., ”The person
analyzes the child, figures the child out, offers the child insight”), Encourages
Responsibility (e.g., ”The person teaches the child, him/ herself, is responsible
for what happens to him/ herself"), and Allows Fighting (e.g., ”The person
tries to keep the child from fighting" H) (see Table 3 for the factors and items).
Factors resemble, but are not identical to, those obtained in previous research
using either the same items (Wright 8: Stollak, 1991) or verbally-presented
hypothetical problem situations (Teyber, Messé, and Stollak, 1977).
Differences may also be attributable to changes in the scoring procedure; raters
evaluated each STC scenario individually instead of evaluating the protocol
as a whole, as done in this study.

Reliability estimates were calculated for these data by averaging the
product-moment correlations between raters (e.g., A—B, A-C, 8-0 for each of
the nine composite rating scales of the ST C (Jacob, Tennenbaum, 8: Krahn,
1987). Average correlation coefficients for the composite rating scales were as
follows: Empathic Communication, 2 = .86; Anger Communication, ; = .82;
Preaches, ; = .73; Teases Child, _1; = .68; Vlfrthdrawal, ; = .67; Power Assertion, r =
.58; Psychologizes, r = .47; Encourages Responsibility, _1; = .59, and; Allows
Fighting, _r; = .42. All coefficients were highly significant (p < .0005) and imply
good interrater reliability.

25

Table 3
Factor Analysis of STC: 9 Factor Solution

Factor 1: Empathic Communication

03. The person gives comfort and understanding.

33. The person attempts to obtain more information in a genuinely caring manner...
06. The person is easy going and relaxed with the child.

01. The person respects the child’s opinions and encourages the child to express them.
10. The person encourages the child to talk about his/her problems.

29. The person excuses, sympathizes, consoles, reassures the child.

The person talks it over and reasons with the child when the child misbehaves.
42. The person attempts to obtain more information about the child’s feelings.

The person persuades with logic, instructing, lecturing -- without moralizing.

The person advises, recommends, provides answers or solutions.

The person trusts the child.

The person gives the child alternatives or compromise solutions.

. The person gives the child directions regarding the expression of his/her feelings...
. The person probes, questions, cross-examines, or interrogates the child.

The person is empathic; stating what the child is feeling/wishing/wanting/needing.

S

Sg‘o‘fifilfifi

Factor 2: Anger Communication

14. The person lets the child know that s/he is angry with him/her.
02. The person is angry with the child.

09. The person warns, admonishes, or threatens punishment.

21. The person orders, directs, or commands the child.

04. The person uses physical punishment.

15. The person punishes the child by taking away a privilege s/he otherwise would have had.

19. The person warns the child by warning him/her about the bad things that can happen...
25. The person evaluates/judges negatively, disapproving, blaming, criticizes.

18. The person lets the child know how ashamed and disappointed s/he is...

l 1. The person expects the child not to have secrets from him/her.

05. The person expresses that the child is a disappointment to him/her.

Factor 3: Preaches

22. The person exhorts, moralizes, or preaches.

36. The person relates his/her behavior to the child’s behavior.

12. The person expects the child to keep control of feelings at all times.
26. ...The person is making a global evaluation of the child’s worth.

18. The person lets the child know how ashamed and disappointed s/he is...

Factor 4: Teases Child

16. The person teases and makes fun of the child.

27. The person calls the child names, ridicules, shames the child, uses sarcasm,...
05. The person expresses that the child is a disappointment to him/her.

Factor 5: Withdrawal

32. The person withdraws, submits, avoids confronting the child.
31. The person withdraws, distracts, ignores, bypasses the child away from the problem.

.858
.849
.828
.825
.813

.746
.725

.708
.695

.551
-.511
.491

.831
.794
.674
.605
.570

.555
.539
.491
.481
.472

.704

.462
.449
.418

.790
.428

2 6
Factor 6: Power Assertion
35. The person gives the child specific directions regarding expected future behavior.
41. The person bribes the child or makes a contingent demand.
Factor 7: Psychologizes
37. The person relates his/her feelings to the child’s feelings.
28. The person analyzes the child, figures the child out, offers the child insight.
Factor 8: Encourages Responsibility
17. The person teaches the child that the child, him/herself, is responsible for what happens to
him/herself.
Factor 9: Allows Fighting

13. The person tries to keep the child from fighting.

.638
.435

.655
.638

.734

27

Examination of the correlations between modes of caregiving indicate
the presence of a positive constellation of caregiving behaviors, akin to
“authoritative parenting” (Baumrind, 1973, 1989), consisting of empathy (i.e.,
Empathic Communication), maturity demands (i.e., Encouraging
Responsibility), and involvement (i.e., negative correlation with
Withdrawal). Similarly, a negative constellation of caregiving behaviors
emerges, resembling Baumrind’s description of ”authoritarian parenting,"
consisting of positive correlations between the following modes of caregiving:
Anger Communication, Preaches, Teases Child, and Withdrawal (See Table 4

for intercorrelation matrix).

Refined gnalxm

Relationships between constructs. An analysis of the correlations
between measures of perceptions of personal and family characteristics and
measures of defensive functioning indicated that the Family Health factor of
the PPFC instrument correlated positively with both the Mature Defenses
composite (; = .15, p < .001) and the Immature Defenses composite of the DMI
(g = .22, p < .001). In order to preserve the construct validity of Family Health
subscale, items from this factor were individually correlated with the Mature
Defenses and the Immature Defenses composites. A comparison between the
magnitudes of the correlation coefficients was used to determine if the item
was measure of Family Health or Defensive Perceptions of Family Health
(i.e., items that were correlated to a greater extent with Mature Defenses
remained a part of the Family Health subscale, while those items which were
correlated to a greater extent with Immature Defenses were allocated to a new
PPFC scale which was labeled Defensive Perceptions of Family Health).

28

8.3 oz .8. v? 8.3 oz .5. Va .. 8.522 @890...

 

1111111111
eeeeeeeeeeeee
aaaaaaaa

mmwmmgmHeme 5. 5. .3. .8. 8.. 8..

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
ooooooooooooooooooo
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
ooooooooooooooooooo
-------------------
-------------------
-------------------
ooooooooooooooooooo

S. mmwwwgmmmwmmm ..F F. 3.2. .. F T 8.. B.

----------------
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
nnnnnnnnnnnnnn

e u

-------------------

oooooooooooooooooooo

...................

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

--------------------

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

.8: .59. ....mm. mmwwmgmmmmwmmmm 5.2.. ...9. ....nm.

ooooooooooooooooooo
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

-------------------
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
oooooooooooooooooooo

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

.8. ..:.. ..:. .53. 8a 8. 5.8.

ooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
......................................
ooooooooooooooooooo

8.. B. ....m~. ....\.m. 5.8. ....mm. mmmmwmwgfiwmmmmm

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
oooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
oooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
ooooooooooooooooooo

e8... 8. seesaw . eceeNm. :csfi P . .338. 234%.
F0. cacaGN. ecccg. 2:33. ceeemw. «8.- «egg.

 

.8... FC.

8.5 oz .50. v a ....

so: 25.2

8. ...am. as. 585

3.3. ....9.
....N0. .53.
5.2. ....m P.
.38. .8:

....3. ...bm.

...................

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
------------------
ooooooooooooooooooo
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
oooooooooooooo

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
...................

ooooooooooooooooooo
...................

ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooo

 

...................

 

Emu. $22 9.6m 58cm $3225 :34. 5:8 gauges «$8... 8585

30:29:09.2:— acaoen. 0.5 .v 2%...

E8 592 E8 535

58.2%..
52 838
«355.?
$38
$53.“.
28 $92
28 .35

29

Because Family Health items still correlated positively and significantly with
Immature Defenses (; = .11, p < .02), and Defensive Health items still
correlated positively and significantly with Mature Defenses (_r_ --- .13, p < .005),
these subscales were further refined through regression analyses in which the
variance associated with the correlation between the two scales was removed
from each (i.e., the residual scores from the regression procedures were used
in subsequent analyses).

Further analysis of the correlations between perceptions of personal
and family characteristics (as measured by PPFC scales) and the three
composite scales of the DMI indicated that the Family Health was positively
correlated with Mature Defensive Functioning (_1; = .10, p < .05) and negatively
correlated with both Immature Defensive functioning (; = -.11, p < .05) and
the lesser-adaptive defense mechanism of Turning Against the Self (; = -.11, p
<.01). Conversely, Defensive Perceptions of Family Health was positively
correlated with Immature Defensive functioning (; == .22, p <.001). Similarly,
perceptions of personal characteristics related to defensive functioning in the
predicted manner. Perceptions of Agency were negatively associated with the
usage of the most immature defense mechanism, Turning Against the Self (r
= -.17, p < .001), and perceptions of Neuroticism were positively correlated
with the utilization of Turning Against the self (; = .29, p < .001) and
negatively correlated with the adaptive, Mature Defenses and less adaptive
Immature Defenses (; = -.18, p <.001, _r_ = -.20, p <.001, respectively) (See Table
5).

In multiple regression analyses (see Table 6), DMI composite scales
were used individually as the criterion variables with PPFC factors entered in

a stepwise manner as predictors. These series of regression analyses

30

8:93:08 53.2.8 520.938 388. 3:33:80 8.32.8 3.5.. 28.55 8.3. H052

no.3.

 

 

.00.:

5.

5.9.
5:. .
Nov
5.
8.
....aN

---------
ooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo
..........

3mm. 5.3.

..F p.
..N—.
.58
.59.
.53.

e8.-

. ...:CF.

.8.-

52..

:5.

8.. 8.. .8: 5.
«5.. 5. 8. 5.8.
..N... 5.3. .59. 5.9.
50... 5.5. 5.3. 5.5.

OCCGF.

CC. ON”.
COCONn.
a CC .3.

0'008. COCCm”. u

COCONP.
CCCCmF.

Wu 8. ooceflN. eooohw. occsmw.

5:155 ...e
Wham ...... ......

....8. .23 3..

.8. ...... a. a.

a
.................

oz .8. v a .
8..
5

8

3..
8.
8.
5.

8.. «com—...
L. _..u can.

a$§8$aa

3902.82...

mo.
5.
5.

seats.

 

5.
8..
5.
5.

5

«o
8.
8.
8

5..
N5.
5.
5.

mo
5
8..
mo.
5

8..
mo.-
5.
No.
5..
5.
5..

.5...
5.

3§$sasas§

co.
5..
we;
5.
5.
5..
.55..
5..
5.

i‘il‘lll:11

ooooooooo
oooooooooo
ooooooooo
nnnnnnnnnn

 

.....R 8.... 8.“

eeeeeeeee
ooooooooo
DDDDDDDD

B.

8.3.58.
8.3.3.

P
O.

:35 P ...
8.
5. 5. 8.

§$8$§§

35338.3...

.55..
5.8
5.8..
5.9..

5

mo. 5..

.2.
5.. mo.
5.. 5.
5.. 5..
5.. 5.
8.. 5.
8. 8.
8. .. F t.

.55. . F ....
5.. .o...

392....869...

it: 5.5
gémflm
5865 No.5
23%; 5.5
$3.; 35
58h .65
868... «0.5
58.85 «05
5825 85
2825: 22a
.8525. «.35
32...: :20

 

.8.-
8.
5. 5. oo.

§§8$8§8$8

3.. 8..

3.. 5.
.52.. mo.
5.5M .58.

8. .:.N
53.. .p 7

5.3..
5..
.9.

Se 8.. ....Q

..........
..........
..........
ooooooooo

oceNFf :c— F. 8..

 

C... F". 000.8. CCGOmP.

8.
5.

oooooooooo
ooooooooo
eeeeeeeeee

5.

oooooooooo

Llh’Fb

8% 5 Oman.

. 8388 m Oman.

§8< . one".
5.0382 n can...

.. £53 «.0me

"mm £8: SE .931

 

 

gages»... .28 32.2.85 68... as. 585 e: as... 3.: 85m 850 682 .232 5.85:5
85 35 85 mo; 35 .65 35 35 85 22a 2.2a 2.3 oouaamouaavouaaoouaa mound. Ema

238“. 0.5 0:0 ..ED dun—n c0233 ace—«£2.50 .m min...

31

TABLE 6
Stepwise mutliple regression analyses: Prediction of DMI composite scales from PPFC

Multiple R F change 2 value

Dependent variable: Mature Defenses (PRN, REV)

Predictors
1. Neuroticism (-) .1816 15.217 .0001
2. Family Cohesion (+) .2057 4330 .0380
Dependent variable: Immature Defenses (PRO,TAO)
Predictors
1. Neuroticism (-) .2116 19.930 .0000
2. Defensive Health (+) .2835 16.403 .0001
3. Family Health (-) .3052 5.970 .0150
Dependent variable: Turning Against Self
Predictors
l. Neuroticism (+) .3015 47.602 .0000
2. Family Health (-) .3246 7.661 .0059
3. Agency (-) .3396 5.336 .0213

TABLE 7
Stepwise mutliple regression analyses: Prediction of STC scales from DMI and PPFC

Multiple R F change p_ value
Dependent variable: STC l Empathic Communication

Predictors
1. Immature Defenses (+) .1215 4.795 .0293
Dependent variable: STC 2 Anger Communication
Predictors
1. Immature Defenses (~) .1469 7.059 .0083
Dependent variable: STC 4 Teases Child
Predictors
1. Cohesion (+) .1144 4.242 .0403
Dependent variable: STC 7 Psychologizes
Predictors
1. Defensive Health (-) .1249 5.071 .0250

Dependent variable: STC 9 Allows Fighting
Predictors
1. Turning Against Self (-) .1309 5.575 .0188

32

demonstrate the predictive utility of the individual factors of the PPFC, as
perceptions of personal and family characteristics predict criterion variables
largely in the hypothesized manner. More specifically, Mature Defenses was
negatively predicted by Neuroticism, and positively predicted by Family
Cohesion; Immature Defenses was positively predicted by Defensive
Perceptions of Family Health, negatively predicted by Family Health, and,
unexpectedly, negatively predicted by Neuroticism, and; Turning Against the
Self was positively predicted by N euroticism, negatively predicted by Family
Health, and negatively predicted by Personal Agency.

Hypotheses regarding the presence of a systematic relationship between
respondents’ ”working model" of personal and family functioning, defensive
functioning, and modes of caregiving were not supported by this
investigation. More specifically, results from (a) an analysis of the
correlations between ST C, DMI, and PPFC factors (Table 5), and (b) multiple
regression analyses entailing the nine modes of caregiving as dependent
variables with both PPFC scales and DMI composite scales as predictors (Table
7) yielded few statistically significant and interpretable results. The few
significant results derived from the multiple regression analyses are best
attributed to chance, as 81 statistical analyses (i.e., 9 criterion variables x 6
predictors derived from the PPFC + 3 predictors derived from the DMI)
yielded only 5 significant findings (i.e., approximately 6%).

DISCUSSION

Current psychological literature suggests that positive representations
of self and others are associated with sensitivity in caregiving. Moreover, it
has been hypothesized that this relationship is mediated by cognitions (e.g.,
”working models," attitudes, beliefs, scripts) which guide behavior.

This study was designed to examine possible relationships among
college undergraduates’ self-perceptions, perceptions of family functioning,
defensive functioning, and ”working models" of caregiving. It was
hypothesized that mental representations of self characteristics (e.g.,
perceptions of an agentic versus a neurotic self) and representations of family
functioning (e.g., perceptions of a psychologically healthy versus unhealthy
family) would be systematically associated with the degree of sensitivity of
respondents' "working model” of caregiving. It was further hypothesized
that this relationship would be affected by defensive operations which allow
the individual to regulate anxiety. Thus, it was predicted that the maturity of
the defense mechanisms which respondents rely upon would be related to
both the respondents' representations of self and family functioning, and to
characteristics of the respondents’ "working model” of child caregiving.

Parallels between perceptions of self and family. First, consistent with
attachment theory, the data indicated that an individual’s working model of
personal functioning tends to be concordant with his] her working model of
relationships with significant others. Specifically, respondents’ perceptions of

33

34

family health, cohesion, and communication were positively correlated with
perceptions of personal agency. Undergraduates who believed they were self-
efficacious and potent also possessed mental representations of close, healthy
family relationships. This pattern of results is nearly identical to findings
reported in previous studies with this instrument (Stollak et al., 1991).

Relationships between perceptions of self and family and defensive
functioning. Second, perceptions of self and family functioning were
systematically related to regulatory, or defensive, functioning. Pearson
product-moment correlations indicated that respondents’ perceptions of
family health were associated positively with mature defensive functioning
and negatively with immature defensive functioning. Similarly, perceptions
of personal agency were negatively related to reliance upon the least mature
defense, Turning Against the Self (TAS), while perceptions of personal
neuroticism were positively related to TAS. Moreover, stepwise multiple
regression analyses similarly indicated that defensive functioning was
predicted by both perceptions of family functioning (i.e., Family Cohesion,
Family Health) and by perceptions of personal functioning (i.e., Neuroticism,
Agency).

These results support the construct validity of the PPFC questionnaire
and extend the findings reported in previous empirical research with this
instrument in which a bivariate crosstabulation was performed to elucidate
the relationship between adaptive functioning on the PPFC and adaptive (i.e.,
"mature") defensive functioning on the DMI. It was found that 21 of the 28
persons in the most adaptive clusters on the PPFC (e.g., Competent] Secure,
Independent) were characterized by the most “adaptive” defenses on the DMI

35

(e. g., Principalization, Reversal). Furthermore, 21 of the 27 persons in the
least adaptive PPFC clusters (e.g., Disengaged / Avoidant, Volatile/ Chaotic,
Enmeshed) utilized the least ”adaptive” of defenses on the DMI (e.g., Turning
Against Self, Projection, Turning Against Other) (p<.005) (Stollak et al., 1991).

Previous research and theorizing has emphasized early developmental
experience in explaining the link between an individual’s defensive
functioning and his/ her perceptions of personal and family functioning
(Aronoff 8: Stollak, 1991). During the first years of life, the child's perceptions
and cognitive representations of self and others emerge from interactions
with caregivers (Sroufe, 1989). Similarly, these interactions, with inherent
frustrations and anxieties, spawn the rudiments of regulatory processes: “...[Ilt
is unquestionable that the prototypes of the ego defenses will be processed
through the mother-child relation in the course of development" (Spitz,
1961).

Furthermore, results from this investigation support clinical and
personality psychologists who have suggested that the individual who has
been raised in a family that is characterized by nurturance and positive
problem solving skills (indexed by perceptions of family functioning in the
present study) will be instilled with a sense of mastery, industry, and self-
esteem (indexed by perceptions of personal functioning in the present study).
Such individuals should consequently develop effective anxiety management
techniques, which are reflected in both positive problem solving skills and in
adaptive, mature defensive functioning (Stollak, 1992). Conversely, those
respondents who lacked sensitive parenting, and have recollections of
unavailable or harsh caregivers, should tend to experience guilt, shame, and
mistrust of others. DefensiVe functioning for these individuals emerges from

36

early, non-optimal caregiving, and serves to maintain these patterns in
consequent interpersonal functioning via distortions of experiencing (Main
6: Goldwyn, 1984).

These results provide greater specificity in delineating the relationship
between defensive functioning and perceptions of personal and family
characteristics. Although previous research documents an association
between recollections of family-of-origin characteristics and defensive
distortions, investigations by Main and colleagues and by Grossmann and
associates are limited in the description of the defensive processes which are
influencing their subjects’ recollections (e.g., Grossman, et al., 1988; Main,
Kaplan, Gr Cassidy, 1985). The present study offers a novel contribution in
that perceptions of personal and family characteristics were systematically
related to subjects’ utilization of five defense mechanisms (Projection,
Turning against the Self, Turning against the Other, Reversal, and
Principalization) as determined by a valid and reliable measure of defensive
functioning. Moreover, while previous research has equated defense with
pathology, the present study argues that defenses can be adaptive and can
foster growth and mastery of environmental challenges (Cramer, 1991). As
such, this investigation emphasizes the relationship by documenting an
association between positive perceptions of self and others and adaptive
regulatory functioning.

Future research in this area should supplement investigations of
perceptions through the exploration of relationships between the individual’s
behavior in the context of his] her family and defensive behavior. Family
interaction tasks, such as those described by Stollak, Crandell, 8: Pirsch (1991),

can be coded along the dimensions of cohesion, adaptability, and

37

communication, which parallel several factors of the instrument used to
assess perceptions of family characteristics in this study. Moreover, it has been
proposed that defensive functioning may be assessed through videotaped
interactions, in addition to the more popular forms of self-report or
projective questionnaire assessment. In this behavioral measure of
regulatory functioning, interpersonal communication processes are assumed
to represent strategies by which tensions are managed (Woike, Aronoff,
Stollak, 8r Loraas, 1991). Behavioral defense mechanisms could be coded
along the dimensions of Principalization, Reversal, Projection, and Turning
against Others, and could be correlated with categories of behaviors from
family interaction tasks.

Finally, this study emphasizes that conceptions of family psychological
health as measured by self-report instruments are highly subject to defensive
distortion. Many items of the PPFC questionnaire which were allocated to a
”Family Health” scale by exploratory factor analysis correlated with an index
of immature defensive functioning to a greater extent than with an index of
mature defensive functioning, as measured by the DMI. Additional analyses
were undertaken to refine the Family Health factor, which resulted in the
creation of not only a more valid family health scale, but also provided the
PPFC with a scale which assessed defensively-distorted family health, termed
”Defensive Perceptions of Family Health.”

Relationships between perceptions of personal and family
functioning, defensive functioning, and working models of caregiving.
Third, there was no consistent evidence to support the general hypothesis
that there would be a relationship between subjects’ perceptions of personal

38

and family functioning and the degree of sensitivity in respondents’ child
caregiving schemata as measured via responses to the STC problems.
Additionally, there was no consistent evidence found to support the
hypothesis that maturity of defensive functioning would be consistently

Ill

related to aspects of the respondents working models” of caregiving.

The lack of significant findings in this area can be attributed, in part, to
conceptual and methodological limitations of this study, including
characteristics of the sample and characteristics of the instrument used to
assess caregiving schemata.

Conceptual limitations. Although perceptions of personal and
interpersonal functioning may be important forces in shaping the
individual’s conceptions of caregiving, ecologically-minded psychologists
(e.g., Belsky, 1984) emphasize the impact of macrosystem and exosystem
variables on caregiving attitudes and behaviors. More specifically, this study
did not consider the influence of the respondents’ cultural background, racial
background, or socioeconomic background on responses to children in the
hypothetical parent-chfld conflict situations. Moreover, this study did not
assess enduring personality traits (beyond perceptions of personal agency and
neuroticism) which may more directly shape ”working models” of
caregiving. Traits such as self-centeredness and compassion, which were
either not assessed by the PPFC or were subsumed under a larger and
potentially heterogeneous factor, may affect the respondents’ sensitivity in
hypothetical parent-child conflict situations (Lamb 8: Easterbrooks, 1981).

Another limitation of the present study was that respondents were not
provided with the opportunity to express their perceptions ”of their

interpersonal functioning in domains beyond the family unit. Thus, the

39

adequacy of this data relies upon: (a) a stable, generalized representation of
family functioning, and, (b) the family unit being the most salient system in
which the respondent has participated. Unfortunately, neither of these
assumptions is necessarily true.

First, the stability of the ”traditional” American family has become
largely a myth, as family reorganizations associated with divorce and
remarriage have become increasingly common experiences in the lives of
parents and children (Hetherington, 1992). As approximately 50% of all
children under the age of eighteen are expected to experience the divorce of
their parents (Click 6: Lin, 1986), it is highly likely that college
undergraduates’ recollections of family functioning are not unitary
representations, but rather represent an accumulation of a largely
heterogeneous set of experiences.

Second, although the family is the system in which the child is most
heavily embedded during his] her formative years, it is by no means the
exclusive system in which the child participates. Caregiving attitudes and
behaviors can be acquired from individuals outside of the nuclear family,
including members of the extended family (e.g., aunts, uncles, grandparents),
neighbors, and family friends.

A last conceptual limitation of the present study involves assessing
cognitive representations of caregiving interactions for individuals who
probably have not had many opportunities to be child caregivers. Researchers
have suggested that the differentiation, abstractness, and integration of a
construct, such as a schemata of caregiving, is related to the frequency of
relevant social interaction (Applegate, Burke, Burleson, Delia, & Kline, 1985).

It might be that experience as a parent, or a history of caregiving interactions,

40

is a main source of an individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and expectations
regarding caregiving interactions. Perhaps college undergraduates’ current
notions about caregiving are best considered ”tentative,” in need of
validation, and are subject to change following experience (Goodnow, 1985).

Methodological limitations. In addition to a lack of parenting
experience, other sample limitations exist. First, respondents were restricted
to a population of young, college undergraduates who were functioning at a
level which was sufficient to permit acceptance to and enrollment in a.
competitive, four—year university. Thus, the generalizablity of these results is
restricted. Second, although respondents satisfied a research requirement by
participating in this study, subjects’ level of motivation throughout this
investigation is uncertain. Undergraduates may have experienced fatigue
while completing two-hours of questionnaires and may not have answered
items with as much thought and accuracy as was desirable. The STC
questionnaire, a free-response, projective measure, would be especially
vulnerable to these fatigue effects. Having subjects verbally respond to tape
recordings of conflicts, as Teyber, Messé, 8r Stollak (1977) did, might be more
involving, and may provide a more valid indicator of schemata, rather than
responding to a questionnaire.

Further methodological limitations stem from the questionnaires
which were utilized. Although the Sensitivity to Children questionnaire is
an interesting alternative to self-report instruments for measuring parenting
attitudes, it has not been validated. Moreover, despite the many steps that
were taken to train undergraduate coders and to ensure interrater reliability, it
may be necessary with this questionnaire to use a group of coders who are

more extensively trained in making the required clinical judgments.

41

Even though this study demonstrated the internal consistency and the
construct validity of the PPFC instrument, further psychometric exploration
is warranted. Specifically, future research with this questionnaire should
focus on measuring test-retest reliability, and the content validity of the items.
The latter could be accomplished through (a) judgment of item accuracy by
professionals (e.g., psychologists, social workers, etc.) ; (b) correlating the PPFC
against another measure of perceived personal and] or family functioning; or,
(c) associating performance on the PPFC with observed and coded
interpersonal interactions. Moreover, in an effort to determine if the PPFC is
vulnerable to response bias, the effects of social desirability can be determined
by correlating the questionnaire with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability
Scale (Crowne 8r Marlowe, 1964).

Despite measurement difficulties, efforts to assess characteristics of and
precursors to an individual's ”working model" of caregiving remain
valuable. Future studies should not only utilize valid and reliable
instruments to measure perceptions of personal and interpersonal
characteristics, but should strive towards developing a more comprehensive
model of the relationship between perceptions and child caregiving schemata.
This would imply addressing variables, in addition to defensive functioning,
which moderate and complement this association. Additional variables to be
incorporated in future experimental designs can include indices of
macrosystem variables (e.g., racial background, SES), enduring personality
traits (e.g., empathy, tolerance), and perceptions of salient relationships
outside the nuclear family (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles). Moreover,

assessment of perceptions can be complemented by behavioral observations

42

in these domains. Future studies with these instruments can not only target
additional populations, but also can assess the impact of perceptions of
personal and family characteristics, defensive functioning, and caregiving
schemata on later child behaviors. For instance, it is recommended that
married couples pregnant with their first child, and] or parents with infants
and toddlers can be incorporated into a prospective study in which parents’
questionnaire responses are related to later child outcome. Alternatively,
questionnaire scores from a sample of parents with 6—8 year old children
might be related to contemporaneous family interaction and child behavior

in school.

APPENDIX A

Sensitivity to Children (ST C) Questionnaire

43

APPENDIX A

STC

Name

 

W

A series of situations will be found on the following
pages. You are to pretend or imagine that you are the
parent of the child described. Except where otherwise noted
all the children in the following situations are to be
considered years old.

Your first task is to write down exagtlx how you would
respond to the child or children in each of the situations,
in a word, sentence, or short paragraph. fir1t§_gggn_yguz

exagt_ggzg_gng_§g§ign§ in the space noted, but please do not
explain why you said what you what you described. Write

down your exact words and actions as if you were writing a
script for a play or movie. For example, do pg; write "I
would reassure and comfort him." Instead, for example,
write "I would smile at him and in a quiet voice say "Don't
worry Billy, I love you."

Your second task is to write down why you said and did
what you wrote in the space provided.

44

Your child admired a miniature toy at the store. Your
child did not have money to buy it nor did your child
ask you to buy it. After returning home, you see your

child take it out of a pocket and begin playing with
it.

E !l l I J: l 3 i !l' '! li ,

45
After hearing some screaming in the family room, you go

there and find your older child hitting your two year
old child.

9. ‘0 o o r. ;,o 0. Q g : : . 0,,

46

It is 8:00 p.m. and that is the time you and your child
have previously agreed is the bedtime for that evening.
Your child wants to stay up and play and says, ”Please
let me stay up for a while."

WWW

wh w o

47
When emptying the garbage can, you find at its bottom
the broken remains of a toy you had given your child

two weeks ago. It is clear that your child did not
want you to find out that the toy was broken.

.1: s- 0. 0 3 :10. 0.9 ,r is s -- 017

flhy geeld yeg eey end go ghee yeu wgote in the abeye

48

Your child and your child's friends are playing in your
living room and you have asked them two times to play
somewhere else because you are expecting a visitor and
you want the living room to look nice. As you are
coming back for the third time to ask the children to
leave, you hear a crashing noise and find the children
on the floor looking surprised with a knocked over lamp
near them.

t w wou d ou sa d do 'n s i a 'o ?

sa n u

49

You and your child have completed shopping in a local
market, and as you are checking out your child asks for
a candy bar. It is close to dinner time, so you say
”No." Your child says "Please, I am really hungry" and
begins to reach for the candy.

WWW

50

Before going to bed at 10:00 p.m., you go into your
child's room to see if the cover is in place and to
tuck it in, if necessary. You see your child
masturbating. You see your child looking at you, and
as you approach, your child pulls the blanket up to
his/her chin.

‘ A" .’9

C
1. ‘0 o o . .go so 1 g r -

Jr 0. e 0. rt :1! 0- r: 0- 9 ‘ '1 r‘ :9-

51

Your child had been playing at the dinner table. Toys
and things were scattered about the table. You told
your child to be sure to pick up everything before
dinner. A friend of your child came over and both went
outside to play. You had to pick up the toys and
things yourself. Your child walks in, just in time for
d nner.

!. o o o S. .10 o. g g‘ r . 0,,
A.- . 4 - A .-. A , . -

sa and do w at u ' b
speee?

52

Your child comes running into the house yelling, "I
won! I won!" Your child bumps into you and you drop a
glass of water you had in your hand. The glass
shatters on the floor and the water spills over your
clothes.

.1: .°-e° 0 -=. 1 a to r 9 S r -2 or?

flhy flgglfi yeh eey ahg g9 whet you yrehe in the ahexe

E1,

53

10. You just bought your child a new coat and your child
has worn it to school for the first time. You had
asked your child to try to keep it clean. When your
child comes home, the coat is covered with dirt. Your
child says, "my friend was cold so I let my friend wear
it. My friend fell down and got dirt on it."

WWW
Wh o w a wro e b
7

ca

APPENDIX B

Sensitivity to Children (STC) Coding Manual

APPENDD(B

STC Rating Manual

 

 

This manual is designed to be used for coding the Sensitivity to Children
questionnaire in conjunction with the STC Rating Scale. The following
procedure should be adhered to when evaluating an ST C protocol:

1. Carefully read through the entire protocol and extract a general flavor for
the individual's caregiving style.

2. Score the protocol using the 42-item ST C rating scale.
Importantly, each item on the rating scale is defined and exemplified in this

manual. “ .r‘ 2‘11 501- 14,0. ‘ or- ‘1».! r- n ;J.'_- 0 1," 0.~

ratings.

 

1. The person respects the child’s opinions and encourages the child to express them.

DEFINITION: Asks the child what 5] he thinks and listens to the response; reassures child
that it is okay to express feelings; makes the child feel comfortable with his response.

EXAMPLES: ”What’s the matter"; ”How are you feeling"; "Is there any special reason why
you want to stay up?"
2. The person is angry with the child.

DEFINITION: Verbal statement of anger; irrational or abusive punishment; irrational or
abusive actions towards the child; claims to yell.

EXAMPLES: "Pick that up right now!"; "I'm going to beat youl"; ”You really made me mad."

3. The person gives comfort and understanding.

DEFINITION: Touches the child in a soothing manner; Provides reassuring comments;
understands that children make mistakes.

EXAMPLES: ”I know what you're feeling”; "It's alright to feel that way"; "We all make
mistakes, just be more careful next time"; ”Let's sit down and talk about it."

 

55

4. The person uses physical punishment

DEFINITION: States that there will be physical punishment; inflicting pain to get obedience
(includes withholding a meal).

EXAMPLE: "Come here, I'm going to spank you"; "I would hit my child”; "There will be no
dinner for you tonight.”

5. The person expresses that the child is a disappointment to him/her.

DEFINITION: Making the child feel that 5] he has let the respondent down; making the child
feel guilty based on personality-issues, not on the basis of the child's actions; emphasizes
negative issues from the past; stating comments to purposefully lower the child's self-esteem.
EXAMPLES: "You're an embarrassment"; "You really let me down"; "Why can't you be like

6. The person is easy going and relaxed with the child.

DEFINITION: Jokes with the child; remains calm and takes adversity in stride; refrains from
unnecessarily questioning the child.

EXAMPLES: "No big deal... Accidents happen": "Hey, what did you win?!?"

7. The person talks it over and reasons with the child when the child misbehaves.

DEFINITION: Verbal discussion explaining the problem and consequences of child’s behavior;
asks child as to why s/ he misbehaved; talks rationally and understandably with the child.

EXAMPLES: "Perhaps we can reach an agreement about your punishment"; ”Do you understand
what you did wrong and why I'm punishing you?"

8. The person trusts the child.

DEFINITION: Believes the child's account of an event; does not question the child‘s version of
a story which seems reasonable; does not make assumptions about the child's behavior; does not
talk to child in unnecessarily severe tone or repetitive manner when telling the child to do
something.

EXAMPLES: "I believe you if that's what you say”; "I trust you will do as you are told.”

9. The person warns, admonishes or threatens punishment.

DEFINITION: Implies punishment as a consequence of misbehavior; uses scare tactics to make
child behave or do desired task.

EXAMPLES: "If you don't stop hitting you’re sister you're going to be spanked"; "You‘re going to
get it"; "I'm warning you to do that."

10. The person encourages the child to talk about his/her problems.

DEFINITION: Asks questions which promote disclosure; helps child confront problems instead
of avoiding them; makes child feel comfortable about discussing problems.

EXAMPLES: "Is there something on your mind, honey?"; "Can I help you with something?"

11 . The person expects the child not to have secrets from him/her.

DEFINITION: Respondent is surprised or upset when hidden information is discovered;
expectation of honesty and openness; expresses that 5] he wants the child can confide in
him] her; expects child not to hide wrongdoings; threatens punishment if secret is found out.
EXAMPLES: "How come you didn't tell me that the toy was broken?"; "Instead of stealing the
toy, why didn't you ask me for it?"; "You better not lie to me... I want to know now."

12. The person expects the child to keep control of feelings at all times.

DEFINITION: Expresses irritation or annoyance when the child loses emotional control (either
exceptionally happy or sad); does not encourage child to express emotions; encourages

restraining emotions; expects child to behave too much like an adult.

EXAMPLES: "Calm down"; "Control yourself"; "Boys don't cry."

13. The person tries to keep the child from fighting.

DEFINITION: Physically or verbally intervenes in conflicts and tries to deter future conflicts;
provides alternative solutions to conflicts.

EXAMPLES: "Don't hit your sister"; "Don't bully anyone"; "How would you like it if I hit
you?”
14. The person lets the child know that s/he is angry with him/her.

DEFINITION: Expresses to the child (by words or actions) that s/he is angry; threatens
punishment.

EXAMPLES: "I‘m mad at you"

15. The person punishes the child by taking away a privilege s/he otherwise would have had.

DEFINITION: Withholds something the child wants for the purpose of punishment; restricts
child's freedom by threats or involves contingencies.

EXAMPLES: "You can't watch television for a week"; "Because you tipped over the lamp your
friends can't come over."

 

57

16. The person teases and makes fun of the child.

DEFINITION: Belittles the feelings or actions of the child or the child him] herself; calls the
child names; imitates the child's gestures.

EXAMPLES: "You think the plant is going to grow that way?"; "That's a stupid thing to do."
17. The person teaches the child that the child, himself/herself, is responsible for what
happens to himself/herself.

DEFINITION: Explains that punishment is due to the child's actions; tries to illustrate that
the child 's behavior influences the outcomes of the situation.

EXAMPLES: "You stole the toy, so you now have to return it and apologize"; "You are the one
who loaned your coat, so you now have to help me clean it"; "I asked you not to play here, but
you chose to do so anyway. Now the lamp is broken and your friends must go home."

18. The person lets the child know how ashamed and disappointed s/he is when the child
misbehaves.

DEFINTION: Expresses disappointment, through speech or actions, when the child's
behaviors do not conform with the parents' wishes.

EXAMPLES: "I thought I knew you better than this"; "You're not a little boy anymore - only

little boys do these sorts of things"; "I'm disappointed that you resorted to fighting to solve
your problems."

19. The person warns the child by warning him/her about the bad things that can happen to

him/her

DEFINITION: Gives messages that make the child feel fearful and submissive and indicate
little or no respect for the child '5 needs or wishes.

EXAMPLES: "If you do that, you'll be sorry"; "If you don't go to bed right away, you're going to
get it!"

20. The person tells the child what s/he, the adult, is feeling.

DEFINITION: Verbally or physically expresses own emotions to the child.

EXAMPLES: "I'm upset with you because you broke the lamp"; "I'm glad you won, but I wish
you would watch where you are running."

58

21. The person orders, directs, or commands the child.

DEFINITION: Expresses that the child must comply with the respondent's wishes, feelings or
needs, producing a fear of power.

EXAMPLES: "Stay away from your sister"; "Go to your room."

22. The person exhorts, moralizes or preaches.

DEFINITION: Messages which bring to bear on the child the power of external authority, duty
or obligation; conveying messages which express "shields," "oughts," and "musts."

EXAMPLES: "You ought to do the right thing"; "You shouldn't think that way."

23. The person advises, recommends, provides answers or solutions.

DEFINITION: Respondent gives his] her advice or ideas in a situation.

EXAMPLES: "I would tell Tommy to bring his coat to school tomorrow so that he won't have to
borrow yours"; "I suggest you talk to the owner of the store and explain why you took the toy."
24. The person persuades with logic, instructing, lecturing - without moralizing.

DEFINITION: Attempts to teach child; provides lengthy and reasoned arguments in an
attempt to obtain compliance.

EXAMPLES: ”To hit your little brother is not fair because you are stronger and smarter"

25. The person evaluates/judges negatively, disapproving, blaming, criticizes.

DEFINITION: Provides negative statements which make the child feel inadequate, stupid,
unworthy or bad.

EXAMPLES: "I can't believe you broke the lamp after being warned! Don't you know when to
behave?"; "This is all your fault."

26. The person praises, judges, evaluates the child positively without referral to the child's
actions. The person is making a global evaluation of the child '5 worth.

DEFINITION: Praises child in overall terms that are not specific to the praise-worthy act;
speaks positively of the child's internal characteristics rather than child's behaviors.

EXAMPLES: "You're wonderful, Jimmyl"; "You are so smart."

59

27. The person calls the child names, ridicules, shames the child, uses sarcasm, makes light of
the child.

DEFINITION: Respondent mocks the child or his] her behaviors 8r actions; pejorative name-
calling; makes child feel unworthy of respect.

EXAMPLES: ”Breaking the lamp was a really smart thing to do"; "You should feel
embarrassed and awful for playing with yourself"; "Stupid."
28. The person analyzes the child, figures the child out, offers the child insight.

DEFINITION: Messages which communicate to the child that 5] he has him] her "figured out,"
knows what his] her motives are or why 5] he is behaving in a certain way.

EXAMPLES: "You're only hitting your brother because you feel that I am giving him more
attention than I am giving you"; "You only want to stay up late because you want to prove that
you are mature.”

29. The person excuses, sympathizes, consoles, reassures the child.

DEFINITION: Provides supportive comments to child after a distressing incident; implicitly
understands child's feelings (sympathizing) and attempts to lessen the emotional burden by
removing the child from blame (excusing), or by providing encouraging remarks (reassuring).
EXAMPLES: "I understand that you are afraid that I would be mad, but you can always come to
me and tell me anything."

30. The person probes, questions, cross—examines, interrogates the child.

DEFINITION: Asks questions in a systematic and rigorous way, conveying a lack of trust in the
child or the child's account of the situation.

EXAMPLES: "Exactly when and how did the toy break?"; "What were you doing under the
blanket —- why were you doing that?"

31. The person withdraws, distracts, ignores, bypasses the child away from the problem.
DEFINITION: Respondent changes the topic away from the incident at hand by not inquiring,
changing the subject, questioning unimportant] trivial details, or simply by not responding
(Purposefully)-

32. The person withdraws, submits, avoids confionting the child.

DEFINITION: States that s/ he will discuss the situation later; diverts attention from the
child to other concerns; ignores the child's actions; gives in to child's wants.

EXAMPLES: "OK, you can have the candy bar"; "I'm too busy right now..."

33. The person attempts to obtain more information, in a genuinely caring and non-accusatory
manner, regarding the child 's behavior and/or the reasons for his/her actions.

DEFIN'TION: Attempts to understand the child's behavior and tries to reason with him] her
using discussion; asks questions about the actions and feelings of the child and listens to
response; allows child to explain before accusing.

EXAMPLES: "Honey, did you think I would be mad if you broke the toy?"; "Is there something
you want to talk about?"

34. The person gives the child alternatives or compromise solutions.

DEFINITION: Attempts to show the child that there are many different ways to solve
problems and that there can be middle ground when trying to resolve a conflict.

EXAMPLES: "Don't you think that you could talk with your sister instead of fighting with
her?"; "Are there any special reasons why you want to stay up late tonight... Maybe we can
work out a later time for tomorrow."

35. The person gives the child speafic directions regarding expected future behavior.

DEFINITION: Verbally defines the role that the child is expected to play and how they are
expected to express themselves; restricts alternatives in behavior and is not amenable to
deviation from instructions.

EXAMPLES: "Next time you will tell me when the toy is broken"; "From now on you will pick
up your toys before playing"; "This will never happen again in this house."
36. The person relates his/her behavior to the child 's behavior.

DEFINITION: Shows his] actions are a direct result of the child's actions; emphasizes that
parent (respondent) was once a child, too, and draws parallels.

EXAMPLES: "Because you broke the lamp I am sending your friends home"; "I didn't do that
when I was your age!"

37. The person relates his/her feelings to the child 's feelings

DEFINITTON: Attempts to show the child that the caregiver (respondent) can or would
experience similar feelings in similar situations; empathic and sympathetic to the child.

EXAMPLES: "If I won something I would be excited, too"; "If they did that to me I would be
mad too, but that doesn't mean you should hit them."

61

38. The person expresses positive feelings without using specific feeling words. The person
offers non-verbal positive responses to the child, e.g., hugging, kissing, holding, smiling,
speaking softly, to the child.

EXAMPLES: "I would hug and hold him."

39. The person is empathic; stating what the child is feeling/wishinglwanting/needing.

DEFINITION: Relates to the child's emotion at the given time; offers an example of what the
child is going through to convey understanding.

EXAMPLES: "I know that a candy bar would taste delicious right now because you're hungry.";
"You're really excited!! To win is so exciting."

40. The person gives the child directions regarding the expression of his/her (the child 's)
feelings in the present.

DEFINITION: Explains to the child how s / he should be acting when dealing with an emotion
at the given time; outlines parameters for accepted emotional expression of the child.

EXAMPLES: "It's okay to cry"; "I know you are excited, but you shouldn't rush into the house
like that."

41. The person bribes the child or makes a contingent demand.

DEFINITION: Uses rewards to obtain desired response from the child.

EXAMPLES: "If you go to bed now I will buy you a candy bar tomorrow."

42. The person attempts to obtain more information about the child ’s feelings.

DEFINITION: Questions the child about emotions; leads child in conversation, gently
prodding about current state.

EXAMPLES: "Why are you looking so sad?"; "How do you feel?"; "Does that make you
happy?"

Revised 4] 91

 

Definitions and examples provided in this manual were developed through
the combined efforts of nine undergraduates whose time and dedication are
greatly appreciated. Additionally, several definitions and examples are based
upon the delineations of Gordon (1971, 1975).

APPENDIX C

Defense Mechanisms Inventory (DMI) Questionnaire

62

APPENDIX C

DEFENSE MECHANISMS INVENTORY (DEE)
SITUATIONAL SURVEY
INSTRUCTIONS: Read carefully. (Do not make any marks on this booklet.)

On each of the following pages is a short story. Following each story
are four questions with a choice of five answers for each. The four
questions relate to the following four kinds of behavior: actual
behavior, impulsive behavior in fantasy, thoughts, and feelings. 0f the
four, it is only actual behavior which is outwardly expressed; the other
three take place only in the privacy of one's mind and, therefore, have
no external repercussions.

What we want you to do is to select the eye answer of the five which you
think is the most representative of how you would react, and mark the
number corresponding to that answer on the computer answer sheet by
darkening the space marked three (39 next to that number. Then select
the hue answer you think is least representative of how you would react
and mark it by darkening the space marked one (1) next to that number.
The other three responses should be marked as two (2). For example, let
us assume that out of the five possible answers to a question (e.g.,
numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), response number 7 is the one you consider most
representative of the way you would react, and response number 10 is the
least representative.

Read all the five answers following the question hefehe you make your
selections. In marking your answers on the computer sheet, be sure that
the number of the answer agrees with the number on the computer sheet.

63

You are waiting for the bus at the edge of the road. The streets

are wet and muddy after the previous night's rain. A motorcycle sweeps
through a puddle in front of you, splashing your clothing with mud.

...;

mew»

wax

w u c be

I would try and remember the biker's face so I could find him
later.

I'd wipe myself off with a smile.

I'd yell Obscenities after the biker.

I'd scold myself for not having at least worn a raincoat.

I'd shrug it off since things like that happen all the time.

w d V

Wipe that biker's face in the mud.

Tell the police about the biker since he probably does this all
the time.

Kick myself for standing so close to the edge of the road.

Let the biker know that I really didn't care that he splashed me.
Let the biker know that bystanders also have rights.

W

W

16.
17.

Why do I always get myself into things like this?

To hell with that biker!

I'm sure that basically that biker is a nice person.

You can expect something like this to happen on wet days.
I wonder if that biker splashed me on purpose.

u o and w

Satisfied, after all, it could have been worse.
Depressed, because of my bad luck.

18.

19.
20.

64

Like shrugging my shoulders, because a person can't let things
like that bother him.

Resentment, because the biker was so careless and mean.
Furious, that the motorcyclist got me dirty.

65

You have a paper route on which there are many people. You have
to work very hard because you need the money and jobs are scarce. It is
your responsibility to make sure everything runs smoothly. You have a
classmate who helps you deliver the papers. Recently many people have
been complaining about not getting their papers. You know you have been
careful in doing your job, so you decide to fire your helper. Tat same
day your boss from the paper drops over at your house. Without letting
you explain, your boss says the paper route is being taken away from you
because you are careless. Your assistant is assigned your job and you
are now in the position of helper.

WM

21. I'd be a good sport about it, since the boss is only doing his
job.

22. I'd blame the boss for having made up his mind against me even
before the visit.

23. I'd be thankful to get rid of such a tough job.

24. I'd look for a chance to make things hard for the assistant.

25. I'd blame myself for not being good enough for the job.

W

26. Congratulate my assistant on getting the paper route.
27. Try to find out if the boss from the paper and my helper had
worked together to fix it so I would lose the paper route.
28. Tell my assistant to go to hell.
29. I'd like to kill myself for not having done something about my
helper sooner.
30. I'd like to quit, but I don't know where I could get another job.

a G T 0 cu

31. The boss deserves a screwball for a paper carrier.

32. To sell papers you have to have the right person in the right job.

33. There is no doubt that this was just an excuse to get rid of me.

34. I'm really lucky that I only lost my job and didn't have to pay
for papers not delivered.

35. How could I be so dumb?

OW W 011 w

36. Resentful, because the boss had it in for me.

37. Angry, at my assistant for getting my job.

38. Pleased that nothing worse had happened.

39. Upset that I am a failure.

40. Resigned, after all, you have to be satisfied with having done all
that you can.

66

You are living with your aunt and uncle who have been treating you
like their own child. They have taken care of you since you were very
young. One night you plan to sleep outside with your friends. This is
part of an initiation for a club that all your friends belong to and you
want very much to join. Unfortunately, there is a storm outside. Your
aunt and uncle insist that you call and cancel your plans because of the
weather and the late hour. You are about to disregard their wishes and
go out the door when your uncle says in a commanding voice, "Your aunt
and I have said that you can't do, and that is that."

a w ou o

41. I would do as my uncle said because he has always wanted what is
best for me.

42. I'd tell them that I always knew they didn't want me to grow up.

43. I would cancel my campout since you must not stir up trouble in
the family.

44. I'd tell them it was none of their business and go out anyway.

45. I'd agree to remain at home and apologize for having upset them.

What wo Id 0 PULSIVELY i a as we

46. Knock my head against the wall.
47. Tell them to stop ruining my life since they don't really care
about me because they are not my real parents.

48. Thank them for being so concerned about me.
49. Leave, slamming the door in their faces.
50. Go out camping anyway since one should not allow the weather to

alter one's plans.
at CB mi t occur 0 ou

51. Why don't they shut up and leave me alone?

52. They never have really cared about me.
53. They are so good to me, I should follow their advice without
question.
54. You can't take without giving something in return.
55. It is my fault for wanting to go out in such bad weather.
w w E wh

S6. Annoyed, that they think I am a baby.

57. Miserable, because there is nothing much I can do.

58. Grateful that they care about me.

59. Resigned, after all you can't get your own way all the time.
60. Furious, because they interfere with my life.

67

You are spending your vacation visiting an old friend who has
moved with his parents to another town. He invites you to go with him
to a fair given that weekend at the community clubhouse. Shortly after
you arrive, he accepts an invitation to go out in a canoe with another
friend, leaving you with a group of strangers to whom you have barely
been introduced. They talk with you, but while some of them have
canoes, for some reason no one asks you to go canoeing. Your friend, on
the other hand, seems to be very popular that day. He looks as if he is
having a wonderful time. As he paddles past, he calls out to you, ”Why
don't you go out in one of the canoes?”

w o e
61. I'd say sarcastically, "I'm not canoeing because I'd rather watch
you."
62. I'd tell him that I really didn't feel like going out in a canoe.
63. I'd wonder what's wrong with me.

64. I'd tell him that it's easier to get to know his friends by
talking to them than it would be by going out in a canoe.
65. I'd get up and leave because he apparently wants to embarrass me.

' V nt

66. Assure him that I am perfectly satisfied and happy, so he won't

worry.
67. I'd like to punch him in the nose.
68. Point out that you cannot expect to be everybody's friend on your

first day in a strange place.
69. Tell him that now I know what sort of a ”friend" he really is.
70. I'd like to sink into the ground and disappear.

G c o o

71. He has it in for me.

72. I should never have come here in the first place.

73. I'm glad my friend is enjoying himself.

74. Something like this can't be avoided in a place where you don't
know the crowd.

75. I'll make him sorry for his behavior.

WM
76. Upset, because I was so unsuccessful.
77. Furious at him for the embarrassment.

78. Resigned, because this is the kind of situation every newcomer
must put up with once in a while.

79. Angry to find that my friend is so disloyal.

80. Grateful, for having had such a pleasant day.

68

You have a summer job cutting grass at a golf course and you want
to impress upon the foreman who hired you that you are more competent
than your fellow workers. You are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to
prove yourself. One day a new power mower is brought onto the course.
The foreman calls all the summer help together and asks whether anyone
knows how to Operate it. You sense the chance you have been waiting
for, so you tell the foreman that you have used a machine like that and
would like a chance to try your hand at this one. He refuses, saying,
”Sorry, we can't take a chance," and calls over a kid who worked there
last summer to try to get the machine started. No sooner has the older
kid pulled the starter, than sparks begin to fly and the machine grinds
to a halt. At this point the foreman asks you if you still want a
chance to try and start the machine.

WM

81. I'd say that I don't think I could do it either.

82. I'd tell the other help that the foreman wants to hold me
responsible for the machine's crack-up.

83. I'd tell the foreman that I appreciated his giving me the chance.

84. I'd say ”no," cursing the foreman under my breath.

85. I'd tell the foreman that I would try because one must never back
down from a challenge.

w d V a t s w o
86. Tell that foreman that he'll not put the blame for a broken

machine on me.
87. Thank the foreman for not letting me try it first.

88. Tell the foreman that he should try to start the broken machine
himself.
89. Point out to the foreman that he was wrong to think that just

being older and having worked longer guarantees success.
90. Rick myself for talking myself into a no-win situation.

W

91. That foreman is really a pretty decent person.
92. Damn the foreman and the blasted machine.

93. This foreman is out to get me.

94. Machines don't always work right.
95. How could I be so stupid to even think of running that machine.

ow wo o and

96. Uncaring, because if somebody doesn't appreciate what you are able
to do, you lose your enthusiasm.

97. Angry that I was asked to do an impossible job.

98. Glad that I was asked to do an impossible job.

99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the spot.

100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool out of
myself.

69

On your way to school, you are hurrying through a narrow street

lined with tall buildings. Suddenly a piece of brick comes crashing
down from a roof where some repairmen are working. The brick bounces
off the sidewalk, bruising your leg.

WM
101. I'd tell the repairmen I was going to get my parents after them.

102. I'd be mad at myself for having such bad luck.

103. I'd hurry on so I wouldn't be late for school.

104. I'd continue on my way, happy that nothing worse had happened.
105. I'd try to discover who those irresponsible people were.

V antas wa t

106. Remind the repairmen that they should be more careful.

107. Make sure the repairmen knew that nothing serious had happened.
108. Give them a piece of my mind.

109. Kick myself for not having watched where I was going.

110. See to it that those careless workers pay for their negligence.
W

111. Those repairmen don't know how to do their job right.

112. I'm lucky that I wasn't badly hurt.

113. Damn those men!

114. Why do such things always happen to me?

115. One can't be too careful these days.

ow a w

116. Angry, because I was hurt?

117. Furious, because I would have been killed by their carelessness.
118. Calm, because one should always be able to keep one's cool.
119. Upset by my bad luck.

120. Thankful that I'd gotten away with no more than a scratch.

70

You are at day camp and it is time for your swimming session.

There are several groups, each of which has a special time to swim in
the pool. The time is up for the last group and it is now your turn to
swim. Some children from that group have delayed in getting out of the
pool. You dive in while some of the children are nearby but you make
sure not to hit them as you dive. The counselor comes over and makes
you sit out your swimming period because people from the last group were
still in the pool when you made your dive.

WM

121. I'd blame myself for having been careless.

122. I'd go to my parents and try to get the counselor in trouble.

123. I'd ask the counselor why he has such a grudge against me.

124. I'd try to cooperate with the counselor, after all, he is a good
person.

125. I'd accept punishment without question, since the counselor is
just doing his duty.

w 0 V a ta w

126. Tell the counselor that he can't use his position to push me
around.

127. Kick myself for not having waited for the kids to get out of the
pool.

128. Thank the counselor for saving me from a possible accident.

129. Stand up for my rights as a matter of principle.

130. I would like to leave the camp.

OUG o u ou

131. He's doing the right thing, actually I ought to thank him for
teaching me an important lesson.

132. Each person must carry out his job as he sees it.

133. This counselor ought to wash dishes instead of trying to run a
pool.

134. How could I be so thoughtless.

135. I bet he gets a kick out of punishing people.

flow would you REEL and why!

136. Boiling anger, because he's making trouble for me.

137. Resentment, because he's picking on me.

138. Ashamed, because I was careless.

139. Shrug it off, after all, this sort of thing happens all the time.
140. Relieved, because I might have to hurt somebody.

71

You have spent the last two summers working in a bicycle repair
shop. At the time you started you had a choice between bicycle repair
or working with your father. You preferred the other job despite your
father's advice. Now that the repair shop has closed, you find that
there are no other jobs for the summer. You can either go to work with
your father or you can do odd jobs. You would like to repair the bikes
of kids in the neighborhood but you don't have the necessary tools.
After a great deal of hesitation, you decide to ask your dad to put up
the money. After listening to your ides, he reminds you that he wanted
you to work for him instead of at the repair shop. The he tells you,
"I'm not prepared to throw away my hard-earned money on your crazy
schemes. It's time you started helping me in my business.”

What would your ACTUAL reaction bgz

141. I'd accept his offer since everyone depends on everyone else in
this world.

142. I'd admit to him that maybe he could lose his money if something
went wrong.

143. I'd tell him off very strongly.

144. I'd tell him that I'd always thought that he had a grudge against
me.

145. I'd thank him for still wanting me to work for him.

at wo d o M V Y an as wa o

146. Go to work for him and make him happy.

147. Give up trying and end it all.

148. Take my father's offer since jobs don't grow on trees.

149. Let him know what a miser everyone thinks he is.

150. Tell him that I wouldn't work for him if he were the last person
on earth.

WM

151. He'll get what's coming to him one day.

152. You have to stand on your own two feet since your family won't
always be around.

153. Why was I so stupid as to bring the subject up.

154. I must admit that my father is acting for my own good.

155. This proves what i've suspected all along, that my father has
never believed in me.

w w on E d wh

156. Angry, because he doesn't want me to succeed on my own.

157. Grateful for his offer of a job.

158. Resentful that he is hurting me.

159. Resigned, since you can't have everything your own way all the
time.

160. Hopeless, because my father won't help me.

72

You and John, one of your best friends, are playing catch.
Unexpectedly Tammy, another friend from the next street, drops over.
You introduce Tammy to John and you all play ball together. Ybu are
supposed to go to the amusement park with Tammy in two days and you are
really looking forward to it. The day that you are supposed to go,
Tammy calls up and says she can't go with you because she has to go over
to her grandmother's. You decide to join some other friends going to
the amusement park. At the amusement park you see Tammy and John riding
the roller coaster.

MW

161. I'd snub them because I'm sure they'd try to pretend that they
didn't see me.

162. I'd greet them politely as a civilized person should.

163. I'd curse them under my breath.

164. I'd tell them that I was glad that they had become friends.

165. I'd go home and sulk in my room.

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to go:

166. Hide somewhere in order to avoid facing them

167. Punch them in the nose.

168. Show them that I didn't mind that they were together.

169. Ask John if stealing your friend is the only way he knows of
getting to the amusement park.

170. Show that you understand why they became friends.

at O O“

171. Naturally Tammy liked John since he is so much better looking than
I am.

172. Getting what you want can cause you to be disloyal to a friend.

173. They certainly are a pair of double-crossers.

174. I hope they get what they deserve.

175. They really seem to get along well together.

VWO W

176. Pleased that my friends get along so well.

177. Upset, because I shouldn't have been so trusting.

178. Shrug it off because one has to take things like this in one's
stride.

179. Really mad because they lied to me.

180. Furious at them, because of what happened.

73

You and a school friend are competing for president of your class.

Although both of your chances seem about equal, your friend has been in
school longer and is therefore more popular. Recently, however, you
have had a party at which everyone in the class has had a good time.
You are sure you are now very well-liked by all of them. However, your
friend wins as president.

181.
182.
183.

184.
185.

186.
187.

188.

189.
190.

191.
192.

193.
194.
195.

196.
197.
198.
199.
200.

tw e

I'd try to find out which persons in the class didn't vote for me
and get even.

I'd do my best to continue to behave as I did before the election,
as a true friend should.

I'd accept the outcome as proof that I wouldn't have made as good
a president as my friend.

I'd refuse to cooperate with the new president.

I'd congratulate my friend on this victory.

w V w n 0

Support the results as a good citizen should.

Kick myself for ever running for president, when I knew I wasn't
as good as the other candidate.

Show the class how mistaken they had been in voting for such an
incompetent person.

Help my friend to be a good president.

Break the neck of each and every member of the class who voted
against me.

mi ou

I guess I just don't have what it takes to be president.

I probably wouldn't like being president as much as I though I
would.

There certainly is something fishy about the class's decision.
You can't let a failure get you down.

Who cares about the future of this class, anyway!

w

Happy that I still have my old friends.

Upset because my defeat is known throughout the school.
Furious at the class because of their treatment of me.

Shrug it off, because that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Angry, because I have been the victim of an unfair decision.

APPENDIX D

Perceptions of Personal and Family Characteristics (PPFC)
Questionnaire

74

APPENDIX D

PPFC/90

All of the questions on these pages are to be answered on the enclosed printed answer
sheet. You must use a #2 pencil. The first 22 words and sentences in the booklet describe
different characteristics of persons and the rest describe characteristics of families. Using
the answer key found below and on the top of each page select the number of the response
that best describes how you feel about each item as it refers to your perceptions of yourself
and your family.

1 2 3 4 5
Never or Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always
or or or or or
Very slightly or not at all A little Modeme Quite a bit Very Much

I. I am fearful and anxious.
2. I feel unworthy. I think of myself as ”bad".

3. I my to be the center of attention (for example, by showing off, demonstrating
accomplishments, volunteering, etc.).

4. I am emotionally expressive (facially, gesturally, or verbally).

5. I have bodily symptoms when I am tense and in conflict (for example, headaches,
stomach aches, nausea, etc.).

6 I become anxious when the environment is unpredictable or poorly structured.
7 I am self-assertive.

8. I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily irritated and/or angered.
9 I have rapid shifts in mood. My emotions change easily.

10. I become rigidly repetitive or immobilized when under stress.

11. I have a rapid personal tempo. I react and move quickly.

12. I am self-reliant, confident, and trust my own judgment.

13. I withdraw and disengage when under stress.

14. I am competent. I am skillful.

15. I am creative in perception, thought, or play.

16. I atterhpt to transfer blame to others.

75

1 2 3 4 5
Never or Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always
or or or or or
Very slightly or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Very Much

17. I am resourceful in initiating activities.

18. I revert to more immature behavior when I'm under stress.

19. I am vital, energetic, lively.

20. I am aggressive (physically or verbally).

21. I go to pieces under stress. I become rattled and disorganized.

22. When I am under stress, I turn to and depend on others to help me and protect me. I
become dependent.

23. Family members only ask each other for help rather than outsiders.

24. When there are stresses and problems in the family my parents do not ask for or ignore
children's suggestions. Often even more stresses and problems occur.

25. It is important in our family to share with each other what we think of each other's
friends.

26. Children in our family do not have a say in their discipline and they are often harshly
punished.

27. We like to do things with our family but not with others outside the family.

28. When there are problems and stresses in our lives our family has been able to resolve
and overcome them very well.

29. Family members feel closer to other family members than to people outside the family.

30. Our family changes its way of handling tasks when necessary to solve a problem or to
reduce stress.

31. Family members like to spend free time with each other but only rarely spend free time
with others outside the family.

32. My parents do not discuss punishment or discipline with the children.

33. Family members feel very good about each other and easily share their feelings with
each other but not with outsiders.

34. Family members feel that if they say something negative to each other, other
family members will be very hurt. We walk on "eggshells" around each other.

35. When our family gets together for activities, everybody has to be present.

76

1 2 3 4 5
Never or Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always
or or or or or
Very slightly or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Very Much

36. When there are stresses or problems in our family rules change which often lead to
further stresses or problems.

37. We can easily think of things to do together as a family but not when with outsiders.

38. We shift household responsibilities from person to person so often that we often do
not know our responsibilities and problems occur.

39. Family members consult other family members on their decisions but not outsiders.

40. When there are stresses or problems it is hard to identify the leader(s) in our family
and we often experience further stresses and problems.

41. Family togetherness is very important.

42. It is hard to tell who does which household chores. Chores do not often get done
because no one is in charge.

43. Family members pay attention to each other’s feelings.

44. Our family would rather do things together than with other people.

45. We all have a say in family plans.

46. The grownups in my family understand and agree on family decisions.
47. Grownups in my family compete and fight with each other.

48. There is closeness in my family but each person is allowed to be special and different.
49. We accept each other’s friends.

50. There is confusion in my family because there is no leader.

51. Our family members touch and hug each other.

52. Family members put each other down.

53. We speak our mind, no matter what.

54. In our home, we feel loved.

55. Even when we feel close, our family is embarrassed to admit it.

56. We argue a lot and never solve problems.

57. Our happiest times are at home.

 

L-

l 2 3 4 5
Never or Almost Never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost Always
or or or or or
Very slightly or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Very Much

58. The grownups in my family are strong leaders.

59. The future looks good to our family.

60. We usually blame one person in our family when things aren’t going right.
61. Family members go their own way most of the time.

62. Our family is proud of being close.

63. Our family is good at solving problems together.

64. Family members easily express warmth and caring towards each other.

65. It’s okay to fight and yell in our family.

66. One of the adults in the family has a favorite child.

67. When things go wrong we blame each other.

68. We say what we think and feel.

69. Our family members would rather do things with other people than together.
70. Family members pay attention to each other and listen to what is said.

71. We worry about hurting each other’s feelings.

72. The mood in my family is usually sad and blue.

73. We argue a lot.

74. One person controls and leads our family.

75. My family is happy most of the time.

76. Each person takes responsibility for his/her behavior.

77. On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate the functioning of my family as:

I 2 3 4 5
My family My family does not function
functions well very well together. We

together really need help.

78

78. On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate independence in my family as:

1 2 3 4 5

No one is independent. Sometimes independent. There Family members usually
There are no open are some disagreements. Family go their own way.
arguments. Family members find satisfaction both Disagreements are open.
members rely only within and outside of the family. Family members look
on each other for outside of the family for
satisfaction rather than satisfaction.

on outsiders

APPENDIX E

PPFC Cluster Typologies

79

 

mm.

2.-

Asuuzv

Baaaam

 

8.

mo.

amaze.

382

 

mm;

SA-

Smnzv
omega
.0322,

 

mmé-

amaze
1528.4.

60me

 

on.

on.

$2qu ..

“coo—Smog:

 

3.

we.

em.

amsuzv

830m
accuses—6

 

 

concoEsEEoU

 

commas—cu beam

 

cussed—sou

 

Sabres—oz

 

same: base

 

 

Geog .382 um .2052 too—mo?» .883 598.2. £335 59.6

same??? conga Dana

m van—2mg

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. 8., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., 8: Wall, 5. (1978).
Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.
Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Applegate, I. L., Burke, I. A., Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. (3., 6r Kline, S. L. (1985).
Reflection-enhancing parental communication. In E. Sigel (Ed.),
Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp.
107-142). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Armsden, G. C., 8: Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer
attachment: Individual differences and their relationship to

psychological well being in adolescence. Iournal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16(5), 427-454.

Aronoff, 1., 6r Stollak, G. (1991). Buffering stress: Variations in adaptation
during life course transitions. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
University, East Lansing.

Baumrind, D. (1973). The development of instrumental competence through
socialization. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, volume 7,
Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press, pp. 3-46.

Baumrind, D. (1989). Rearing competent children. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child
development today and tomorrow (pp. 349-378). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Beavers, W. R., Hulgus, Y. F., & Hampson, R. B. (1986). Beavers systems
model of family functioning: Family competence and family style
evaluation manual. Unpublished manual, Dallas, Texas, Southwest
Family Institute.

Belsky, I. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child
Development, 55, 83-96.

Belsky, 1., & Pensky, E. (1988). Developmental history, personality, and
family relationships: Toward an emergent family system. In R. A. Hinde
& I. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds), Relationships within families: Mutual
influences (pp. 193-217). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

80

81

Billings, A., 8: Moos, R. (1982). Family environment and adaptation: A
clinically applicable typology. American Journal of Family Therapy, 10,
26-39.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980a). The role of ego control and ego resiliency in
the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology (Volume 13). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Block, I. H., 8: Block, I. (1980b). The California adult Q-set. Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Block, I. H., 8: Block, J. (1980c). The California child Q-set. Palo Alto,
California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bronson, W. C., Katten, E. 8., 8r Livson, N. (1959). Patterns of authority and
affection in two generation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
58(1), 143-152.

Cramer, P. (1988). The defense mechanism inventory: A review of research
and discussion of the scales. journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 142-
164.

Cramer, P. (1991). The development of defense mechanisms. New York:
Springer-Verlag Press.

Crowne, D. P., 8: Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York:
Wiley.

Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E., & Shapiro, V. (1975). Ghosts in the nursery. journal
of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 387-421.

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and mechanisms of defense. New York:
International Universities Press.

Gecas, V., 8r Schwalbe, M. L. (1986). Parental behavior and adolescent self
esteem. Iournal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 37-46.

Click, P. C., 6: Lin, S. (1986). Recent changes in divorce and marriage.
Iournal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 737-747.

82

Goodnow, J. J. (1985). Change and variation in ideas about childhood and
parenting. In E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems: The psychological
consequences for children (pp. 235-270). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Gordon, T. (1970). Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden Press.

Gordon, T. (1975). Parent efi‘ectiveness training, Second edition. New York:
Wyden Press.

Green, (3. R., Harris, R. N., Forte, J. A., 8: Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating
FACES III and the cirumplex model. Family Process, 30(1), 55-73.

Greenberg, M. T., Siegel, J. M., 8: Leitch, C. J. (1983). The nature and
importance of attachment relationships to parents and peers during
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 12(5), 373-386.

Grossmann, K., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Rudolph, J., 8t Grossmann, K. E. (1988).
Maternal attachment representations related to patterns of infant-
mother attachment and maternal care during the first year. In R. Hinde
and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual
influences (pp. 241-260). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hazan, C., 8r Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3),
511-524.

Hetherington, E. M. (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family
systems perspective. In E. M. Hetherington, W. G. Clingempeel, E. R.
Anderson, J. E. Deal, M. S. Hagan, E. A. Hollier, & M. S. Lindner (Eds),
Coping with marital transitions. Monographs of the Society for Research
in Child Development, 57(2-3, Serial No. 227), 1-14.

Ihilevich, D., 81: Gleser, G. C. (1986). Defense mechanisms. Owosso, Michigan:
DMI Associates.

Jackson, D. D. (1956). The question of family homeostasis. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 31, 79-90.

Jacob, T., Tennenbaum, D. L., 8: Krahn, G. (1987). Factors influencing the
reliability and validity of observation data. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family
interaction and psychopathology: Theories, methods, and findings (pp.
297-328). New York: Plenum Press.

 

83

LaFreniere P., 8r Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Profiles of peer competence in the
preschool: Interrelations between measures, influence of social of social
ecology, and relation to attachment history. Developmental Psychology,
21, 58-68.

Lamb M. E., 8: Easterbrooks, M. A. (1981). Individual differences in parental
sensitivity: Origins, components, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb, L. R.
81: Sherrod, L. R. (Eds), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical
considerations (pp. 127-153).Hillsda1e, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991).
Patterns of competence and adjustment among adolescents from
authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child
Development, 62, 1049-1065.

McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V. (1985). The relationship between parental beliefs
and children’s cognitive level. In E. Sigel (Ed.), Parental belief systems:
The psychological consequences for children (pp. 7-24). New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maccoby, E. E., 8: Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the
family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of
child psychology, Volume 4 (pp. 1-101). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.

Main, M., 8: Goldwyn, R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her infant from
mother’s representation of her own experience: Implications for the
abused-abusing intergenerational cycle. Child Abuse and Neglect, 8, 203-
217.

Main, M., 81: Weston, D. (1981). The quality of the toddler's relationship to
mother and to father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to
establish new relationships. Child Development, 52, 932-940.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., G: Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and
adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton and
E. Waters (Eds), Growing points of attachment theory and research.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50(1-2,
Serial No. 209), 66-106.

Meyers, S. A., Stollak, G. E., Aronoff, J., Messé, L. A., Loraas, J. A., & Woike, B.
(1992, April). Relationships between perceptions of personal and family
functioning, defensive functioning, and caregiving schemata. Presented
at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association,
Chicago, Il.

84

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III.
Family Process, 25, 337-351.

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., 8: Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES 111. St. Paul, Minnesota:
Family Social Science.

Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., 8: Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of
marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22,
69-83.

Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., 8: Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of
marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions,
family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3-28.

Perosa, L. M., & Perosa, S. L. (1990). The use of a bipolar item format for
FACES III: A reconsideration. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
16(2), 187-199.

Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: A narrative and meta-analytic
review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19(5), 511-538.

Rumelhart, D. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. J.
Shapiro, B. C. Bruce, and W. F. Brewer (Eds), Theoretical issues in
reading comprehension (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991).
Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental
Psychology, 27(1), 159-171.

Spitz, R. (1961). Some early prototypes of ego defenses. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 9, 626-651.

Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The role of infant-caregiver attachment in development.
In J. Belsky 8t T. Nezworski (Eds), Clinical implications of attachment
(pp. 18-40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sroufe, L. A. (1989). Relationships, self, and individual adaptation. In A. J.
Sameroff 8: R. N. Emde (Eds), Relationship disturbances in early
childhood (pp. 70-96). New York: Basic Books.

85

Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of
relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds), Relationships and
development (pp. 51-69). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Sroufe, L. A., 8: Fleeson, J. (1988). The coherence of family relationships In
R. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds), Relationships within families:
Mutual influences (pp. 27-47). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Kreutzer, T. (1990). The fate of early experience
following developmental change: Longitudinal approaches to
individual adaptation in childhood. Child Development, 61, 1363-1373.

Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N. E., & Pancake, V. R. (1983). Attachment and
dependency in developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-
1627.

Stollak, G. E. (1992). What are children for?: Speculations about human
nature and their implications for child caregiving. Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Stollak, G. E., Aronoff, J., Loraas, J., Woike, B., Meyers, S. A., & Messé, L. A.
(1991, May). Boundary conditions in personal and interpersonal systems.
Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago, I].

Stollak, G. E., Crandell, L., 8: Pirsch, L. A. (1991). Assessment of the family in
the playroom. In C. E. Schaefer, K. Gitlin, & A. Sangrund (Eds), Play
diagnosis and assessment (pp. 527-548). New York: John Wiley 8: Sons.

Stollak, G. E., Scholom, A., Kallman, J. R., 8: Saturansky, C. (1973).
Insensitivity to children: Reponses of undergraduates to children in
problem situations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1(2), 169-180.

Teyber, E. C., Messé, L. A., 8: Stollak, G. E. (1977). Adult responses to child
communications. Child Development, 48, 1577-1582.

Vaillant, G. E. (1977). Adaptation to life. New York: Little, Brown, and
Company.

Vaillant, G. E. (Ed.) (1986). Empirical studies of ego mechanisms of defense.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Woike, B. A., Aronoff, J., Stollak, G. E., & Loraas, J. A. (1991). The effect of ego
adaptability on the type of defensive behavior used in dyadic interaction.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

86

Wright, V. C., St Stollak, G. E. (1991, May). Gender differences in responses to
children in problem situations Presented at the annual meeting of the
Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Il.

"ITillllllllllllllll