“,1:
jk

A"

4.

“Q? ‘3: :3
n - ‘ y L‘

‘344‘2511‘3; :3. fixfi’s

fit‘figvsglnm 3.444;;

1- . m. 4 .44 I.

It”. a.-- >~.3z*.‘~é} .. 4444

gxk‘wfi 44‘5"“.4'4.

Am“ wi:
..~:..: “mfié‘etéu.

- . . ,; . "
E“. 4. .4 ~ ,fl 4. . .. - 3 .. {141142. 4 u . .4.
"TH:

44
"21:1..." '“'

4.51m «.33; 4:,
: '4

44m. 4 .T .
.z.-....

:_:r?.; ""1151, ;,4r
T ‘::r

.73: 5:! .3..-
..n.\¢u 4,4
”44:69.:

4 4 .
Ix M’s.

 

J.Wv:3gl+:: N1.
’4' Mn 4- .m:

4.1,»: 4

 

' 7'4 4- . 41’":
. m..." 4.x..
V" P

4. 34'
7,4-.- 4. :rovvv—
.4'. 3:. _. 4-4”...
44..4

 

.4,‘..‘..."¢'4

 

HIGAN STATE UNIVE

lmmmmum llll||”'llll|’|l lITTITI "

1293 00876 4791

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONALITY
AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS

presented by

John Anthony Loraas

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masteuf_A;I_$__ degree in Psycholqu

0M/ /;\/
V M 'Mes I

Date November 15, 1991

 

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

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e l’jE J

MSU Is An Affirmative ActtonIEquol Oppommhy Institution

 

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG
PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONALITY AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS

BY

John Anthony Loraas

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1991

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG

PERCEPTIONS OF PERSONALITY AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
AND DEFENSE MECHANISMS

BY

John Anthony Loraas

Personal and family boundary conditions and their relationship
to interpersonal functioning were studied via a self-report
questionnaire (N = 798). Factor and cluster analytic procedures
identified six typologies of interpersonal functioning.

Validity data revealed a significant effect between boundary
conditions and the adaptiveness of defensive styles as evaluated

by a well-established measure of defensive functioning.

In Memory of

Russell J. Loraas
(1929-1972)

and

Charles W. Paetzel
(1943-1991)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

During the past two years I have had the opportunity to
work closely with the three members of my Master's Thesis
committee: Dr. Gary Stollak, Dr. Joel Aronoff, and Dr.
Lawrence Messe'. I would like to thank each one of them for
their time, patience, and interest in my educational
pursuits. A

As my thesis chairperson, Gary was instrumental in
providing me with direction for this project. His
theoretical understanding of personal and family

characteristics led to the creation of the Perceptions of

 

Personality and Family Characteristics (PPFC) questionnaire

 

which is the primary focus of this thesis. Since my arrival
at Michigan State in the Fall 1989, Gary has played several
roles in my graduate education. He has been a teacher, a
clinical supervisor, an academic advisor, and a role-model.
Although Gary is aware of the boundary that is inherent in
the professor/graduate student relationship, he has not let
this reality detract from our developing a special
friendship.

I am also deeply appreciative of Joel's and Larry's
contributions to this thesis. I am pleased that I have had

the opportunity to work closely with these two talented

iv

individuals. Larry is skilled at explaining statistical
analyses in a clear, concise manner. I thank him for his
guidance, his interest in this project, and his efforts in
teaching me about statistics. Similarly, I thank Joel for
his advice about and his interest in this project. His
influence upon my professional development goes beyond his
icontribution to this thesis. He has taught me to think more
critically and independently about psychological research,
has encouraged me to develop and test my own ideas, and has
made me realize the importance of having "a passion" in order
to make a difference in psychology.

I would also like to thank everyone who assisted me at
various points in data collection and analyses. I would like
to acknowledge fellow graduate students, Kent Phillippe and
Steven Meyers, and several undergraduates, including Jeff
Archambault, Wendy Berger, Paige Ferry, Pam Frackelton,
Cheryl Holm, Kimberly Mason, Maureen Mehoke, Erik Sunday,
Cori Sevin, Shelly Van Hoosen, and John Walker.

I would like to thank my mother, Elaine Loraas, for
her love and support over the years. Her strong belief in
the value of education has been a major influence in my
pursuit of goals that I have set for myself.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the love-of-my-life
and my bride, Kathy Jo. Her love, understanding, and words
of encouragement have helped to ease the stress of graduate

school.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0000001-6

METHOD. .......... . ................... . ...................... 7
Subjects.. ...... ......... ...................... . ......... 7
Data Collection Procedures...... ...... .................7—9
Measures... ............. ..... ............................ 9

Perceptions of Personality and Family

Characteristics Questionnaire.... ........... . ..... 9-13
Defense Mechanism Inventory ..................... ...13-18
RESULTS.......................... .......... . ....... .....l9-25
DISCUSSION ...................................... . ....... 26-34
Table l... ..... . ..................... . .............. .35-41
Table 2 ............................................ ..42-48
Table 3....... ....................................... 49-55
Table 4. ..... . ....................... . .................. 56
Table 5... ...... ........ ................... . ............ 57
Table 6.................... .................... . ...... ..58

APPENDIX A (REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE)...................59-84
APPENDIX B (DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM) ....... ..85-86
APPENDIX C (ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS) ....... . ......... .87

APPENDIX D (SCANTRON SHEETS)00oooeoooooooooooooeeoooooooaa-gg

vi

APPENDIXE(PPFC)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI0.000 ooooooo 00.00000000091-99
APPENDIX F (DMI/SITUATIONAL SURVEY) ................. ..1Z0-l3l

LIST OF REFERENCES......................... ..... ......132-139

vii

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

LIST OF TABLES

(PPFC Five-Factor Solution)........ ..... ........35-4l
(PPFC Males' Data Five-Factor Solution). ........ 42-48
(PPFC Females' Data Five-Factor Solution) ....... 49-55
(Pearson Product-Moment Correlation

Coefficients for PPFC factors)..................56
(PPFC Cluster Typologies).................... ...... 57

(PPFC Interpersonal Style by DMI
Defensive Maturity)........ ................... ..58

viii

INTRODUCTION

The literatures on family (e.g., Minuchin, 1974;
Minuchin & Fishman, 1981; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979;
Olson, 1986: Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988) and ego
systems (Block & Block, 1986a, 1980b; Gjerde, Block, & Block,
1986) have remained relatively separate entities (see
Appendix A for Literature Review). Although similarities
seem to exist in some of the constructs studied in both of
these domains (e.g., the concept of "boundary" is discussed
in both domains), no empirical research has been undertaken
_ that assesses the validity of these relationships. This
study represents an initial attempt to relate two separate
lines of research regarding perceptions of family and
personal characteristics and to create typologies of
interpersonal functioning based on the varying patterns of
these perceptions.

Family characteristics and styles of functioning have
been assumed to exert powerful influences upon the
personality development and interpersonal functioning of
individual family members. The quality of family life

(Ransom, 1985) and the extent to which positive attachments

2
have been established within the familial unit (Bretherton,
1985; Furman & Buhrmeister, 1985) have significant social,
emotional, intellectual, and physical ramifications for
family participants. A family's characteristics,
experiences, and patterns of interaction serve to facilitate
or hinder each family member's social and emotional growth
and ability to cope with stress and heightened levels of
anxiety (Williamson & Bray, 1985; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Wynne,
1984).

Throughout the 19703 and 19803 the field of family
therapy research and clinical practice witnessed the
emergence of numerous models of family functioning (Olson,
Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1989;
Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988; Beavers and Voeller, 1983;
Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983: Moos & Moos, 1976, 1981).
In general, these models assessed and described healthy and
dysfunctional family processes and types, and denoted general
personality characteristics associated with either well or
poorly functioning family members. Most of these family
models were in large part predicated on the influential
writings of Salvador Minuchin (Broderick & Schrader, 1981).

Minuchin (1974) discussed the nature of boundary
conditions within individual families. He argued that
families experience difficulty coping with stress when
boundaries between various familial subsystems (e.g., husband-.

wife; parent-child: sibling-sibling) either are markedly

3
separate and overly rigid or are poorly defined with minimal
differentiation. Minuchin (1974) noted that the former
boundary conditions were characteristic of disengaged
families. The major danger associated with this family
style was that family members tend to communicate poorly and
ineffectiVely with each other. As a result, family members
tend to feel emotionally disconnected from one another, to
harbor resentments, and to under-support each other during
stressful periods. He noted that when family boundary
conditions were poorly defined and the separation of family
subsystems was negligible, the result could be an enmeshed
family system that easily overloaded and immobilized family
members when they were confronted with stress.

It seems, a priori, that by late adolescence and early
adulthood, the personality development of individuals has
been influenced and shaped through interactions and
experiences, both earlier in life as well as currently, with
parental figures and other family members. These personal
experiences, moreover, ostensibly provide the bases from
which an individual develops perceptions of their family-of—
origin's level of adaptive functioning and perceptions of
their Own level of personal competence and emotional and
social health.

In his theorizing about the dynamics of personality,
Kurt Lewin (1951) described motivation in terms of a system

of needs which are separated from one another by boundaries.

4
One characteristic of boundaries in these and other
psychological systems is the capacity to contain and to
regulate needs and tensions (Block & Block, 198flb).
Boundaries can be relatively permeable or impermeable.
With respect to permeable boundaries, tensions can spill into
other systems, thereby exerting positive or negative
influences on various areas of functioning. For example, a
multitude of thoughts or affects in contact with each other
can provide the individual either with new knowledge or with
unwanted realizations. Conversely, impermeable boundaries
can isolate or separate elements of thought or affect from
contact with each other. In such instances, the individual
may appear rigid in manner or inconsistent in behavioral
actions.

Jack Block, along with his late wife, Jeanne, and their
colleagues (J. Block, 1965, 1982; Block & Block, 1986a,
1980b: Gjerde, Block, & Block, 1986) have undertaken
systematic efforts to examine the permeability-impermeability
of the ego boundary. This construct, which they (Block &
Block, 1980a) labeled ego control and conceptualized as
existing on a permeability-impermeability continuum (e.g.,
undercontrol to overcontrol), reflects the nature of one's
ability to express and to contain aspects of their
intrapersonal thoughts and feelings.

In light of Lewin's (1951) observation that boundaries

not only vary in their degree of permeability, but also in

their capacity for fluctuation, the Blocks (Block & Block,
1986a, 1980b) identified boundary elasticity as a second
characteristic of ego boundary conditions. They re—named
this construct "ego resiliency" (Block & Block, 1985b, p.
47), and defined it as a boundary's ability to alter "its
characteristic level of permeability-impermeability depending
upon impinging psychological forces and to return to its
original modal level of permeability after the temporary
accommodation-requiring influence is no longer pressing"
(Block & Block, 198Gb, pp. 47-48).
S In order to explicate the relationship between an
individual's perceptions of their personal and family's
ability to tolerate stress, a 91-item, paper-and-pencil, self-

report inventory, entitled the Perceptions of Personality and

 

Family Characteristics (PPFC) questionnaire, was developed.

 

Factor and cluster analytic procedures completed on the PPFC
allowed for the integration of perceptions of individual and
family characteristics into typologies of interpersonal
styles based on characteristics of ego control and
resiliency and characteristics of family functioning.

During the PPFC administration sessions a second

measure, the Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) (Ihlevich &

 

Gleser, 1986), was also presented. A well-established, 10-
story vignette questionnaire, the DMI was used in accordance
with its intended purpose for identifying individuals in a

non-clinical population who possess or rely on more mature or

primitive defensive structures. In determining the
classifications of DMI respondents who also completed the
PPFC questionnaire, it was hypothesized that a positive
relationship existed between defensive and interpersonal
styles among individuals in late adolescence and early
adulthood and their perceptions of personal and family
characteristics since families have been found (Williamson &
Bray, 1985; Kerr & Bowen, 1988: Wynne, 1984) to influence the
social and emotional growth of their members and their
ability to tolerate stress and anxiety. That is, individuals
who reported viewing themselves and their families in more
positive and resilient ways on the PPFC would demonstrate
more mature and healthy defensive styles on the DMI. In
contrast, individuals who indicated that they perceived
themselves and their families as less competent and
functional on the PPFC would demonstrate less healthy and

more primitive defensive styles on the DMI.

METHOD

Subjects

592 female and 266 male undergraduates who were enrolled
in introductory psychology classes at Michigan State
University (MSU) completed three questionnaires. The
subjects, who were between the ages of 17 and 24 years and
were mostly Caucasian, received credit toward their course

grade in return for their participation.
Data Collection Procedures

During the Fall 1989 undergraduate subjects who were
enrolled in introductory psychology courses at MSU were
recruited through the Department of Psychology's Experimental
Subject Pool. Sign-up sheets, on which the title of the
study, "Thinking About People," was written, were distributed
over a five-week period to all introductory psychology class
sections.

Data collection involved approximately 25, two-hour
experimental sessions. Subjects were allowed to leave the

testing session once they completed their questionnaires.

8
The number of subjects present at each testing session varied
between 25 and 50 subjects. Testing sessions were held in
large classrooms or medium-sized lecture halls on the MSU
campus.' Two upper-division, undergraduate psychology
research assistants led each testing session, while a
graduate student in psychology was usually present at each
testing session.

Standard procedures were utilized in running each
testing session. Once all subjects were seated, they were
instructed to come row-by-row to the front of the room where
they received testing materials. Each subject received a two-
page, informed consent form (Appendix B): an Instruction
sheet (Appendix C); three Scantron ("bubble") sheets
(Appendix D); a PPFC questionnaire (Appendix E): and a DMI
questionnaire labeled "Situational Survey" (males received a
green DMI questionnaire, while females received a blue DMI
questionnaire) (Appendix F). Subjects were told neither to
look at nor to begin completing any of the testing materials
until instructed by the experimenter.

Once all subjects received their testing materials and
were seated, the experimenter asked subjects to follow along
as he or she read the instruction sheet aloud. The order in
which to complete the questionnaires and the accompanying
answer sheets were explained. Although the subjects were not
informed why the DMI was to be completed before the PPFC, the

rationale for this sequencing within the experimental design

9
was that the DMI required the most concentration and mental
stamina since it was measuring defensive processes.

Subjects were told how to return completed questionnaire
data. They were informed that in the future they might be
contacted to participate in other research activities for
money. If subjects were interested in further participation,
they were told to complete the second page of the informed
consent form on which they could provide their name, home
address, and telephone number. At the end of each testing
session, each subject's questionnaire data materials were
collected and placed into individual folders. These folders
were placed in a locked file cabinet and ordered by student

numbers to ensure confidentiality.
Measures

1) Perceptions of Personal and Family Characteristics (PPFC)
The PPFC is a 91-item self-report measure (Appendix E).
Although it is unstandardized as a whole, the last 56 items
on the PPFC, which assess various aspects of family
functioning, were derived from two established

questionnaires: the Family Adaptability and Cohesion

 

Evaluation Scales III (FACES III) (Olson, Portner, & Lavee,
1985) and the Self-Report Family Inventory (SFI) (Beavers,
Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988). In contrast, the first 35 items on

the PPFC, which measure ego control and ego resiliency, are

19
not representative of any questionnaire and are thus
unstandardized. The ego control and resiliency items were

derived from the California Child Q-Set (Block & Block,

 

1980a, 1980b), and were modified to first-person and sentence-
form allowing for self-report.

The FACES III (Olson, Portner, Lavee, 1985) question-
naire is the outgrowth of two previous questionnaires, FACES
and FACES II, which were developed by Olson and his
colleagues (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978; Olson, Portner,
Bell, 1982) at the UniverSity of Minnesota. FACES and FACES
‘II were revised in an effort to strengthen reliability,
validity, and clinical utility and to shorten the length of
the questionnaire (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985). Like

FACES and FACES II, FACES III was formulated based on Olson's

adherence to his Family System Circumplex Model (Olson, 1986)

 

which identifies two major dimensions of family functioning:
family cohesion and family adaptability (Olson, Sprenkle, &
Russell, 1979).

FACES III consists of a 26-item scale. 19 items relate
to family cohesion, and are exemplified by items relating to
emotional bonding, family support, family boundaries, time
and friends, and recreational interests. The other 16 items
relate to family adaptability during periods of stress or
family disruption, and are thus measured by concepts related
to leadership, control, discipline, rules, and roles within

the family.

11

On the PPFC questionnaire several items from FACES III
were modified either because they were ambiguously worded or
did not appear to measure adequately aspects of one's
perceptions of their family's ability specifically to
function under stress. For example, Item 8 on FACES III
(Olson, Portner, Lavee, 1985) reads: "Our family changes its
way of handling tasks." This item, which is Item 43 on the
PPFC, was modified to the following: "Our family changes its
way of handling tasks when necessary to solve a problem or to
reduce stress." Similarly, Item 14 on FACES III (Olson,
Portner, & Lavee, 1985) states: ”Rules change in our
family." However, this item, Item 49 on the PPFC, was
altered to the following: "When there are stresses or
problems in our family rules change which often lead to
further stresses or problems."

FACES III was standardized on a normative sample of
2,453 adults across the life cycle, 412 adolescents, and
several types of problem families. Across two independent
samples FACES III demonstrated adequate internal consistency
reliability, using Cronbach's Alpha, for both family cohesion
and adaptability (.77 and .62, respectively). Internal
consistency reliability, using Cronbach's Alpha, for the
total scale was also acceptable (.68).

FACES III provided strong evidence for face and content
validity (Olson, 1986). Construct validity for FACES III was

supported by correlational evidence regarding the degree of

12

relationship between the cohesion and adaptability scales (r
= .03). This low correlation indicates that the two factors,
family cohesion and adaptability, are independent and
orthogonal dimensions. Additional construct validity for the
two factors was demonstrated by the high correlations among
items under each respective scale. With regard to the effect
of social desirability on each scale, such an influence was
nonexistent for the family adaptability factor (r = .00),
while for the family cohesion scale there was a moderately
strong correlation (r = .35).

The remaining 36 family items on the PPFC (items 56 thru

91) were taken directly from the Self-Report Family Inventory

 

(SFI) (Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988) and were unchanged.
The development of the SFI was guided by theoretical

positions consistent with the Beavers Systems Mbdel of Family

 

Functioning. Thus, the SFI's items were designed to

 

determine each family member's perception of their family's
quality of functioning in regard to levels of
health/competence, conflict, communication, cohesion,
directive leadership, and expressiveness.

The SFI has demonstrated strong internal consistency
reliabilities using Cronbach's Alpha (.84 - .88). The
average test-retest reliabilities, measured over one- and
three-month periods for the 6 factors, also have been

adequate.

13
With respect to its concurrent validity, the SFI

obtained a Canonical correlation (R = .62) with the Beavers
System's observational ratings of Competence and Style
(Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988). The SFI has been shown
to provide good convergence validity with other measures of
family functioning, including FACES II (Olson, Portner, &
Bell, 1982) and FACES III (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985)

using normal college populations.

2) Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) (Ihilevich & Gleser,

 

1986).

The DMI is a personality measure which has been utilized
in more than 40 published studies (see Cramer, 1988, for a
review), the DMI (Appendix F). It is an objective, paper-and-
pencil, self-report inventory that measures the extent to
which individuals rely on five major clusters of defense
mechanisms (e.g., Principalization, Reversal, Turning Against
the Self, Projection, and Turning Against the Other).

The DMI consists of 10 story-vignettes which require the
test-taker to imagine himself/herself in a variety of
difficult or frustrating situations. Each vignette is
followed by four subsections regarding the person's actual

reaction in the situation: the nature of the person's

14
impulsive reaction or behavioral fantasy in the situation:,
the person's thoughts in regard to the situation; and the
person's affective experience and rationale for feeling the
way they would in reaction to the situation. Each subsection
has five alternative solutions or responses that the person
may choose; these five choices represent the five major
clusters of defense mechanisms measured by the DMI.

Subjects are instructed to choose the statement that is
most representative and least representative of how they
would react (scored 2 or 0, respectively). The remaining
three choices are scored as 1.. The scores for the five
defense mechanisms are summed separately over the 10 story-
vignettes. The maximum possible points for each defense
mechanism is 80. It is important to address in some detail
the nature of the five major defense mechanisms measured by
the DMI. In their manual, Ihilevich and Gleser (1986)
provide an excellent summary of these defense categories (see
pp. 18-22).

Principalization (PRN) is considered a mature and
mentally complicated defense through which the reality of
negative, emotionally-threatening, or anxiety-inducing events
are minimized by sophisticated cognitive or intellectual
operations. These operations include a person's utilization
of general principles (e.g., truisms, cliches) in order to
reduce their levels of anxiety by focusing on abstract,

rather than specific, concerns or issues. The traditional

15
psychoanalytic defenses of intellectualization, isolation,
and rationalization, all of which relate to the mental
processing of affective-laden events or experiences, are
subsumed under the DMI's PRN cluster.

Reversal (REV) is considered a primitive defense, and
involves the failure to recognize the seriousness of anxiety-
provoking or emotionally-threatening material or situations.
In a sense, persons who utilize REV create shields to protect
themselves from disturbing or anxiety—provoking thoughts or
feelings which could potentially enter their conscious
awareness. The traditional defenses of denial, repression,
and reaction- formation represent types of REV.

Turning Against the Self (TAS) is the least
psychologically mature defensive style. It represents an
intellectual process through which persons tend to expect
negative events to befall them. As a result, such
individuals tend to blame themselves for negative events or
experiences which may or may not be within their control. By
holding low and negative expectations of themselves and by
engaging in other self-defeating cognitive processes,
individuals who frequently rely on TAS are more able to
control their feelings about the future as well as their
levels of anxiety created by heightened self-doubt.

Conversely, Projection (PRO) involves the SOphisticated
process of attributing one's negative and unacceptable

internal psychological impulses and thoughts onto other

16
individuals or objects that are perceived as having negative
intent or characteristics. Through this process, the
individual is capable of protecting their sense of self
against anxiety or other unpleasant affective experiences
that may be created by emotionally-threatening thoughts,
feelings, or actions. Individuals who often employ PRO as a
defensive maneuver may feel that other persons are
untrustworthy, may appear suspicious, or may be highly
critical of others.

Finally, Turning Against the Object (TAO) represents the
mental process of displacing anger outward against other
persons or objects in an attempt either to control external
threats to one's self or to camouflage intrapersonal
conflicts which are too volatile for the person to process
directly. TAO differs from PRO in that the person or object
is not perceived by the individual as having menacing
qualities peg s3 (Cramer, 1988: Ihlevich & Gleser, 1986).
Thus, the individual who utilizes TAO experiences anger and
frustration as an emotion, yet such feelings are likely to
threaten the individual's sense of self as a strong person
who is in control of all aspects of their life. As a result,
the person who relies on TAO may compensate for these
negative and threatening feelings by displacing them against
the object they perceive as having caused their unpleasant
affective state. In short, individuals who utilize TAO tend

to openly express their aggressive feelings in order to

l7
"master perceived threats, reduce experienced anxiety, and
secure 'esteem enhancement'" (Ihlevich & Gleser, 1986, p.
19).

Cramer (1988) has suggested that these five DMI scales
are related to types of psychopathology as well as cognitive,
personality, and demographic variables. However, some
psychometric problems are evident with the DMI. For example,
PRN and REV are positively related. Likewise, PRO and TAO are
positively related. Nonetheless, several content and
concurrent validity studies have yielded different patterns
of association with each defensive cluster. Thus, REV is
positively related to denial, field dependence, and low dream
recall, while PRN is unrelated to these variables. In
contrast, PRN is positively associated with number of years
of education and accurate self-appraisal, yet REV is
negatively related to years of education and is associated
with inaccurate self-appraisal. Moreover, extremely high REV
scores are associated with severe psychopathology.

Sex differences regarding the DMI scales are most
apparent with TAS. This defensive position is positively
related with depression, negatively with ego-strength,
positively with low self-evaluation, and positively with
suicide attempts. For women, who tend to consistently score
higher than men on TAS, this defense is positively associated
with low dominance and social desirability. For men, TAS is

negatively associated with social desirability.

18
In light of the above findings, Cramer (1988) maintained
that it is possible to order the five defensive styles on the
DMI from'the most to the least healthy or mature: PRN, TAO,
REV, TAS, and PRO. According to Cramer (1988), individuals
who score highest on PRN should be the most psychologically

mature, while those scoring highest on TAS and PRO should be

the least psychologically mature.

RESULTS

During initial psychometric work, the PPFC questionnaire
items were submitted to exploratory factor analysis, using
varimax rotation of the principle components. This analysis
(N = 798) resulted in a five-factor solution with eigenvalues
greater than 1.00. Items which correlated at .40 or greater
with a scale were included under that factor (see Table 1).
Factors I, IV, and V represented family items, and were
labeled Family Health, Family Cohesion, and Family
Communication, respectively. Factors II and III signified
the personal or ego control/resiliency items, and were
labeled Neuroticism and Competence, respectively.

Factor I consisted of 43 items, 31 of which were SFI
items, five of which were FACES III items, and seven of which
were modified FACES III items. With regard to the SFI's
factor structure (Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988), 17 of
its 19 Family Health items and all 12 of its Conflict items
were found on the PPFC's Family Health scale. With respect
to the factor structure of the FACES III (Olson, Portner, and
Lavee, 1985), six family cohesion items, one modified family
cohesion item, four family adaptability items, and one

modified family adaptability item were represented on the

19

20
PPFC's Family Health factor.

Sex Differences. In order to determine the effect of

 

gender on the PPFC's factor structure, additional factor
analyses were conducted on the males' PPFC data (N = 206) and
the females' data (N = 592), separately (see Tables 2 and 3,
respectively). Both analyses resulted in five-factor
solutions with eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Both factor
solutions revealed three family (Factors I, IV, and V) and
two personal (Factors II-and III) factors. Items with
loadings above .40 were considered belonging to that factor.

In comparing the two gender-specific analyses, Factor I
(Family Health) and Factor V (Family Cohesion) are similar.
For example, Factor I for both the Males and Females data
consists of 44 items, 31 of which are SFI items, 13 of which
are FACES III or modified FACES III items. In regard to
Factor V, the Males' data only yielded three items, whereas
the Females' data yielded five items. However, the three
items from the Males' data also were listed in Factor V of
the Females' data.

Although both sets of analyses resulted in a Competence
and a Neuroticism scale, the scales are reversed for the
males and the females. That is, Factors II and III represent
the Neuroticism and Competence scales, respectively, for the
Males' data, while for the Female's data Factor II is the
Competence scale and Factor III is the Neuroticism scale.

The most notable difference between the gender-specific

21
analyses was found in Factor IV. With respect to the Males'
data, Factor IV, Family Communication, appears to be a stable
factor (the initial, exploratory factor analysis in Table 1
demonstrated a scale with nearly identical items). However,
the Females' data do not reveal a Family Communication
factor: interestingly, three items representative of a Family
Communication factor for the Female's data appear under
Factor II (Competence). For the Females' data, Factor IV,
labeled Family Roles, has only two items, both of which
appear to measure family organization.

With respect to the original five-factor solution
presented in Table l, Pearson-product moment correlation
coefficients were computed for the five scales (see Table
4). These correlations, most of which are in the low-
moderate range, represent the amount of relationship between
the personal and family factors.

Cluster Analysis. Cluster analytic procedures ("Quick

 

Cluster," SPSS-X User's Guide, 1988, pp. 841-848) were

 

carried out on the PPFC data using the initial five-factor
solution (see Table 1). 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 patterns of five mean-
composite, PPFC subscale scores (see Table 5). The emergence
of these six general patterns of scores signifies the

integration of individual and family characteristics into

22
typologies of interpersonal styles that are based on self-
reports regarding ego control/resiliency and characteristics
of family functioning.

The labeling of these six general patterns, Competent-
Secure, Independent, Disengaged-Avoidant, Volatile-Chaotic,
Neutral, and Enmeshed, was achieved by studying the patterns
of scores (i.e., high or low, positive or negative) across
the three family and two personal scales for each of the six
cluster groups. For example, the mean-composite scores in
the Competent-Secure cluster suggest that these individuals
perceive their families as healthy and as effective in
dealing with problems and coping with family stress (Factor I
= .89). These individuals report that their families are
very cohesive (Factor IV = 1.00), and have adequate levels of
communication between members (Factor V = .46).

Individually, persons in the Competent-Secure category
perceive themselves as confident, self-reliant, and assertive
(Factor III = .74), and report that they function well under
stress (Factor II = -.60).

The mean-composite scores in the Disengaged-Avoidant
cluster indicate that these individuals perceive their
families as having considerable difficulty resolving problems
and tolerating stress (Factor I = -1.57). These individuals
report that family members prefer to spend more time with
friends than with others in the family (Factor IV = -.96) and

that communication between family members is greatly limited

23
(Factor V = -.94). Individuals in the Disengaged-Avoidant
cluster report perceiving themselves as moderately
ineffective in coping with stress (Factor II = .69) and as
less competent and unassertive in their daily lives (Factor
III = -.56).

The mean-scores in the Enmeshed cluster indicate that
these persons perceive their families as close (Factor IV =
.82) and as generally capable of dealing with family stress
and disruption (Factor I = -.l6). Although persons in the
Enmeshed cluster report that their families are cohesive
(Factor IV = .82), they acknowledge only average levels of
communication among family members (Factor V = -.18). This
suggests that these individuals perceive family members as
uneasy about arguing with and directly expressing their
thoughts and feelings to one another. Individually, persons
in the Enmeshed cluster perceive themselves as extremely
inadequate in coping with stress (Factor II = 1.33) and as
seriously lacking the skills and confidence needed to
confront difficult situations (Factor III = -.85).

In order to determine construct validity for the PPFC
and to relate interpersonal styles to defensive functioning,
a subset of individuals (N = 55: Females = 30; Males = 25)
was selected solely on the basis of their DMI scores. The
goal of this selection process was to identify two groups of
subjects: One group which utilized more healthy, adaptive,

and mature defenses, and a second group which utilized less

24
healthy, less adaptive, and more primitive defenses. Since
Cramer (1988) argued that Principalization (PRN) was the most
mature defense and Turning Against the Self (TAS) and
Projection (PRO), respectively, were the least adaptive and
most primitive defenses, inclusion criteria for placement of
subjects in either one of the two groups were based on DMI
national norms (Ihilevich & Gleser, 1986) for nonclinical,
college-aged samples. Thus, individuals in the first group
who utilized more mature and healthy defenses were defined by
scores one standard deviation above-the-mean on PRN and one
standard deviation below-the-mean on either TAS or PRO and
belowfthe-mean on the other on the national distribution of
college-age individuals of that sex. Conversely, individuals
in the second group who possessed less sophisticated and more
primitive defenses scored one standard deviation below-the-
mean on PRN and one standard deviation above-the-mean on
either TAS or PRO and above-the-mean on the other.

Subsequent to the identification of these two groups of
individuals, the PPFC cluster membership and composite scores
of these same individuals were examined, separating them into
more adaptive and less adaptive interpersonal styles. The
individuals in the Competent-Secure and Independent clusters
were combined to form the most adaptive group, while
individuals in the Disengaged-Avoidant, Volatile-Chaotic, and
Enmeshed clusters were combined to form the least adaptive

group. (The Neutral cluster was omitted from this analysis

25

in light of their mid-range, rather than more extreme,
scores). This analysis demonstrated that 21 of the 28
persons in the most adaptive clusters on the PPFC were those
using the most mature defenses on the DMI, while 21 of the 27
persons in the least adaptive PPFC clusters were those who
relied on the more primitive or less adaptive defenses
measured by the DMI (see Table 6). This result was a highly

significant difference (p < .005, Fischer's Exact Test).

DISCUSSION

The present data suggest that the PPFC questionnaire may
be a potentially useful instrument for social, personality,
and clinical investigations interested in identifying
individuals with varying types of interpersonal styles.
Furthermore, although it was a fortutitous finding,
statistical analyses of the data indicate that an
individual's perceptions of their personal and family
characteristics are related to their tendency to utilize or
rely on either more mature or less sophisticated defensive
operations.

Although this study represents the first extensive
analysis of the items included in the PPFC, including its
factor structure and construct validity, it appears that the
assessment of personal characteristics through the
utilization of the constructs of ego control and ego
resiliency was theoretically sound. Although the family—
based items on the PPFC were original or slightly modified
items from two established family assessment questionnaires

(Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales III

 

[FACES III], Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985: Self-Report

 

Family Inventory [SFI], Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988),

 

26

27
the PPFC's personal functioning items were uh-tested self-
report items, having been devised through the modification of
thirty-five statements from a Q-sort rating system (Block &
Block, 1980a, 1980b) into first-person and sentence-form
items.

Factor analyses of the PPFC (see Tables 1, 2, & 3)
suggest that this self-report measure has a stable factor
structure. The PPFC's personal items are especially
significant, since they provide a more poignant meaning for
the questionnaire's family items. That is, the personal
items facilitate the understanding and defining of the
typologies of interpersonal styles (see Table 5) which are
the PPFC's most promising future utility.

Why are the typologies of interpersonal styles generated
by this study intuitively appealing, and what are the
theoretical underpinnings of the PPFC which may account for
its relationship to defensive functioning? Within families,
the behaviors of individual members affect the social and
emotional well-being of other family participants (Kerr &
Bowen, 1988). Moreover, the attachments (Bowlby, 1969/1982;
Ainsworth, 1989; Bretherton, 1984, 1985) and boundaries
(Minuchin, 1974; Minuchin and Fishman, 1981: Olson, 1986)
between parents and their children as well as among siblings
(Furman & Buhrmeister, 1985) serve to fortify or weaken an
individual's sense of mastery and competence. The PPFC,

through inclusion of the ego control/resiliency items,

28
underscores these points, ascertaining quality of personal
functioning based on persons' self-reported perceptions of
their family life and individual functioning.

The hallmark of ego resiliency is that an individual is
capable of responding effectively and adaptively when
confronted with stressful, uncertain, and significant
environmental changes (J. Block, 1965, 1982). Gjerde, Block,
and Block (1986) noted that in contrast to ego-unresilient
persons, the ego resilient individual "can be expected to
better master new and unsolved circumstances, to maintain
integrated performance under stress, to process competing
stimuli, to resist sets and illusions, and to be less
immobilized, repetitive, and anxious under stress" (p. 424).
The results of this study suggest that perceptions of one's
family characteristics, based on personal experiences within
its milieu, may have developmental implications for how an
individual perceives their own social and emotional health
and their abilities to tolerate intrapersonal or
environmental stress.

The typologies of interpersonal styles measured by the
PPFC are suggestive of possible attachment behaviors of young
adults in social situations. Some developmental and social
psychologists (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978:
Ainsworth, 1989; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985: Stevenson-
Hinde, 1990; Hazen & Shaver, 1987, 1990) have begun to

address this aspect of interpersonal functioning. These

29
theorists have extended attachment theory principles which
were originally targeted at relationships between caregivers
and their children (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978) to account for important aspects in how
adults approach various parts of their lives (e.g., romantic
relationships: work and recreational interests: personal and
family difficulties). Since each of the six cluster
typologies and their five mean-composite scores in Table 5
appear meaningful, these data suggest that various
interpersonal and coping styles emerge by late adolescence or
early adulthood, and are predicated, in part, on past
personal experiences in one's family, especially the feelings
and expectations about how one's family can tolerate and
resolve streSs and conflict.

The labels used to denote the six cluster typologies in
Table 5 (e.g., Competent-Secure: Independent: Disengaged-
Avoidant: Volatile-Chaotic: Neutral: and Enmeshed) resemble
terms used in family systems (Minuchin, 1974) and attachment
theory (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Main,
Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). However, one should base their
understanding of the cluster labels solely on the nature of
the pattern of scores for each of the six clusters. One
should not interpret the cluster labels as consistent with
the original usages or descriptions of these terms in other

areas of psychological research such as Minuchin's (1974)

30
discussion on enmeshed and disengaged families: Ainsworth
et. al's (1978) study of secure or avoidant infants: or Main,
Kaplan, and Cassidy's (1985) identification of chaotically
attached youngsters.

The relationship between the PPFC's general typologies
of interpersonal styles and the nature of defensive
functioning (see Table 6) is a theoretically important
finding. Although this relationship signifies support for
the construct validity of the PPFC, it further highlights the
fact that family relationships and perceptions of family
functioning could affect not only perceptions of one's
ability to tolerate stress, but could also represent a more
fundamental phenomenon. An individual's perception of family
and personal competence and effectiveness in confronting
stressful and difficult situations, an understanding and
opinion which has developed and changes over time, can be
Vinfluenced by intrapsychic processes (e.g., defense
mechanisms).

In addressing the purpose of defense mechanisms Redlich
and Freedman (1966) noted that when human beings are
subjected to increasing levels of stress, conflict, or
aversive affective experiences, they have a natural tendency
to relieve their concomitant levels of psychological
discomfort either by fleeing the situaton, becoming
aggressive, or engaging in effective problem-solving

techniques. For most individuals, especially infants and

31
children, the options for dealing with such situations or
feelings is greatly restricted. As a result, children and
adults learn to invoke the use of defense mechanisms to
"defend against anxiety and provide temporary security"
(Redlich & Freedman, 1966, p. 128) from negative or
emotionally disturbing material or situations.

In light of the important influences exerted by the
quality of family life (Kerr & Bowen, 1988) and the
attachments within it (Ainsworth, 1989; Bretherton, 1985:
Furman & Buhrmeister, 1985), it seems consistent that
individuals who have been raised in families that demonstrate
positive and adaptive problem-solving skills and who nurture
their members will have been instilled with confidence and a
sense of mastery (Stollak, 1978). In growing to adulthood
these experiences would most likely facilitate the individual
in confronting and working through difficult feelings and
situations. Thus, such individuals in regulating their
affective states would be more capable than persons raised in
dysfunctional family systems with poor problem-solving and
conflict-resolution skills and poor attachment and nurturing
relationships to process cognitively more adaptive and mature
defenses (i.e., PRN). These more sophisticated strategies
allow individuals greater emotional freedom in confronting
negative, emotionally threatening, or anxiety-provoking

thoughts, feelings, or situations.

32

Despite the encouraging findings regarding the PPFC,
including the questionnaire's potential utility as an
assessment instrument for identifying individuals of various
interpersonal styles, and its relationship to patterns of
defensive functioning, certain limitations of this study must
be noted. First, the data collected and analyzed were based
solely on two questionnaires, both of which were objective,
self-report, paper-and-pencil instruments. Secondly, this
study did not incorporate into its experimental design the)
collection of behavioral data. These behavioral samples
would have complemented and enhanced the reliability and
validity of the information garnered through the self-report
measures.'

The possible shortcomings associated with the use of
self-report inventories in psychological research is well-
documented (Fredman & Sherman, 1987). For example, some
subjects may not completely understand the directions, while
others may not totally comprehend what particular items are
asking or may commit clerical errors in completing
questionnaires or answer sheets. In addition, subjects vary
not only in their abilities to engage in self-reflection, but
respondents also vary in their levels of insight, honesty and
cooperation. As a result, subjects may respond randomly to
items or become locked into response patterns characterized
by tendencies to mark only extreme or neutral choice

selections (Fredman & Sherman, 1987).

33

The extent to which the findings from this study can be
generalized to other individuals and groups in the population
is a third limitation. Since subjects were undergraduates,
were between the ages of 17 and 24 years, were mostly
Caucasian, and were in the midst of a stressful and
potentially difficult life-transition (e.g., starting
college: living away from home), it is possible that
different findings might be found with more heterogeneous
samples.

Despite this study's shortcomings, it appears that the
PPFC is a potentially useful measure of personality
functioning. Although this study demonstrated a relationship
between interpersonal styles based on one's perceptions of
personal and family characteristics and styles of defensive
functioning, future research must continue to refine and
further establish the validity of the PPFC. In addition,
future research must address issues related to reliability of
the PPFC questionnaire.

With respect to its reliability, the PPFC must be
subjected to intensive analysis. Although the current study
addressed the factor structure, cluster typologies, and
construct validity of the PPFC, psychometric studies focusing
on the PPFC's test-retest reliability are needed in an effort
to determine the amount of error variance associated with
time sampling (Anastasi, 1988). Similarly, in an effort to

determine the internal consistency or amount of error

34
variance associated with the content of items on the
questionnaire, split-half reliability procedures also are
warranted (Crocker & Algina, 1986).

The direction of future PPFC validity studies might
include the collection of more questionnaire data
representative of individuals at different points in the life-
cycle (Karpel & Strauss, 1983), of marital partners, and of
families. Once collected, these data could be analyzed, and
individuals of various interpersonal styles could be
identified. Although it would be interesting and important
to compare the typologies of interpersonal styles that emerge
in various samples, concurrent validity for the PPFC could be
measured through a variety of laboratory studies in which
individuals of various interpersonal styles are exposed to
mildly stressful situations or interactions (Aronoff &
Stollak, 1991: Stollak, Aronoff, Loraas, Woike, Messe', &
Meyers, 1991). These data could focus on both dyadic or
larger groups such as families, and could be evaluated by
employing various behavioral and observational techniques
(Aronoff, Stollak, Woike, & Aronoff, 1990: Stollak, Loraas, &
Aronoff, 1991a: Stollak, Loraas, & Aronoff, 1991b; Wampler,

Halverson, Moore, & Walters, 1989).

35

Table 1

PPFC Five-Factor Solution

75.
76.

56.

46.

88.

90.

67.

61.

83.

77.

41.

72.
54.
58.
70.
50.

69.

FACTOR I: Family Health

 

Our family is proud of being close.
Our family is good at solving problems together.

Family members pay attention to each other's
feelings.

Family members feel very good about each other and
easily share their feelings.

My family is happy most of the time.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate my family as:
(1) My family functions very well together:

(5) My family does not function well together at
all. We really need help.

In our home, we feel loved.

There is closeness in my family but each person
is allowed to be special and different.

Family members pay attention to each other and
listen to what is said.

Family members easily express warmth and caring
towards each other.

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

The future looks good to our family.

Family togetherness is very important.

We all have a say in family plahs.

Our happiest times are at home.

We can easily think of things to do as a family.

We argue a lot and never solve problems.

LOADING

.82
.81

.78

.76

.75

.75

.74

.74

.74

.70

.70
.69
.68
.68
.67

-.66

36

Table 1 (cont'd)

52.

64.
65.
59.

36.

42.

85.

86.

82.-

43.

60.

62.
89.

74.

68.

Family members consult other family members on
their decisions.

Our family members touch and hug each other.
Family members put each other down.

The grownups in my family understand and agree
on family decisions.

Family members ask each other for help.

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

The mood in my family is usually sad and blue.
We argue a lot.

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

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

Grownups in my family compete and fight with
each other.

We accept each other's friends.

Each person takes responsibility for his/her
behavior.

Family members go their own way most of the time.

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

.65

.65
4.64

.64

.63

.62

-061

-061

.57
-056

.56

.55

‘054
-.53

37

Table 1 (cont'd)

91.

71.

73.

80.

48.

49.

84.

79.

37.

63.

53.

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

1 No one is independent. There are no open
arguments. Family members rely on each other
for satisfaction rather than outsiders.

Sometimes independent. There are some
disagreements. Family members find satisfaction
3 both within and outside of the family.

4 Family members usually go their own way.
Disagreements are open. Family members look
5 outside of the family for satisfaction.

The grownups in my family are strong leaders.

We usually blame one person in our family when
things aren't going right.

When things go wrong we blame each other.

When our family gets together for activities,
everybody is present.

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

We worry about hurting each other's feelings.
One of the adults in our family has a favorite child.

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.

There is confusion in our family because there is no
leader.

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.

.52

-052

.51

-051

.49

-046

-.45

-.45

38

Table 1 (cont'd)

26.

12.

11.

35.

25.

15.

29.

a1.

07.

21.
28.
32.

31.

18.

27.

06.

04.

02.

FACTOR II: Neuroticism

 

I brood, ruminate, or worry.

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

I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily
irritated and/or angered.

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

I am inappropriate in my emotional behavior. My
reactions are excessive, insuffucient, or out of
context.

I become rigidly repetitive or immoblized under stress.
I am sulky and whiny.

I am fearful and anxious.

I become anxious when the environment is
unpredictable or poorly structured.

I withdraw and disengage under stress.
I an inhibited and restricted.
I am restlesss and fidgety.

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

I am easily victimized by others. I am treatd as a
scapegoat.

I attempt to transfer blame to others.

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

I am suspicious and distrustful of others.

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

.66

.64

.63

.60

.56

.54

.54

.54

.53

.49
.48
.48

.46

.45

.45

.44

.43

.42

39

Table 1 (cont'd)

09.
30.
20.

33.

19.

23.
10.
34.

13.

08.

24.

as.

16.

$3.

FACTOR III: Competence

 

I am self-assertive.
I am resourceful in initiating activities.

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

I am vital, energetic, and lively.

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

I am competent. I am skillful.
I am open and straightforward.
I am aggressive (physically and verbally).

I am verbally fluent. I can express ideas
well in language.

I am curious and exploring, eager to learn, open
to new experiences.

I am creative in perception, thought, and play.

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

I am persistent in activities. I do not give up
easily.

I try to be the center of attetion (for example, by
showing off, demonstrating accomplishments,
volunteering, etc.).

.70
.68

.62

.61

.58

.57
.57
.56

.55

.54

.54

.50

.47

.49

40

Table 1 (cont'd)

FACTOR IV: Family Cohesion

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

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

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

.55

.53

.52

41

Table l (cont'd)

FACTOR V: Family Communcation

 

78. It's okay to fight and yell in our family.
81. We say what we think and feel.

66. We speak our mind, no matter what.

.56

.47

.44

42

Table 2

PPFC Males' Data Five-Factor Solution

 

75.
76.
56.

46.

90.

88.

83.

61.

77.

67.
72.
58.

41.

54.
70.

50.

FACTOR I: Family Health

 

Our family is proud of being close.
Our family is good at solving problems together.
Family members pay attention to each other's feelings.

Family members feel very good about each other and
easily share their feelings.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate my family as:
(1) My family functions very we11_together:

(5) My family does not function well together at
all. We really need help.

My family is happy most of the time.

Family members pay attention to each other and
listen to what is said.

There is closeness in my family but each person
is allowed to be special and different.

Family members easily express warmth and caring
towards each other.

In our home, we feel loved.

The future looks good to our family.

We all have a say in family plans.

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

Family togetherness is very important.

Our happiest times are at home.

We can easily think of things to do as a family.

LOADING

.83
.82
.79

.78

-077

.77

.77

-77

.76

.76
.72
.72

.72

.70
.70

.69

43

Table 2 (cont'd)

52.

69.
64.

59.

36.

42.

65.
85.

82.

86.

43.

68.

62.
74.

91.

Family members consult other family members on-
their decisions.

We argue a lot and never solve problems.
Our family members touch and hug each other.

The grownups in my family understand and agree
on family decisions.

Family members ask each other for help.

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

Family members put each other down.
The mood in my family is usually sad and blue.

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

We argue a lot.

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

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

We accept each other's friends.
Family members go their own way most of the time.

On a scale of l to 5, I would rate the independence
in my family as:

1 No one is independent. There are no open
arguments. Family members rely on each other
for satisfaction rather than on outsiders.

2
Sometimes independent. There are some .
disagreements. Family members find satisfaction
3 both within and outside of the family.
4 Family members usually go their own way.

Disagreements are open. Family members look
5 outside of the family for satisfaction.

.69

-067
.66

.65

.64

.64

‘063
-.62

-e61

-.59
.57

-056

.56
-.56

“055

44

Table 2 (cont'd)

60s

48.

73.

89.
80.
84.

49.

'71.

38.

81.

37.

79.

39.

Grownups in my family compete and fight with each other.

When our family gets together for activities,
everybody is present.

We usually blame one person in our family when
things aren't going right.

Each person takes responsibility for his/her behavior.
When things go wrong we blame each other.

We worry about hurting each other's feelings.

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

or problems.

The grownups in my family are strong leaders.

We share with each other what we think of each
other's friends.

We say what we think and feel.

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.

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

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

-.55

.53

.51
-e49
e49

-e49

.47

.47

.47

-e46

-.41

45

Table 2 (cont'd)

26.
12.

11.

35.

15.

25.

01.

29.

07.

32.
21.
28.

18.

96.

27.

31.

04.

02.

FACTOR II: Neuroticism

 

I brood, ruminate, or worry.

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

I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily
irritated and/or angered.

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

I become rigidly repetitive or immmobilized under
stress.

I am inappropriate in my emotional behavior. My
reactions are excessive, insufficient, or out of
context.

I am fearful and anxious.

I am sulky and whiny.

I become_anxious when the environment is
unpredictable or poorly structured.

I am restless and fidgety.
I withdraw and disengage under stress.
I am inhibited and restricted.

I am easily victimized by others. I am treated
as a scapegoat.

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

I attempt to transfer blame to others.

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

I am suspicious and distrustful of others.

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

.67
.63

.62

.61

.57

.54

.53

.53

.53

.51
.50
.48

.48

.47

.45

.45

.43

.42

46

Table 2 (cont'd)

09.
30.

20.

10.
23.

13.

24.

68.

05.

34.
16.

17.

FACTOR III: Competence

 

I am self-assertive.
I am resourceful in initiating activities.

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

I am vital, energetic, and lively.

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

I am open and straightforward.
I am competent. I am skillful.

I am verbally fluent. I can express ideas well
in language.

I am creative in perception, thought, and play.

I am curious and exploring, eager to learn, open
to new experiences.

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

I am aggressive (physically or verbally).

I am persistent in activities. I do not give
easily.

I am shy and reserved. I make social contacts
slowly.

.72
.68

.62

.61

.58

.57
.57

.55

.54

.54

.54

.52

.48

.47

47

Table 2 (cont'd)

FACTOR IV: Family Communication
78. It's okay to fight and yell in our family.

63. There is confusion in our family because there is
no leader.

66. We speak our mind, no matter what.
55. It is hard to tell who does which household chores.

Chores do not often get done because no one is in
charge.

.60

.51

.46

.42

48

Table 2 (cont'd)

FACTOR V: Family Cohesion

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

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

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

.60

.52

.51

49

Table 3

PPFC Females' Data Five-Factor Solution

76.

75.

56.

67.

77.

83.

61.

90.

46.

88.
89.
54.
64.

41.

72.

FACTOR I: Family Health

Our family is good at solving problems
together.

Our family is proud of being close.

Family members pay attention to each other's
feelings.

In our home, we feel loved.

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

Family members pay attention to each other and
listen to what is said.

There is closeness in my family but each person
is allowed to be special and different.

On a scale of 1 to 5, I would rate my family as:
(1) My family functions very well together:

(5) My family does not function well together at
all. We really need help.

Family members feel very good about each other
and easily share their feelings.

My family is happy most of the time.

Each person takes responsibility for his/her behavior.
Family togetherness is very important.

Our family members touch and hug each other.

When there are problems and stresses in our lives

our family has been able to resolve and overcome

them very well.

The future looks good to our family-

LOADING

.80

.80

.77

.73

.73

.69

.69

-.69

.69

.67
.65

.65

.62

50

Table 3 (cont'd)

65.
71.
86.

82.

63.

59.

85.
69.
62.
36.
58.

60.

70.

49.

50.

42.

52.

48.

43.

Family members put each other down.
The grownups in my family are strong leaders.
We argue alot.

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

There is confusion in our family because there
is no leader.

The grownups in my family understand and agree
on family decisions.

The mood in my family is usually sad and blue.
We argue a lot and never solve problems.

We accept each other's friends.

Family members ask each other for help.

We all have a say in family plans.

Grownups in my family compete and fight with each

_other.

Our happiest times are at home.

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

We can easily think of things to do as
a family.

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

Family members consult other family members
on their decisions.

When our family gets together for activities,
everybody is present.

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

-e61
.61
-e61

"e6l

.60

.59
.59

.58

.56

.55

.54

.54

.53

.52

51

Table 3 (cont'd)

80.
84.
38.

81.

73.

68.

79.

37.

39.

74.

When things go wrong we blame each other.
We worry about hurting each other's feelings.

We share with each other what we think of each
other's friends.

We say what we think and feel.

We usually blame one person in our family when
things aren't going right.

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

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

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.

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

Family members go their own way most of the time.

.49

.47

.47

-046

-.42

-e41

-.40

52

Table 3 (contfd)

09.
33.
30.

20.

34.

13.

23.
24.
10.
66.

38.

03.

16.

81.

17.

FACTOR II: Competence

 

I am self-assertive.
I am vital, energetic, and lively.
I am resourceful in initiating activities.

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

I am aggressive (physically or verbally).

I am verbally fluent. I can express ideas well
in language.

I am competent. I am skillful.

I am creative in perception, thought, or play.
I am open and straightforward.

We speak our mind, no matter what.

We share with each other what we think of each
other's friends.

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

I am persistent in activities. I do not give up
easily.

We say what we think and feel.

I am shy and reserved. I make social contacts
slowly.

.68

.67

.64

.60

.60

.59

.58

.55

.54

.47

.45

.44

.43

.42

.42

53

Table 3 (Cont'd)

12.

11.

25.

26.
01.
04.
29.
07.

31.

27.
28.
35.

32.
21.

15.

FACTOR III: Neuroticism

 

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

I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily
irritated and/or angered.

I am inappropriate in my emotional behavior. My
reactions are excessive, insufficient, or out of
context.

I brood, ruminate, or worry.

I am fearful and anxious.

I am suspicious and distrustful of others.

I am sulky and whiny.

I become anxious when the environment is
unpredictable or poorly structured.

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

I attempt to transfer blame to others.
I am inhibited and restricted.

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

I am restless and fidgety.
I withdraw and disengage under stress.

I become rigidly repetitive or immobilized under
stress.

.63

.63

.61

.58
.57
.54
.53

.51

.51

.50
.50

.49

.43
.42

.42

54

Table 3 (cont'd)

FACTOR IV: Family Roles

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

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

.62

.59

55

Table 3 (cont'd)

57.

40.

44.

91.

48.

FACTOR V: Family Cohesion

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

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

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

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

1

4

5

When our family gets together for activities,

No one is independent. There are no open
arguments. Family members rely on each other
for satisfaction rather than on outsiders.

Sometimes independent. There are some
disagreements. Family members find satisfaction
both within and outside of the family.

Family members usually go their own way.
Disagreements are open. Family members look
outside of the family for satisfaction.

is present.

everybody

.64

.53

.50

.45

.44

56

Table 4

Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients

for PPFC Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

£21 a s m tees
Family Health (PH) ----- -.36** .27** .28** .23“r
Neuroticism (N) ----- -.36** .04 -.09*
Competence (C) ----- -.03 .30*
Family Cohesion (FCoh) ----- .03
Family Communication (FCom) -----

 

 

* E < .05
** p < .001

Table 5

PPFC Cluster Typologies

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACTORS

2 ll 1.1 H 2
Competent-Secure (N-139) .89 -.60 .74 1.00 .46
Independent (N8198) .36 -.42 .63 -.64 .76
Disengaged-Avoidant (N-89) -1.57 .69 -.56 —.96 -.94
Volatile-Chaotic (N-31)_ -1.81 1.42 -.08 -.52 1.32
Neutral (N8232) .05 -.30 .35 .01 -.66
Enmeshed (N-l09) -.16 1.33 -.85 .82 -.18
Note: Factor I: Family Health

Factor II: Neuroticism
Factor III: Competence
Factor IV: Family Cohesion

Factor V: Family Communication

Table 6

PPFC Interpersonal Style by DMI

58

Defensive Maturity

 

Mature Defenses

 

DMI

Primitive Defenses

 

PPFC

More Healthy

21

Less Healthy

 

21

 

B < .005 (Fisher's Exact Test)

APPENDIX A

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

 

59

APPENDIX A

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

 

A Family Systems Model: Historical Influences

The historical underpinnings regarding the scientific
study of family relationships and family systems theory are
complex (Nichols & Everett, 1986). Its roots are planted
firmly in four separate movements that emerged in the United
States between 1870 and 1970. These independent movements
included the development of social work as a profession: the
growth of the family education movement: the birth of social
psychiatry and the influential writings of Sigmund Freud,
Alfred Adler, Carl Jung, Otto Rank, Erich Fromm, and Harry
Stack Sullivan: and the development of sexology as an area of
empirical endeavor (Broderick & Schrader, 1981)

It is an arduous task to review the developmental course
of family systems theory and its pioneering figures. In
fact, such a review is difficult since only "a few basic and

enduring principles underlie an apparently chaotic

60

development that incorporates conflicting and contradictory
points of view" (Nichols, 1984, p. 3).

In light of these recognized obstacles, the decade of
the 1950s is widely accepted by family scholars as the period
during which contemporary family systems theory was born in
the United States (Broderick & Schrader, 1981). Its
emergence was slow, and the empirical foundations upon which
ideas, hypotheses, and theories rested were loosely based.
As Nichols and Everett (1986) noted:

The development of family therapy did not

go forward smoothly or easily. Rather,

as with the emergence of any major historical
phenomenon, it moved in spurts and lags,
unevenly, and without coordination or even
awareness of the existence of other parts.
Portions of it evolved within the medical
world and other parts grew up outside of that
framework. Frequently the two worlds, medical
and nonmedical, separately went about working
on the same issues and finding the same

solutions without either being aware of what
was occurring outside of their own sphere (p. 4).

Two factors impeded steady progress of family systems theory
prior to 1950. These factors included the pOpularity of
Freudian-psychoanalytic psychotherapy and Rogerian client-
centered therapy in treating persons experiencing
psychological difficulties. Both of these approaches
discouraged interaction between patients or clients and their

families, because of a belief that unhealthy interactions

61

with significant others, primarily family members, was
responsible for psychological dysfunction. Moreover, such
familial contact was perceived to undermine the important,
private relationship between the therapist and the client
(Nichols, 1984).

Empirical research upon small group behavior and
dynamics during the 1930s, 1940s, and early 1950s played an
important role in changing the treatment perspectives of
clinical investigators. Such theorists had begun slowly to
view the family as integral components in the emergence,
maintenance, and treatment of an individual's psychological
difficulties. Most notably, Lewin's work (1951) on field
theory influenced early family systems theorists. Field
theory focused upon the organic interactions between
individuals and their environments and stressed the
Gestaltian concept regarding the interdependence of part-
whole relationships. In accordance with Lewin's theory, a
group was conceptualized as a psychologically coherent whole
rather than a mere array of separate individuals.
Furthermore, the group itself was understood as greater than
and qualitatively different from the sum of its parts.

The re-defined perspectives of members of the child
guidance movement also were instrumental in changing the
treatment perspectives of clinical investigators during the

1950s. This movement, begun in the United States during the

62

1920s, was originally guided by the premise that psycho-
logical disorders were rooted in childhood and were the
result of deleterious parental and family factors, including
negative and destructive maternal relationships. As Nichols
(1984) noted, by the late 1940s and early 1950s, many
therapists and child guidance workers adhered less ardently
to these types of theoretical formulations. In his words:

No longer was psychopathology located within

individuals: no longer were the parents

villains and the patients victims. Now the

nature of the interaction was seen to be

the problem, and this resulted in a more

optimistic prognosis and changed the very

nature of treatment. The goal shifted from

weaning patients from their families to

clarifying the relationships between parents

and patients in hopes of improving them

Nichols, 1984, p. 20).
This transformation within family systems theory was
pivotal. By their maintaining that positive change could
occur within troubled individuals and children as a result of
family—based treatments, family therapy researchers
demonstrated the mutual influence a family and its members
exerted on each other. The nature of a family's influence on
the behavior of and the sense of competence among its members
is interesting to ponder. It would seem that the evolution

of this influence as well as the nature of family

relationships in general is related to basic attachment

63

relationships between children and other members of their

family such as parents and siblings.

Attachment Theory

 

In his pioneering work on human attachment, John Bowlby
(1958, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980) utilized ethological principles
to understand more clearly the nature of attachment
behaviors. The major premise of ethological theory is that
'all animals, including man, possess a repertoire of species—
specific 'signals' or behavioral predispositions that promote
certain social behaviors" (Shaffer, 1979, p. 148). These
unique behaviors are "evoked by specific and expectable
internal and environmental conditions" (Crittenden &
Ainsworth, 1989, p. 435). These social behaviors, based upon
Darwinian principles of natural selection, are considered
highly adaptive, since their presence helps to ensure the
species' survival and gene-reproduction.

The attachment system is a species-specific behavior
which is vital for human survival. For infants, survival is
most closely linked to obtaining and maintaining proximity
with an attachment figure. According to Bowlby (1969/1982,
1973), this proximity is best achieved through innate,
biologically programmed, response systems that propel both

maternal caregiver and infant into a reciprocal attachment

64

relationship. Crittenden and Ainsworth (1989) discussed the
manner in which these response systems unfold. In their
view:

Infant signals such as crying tend universally

to attract mothers into closer proximity.

Such infant behaviors tend to be elicited by

alarming situations, such as those involving

loud noises, looming objects, strange persons

or objects, and being left alone, as well as

by internal discomfort or pain. Once bodily

contact is attained, aversive signals such

as crying tend to be terminated and other

behaviors, such as smiling, clinging, and

vocalizing, function to maintain contact with

and/or proximity to the mother (p. 435).
Beyond age six months an infant's primary attachments to its
caregivers are strengthened through greater locomotion and
capacity to grasp objects. These behavioral actions serve to
fortify proximity-maintaining behaviors (Bretherton & Waters,
1985). As the infant nears its first birthday, these
behaviors become more efficacious and goal-oriented
(Ainsworth, 1989). For Bowlby (1973), these adaptive and
more mature behaviors signify an attachment behavioral system
which he conceptualized as existing within each child's
developing psyche. However, the presence of an attachment
behavioral system is not an empirical fact. According to

Stevenson-Hinde (1990), Bowlby's assertion regarding the

presence of an attachment behavioral system in humans is

65

based solely upon inference rather than empirical evidence
garnered through behavioral observations.

Despite the lack of empirical documentation, attachment
researchers (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989: Bretherton, 1991)
have acknowledged the utility of Bowlby's notion of
attachment behavioral system in humans. The primary function
of this system is to provide the infant with a heightened
sense of security in the world (Bretherton, 1991, 1980).
Thus, as Bretherton (1985) observed, attachment behaviors are
activated "when the attached person is frightened, fatigued,
or sick and [are] assuaged when the attachment figure
provides protection, help, and soothing" (p. 6). The
infant's attachment relationship to its caregiver is
strengthened and reinforced through repeated, positive
interactions. In time, the child develops an understanding
that the caregiver is caring and dependable, capable of
alleviating the child's fear and discomfort by providing
love, safety, and nurturance (Bowlby, 1969/1982, p. 668).

Attachment behaviors also influence an individual's
internal, physiological state (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973).

When an infant (or any person) is confronted with a
relatively familiar and safe environment, the level of
internal stress experienced is minimal. The degree to which
an infant feels unsafe and unprotected influences the child's

behavior and experience, especially with regard to how

66

confident he or she will feel in exploring the environment
and in interacting with others (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989:
Bretherton, 1985). If the infant's attachment system
necessitates that he or she remain physically close to its
primary caregiver, then the child's amount of exploration or
interpersonal contact with others in the environment will be
diminished. Conversely, if the child's attachment
relationship with the primary caregiver has allowed the child
to feel safe and protected, the child may utilize the
confidence gained from this relationship as a "secure base
from which he [or she] can become acquainted with his [or
her] world and the other people in it" (Crittenden &
Ainsworth, 1989, p. 437).

Although Bowlby addressed the nature of attachment
relationships during infancy between child and maternal
caregiver, it is generally accepted that attachment behaviors
and relationships exist throughout the life cycle (see
Ainsworth, 1989). As Crittenden and Ainsworth (1989)
observed:

Throughout life, attachment behavior is
most intensely activated under stressful
conditions that evoke alarm or anxiety.
Yet the development of knowledge about
the world, competence, and self-reliance
are fostered by feeling secure about the
availability of attachment figures when

needed. Thus, the nature of the conditions
that elicit attachment behavior is modified

67

by each person's own experience, particularly

the nature or quality of his or her past and

present relationships with attachment figures

(p. 436-437).
Furthermore, Erickson, Sroufe, and Egeland (1985) have noted
that "the patterning of the early attachment relationships is
the foundation on which later representational models of self
and attachment figure are constructed" (p.147). In their
opinion, the quality of attachment relationships formed
during infancy, childhood, and adolescence influence how the
individual “relates to others, approaches the environment,
and resolves critical issues in later stages of development"
(p.147).

Bowlby (1969) coined the phrase internal working models

 

to account for mental schemata which persons devise in order
to interpret events in their environment and to plan for the
future. The positive or negative manner in which one's
internal working models have been developed influences how
the person understands and behaves in both interpersonal and
attachment relationships. According to Bowlby (1980), the
individual who has formed a secure attachment "is likely to
possess a representational model of attachment figure(s) as
being available, responsive, and helpful and a complementary
model of himself as at least a potentially lovable and

valuable person" (p. 242).

68

Family Systems Theory

 

According to Steinglass (1987), early family systems
theorists (i.e., John Bell, Nathan Ackerman, Theodore Lidz,
Lyman wynne, Murray Bowen, Carl Whitaker, Gregory Bateson,
Jay Haley, John Weakland, Donald Jackson, Virginia Satir) are
indebted to the general systems theory of von Bertalanffy
(1968, cited in Steinglass, 1987). von Bertalanffy developed
his theory during the late 1920s in response to his growing
dissatisfaction with the application of reductionistic-
mechanistic explanations of causality to scientific
problems. Although these explanations viewed pathology in a
linear, cause-and-effect manner, von Bertalanffy's general
systems theory held that phenomena were best explained by
directly focusing upon the processes and mechanisms that
account for its higher forms of organizational complexity
(Steinglass, 1987)..

Constanine (1986) noted that although family systems
theory was influenced by von Bertalanffy's general systems
ideas, "the amount of genuine general systems theory" (p. 45)
that is incorporated into family systems theory and research
is minimal. Although some of the terminology of general
systems theory including homeostasis, feedback, and open
systems has been integrated into family systems theory, the
connotations of such terms have gained idiosyncratic meaning

within family systems theory itself.

69

In an important article which incorporates and builds
upon various ideas that have influenced thinking in the field
of family systems research, Patricia Minuchin (1985) outlined
six basic principles of family systems theory. According to

Minuchin (1985), these principles are as follows:

1) "Any system is an organized whole, and elements within

 

the system are necessarily interdependent" (p. 289). This

 

principle maintains that an individual's behavior is not
under personal control: instead, it is influenced directly by
actions and reactions of other family members. In Minuchin's
(1985) words, "If the individual is part of an organized
Afamily system, he or she is never truly independent and can

only be understood in context" (p. 290).

2) "Patterns in a system are circular rather than linear"

 

(p. 290). In contrast to linear, reductionistic-mechanistic
assumptions that A causes B, Minuchin (1985) argued that
family systems theory views causality as involving a series
of feedback loOpS in which A1 leads to El: A2 leads to BZ: A3
leads to B3, and so on. "The irreducible unit is the cycle
of interaction. Change must be directed toward the cycle,
although the point of entry and the manner of interrupting

the pattern are matters of choice" (Minuchin, 1985, p. 290).

70

3) "Systems have homeostatic features that maintain the

 

stability of their patterns" (p. 290). That is, according to

 

Minuchin (1985), interactions between family members are
relatively consistent over time since "corrective feedback
loops" (p. 290) are activated whenever behaviors or actions
of family members are intensified beyond their typical range

and need to be returned to a "familiar equilibrium" (p. 290).

4) "Evolution and change are inherent in open systems" (p.

 

290). Growth and changes are experienced by most individuals
and families as not only challenging, but also as stressful
and anxiety-arousing events. Such occurrences alter the
usual patterns and interactions in families. As a result,
the family system loses its sense of equilibrium, and
undergoes a period during which it must be regained. "In
family terms, the process is one of challenge to existing
patterns, the exploration of alternatives, and the emergence
of new patterns that are more appropriate to changed
circumstances and that are frequently more complex and

differentiated" (Minuchin, 1985, p. 290).

5) "Complex systems are composed of subsystems" (p. 291).

 

Within this formulation, a family is comprised of several
subsystems or units. Although each individual within a

family constitutes a separate subsystem, family system

71

theorists tend to focus on the larger system groups such as

husband-wife, parent-child(ren), and sibling-sibling units.

6) "The subsystems within a larger system are separated by
boundaries, and interactions across boundaries are governed
by implicit rules and patterns" (p. 291). According to
Minuchin (1985), each subsystem is separated from the others
by boundaries. "The interaction of people within and between
subsystems is regulated by patterns that are recurrent and
stable, and that are maintained as well as created by all
participants. In all families, the boundaries and rules of
interaction must change over time as a function of

development or external factors“ (Minuchin, 1985, p. 291).

Within family systems theory, the construct of
boundaries that are purported to exist within family
subsystems and between family members (e.g., husband-wife:
father-mother: parent-child) is crucial in understanding more
clearly the behavior of each individual and the functioning
of the family as a whole. Salvador Minuchin (1974) noted
that "boundaries of a subsystem are the rules defining who
participates and how“ (p. 53). In a family, boundaries
facilitate effective family functioning by maintaining
differentiation between various subsystems within the family

system. According to Minuchin (1974), "Every family

72

subsystem has specific functions and makes specific demands
on its members: and the development of interpersonal skills
achieved in these subsystems is predicated on the subsystem's
freedom from interference by other subsystems" (pp. 53-54).
Thus, in order for normal family functioning to be
maintained, subsystem boundaries must be clear and well-
defined, allowing family members to interact with each other
in a healthy and adaptive manner.

Minuchin's contribution to the understanding of
maladaptive boundaries in family systems is well-documented
(Karpel & Strauss, 1983). In his structural model of family
functioning, Minuchin (1974: Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978)
maintained that family boundary conditions can be placed on a
continuum with extreme poles labeled "enmeshed” and
"disengaged" and a miderange area identified as "normal." In
enmeshed families, boundaries between various subsystems are
poorly defined, and the differentiation and separation of the
family's subsystems is negligible. The danger associated
with an enmeshed family system is that family members can
become easily overloaded and immobilized, unable to utilize
necessary resources to respond effectively and adaptively
during stressful periods. Conversely, in disengaged
families, boundaries are markedly separate and overly rigid,
and communication within and between family subsystems is

poor and ineffective. The danger associated with disengaged

73

family styles is that members may lose touch emotionally with
each other. As a result, during family or personal crises,
the protective and supportive capacities of the family are
rarely mobilized and individuals may remain isolated and
disconnected from each other.

Enmeshment and disengagement refer to a family's
preferential style of interaction. The continuum upon which
these terms are placed does not represent a distinction
between healthy or unhealthy family functioning (Minuchin,
1974). It is assumed that various subsystems within a family
operate at different points along the enmeshed--normal--
disengaged continuum. However, it is a predominant family
-interaction style that operates primarily at either one of
the extremes which is considered maladaptive (Minuchin, 1974,
1984).

Placement at either end of Minuchin's (1974) continuum
is considered dysfunctional in that both positions will
likely impede a family's ability to tolerate conflict and
adversity. Moreover, family members are likely to develop
over time maladaptive interaction patterns which further
weaken the unit's capacity to deal effectively with stress.
According to Minuchin (1974), enmeshed subsystems or families
are undesirable since “the lack of subsystem differentiation
discourages autonomous exploration and mastery of problems"

(p.55). In contrast, although disengaged subsystems or

74

families may be characterized by styles of autonomous
functioning which appear adaptive at first blush, individuals
within such systems on closer analysis hold a "skewed sense
of independence and lack feelings of loyalty and belonging
and the capacity for interdependence and for requesting

support when needed" (Minuchin, 1974, p.55).

Assessment of Family Styles: Olson's Circumplex Model

and Beavers' Systems Model

 

Although several models of family functioning have been
outlined by family theorists (Olson, Sprenkle, Russell, 1979:
Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1980: Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson,
1988: Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983: Moos & Moos, 1976,
1981), David Olson's Circumplex Model and W. Robert Beavers'
Systems Model have received a significant amount of inquiry
(Anderson & Gavazzi, 1990: Edman, Cole, Howard, 1990: Lee,
1988: Green Kolvzon, & Vosler, 1985). Whereas Olson and his
colleagues (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979: Olson, Russell,
& Sprenkle, 1980: Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982: Olson,
Portner, Lavee, 1985: Olson, 1986) developed the Circumplex
Model in the late 1970's and refined it throughout the
1980's, Beavers and his associates (Beavers & Voeller, 1983:
Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988) designed their model during
the early 1980's as a result of shortcomings they perceived

in Olson's Circumplex Model.

75

The Circumplex Model accounts for family functioning on
the basis of two major dimensions: family cohesion and
family adaptability. According to Olson and his colleagues
(Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1980), family cohesion refers to
"the emotional bonding that family members have toward one
another and the degree of individual autonomy they
experience" (PP. 130-131). Specific concepts or variables
that can be used to denote and measure aspects of family
cohesion include emotional bonding, independence, boundaries,
coalitions, time, space, friends, decision-making, and
interests and recreation. According to the Circumplex Model,
there are four levels of cohesion: extremely low
(disengagement), moderately low (separated), moderately high
(connected), and extremely high (enmeshment).

In the Circumplex Model, it is assumed that balanced and
moderate levels of low and high family cohesion are the best
for effective and adaptive family functioning, since
consistent functioning at either extreme is viewed as
maladaptive. According to Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle
(1980), extremely high cohesion in enmeshed systems leads to
"overidentification so that loyalty to and consensus within
the family prevent individuation of family members" (p.

131). At the other extreme, disengaged families encourage
high levels of independent and autonomous behavior of family

members ”with limited attachment or commitment to their

76

family. It is the central area (separated and connected) of
the model where individuals are able to experience and
balance being independent from and connected to their family"
(Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1980, p. 131).

The second dimension of family functioning, family
adaptability, refers to "the ability of a marital or family
system to change its power structure, role relationships, and
relationship rules in response to situational and
developmental stress" (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1980 p.
131). Specific concepts and terms used to denote this aspect
of family functioning include family power: negotiation
styles: role relationships: relationship rules: and
feedback. The four levels of family adaptability range from
rigid (extremely low) to structured (moderately low) to
flexible (moderate to high) to chaotic (extremely high).

Like the levels of family cohesion that are considered
most optimal, moderate levels of adaptability are consistent
with positive, healthy family functioning, while extreme
degrees of functioning (rigid or chaotic) are viewed as
problematic and negative.

A major advantage of the Circumplex Model is that it is
capable of identifying different types of family styles along

the dimensions of family cohesion and adaptability, resulting

77

in sixteen family-style typologies (Olson, 1986). According

to Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1980):
[T]he Circumplex Model attempts to provide
a parsimonious framework for reducing the
enormous complexity of marital and family
systems. It attempts to describe two
dimensions of marital and family systems
that have emerged from a conceptual
clustering of a wide range of theoretical
concepts and empirical studies of marital
and family systems (p. 135).,

In contrast to Olson's Circumplex Model, Beavers'
Systems Model of Family Functioning (Beavers, Hulgus, &
Hampson, 1988: Beavers & Voellers, 1983) differs in its
interpretation of family adaptability. Whereas Olson and his
colleagues (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979: Olson, Russell,
& Sprenkle, 1980: Olson, 1986) viewed both cohesion and
adaptability as curvilinearly related constructs, Beavers and
his associates (Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988) viewed
adaptability as noncurvilinear. As such, adaptability is
conceptualized as existing on a "negentropic continuum of
increasing competence" (Beavers & Voellers, 1983, p. 88), and
thus directly and linearly related to healthy and adaptive
family functioning. According to Lee (1988), the Beavers

Systems Model defines and identifies competent and healthy

families as ones which score high on the negentropic

78

continuum and "show a marked degree of differentiated

structure, yet with a high level of flexibility" (p. 74).

The Relationship Between Attachment Theory and

Family Systems Theory

 

Some investigators (Pianta, Egeland, & Erickson, 1989:
Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985: Crittenden & Ainsworth,
1989) have identified relationships between the quality of
parent-child attachment relationships and characteristics of
.family life. For example, Marvin and Stewart (in press,
cited in Stevenson-Hinde, 1990) have identified parallels
between patterns of attachment relationships and styles of
family interactions. In their work, 'Marvin and Stewart (in
press) have incorporated Minuchin's (1974) three styles of
family functioning (enmeshed, normal, and disengaged) with
the three types of infant-attachment relationships (securely,
ambivalently, and avoidantly attached) identified by Mary
Ainsworth and her colleagues (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978: Ainsworth, 1989).

In her extension of this work, Stevenson-Hinde (1990)
observed that the quality of such patterns are dependent on
the "parent's 'sensitive responsiveness' to the child and
ease of emotional expression within the dyad" (pp. 221-222).
Thus, a caregiver's empathic and sensitive responsiveness to

an infant's and a young child's signals of distress are

79

related to secure attachment, rejection with avoidant
attachment, and inconsistency with ambivalent attachment
(Stevenson-Hinde, 1990: Egeland & Farber, 1984: Grossman,
Grossman, Spangler, Suess, & Unzner, 1985: Main & Cassidy,

1988).

Personality Functioning: Ego-Resiliency and The Role of

Defense Mechanisms

 

Ego-Resiliency. In recognition of the relationship

 

between attachment theory and family systems theory, a third
component also can be posited as influencing an individual's
adaptation to his or her social environment. This third
component involves the construct of ego-resiliency (Block &
Block, 1980a, 1980b: Gjerde, Block & Block, 1986).

Like some family systems theorists (Minuchin, 1974,
1984: Minuchin, Rosman, & Baker, 1978: Olson, 1986), ego-
resiliency researchers (Block & Block, 1980a, 1980b: Gjerde,
Block, & Block, 1986) have focused on boundaries as a key
construct (Stollak, Aronoff, Loraas, Woike, Messe', & Meyers.
1991). Whereas family systems researchers have been
interested in how boundaries influence and operate in
families, ego-resiliency investigators have been interested
in how boundary characteristics within individual
personalities function to fortify or to weaken a person's

adaptive capacities when under stress.

80

A boundary's degree of permeability (openness) or
impermeability (rigidity) is a defining characteristic,
holding true for any type of boundary in any psychological
system. Stollak, Crandell, and Pirsch (1990) provided an
illustrative description of this property when they noted the

following:

[Boundary permeability-impermeability]
refers to the capacity of that boundary

to contain or control needs and tensions
within a system. Speaking most generally,
boundaries could be relatively permeable,
such that tensions would spill into other
systems and mutually influence each other
(e.g., id and ego, or, the cell wall of an
ovum which, absolutely necessary for
reproduction, eventually becomes permeable
after repeated "attacks" by a multitude of
sperm, or, equally important for life, the
cell wall of a leaf becoming permeable to
light so that photosynthesis can take place),
or they could be relatively impermeable,
limiting the "spillage," isolating or
compartmentalizing subsystems with a
resulting lack of communication across
systems (e.g., a rigid, uncompromising
superego, or claims by the executive
branch of government of "executive
privilege" or "threats to national
security" to prevent disclosure of
information to the legislative or judicial
branches of government) (p. 10).

The Blocks (Block & Block, 1980a, 1980b) have studied
the nature of boundary conditions within the individual, and
have labeled this property of personality functioning as ego

control. Ego control represents the abilities of individuals

81

to reveal or conceal elements or aspects of psychological
functioning, and is viewed as existing on.a continuum. At
one end, overcontrol of inner psychological experiences is
present. According to Block and Block (1980b), overcontrol
is characterized by "excessive boundary impermeability
resulting in the containment of impulse, delay of
gratification, inhibition of action and affect, and
insulation from environmental distractors" (p. 43). At the
opposite end of the continuum, undercontrol is present, and
is characterized by “excessive boundary permeability and its
consequences, insufficient modulation of impulse, the
inability to delay gratification, immediate and direct
expression of motivations and affects, and vulnerability to
environmental distractors" (Block & Block, 1980b, p. 43)

Another important characteristic of a boundary is its
degree of elasticity or resiliency. According to Block and
Block (1980b), "Elasticity refers to (a boundary's) capacity
to change its characteristic level of permeability-
impermeability depending upon impinging. . . forces and to
return to its original modal level of permeability after the
temporary, accommodation-requiring influence is no longer
pressing" (pp. 47-48).

With regard to the individual, resiliency also reflects
a person's "dynamic capacity . . . to modify his/her modal

level of ego—control, in either direction, as a function of

82

the demand characteristics of the environmental context"
(Block & Block, 1980b, p. 48). In this sense, a boundary's
elasticity, or ego resiliency, can be conceptualized as an
individual's capacity to maintain adaptive functioning in
response to prolonged periods of stress or environmental
disruption (Block & Block, 1980b). Thus, at one end of this
continuum, ego resilient individuals demonstrate independence
and competence. Such individuals are capable of shifting
their energy and attention to various activities and
situations in their environment, and are further able to
adopt different roles and rules based on personal or
environmental stressors. Conversely, at the other end of
this continuum, the individual who demonstrates a low degree
of ego resiliency may exhibit rigidity in behavioral actions
and appear overly concerned with rules and regulations.
Furthermore, as Stollak, Crandell, and Pirsch (1990) noted,
the individual with a low degree of ego resiliency “often
overreacts to minor frustrations, is often immobilized by
stress, plays few roles in life, and is either excessively
controlling or excessively submissive in stressful

situations" (pp. 11-12).

Defense Mechanisms. In his conceptualization of

 

psychoanalytic theory, Sigmund Freud (1894, 1915) maintained

that defense mechanisms served a highly important function.

83

Although in his early theorizing (1894, 1915) he held that
defense mechanisms could be subsumed under the notion of
repression, Freud (1926/1959) altered his thinking during his
later years, noting that defense mechanisms represent "all
the techniques which the ego makes use of in conflicts which
may lead to neurosis" (p. 167). This definition of defense
mechanisms is vague and circumscribed. In contrast, Ihlevich
and Gleser (1986) provided a clearer and more concise
definition Of defense mechanisms. In their words:

Psychological defense mechanisms are

relatively stable response dispositions

that serve to falsify reality whenever a

person's resources, skills or motivations

are insufficient to resolve inner

conflicts or master external threats

to well-being (p. 5).
This description emphasizes the valuable protective functions
through which defense mechanisms benefit individuals.
Although Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud, and other psychoanalytic
theorists have reported on the different types of defense
mechanisms (Engler, 1985: Liebert & Sprieger, 1984),
psychoanalytic researchers have experienced difficulty in

accumulating empirical evidence for them (Ihlevich & Gleser,

1986). Nonetheless, the construct of defense mechanisms and

84

its relation to normal development has remained an important
aspect of psychoanalytic thinking.

In fact, Anna Freud (1946/1958: 1965) held that defense
mechanisms can serve to ward off feelings of anxiety and
decrease an individual's sense of threat from the
environment. In the developing child the formation of
defense mechanisms is viewed as crucial in the maturing and
strengthening of the youngster's ego capacities (Freud,
1965), and can aid in the emergence of more effective
"conflict-free ego functions" (Ihlevich & Gleser, 1986, p. 3)

such as learning and thinking.

APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

 

85

APPENDIX B

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

 

Student #

 

1. I have freely consented to take part in a scientific
project being conducted by Dr. Gary Stollak, Professor of
Psychology.

2. I understand that my participation in this project will
require that I read items included in several questionnaires
and respond to each item. I will read each item of each
questionnaire and then fill in the number on the answer sheet
that best reflects my perception, my feelings, and my
thoughts regarding that item. I understand that it will take
approximately 90 minutes to complete the questionnaires. I
understand that I will receive course credit for the
completion of the questionnaires. I also understand that
based on scores on the questionnaires, selected students will
be chosen to particpate in future activities of the project.
I understand that students selected for future activities
will be paid $5 for each hour of their help and participation
in future activities.

3. I understand that my participation is voluntary. I may
choose not to participate at all, refuse to participate in
certain procedures, or answer certain questions, or
discontinue my participation at any time without penalty.

4. I understand that the results of this project will be
treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous
in any report of its findings. Within these restrictions,
results of the project will be made available to me at my
request.

5. I understand that, at my request, I can discuss any
questions I might have about the project with Dr. Gary
Stollak. His office is 129 Snyder Hall, and his phone number
is 353-8877.

Signed: Date:

 

 

86

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

Student #

 

I would like to be considered for participation in
future research activities of this project. I understand
that I will be paid $5 for each hour of my participation
in any future research activity.

Name (Please print)

 

Address (Please print)

 

Telephone Number

 

APPENDIX C

ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

 

87

APPENDIX C

ORIENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

 

Thank you for volunteering to help us in this project.
We are interested, first, in studying relationships between
people's perceptions of personal characteristics and their
perceptions of family characteristics. We are also
interested in studying relationships between these
characteristics and behavior with others, including children
and peers. The first step in this research involves
undergraduates, like yourselves, completing several different
questionnaires that we anticipate will take less than 90
minutes to complete. The questionnaires will ask you to
share with us: (1) what you might think and feel and how you
might act in a variety of situations, (2) your perceptions of
your personal characteristics, (3) your perceptions of your
family life and interaction, and (4) a demographic
questionnaire. In a few moments we will go through the
instructions for each questionnaire and how to complete the
consent forms and answer sheets. If at any time you have
questions about any of the questionnaires or about any item
on any of them, please come up to me and I will do my best to
answer your question.

After we score each person's answers on the
questionnaires, we will then select, from all of those who
have completed the questionnaires, a small group of persons
who we need to help us in 5-10 more research activities
during the current and future terms.

Again we thank you for your help now, and we hope that
you would be willing to help us again in the future.

APPENDIX D

SCANTRON SHEETS

 

88

IIJIIIIJJIIJ

e® ...O ..O ...O ...O ...O ...O ...O ...O ..O ...O ..O ...O ..O
o® o® o® o® oO o0 o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o®
c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c© c®
u®sa®ru®:®.u®:®.a®su@.a®ua®so®ru®ra®§®r
.Oramv.IOTAQAOIOIOIQAGIOIOIOIOIQ

uuflufluuflflnnuflfl

...® IQ e® 2® ...® ...® ...® ...® :® :® ...® 2© :9 :©
o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® 09 03 o® 09 09 o®
c® c@ c@ c® c@ c@ c@ c© c@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c®
I®rl®rl®ri®rI®Fs®rl®ll®rl®ll®ro®rl®rl®ll®l
AQTAAVAQAQAQAQAQ-AQAQAQAQTAQAQAQ

u a ...u. n n u u fl «.1. a n H n 0

...® ...G :® ...® e© u® ...G ...® :® 2® ...® ...© ...© :9
o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® 09 09 09 o® o® o®
c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c® c®
.®..®:®..®..®..®..®..®;®..®:@..®:®..®.
AWAWV.AwswswswswsmsmsanAWAquWAw.

...® 2® 2® ...® emu emu ...G s® 1@ ¢© ...® ..® 1® :®
o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o9 o® 03 o@
c@ c® c® c@ c@ c® c® c® c® c@ c@ c® c® c®
s®rs®rI®rs®rl®rl®rl®rs®rl®ll®ll®rs®rs®ll®r
AQAQ.Awswswswswswswsstswswsw

‘ 1 ‘ ‘

 

IIILLLIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mammmmwmmwmm_

M .XCm m3: 2_I.—_>>

w @oeoooeoeofi . ..w

Mfl®®®®®®©®®® 5.351405 ”PEI; ”#3....

”leoeoooeeeem

wleoeeoeooeoml

sxeoeeeeeeooelo

.n someoo@®0ooo

m leeeeeeeeooeoeeeeeeeoeeeeeo

M Leeo@eeeeooeoeeeoeeeeeeeeee

Wm oeeeooeeooeoeeooeeoooeeooo

mufleeeoeoeeooeoeeeoeeeoeeeeee

aTIooeeeeeeooooeeeoeeeoeeeeee

mmloeeeeoeooeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeog

mmIoeeeeeeeooooeeeo@eooeeeeoo

Tmlooeeeoeeooeoeeeoeeeoeeeeee

m [see@oeeoooeoeoooeooooeeooo
oeeoommoooeoeeeowwoeeeeeeQ

 

 

mam N

O .33

232.33 3.. 2.2.95

.. ass 2. gm: unease 128: 2 03¢- Ze. N been...
N. GO 204 cam 5.. use... 02.90.33 2 33.20..

.w. 325 20 m§< 32.89 3!... as? .3 3e stage—is;
assesses 9.3.3.

5. 39.8 .69).. Snow 32.8 55.0.. 2.. 5e 23...
839.32?

mes-:29 memowmonw

Us 23 <<13 >co<e ...Ze ...se
Ilillll I'll

IO ...O ..O ..O ...O ...O ..O ...O ...O ...O ..O ..O ..O ...O ...O
lo .6 .e .o .o .o .o .o .o .e .o .o .o .o .o
lo .6 .o .o co co co co co co co co co co .@
I®FI®FI®FI®II®II®FI®FI®FI®II®II®II®FI®II®FI®
'QAQAOYAGYAOTA AQAQAGYAGTAQAGYAGTAOTAQ
Immmmmmmmmmmmmmm
'® I® I® IQ I® IQ I® IQ IQ I© IQ I© IAIU I® IQ
.I@ o@ o® o@ DG 09 o@ o® o® o® o@ 99 09 o® o@
l@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c© c@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c® c®
I®II®fI®II®FI®II®FI®II®II®II®68®II®II®IO®I0®
'GtsmvtsmvtswtsQAn-UVYAANYAWVYAAWTAWYAWVYAWVTAWIAHNTAG

I" u u 8 8 I 1
lo .6 .e .o .o .o .o .o .o .o .o .o .e .o .o
Io .@ co co co co co co co co co co co co co
IGII®II®FI®FI®FI®FB®FI®II®FI®FB®FO®II®FI®FI®
IGIAQAQAAWTAAWVAWV-AAWYAAWTIANIAGTAWVYAANVAAWTAAWtAW

'«u n N

Insv :@ 2@ 2® 2® 2® emu 2® 2® 2® c© c® ...© ...© ...©
'® 09 o® o® o® o® o® o® o® o® 99 09 09 o@ 09
.I@ c® c@ c@ c@ c® c® c© c© c© c® c@ c@ c® c®
l®rl®ll®fil®fil®fl®rl®rl®fll®fil®fil®fl8®rl®fll®tl®
'GYAQAGTAGTAGTA®rs®rs®fs®fs®fs®rs®fs®fs®fs®
In fl ” I «u u u u u H n I a n H

89

I —|

IIIIIIILIIIIIIIIII

IQ ...Q IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q 0Q 0Q
cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
B®FO®II®FI®II®FO®FI®FI®II®II®F0®II®FI®II®F
AMYAWYAWTAWYAwaw.AWAQA®.A®TA®..A®.A®!A®Y

“flunuflfl

IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ ...Q ..Q ...Q IQ IQ IQ
0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q 0Q oQ 0Q 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q
cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ IQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
l®rl®rl®rl®rl®vl®rl®rl®rl®rl®rl®rl®rl®rl®r
AQAQAQAQAWAW-AQAwAWV.AWAWTAWAWVIAMUT

IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
0Q 0Q 0Q oQ oQ IQ oQ 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q IQ 0Q 9Q
cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
a®rl®rI®Fn®rl®rl®ru®ro®rl®rc®Il®Il®rl®ll®I
AWUYAmV.A®tA®.AQAQAQA®.A®.A®.AMVTAW.AMVTAWV.

unuuuunnu

IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
oQ oQ oQ IQ 0Q IQ IQ IQ oQ oQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
cQ cQ cQ cQ IQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q
A©A©AWA©A®A®YA©A©I©A®TA®YA©Awaflhvr

I z
1 1 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

a memmmmmmmw

M .me 9.: 2.223

mflwmmwmmwwmm 352205 E E>> $5....

m1@®®@@@©®©©m

w[@®®@@©©®@©m

s-@o®@®©®@@o. ea

In ®®©®®ooooo 000

m ©©©©©®©®®®®©®®©®©

m fl®©©@®®©®®@®©®®©©©®©®©®®®

Wm @@©@©®@®®®®©®®©®@®©©®®®®

mmfl@@©@@®@®®®®©®®©®©®©®®®®®

m. @©©@©®©®o©®©®®@®@®©®@®@®

uwH®®©©©®©®®®®®®®©®©®©©©®®®

wm1®©©©©®©®®®®©®®©®©®©®©®®®

TwI®®©@@®@®®®®©®®@®©®©®®®@®

m @©©@©®©®®©®©®®@®@®©®@®®®
T®©©©©®©®®@®©@©@®@®@®@®@@

 

 

 

 

 

mam N

O .030

230.33 .2, 2.23.6

.. can a: 25: 9.2.30 $26.. 2 02.2 20. N 925...
N. DO 20.. cum .3: .33.. €9.62...» 2 33.2....

n... .523 20 mg>< 3.5.6. 32.. o:.< .: .30 02.3.3.3.
323:: 0.3.3.

9 39.3 .333 Zoo: 32.8 (3.0.. a: :3 0.3.0
330.303.

)000

98329 GGOQQ

Do 20» <<...3 >393 1...». ...30
Illllll I'll

I©.®.®.©.@.®.©.®.®.©.®.©.@.©.®
'Q DG 09 o® DG DAIU o® DQ OG 06 DG DG 09 DG D®
l® c© cmw c® c@ c@ c@ c@ c@ c® c@ c@ c© c@ c@
IQ...I®FI®lI®II®FI®FI®II®iI®II®FI®FI®II®FI®II®
IQ.Q.Q.Q.QAwIQ.Q.mYAwIQ.Q.Q.Q.®
Im m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
IQ 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q
IQ cQ cQ IQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
IQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQII IQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQ
IQtIQtIQtIQtaQtIQtIQtIQtIQtaQtaQtAQtIQtIQtIQ
“n u u I u n u a “ n u ” m m
”Q IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ. IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
IQ 0Q 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q
IQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
IQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQIIQ
HWYAWAQAQAQAWAAWVAAW...AWIAQAwYAWAWYAmYAG

HQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ IQ
IQ 9Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 0Q 9Q 0Q 0Q
IQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ cQ
'®.II®FI®FI®FI®Fl®FI®rI®rI®fI®rI®rI®FI®FO®rB®
'mrAAWTAQAOtamYAGTAQAGTAQAAWTAAWVAQAGYAGTAQ

9O

Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.oo
m a a a m a m m m m.

AICII

<5
c5
6
<5
a”)
6
53
c?)
6)
<5
. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W c®.®.®c®c®c®.®c®c®é.®=®=®e®e®.0.0coc®c®c®
.. .030..0..mv..®..®..®..®..®..®..G..mv.mv..0..®..mv.@i®..®..0..®
% .mv.Q.Q.mY.®ImY.0..mY.®.¢.¢n¢.®lmvn¢.mv.¢.®l®lmv.0
W uncnnunnuuun-nnnnuu-u
N ©.®.®.®.®.®.®.®.®.0.0.0
U ®.©.®o®.©.0.©.0.®.0.0o0
.7... Oc®c®e®c®és®c®c®coeoce
A @..®..®..®..®..0..®..®.-@-Q-¢LO.
fl OImY.®..mY.®I®I®.Av.mY.mv.OImV
N anaaaannnnuu
m .oééé®.©.©.®.o.@.@.@.o.@.@.®
m .®.O.®.®.®o®.®.®.©.®a®.®o®.@.®o®
c c®c®c®c®c®c®e®.®.®c®c®c®éc®e®c®
w .®..®..®..® .®..®..®..®.¢.®..®..®..Q.Q.®..®.
mY AVA? GIQAYAYAYAYAVIOIOIQ
‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ m «u u u
.536 9.2 8:: was... So» mil.l.lfi<n 2°50: wacag
umzw >g 192: was I! I3 I.

 

955.03.:02. g8 ‘30» .

 

APPENDIX E

PPFC

91

APPENDIX E

PPFC

 

All of the questions on these pages are to be answered on the
enclosed and printed answer sheet. You must use a #2

pencil. The first 35 words and sentences in the booklet
describe different characteristics of persons and the next 56
describe characteristics of families. Using the answer key
found below select the number of the response that best
describes how you feel about each item as it refers to
yourself and your family. Fill in the corresponding circle
on the answer sheet that refers to the number that best
represents your perceptions.

1) Never or Almost Never or Very Slightly or Not At All:
2) Once In A While or A Little

3) Sometimes or Moderately

4) Frequently or Quite A Bit

5) Almost Always or Very Much

l. I am fearful and anxious.
2. I feel unworthy. I think of myself as bad.
3. I try to be the center of attention (for example, by

showing off, demonstrating my accomplishments, volun-
teering, etc.).

4. I am suspicious and distrustful of others.

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

6. I have bodily symptoms when I am tense and in conflict

(for example. headaches, stomach aches, nausea, etc.).

7.

16.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

92

I become anxious when the environment is unpredictable
or poorly structured.

I am curious and exploring, eager to learn, open to
new experiences.

I am self-assertive.

I am open and straightforward.

I overreact to minor frustrations. I am easily
irritated and/or angered.

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

I am verbally fluent. I can express ideas well in
language.

I respond to humor.

I become rigidly repetitive or immobilized under stress.

I am persistent in activities. I do not give up easily.

I am shy and reserved. I make social contacts slowly.

I am easily victimized by others. I am treated as a
scapegoat.
I have a rapid, personal tempo. I react and move

quickly.

29.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

39.

31.

32.

93
I am self-reliant, confident, and trust my own judgment.
I withdraw and disengage under stress.

I am unable to delay gratification. I cannot wait for
satisfaction.

I am competent and skillful.
I am creative in perception, thought, and play.

I am inappropriate in my emotional behavior. My
reactions are excessive, insufficient, or out of
context.

I brood, ruminate, or worry.

I attempt to transfer blame to others.

I am inhibited and constricted.

I am sulky and whiny.

I am resourceful in initiating activities.

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

I am restless and fidgety.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

4Q.

41.

42.

43.

94

I am vital, energetic, and lively.

I am aggressive (physically or verbally).

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

Family members ask each other for help.

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.

we share with each other what we think of each other's
friends.

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

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

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

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

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

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

56.

51.

52.

S3.

95

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

Parents do not discuss punishment or discipline with the
children.

Family members feel very good about each other and
easily share their feelings.

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.

When our family gets together for activities, everybody
is present.

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

We can easily think of things to do together as a
family.

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

Family members consult other family members on their
decisions.

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.

S4.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

96

Family togetherness is very important.

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

Family members pay attention to each other's feelings.

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

We all have a say in family plans.

The grownups in my family understand and agree on family
decisions.

Grownups in my family compete and fight with each other.

There is closeness in my family but each person is
allowed to be special and different.

We accept each other's friends.

There is confusion in our family because there is no
leader.

Our family members touch and hug each other.
Family members put each other down.
We speak our mind, no matter what.

In our home, we feel loved.

 

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

97

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

We argue a lot and never solve problems.

Our happiest times are at home.

The grownups in our family are strong leaders.

The future looks good to our family.

We usually blame one person in our family when things
aren‘t going right.

Family members go their own way most of the time.

Our family is proud of being close.

Our family is good at solving problems together.

Family members easily express warmth and caring towards
each other.

It's okay to fight and yell in our family.

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

When things go wrong we blame each other.

We say what we think and feel.

98

82. Our family members would rather do things with other
people than together.
83. Family members pay attention to each other and listen to
what is said.
84. We worry about hurting each other's feelings.
85. The mood in my family is usually sad and blue.
86. We argue a lot.
87. On person controls and leads our family.
88. My family is happy most of the time.
89. Each person takes responsibility for his/her behavior.
90. On a scale of l to 5, I would rate my family as:
l 2 3 4 5
My family functions My family does not function
very well together. well together at all. We

really need help.

99

91. On a scale of l to 5, I would rate the independence in

my family as:

1 2 3
No one is Sometimes independent.
independent. There are some dis-
There are no agreements. Family
open arguments. members find satis-
Family members faction both within
rely on each and outside of the
other for family.
satisfaction

rather than
outsiders.

5
Family members
usually go their
own way. Dis-
agreements are
open. Family
members look
outside of the
family for
satisfaction.

APPENDIX F

DMI/SITUATIONAL SURVEY

 

109

APPENDIX F

MALES

 

DMI/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.
The four questions relate to the following four kinds of
behavior: actual behavior, impulsive behavior in fantasy,
thoughts, and feelings. Of 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 one 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 in the space marked
three (3) next to that number. Then select the one 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).

Read all of the five answers following the question before
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.

161

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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

 

1.

th

U!

I would try and remember the biker's face so I could

find him later.

I'd wipe myself off with a smile. h
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.

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

 

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

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.

What TROUGHT might occur to you?

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

How would you FEEL and why?

#4-

Why do I always get myself into things like this?

To hell with that biker!

I am 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.

 

16.
17.
18.
things like that bother him.
19.
20.

Satisfied, after all, it could have been worse.
Depressed, because of my bad luck.
Like shrugging my shoulders, because a person can't let

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

 

162
a.

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 every-
thing 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. That 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.

Whatwould your ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

What TEQUGHT might occur to you?

31. The boss deserves a screw ball for a paper carrier.

32. To sell papers you 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?

193

How would you FEEL and why? .
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.

184

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. On night you plan to sleep
outside with your friends. This is part of an initiation for
a club that all of your friends belong to and you very much
want 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 go, and that is that."

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

Whatwguld you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

46. Knock my head against the wall.

47. Tell them to stop running 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.

58. Go out camping anyway since one should not allow the
weather to alter one's plans.

 

What TEQUGHT might occur to you?

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.

 

105

How would you FEEL and why?
'_56. 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.

 

106
5.

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 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 do you go out in one
of the canoes?"

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

78. I'd like to sink into the ground and disappear.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
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.

107

How wouldyyou FEEL and why?
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.

108

m.

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. One day a new power
mower is brought onto the golf 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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

86. Tell the 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. Kick myself for talking myself into a no-win situation.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to_you?
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.

 

109

How would you FEEL and why?
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 didn't wreck the machine.
99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the spot.
100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool
out of myself.

110
t.

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 you
leg.

What would you ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
111. Those repairmen don' t know how to do their jobs 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.

 

How would you FEEL and why?

116. Angry, because I was hurt.

117. Furious, because I could 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.

 

111

p.

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

session. There are several groups, each of which has a
special time 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.

What would you ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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.

 

How would you FEEL and why?
136. Boiling anger, because he's making trouble for me.
137. Resentment, because he is 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 hurt somebody.

 

112
f.

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 is 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 ideas, he reminds you that he wanted you to work for
him instead of at the repair shop. Then 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 be?

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.

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?
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.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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.

113

How would you FEEL and why?
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 leave everything your own way
all the time.

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

114

9.

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. You 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 you 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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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 do?
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.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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.

 

How would you FEEL and why?
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.

 

115
c.

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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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

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

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

184. I'd refuse to cooperate with the new president.

185. I'd congratulate my friend on this victory.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

186. Support the results as a good citizen should.

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

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

189. Help my friend to be a good president.

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

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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

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

193. There certainly is something fishy about the class
decision.

194. You can't let a failure get you down.

195. Who cares about the future of this class, anyway!

 

How would you FEEL and why?

196. Happy that I still have my old friends.

197. Upset because my defeat is known throughout the school.

198. Furious at the class because of their treatment of me.

199. Shrug it off, because that's the way the cookie
crumbles.

200. Angry, because I have been the victim of an unfair
decision.

 

116

APPENDIX F

FEMALES

DMI/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.
The four questions relate to the following four kinds of
behavior: actual behavior, impulsive behavior in fantasy,
thoughts, and feelings. Of 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 ooo 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 in the space marked
three (3) next to that number. Then select the ooo 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).

Read all of the five answers following the question before
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.

117

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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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

2. I'd wipe myself off with a smile.

3. I'd yell Obscenities after the biker.

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

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

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

6. Wipe that biker's face in the mud.

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

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

9. Let the biker know that I really didn't care that he
splashed me.

10. Let the biker know that bystanders also have rights.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
11. Why do-I always get myself into things like this?
12. To hell with that biker!
13. I am sure that basically that biker is a nice person.
14. You can expect something like this to happen on wet
days.
15. I wonder if that biker splashed me on purpose.

 

How would you FEEL and why?
16. Satisfied, after all, it could have been worse.
17. Depressed, because of my bad luck.
18. Like shrugging my shoulders, because a person can't let
things like that bother him.
19. Resentment, because the biker was so careless and mean.
20. Furious, that motorcyclist got me dirty.

 

118
a.

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 every-
thing 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. That 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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

21. iiid 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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

What THOUGHT might occur toyyou?

31. The boss deserves a screw ball for a paper carrier.

32. To sell papers you 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?

119

How would you FEEL and why?
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.

 

120

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. On night you plan to sleep
outside with your friends. This is part of an initiation for
a club that all of your friends belong to and you very much
want 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 go, and that is that."

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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 would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

46. Knock my head against the wall.

47. Tell them to stop running 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.

What THQUGHT might occur to you?

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.

 

121

How would you FEEL and why?
56. 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.

122
d.

You are spending your vacation visiting an old friend who has
moved with her parents to another town. She invites you to go
with her to a fair given that weekend at the community
clubhouse. Shortly after you arrive, she accepts an
invitation to go out in a canoe with another friend, leaving
you with a group of strangers to whom you have 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. She looks as if she is having a wonderful time. As she
paddles past, she calls out to you, "Why do you go out in one
of the canoes?"

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

61. I'd say sarcastically,fil'm not canoeing because I'd
rather watch you."

62. I'd tell her 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 her that it's easier to get to know her
friends by talking to them than it would be by going
out in a canoe.

65. I'd get up and leave because she apparently wants to
embarrass me.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

66. Assure her that I am perfectly satisfied and happy, so
she won't worry.

67. I'd like to punch her 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 her that now I know what sort of a "friend" she
really is.

70. I'd like to sink into the ground and disappear.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
71. She has it in for me.
72. I should never have come here in the first place.
73. I'm glad my friend is enjoying herself.
74. Something like this can't be avoided in a place where
you don't know the crowd.
75. I'll make her sorry for her behavior.

 

123

How would you FEEL and why?
76. Upset, because I was so unsuccessful.
77. Furious, at her 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.

124

m.

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. One day a new power
mower is brought onto the golf 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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

86. Tell the 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. Kick myself for talking myself into a no-win situation.

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
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.

125

How would you FEEL and why?
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 didn't wreck the machine.
99. Annoyed that I was purposely put on the spot.
100. Disgusted with myself because I risked making a fool
out of myself.

 

126

t.

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 you
leg.

What would you ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

What wouldyou IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?
111. Those repairmen don't know how to do their jobs 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.

 

How would you FEEL and why?

116. Angry, because I was hurt.

117. Furious, because I could 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.

 

127

p.

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

session. There are several groups, each of which has a
special time 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.

What would you ACTUAL reaction be?

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.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

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.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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.

How would you FEEL and why?
136. Boiling anger, because he's making trouble for me.
137. Resentment, because he is 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 hurt somebody.

 

 

128
f.

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 helping your mother at home. You
preferred the other job despite your mothers's advice. Now
that the repair shop is closed, you find that there are no
other jobs for the summer. You can either go to work for
your mother 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 mom to put up the money. After listening
to your ideas, she reminds you that she wanted you to work
for her instead of at the repair sh0p. Then she tells you,
"I'm not prepared to throw away my hard-earned money on your
crazy schemes. It's time you started helping me at home."

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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

142. I'd admit to her that maybe she could lose her money if
something went wrong.

143. I'd tell her off very strongly.

144. I'd tell her that I'd always thought that she had a
grudge against me.

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

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?
146. Go to work for her and make her happy.
147. Give up trying and end it all.
148. Take my mother's offer since jobs don't grow on trees.
149. Let her know what a miser everyone thinks she is.
150. Tell her that I wouldn't work for her if she were the
last person on earth.

 

Whot THOUGHT might occur to you?

151. She'll get what's coming to her 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 mother is acting for my own good.

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

 

129

How would you.FEEL and why?

156.
157.
158.
159.

160.

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

Grateful, for her offer of a job.
Resentful, that she is hurting me.

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

Hopeless, because my mother won't help me.

130
e.

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

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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 becom
friends. -

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

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?
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 Shelly if stealing your friend is the only way she
knows of getting to the amusement park.
170. Show that you understand why they became friends.

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

171. Naturally Tom liked Shelly since she 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.

How would you FEEL and why?
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.

131
c.

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.

What would your ACTUAL reaction be?

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

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

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

184. I'd refuse to cooperate with the new president.

185. I'd congratulate my friend on this victory.

 

What would you IMPULSIVELY (in fantasy) want to do?

186. Support the results as a good citizen should.

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

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

189. Help my friend to be a good president.

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

 

What THOUGHT might occur to you?

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

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

193. There certainly is something fishy about the class
decision.

194. You can't let a failure get you down.

195. Who cares about the future of this class, anyway!

 

How would you FEEL and why?

196. Happy that I still have my old friends.

197. Upset because my defeat is known throughout the school.

198. Furious at the class because of their treatment of me.

199. Shrug it off, because that's the way the cookie
crumbles. .

200. Angry, because I have been the victim of an unfair
decision.

 

 

L I ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy.
American Psychologist, 44, 709-716.

 

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall,
S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

 

 

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.).
New York: Macmillian.

 

Anderson, S. A., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1990). A test of the
Olson Circumplex model: Examining its curvilinear
assumption and the presence of extreme types. Family
Process, 22, 309-324.

Aronoff, J., & Stollak, G. E. (1991). Personal control
bases of adult attachment styles. Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, Department of
Psychology, East Lansing, MI.

 

 

Aronoff, J., Stollak, G. E., woike, B. A., & Aronoff, M.
(1990). Dimensions of emotional engagement: A scoring
manual. Unpublished manual, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI. .

 

Beavers, W. R., Hulgus, Y. F., & Hampson, R. B. (1988).
Beavers systems model of family functioning: Family
competence and family style evaluation manual.
Unpublished manual, Southwest Family Institute,
Dallas, TX.

 

 

Beavers, W. R., & Voeller, M. N. (1983). Family models:
Comparing and contrasting the Olson Circumplex model

with the Beavers systems model. Family Process, £3!

 

Block, J. (1982). Assimilation, accommodation, and the
dynamics of personality development. Child Development,
23’ 281-2950

 

Block, J. (1965). The challenge of response sets.
New York: Century-Crofts.

 

132

133

Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1980a). The California child
Q-set. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

 

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980b). 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, pp. 39-101).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

 

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his
mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 32,
350-373.

 

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1:
Attachment. New York: Basic Books (2nd rev. ed.,
1982).

 

 

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Vol. 2:
Separation. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Bowlby, J. .(1980). Attachment and loss. Vol. 3: Loss,
sadness, and dspression. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Bretherton, I. (1991). Pouring new wine into old bottles:
The social self as internal working model. In M. R.
Gunnar and L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Self processes and
development: The Minnesota symposiaion child psychology
(Volume 23, 1-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 

 

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and
prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Honographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Hg, (1-2, Serial No. 209).

 

 

Bretherton, I. (1984). Representing the social world in
symbolic play: Reality and fantasy. In I. Bretherton
(Ed.), Symbolic play: The development of social
understanding (pp. 3-41). New York: Academic Press.

 

Bretherton, I. (1980). Young children in stressful
situations: The supporting role of attachment figures
and unfamiliar caregivers. In G. V. Coelo and P. Ahmed
(Eds.), Uppooting and development (pp. 179-211).

New York: Plenum.

 

134

Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (Eds.) (1985). Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, EH,

1-2, Serial No. 209).

 

 

Broderick, C. B., & Schrader, S. S. (1981). The history
of professional marriage and family therapy. In A. S.
Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family
therapy (PP. 5-35). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

 

Constanine, L. L. (1986). Family paradigms: The practice
of theory in family therapy. New York: Guilford Press.

 

 

Cramer, P. (1988). The defense mechanism inventory: A
review of research and discussion of the scales.
Journal of Personality Assessment, H3, 142-164.

 

Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Child
maltreatment and attachment theory. In D. Cicchetti &
V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and
research on the causes and consequences_of child abuse
and neglect (pp. 432-463). Cambridge, England:
.Cambridge University Press.

 

 

Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to
classical and modern test theopy. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Wilson.

 

Edman, S. 0., Cole, D. A., & Howard, G. S. (1990).
Convergent and discriminant validity of FACES-III:

Family adaptability and cohesion. Family Process,
22, 95-103.

 

Egeland, B., & Farber, E. A. (1984). Infant-mother
attachment: Factors relating to its development and
changes over time. Child Development, 23' 753-771.

 

Engler, B. (1985). Personality theories: An
introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

 

 

Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983).
The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 2, 171-180.

 

 

135

Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985).
The relationship between quality of attachment and
behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample.
In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of
attachment theory and research. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, £0, (1-2,
Serial No. 209).

 

Eshleman, J. R. (1985). The family: An introduction.-
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Fredman, N., & Sherman, R. (1987). Handbook of
measurements for marriage and family therapy. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.

 

Freud, A. (1965). The writings of Anna Freud: VI:
Normality and pathology in childhood: Assessments of
development. New York: International Universities
Press.

 

Freud, A. (1946). The ego and the mechagisms of gefense.
New York: International Universities Press. (Tenth
printing: 1958).

Freud, S (1894). The defence neuro-psychoses. In
Collected papers (Vol. I, pp. 155-182). New York:
Basic Books. .

Freud, S. (1915). Repression. In Collected papers
(Vol. I, pp. 87-97). New York: Basic Books.

 

Freud, S. (1959). Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety.
In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the
oomplete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.
20, pp. 77-174). London: HogarthPress. (Original
work published 1926).

 

Furman, W., & Buhrmeister, D. (1985). Children's
perceptions of the quality of sibling relationships.
Child Development, 22' 448-461.

Gjerde, P. F., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1986).
Egocentrism and ego resiliency: Personality
characteristics associated with perspective-taking
from early childhood to adolescence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 423-434.

 

136

Gleser, G. C., & Ihilevich, D. (1969). An objective
instrument for measuring defense mechanisms. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 51-60.

 

Green, R. G., Kolevzon, M. 8., & Vosler, N. R. (1985).
The Beavers-Timberlawn model of family competence and
the Circumplex model of family adaptability and
cohesion: Separate, but equal? Family Process, 24,
385-398.

 

Grossman, K., Grossman, K. E., Spangler, G., Suess, G., &
Unzner, L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity to newborn's
orientation responses as related to quality of
attachment in northern Germany. In I. Bretherton & E.
Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research. Monographs of the Society for Hesearch in
Child Development, ég, (1-2, Serial No. 209).

 

 

Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An
attachment-theoretical perspective. Jouroal of
Personality and Social Psychology, £2, 270-280.

 

Hazen, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love
conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, H3, 511-524.

 

 

Ihlevich, D., & Gleser, G. C. (1986). Defense mechanisms.
Owosso, MI: DMI Associates.

 

Karpel, M. A., & Strauss, E. S. (1983). Family
evaluation. New York: Gardner Press.

 

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An
approach based on Bowen theory. New York: W. W.
Norton.

 

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New
York: Harper & Row.

Liebert, R. M., & Spiegler, M. D. (1984). Personality:
Strategies and issues. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

 

137

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to
reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from
infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-
month period. Developmental Psychology, 34, 415-426.

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

 

Marvin, R. S., & Stewart, R. B. (in press). A family
systems framework for the study of attachment. In M. T.
Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.),
Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research,
and intervention. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. -

 

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development:
Provocation from the field of family therapy. Child
Development, 29' 289-302.

 

Minuchin, S. (1984). Family kaleidoscope. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

 

Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy
techniques. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

 

Minuchin, S., Rosman, B. L., & Baker, L. (1978).
Psychosomatic families: Anorexia norvosa in context.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment
scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

 

 

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family
social environments. Family Process, lg, 357-371.

 

Nichols, M. P. (1984). Family Eherapy, concepts, and
methods. New York: Gardner Press.

 

138

Nichols, W. C., & C. A. Everett. (1986). Systemic family
therapy: An integrative apppoach. New York: Guilford
Press.

 

 

Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation
studies and FACES III. Family Process, 2E, 337-351.

 

Olson, D. H., Bell, R. 0., & Portner, J. (1978). Family
adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales (FACES).
Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, MN.

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. Q. (1982). FACES
II: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation
scales. Family Social Science, University of Minnesota,
St. Paul, MN, 55108.

Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES III.
Family Social Science, University of Minnesota, 290
McNeal Hall, St. Paul, MN, 55108.

 

Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1980).
Circumplex model of marital and family systems II: ’
Empirical studies and clinical intervention. In J.
Vincent (Ed.), Advances in familyyinteryenpion,
assessment and theory (Volume 1) (pp. 129-179).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

 

 

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

 

Pianta, R., Egeland, B., & Erickson, M. F. (1989). The
antecedents of maltreatment: Results of the mother-
child interaction research project. In D. Cicchetti &
V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and
research on the caoses and consequences of child abuse
and neglect (pp. 203-253). Eambridge,England:
Cambridge University Press.

 

 

 

Ransom, D. C. (1985). The evolution from an individual to
a family approach. In S. Henao & N. P. Grose (Eds.),
Principles of family systems in family medicine (PP.
5-23). New York: BrunnerlMazel.

 

 

139

Redlich, F. C., & Freedman, D. X. (1966)., The theory and
practice of psychiatry. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Shaffer, D. R. (1979). Social and personality
development. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

 

SPPS-X User's Guide (3rd ed.). (1988). Quick cluster
(pp. 841-848). Chicago: SPSS Inc.

 

Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment within family
systems: An overview. Infant Mental Health Journal,
11, 218-227.

Stollak, G. E. (1978). Until we are six: Toward the
actualization of our children's human potential.
Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Publishing.

Stollak, G. E., Aronoff, J., Loraas, J. A., Woike, B. A.,
Messe', L. A., Meyers, S. (1991, May). Boundary
characteristics in personal and family systoms. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago, IL.

Stollak, G. E., Crandell, L. E., & Pirsch, L. A. (1990).
Assessment of the family and the individual in the
la room. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State
Un1versity, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI.

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory:
Foundations, development, applications. New York:
Braziller.

 

 

Wampler, K. S., Halverson, C. F., Moore, J. J., & Walters,
L. H. (1989). The Georgia family Q-sort: An
observational measure of family functioning. Family
Process, 3g, 223-238.

Williamson, D. S., & Bray, J. H. (1985). The
intergenerational point of view. In S. Henao & N. P.
Grose (Eds.), Principles of family systems in family
medicine (pp. 90-107). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Wynne, L. C. (1984). The epigenesis of relational
systems: A model for understanding family development.
Family Process, 33, 297-318.

 

"1111111111111111115