LIBRARY MIchIgan State UnIversIty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE fit“. 0 7 LPN '1 NOV? 7100‘ .Ia'iljl'g“ 1‘: I ‘? l_—.— MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution c:\circ\dmdm.pln3-p.1 — CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF MARITAL DISCORD: A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS BY Robert James Weinstein A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1990 ABSTRACT CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF MARITAL DISCORD: A SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS BY Robert James Weinstein Through the application of family systems theory, this study attempted to examine the effects of the marital discord/separation process on the development of problem behaviors, depressive symptomatology, and reported low self- esteem in children whose families currently report marital distress, oerhose parents.have separated within six months of participation in the project. In particular, this study examined the relationship between children's perceptions of the marital discord/separation process and the development of problematic behaviors. It also assessed the relative importance of children's perceptions of family structure, in comparison to mother's perceptions of family structure, and family type (separated or intact), as predictors of the development of the above mentioned outcome measures. Forty-three caucasian, primarily middle to upper middle class mother/child pairs completed questionnaires regarding their perceptions of family structure using both Olson's Circumplex Model derived from family systems theory, and a more traditional behavioral observation measure assessing children's perceptions of specific mother/child positive and negative interaction sequences, as well as several mother- completed and child-completed measures of psychosocial functioning. These mother/child pairs consisted of both intact and recently separated parental dyads. Results indicated that negative mother/child interaction sequences as perceived by a child.were strongly related to the presence of externalizing and internalizing behavior problems, as well as low self-esteem. Children's perceptions of family structure using the Circumplex model were not found to be significantly related to any outcome variables examined, nor did they function as better predictors of problem behaviors than mother's perceptions of family structure or marital status. To Mom, Dad, Judy, Wendy, and Max iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Drs. Hiram Fitzgerald and Larry Messe for functioning as members of both.my Guidance and Disseration committees, and tolerating the inherent difficulties in attempting to finish the graduate school process from long distance. I am in gratitude to Dr. Robert Caldwell who not only functioned as a member of my guidance committee and co-chairman of my dissertation committee, but also provided moral support for me when the process became most difficult. Bob was able to express most clearly to me the true meaning of being a professional psychologist, at the point in time when I most needed that guidance. It is perhaps most difficult to put into words the indebtedness I feel to Dr. Gary Stollak, who functioned as the chairperson of my guidance committee, co-chairperson of my disseration committee, and most important, my mentor. From the start of my interview for admission into the psychology program at Michigan State University, Gary has always provided the emotional and professional support, caring, and love that has enabled. me to reach, this point in. my life. From Wittgenstein to Minuchin to 12 Angry Men, Gary has provided a forum for me in which to grow as an individual and a psychologist. The countless hours I have spent in his office discussing every topic under the sun will always remain close to my heart. I would also like to thank my family. As the time has passed, my parents have always shown patience, even when the process has appeared halted. Their unmeasurable love and support, along with their gentle coaxing, has motivated me at times when I have felt overwhelmed. Their unrelenting acceptance of me as a person and a professional has never faltered. I could not have ever chosen two parents or a sister who could have better weathered the storm of the graduate school process than my own. I will always remember that it was my father who gently suggested my taking an introductory psychology course in college, which began me on my way to this goal. Finding a way to thank my wife, Wendy, is also a task that words cannot express. East Lansing and Michigan State will remain an important place in my life for many reasons, most importantly as the place where Wendy and I met. Wendy has always supported me through this sometimes very difficult process, and has never given up on me, even at times when I considered giving up. Her love, as well as her input as a colleague, provided the final impetus I needed to complete this task. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF TABLES0.00000.0.. ...... 00.000.000.000. 000000 ix H INTRODUflION000000000000.0000....0000.0000.0.00.00.. The Effects of Divorce on Children...... ....... 1 Behavior Problems......................... 5 Self-Esteem............................... 7 Depression................................ 9 Summary of the Discord/Divorce Literature...... 10 Systems Theory in Mental Health................ 11 Children's Perceptions of the Family System.... 17 Rationale for Current Study.................... 20 Hypotheses............................. ........ 26 “THOD000000.00..000000.00000..00..000 000000 00.0000. 28 Overall Description of the Project............. 28 Subject Recruitment....................... ..... 29 Procedure............................... ....... 30 Instruments.................................... 32 Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale II....................... 32 Personality Inventory for Children........ 34 Children's Depression Inventory........... 36 Piers—Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale........................ 37 Parent Perception Inventory............... 40 RESULTS0.0000000000000.00000000.0000.00.000000.000.0 43 Measurement of Perceptions of Family Structure. 43 Results of Tests of Hypotheses................. 47 DISCIJSS ION 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 . ........ 0 0 . 6 1 CONCLUSIONS 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . . 0 . . . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . . 7 2 APPENDIX A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 O 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 APPENDIX B0000....0000.000000000.0000000.000000.0000 78 vii APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX C ......... . ..... . ............ . ...... . ...... D.......................................... E .......................................... F.......................................... G........... ......... . ..................... H000..0000000.0000.0.000000000000000.000... J. 000000000000 00 000000 0.000.000 000000000000 REFERENCES0.0.00000. ....... 00.0.0 ............ .000.0. viii 80 82 85 9O 94 96 98 100 101 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Means and Standard Deviations for all Dependent and Independent Variables........................... 45 2 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Children's FACES II and PPI scores and PIC Broad Band Factors..000.000.0.0....0...0.0....0. 50 3 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Children's FACES II and PPI scores and CD1 and Piers-Harris Total Scores. ........ .......... 52 4 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Mothers' FACES II Scores and Family Type and PIC Broad Band Factors..................... 53 5 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Mothers' FACES II Scores and Family Type and C01 and Piers-Harris Total Scores.......... 54 6 Z-Score Transformations of Difference Scores for PIC Broad Band Factor800000000....000.0.00000...000..... 57 7 z-Score Transformations of Difference Scores for CD1 and Piers-Harris Total Scores....................... 59 ix Introduction The Effects of Divorce On Children The potential negative effects of marital distress, marital disruption, marital separation, and/or divorce, as single or sequentially occurring events in a child's life have been well documented in the literature. The pioneering work on the subject was done by Wallerstein and Kelly at the University of California, in their California Children of Divorce Project (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1976a, 1976b, 1980a, 1980b; Kelly 8 Wallerstein, 1976), and Hetherington and her coworkers at the University of Virginia (Hetherington, 1966, 1972; Hetherington, Cox, & Cox, 1978). Both of these were exploratory analyses of children's behavior following the divorce of their parents. The results of both studies, as well as many others (e.g. Guidubaldi, 1983), clearly illustrated that problems do develop in a large subset of these children. The types of problems manifested by these children fall into many areas of psychosocial functioning including behavioral, academic, and social. More specifically, Wallerstein and Kelly (1975, 1976a, 1976b, 1980) examined a sample of 131 children and adolescents from 60 primarily white, middle class families. Data in the form of individual interviews with each child and parent were collected over a six week period. Five-year and 10-year follow-ups were also performed. In briefly summarizing their results, at the five-year follow-up they found what they termed "serious disturbances" in one-third of their sample, while another third was categorized as experiencing "psychological difficulties". At their ten-year follow-up, many of the now teenagers and young adults continued to struggle emotionally with aspects of the divorce (Wallerstein, 1984; Wallerstein & Corbin, 1989). In interpreting the results of their five-year follow- up, Wallerstein and Kelly stated that outcome seemed to be strongly related to the functioning of intrafamilial relationships. Another very important finding in the Wallerstein and Kelly study was that the children who seemed to fare better during this period were members of families in which good relationships with both parents were maintained throughout the post-divorce period, and as is probably more obvious, families in which the parents were psychologically healthy. Hetherington, Cox, and Cox (1978, 1979) used more objective and empirical instruments to examine their sample of 48 divorced families that had been identified through the court system, and that had a first or second child in nursery school. Most important in comparing these two 3 studies is the fact that Hetherington and her colleagues included a matched control group. A multi-method approach to data collection was used, including interviews with parent and child, structured diaries, independent observations of child/parent interactions both at home and in the laboratory, child behavior checklists completed by the parents and teachers, measures of cognitive and social development, and also measures of parents' psychosocial functioning. Again to summarize, results indicated an increase in dependent, aggressive, and disobedient behavior. These behavior problems tended to last for 1-2 years following the divorce, and then the child's behavior would, in most cases, return to a pre-divorce baseline level. As time since the divorce increased, important gender differences appeared, in that at the two-year follow-up, boys and girls from both the intact and divorced group showed no differences on the majority of measures, whereas the boys from the divorced homes exhibited more difficulties in relationships with peers and with their parents. At two years post divorce, correlational analysis indicated a positive relationship between positive adjustment of the children and aspects of the parental relationship. This study also documented changes in parents' ability to control their children's behavior, as evidenced by a decrease in their consistency in discipline style. There 4 was also an observed decrease in affectionate behavior directed from and to both parent and child. In another longitudinal study with a two-year follow- up, Kurdek, Blisk, and Siesky (1981) collected a sample of 58 middle class white children aged 8-17 living in homes in which their parents had separated approximately 4 years earlier. Data collected included children's perceptions of the divorce, interpersonal reasoning, custodial parent ratings of the child's behavior, and locus of control. Results indicated overall positive adjustment in the children at both four years and six years following the divorce. The authors did find a positive relationship between adjustment and the children's reported positive feelings about the divorce, and a negative relationship between good adjustment and feelings of the loss of a parent and the concomitant changes in intrafamilial relationships. Guidubaldi and Perry, in conjunction with the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and Kent State University (Guidubaldi, 1983; Guidubaldi & Cleminshaw, 1985; Guidubaldi & Perry, 1984) collected a total sample of 699 children (living in divorced and intact homes) from 38 states and administered a wide variety of measures concerning the social, academic, and mental health functioning of the children. The study also included a two year follow-up. Results at both the initial assessment and the two year follow-up found that children from intact homes 5 performed better than children from divorced homes on a large number of these measures. The work at the University of California, University of Virginia, and NASP projects, as well as Kurdek et al.'s work has been essential for empirically documenting the basic issue of whether divorce does have psychological ramifications for the children (and adults). This work has also provided basic information about some of the ways in which these effects are manifested by children. Since this work, there has been a proliferation of research examining specific categories of the socio-emotional functioning of a child that are most commonly affected by marital distress, separation, and/or divorce. For the purpose of this study, three specific areas of child psychosocial functioning will be used as measures of the relative effects of the current family situation on the child. First, an empirically derived measure of overall level of behavioral problems will be used, as a result of the reports of differing types of pathology in different samples. The other two outcome measures that are to be used are self-esteem and depression. The reason for the choice of these will now be more fully discussed. We In examining the relationship between marital discord and the development of behavior problems in children, Johnson & Lobitz (1974) examined the children of 17 couples 6 who were brought to a psychological clinic, while at the same time the couple reported discord in their marital relationship. The parents reported "acute behavior problems" in the children. Through the use of observational measures of family interaction, as well as the Locke-Wallace Marital Adjustment Test, the researchers found a strong negative correlation between marital discord (as measured on the Locke-Wallace) and child behavior problems. There have also been a series of studies performed at SUNY Stonybrook by 0'Leary, Emery, and their colleagues. In the first of these studies, Oltmanns, Broderick, and 0'Leary (1977) examined 62 clinic referred families most commonly carrying the diagnoses of unsocialized, aggressive conduct disorder, overanxious disorder, and withdrawal reaction. In this study they correlated results of the Locke-Wallace measure with findings on the Behavior Problem Checklist (for more detailed information concerning construction, reliability, and validity issues of this measure, see Quay and Peterson, 1979). Here again, the researchers found fairly strong negative correlations between marital adjustment scores and factor scores on the Behavior Problem Checklist. In a later study from this laboratory, Porter and 0'Leary (1980) included a measure of the amount of verbal and behavioral hostility displayed by parents in the presence of their children. Here the researchers found no 7 relationship between behavior problems in girls and parent measures of marital satisfaction, as well as with overt interparent hostility in the presence of children, but did find a positive relationship between behavior problems in boys and parent measures. In examining a nonclinic-referred sample of children, Emery (1982) found a positive relationship between mothers' ratings on the Locke-Wallace and their ratings of their children's behavior problems on the Quay-Peterson checklist. In their review of several other studies of nonclinical samples, 0'Leary & Emery (1984) noted that in studies with small sample sizes (approximately 50 children), no relationship was found between marital discord and child behavior problems. With sample sizes of 100 or more, an association was found. Therefore, the evidence of this association has not been clearly demonstrated. - s e Amato (1986) examined the relationship between self- esteem of children and marital conflict in their parents in a large group of 15-16 year-old Australian school children. He was also interested in any sex and/or age differences in the groups in terms of the effects of marital conflict on the children. Amato used the Piers-Harris Children's Self- Concept Scale as a measure of self-esteem. He also used an open-ended parent interview, along with a few items from a child interview to develop a measure of marital conflict in 8 the family. Results indicated a strong negative correlation between marital conflict and self-esteem in primary school- aged girls, with no association in primary school-aged boys, or for either gender in secondary school-aged children. Long, Forehand, Fauber, and Brody (1987) examined the effects of parental marital conflict and recent divorce (less than 12 months) on the cognitive and social self— and observer-rated self competence of 40 adolescents. They obtained various standardized measures of cognitive and social self-competence through self-report of the adolescent, as well as reports from the adolescent's mother, teacher, and independent observers. The researchers used a 2 X 2 factorial design using divorced vs. intact and high conflict vs. low conflict as independent measures. The Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982) was used to measure children's self- perception of their own competence in two specific domains (cognitive and social), as well as a general measure of self-worth. Results of this study confirmed the association of parental marital status with adolescents' self-perceptions in both domains of functioning, and found no association between marital status and independently observed competence in the adolescents. However, a significant relationship between marital conflict and adolescents' self-perceptions was not found. Rather, independently observed competence was found to be associated 9 with level of parental conflict. In contrast, Hoffman and Zippco (1986) compared 17 children aged 10-12 years from divorced homes with 60 same aged children from intact homes using the Coopersmith Self- Esteem Inventory. They found no significant differences between the groups, but did note various significant flaws in their experimental design, including no information on the length of time since the children's parents had been divorced. As evidenced by the above discussion, research up to this point has not been able to empirically document a definite and clear relationship between self-esteem in children and the existence of marital discord and/or marital separation. The research also indicates the existence of potentially important confounding factors in this relationship, including the age and sex of the child. There is also evidence of a differences in self-esteem as related to the source of the report (e.g. self-report vs. parent or teacher report). Depression Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) cited depression as the "main psychopathological finding" in the 131 children who participated in their study, and this diagnosis was made in 25% of the sample (7 children were found to be severely depressed and 22 of the children to be moderately depressed). 10 In describing the depression, Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) included pervasive sadness, decrease in school performance, difficulty concentrating, preoccupation with the divorce, play inhibition, social withdrawal, self—blame, along with other symptoms typically seen in childhood depression. Summary of the Discordzgivorce Literature In looking at the projects presented above as most representative of this area of research, there appear some common themes and basic similarities. First, there is fairly strong evidence that a subset of children experience some major difficulties in various aspects of psychosocial functioning following marital separation. Second, these difficulties tend to be most severe immediately after parental separation, and for the most part, seem to significantly lessen at some point approximately two years following separation. Third, depending on the research sample, the nature of these difficulties differ over the broad range of child psychopathology, including depressive symptomatology, acting out behavior, peer difficulties, academic difficulties, and difficulties in the parent-child relationship. However, what the research on the effects of divorce on children does not provide is information concerning the origins of this pathological behavior in the children, concerning both when and how this behavior began. In short, 11 it seems evident that this research is providing information concerning the results of a long process. To gain information about the origins of the behavior through analysis of the beginnings of this process, would provide insight not only for treatment issues, but possibly and equally important, for preventative purposes. This paper represents an attempt to reinterpret and understand the process of marital discord, separation, and divorce from a family systems theory perspective, and to use this model in an attempt to begin empirical validation of the process, thereby gaining insight into the particular aspects of the process most important for a child's successful coping and positive adjustment to his/hers parents ordeal. a 1 st m in Me t t Beginning in the late fifties, a revolution has occurred in the field of mental health. The literature of psychiatry, psychology, social work, and other allied mental health disciplines, has become inundated with writings from a new theoretical perspective termed family systems theory. According to the mathematical philosopher Von Bertalanffy (1968), a system is merely a "set of elements standing in interaction". To transform this notion into the field of psychology, any individual's behavior is determined by the context, or "system" of which (s)he is currently a part. 12 In this way, to understand an individual's behavior in a family, one must first understand the nature of that family system. This concept has been particularly utilized in the mental health field by family theorists such as Minuchin (1974), Haley (1976), and Madanes (1981). From this perspective, if the family is chosen as the system of analysis, any individual's behavior in that family is somehow grounded in the systemic functioning of all the family members. Further, all behavior, both functional and dysfunctional, can be viewed as a "byproduct" of dynamic family functioning. Minuchin (1974) describes this as follows: "The individual who lives within a family is a member of a social system to which he must adapt. His actions are governed by the characteristics of the system, and these characteristics include the effects of his own past actions. The individual responds to stresses in other parts of the system, to which he adapts; and he may contribute significantly to stressing other members of the system" (Minuchin, 1974, p. 9). From this perspective, in order to fully understand any change that occurs in the family, it is necessary to examine all of the different dyadic, triadic, etc. relationships among the family members. 13 If a change occurs in the family, each of these subsystems will be affected. In short, when a change occurs, the family system rearranges itself to fit the change. A failure to rearrange around a problem, or a dysfunctional rearrangement around a problem can cause much difficulty for the family, and is, according to family systems theory, the root of pathology (Minuchin, 1974). It must be remembered that in the course of the normal family life cycle, there occur many natural stressors, and the family must rearrange itself many times (McGoldrick & Carter, 1982). A few examples of these are birth of a child, changing jobs, adolescence, and children preparing for and ultimately leaving home. These changes are developmental stages through which a family moves during the life-cycle. However, recently, with the increase in divorce, the American family has been forced to change and readjust to the ramifications of severe marital discord beginning before separation, around the divorce itself, and often during the post-divorce visitation period. This represents a very different type of change and readjustment by the family than the previously noted normal developmental stages of the family life cycle, since the end product is not necessarily the original family unit. 14 Stress is managed in a family in different ways. From the first day of courtship and continuing throughout a marriage, there is constant negotiation occurring between the two spouses. This continues in a more complex but basically similar manner when children come into the family. Each of these episodes can essentially cause a shift in the family system, changing, however minimally, each member's "place" in the family. However, in a family where this shift cannot occur (for any of a number of reasons discussed by family theoreticians), these "negotiations" can greatly intensify. As this spiralling intensity continues, the system becomes more and more "stuck" at one point, and the number of alternative solutions decreases. At a point where the intensity is so great that no simple solution within the family can be found, a member or a set of members of the family system is forced to act in a very strong and decisive manner (either healthy or pathological) as the only means by which to solve the problem. The above is a simplified description of the process that typically occurs in families, sometimes resulting in one of the spouses moving out of the home. What is important to note from this discussion is that marital separation is not a single unique event that occurs on a given day. Rather, it must be thought of 15 as a gradual process occurring over time. If analysis is made at the systemic level, changes in the system are occurring throughout this process, beginning with marital distress and discord, continuing to marital separation, and even reaching beyond divorce in some circumstances (e.g. negotiations over child support and visitation schedules). All aspects of this process can and often do have ramifications for all members of the family. Therefore, rather than examining divorce as a global concept affecting children, specific aspects of the divorce process must be examined uniquely as potentially having some effects on children. This concept has been illustrated in the literature in that the focus has moved from examination of family type (i.e. intact vs. divorced) to the examination of specific family processes hypothesized to be important for predicting children's adjustment (Emery, Hetherington, & DiLalla, 1984). Hess and Camara (1979) have identified the nature of intrafamilial relationships as being more important than family type in predicting children's maladjustment. Their sample consisted of 16 divorced families with 9-11 year old children and a matched control group. The divorced families had been contacted through the courts, and the parents in these 16 families had been separated 1/2-2 years prior to participation in the project. Data collected included interviews with parents, child, the child's teacher, as well as behavior checklists completed by parents and teachers. Areas of interest for the study included comparisons of the children in the two groups on social relationships, levels of stress and aggressiveness, and the examination of several family interaction variables. Results showed a difference between the two groups in that the children in the divorced homes exhibited more stress and less work effectiveness in school. These differences were related to the family process variables (i.e. quality of parent-child and parent- parent relationships) and not to the current family constellation (i.e. divorced or intact). From the clinical literature, a good example of this type of change in intrafamilial relationships that is somewhat common in pre- and post-divorce family is what Minuchin (1974) terms "triangulation". Here, the child is brought by one parent into an alliance against the other parent. Minuchin views this type of family structure as extremely pathological for the involved child, as well as for the rest of the family. Both Jacobson (1978) and Emery (1982) have identified the level of marital conflict and hostility 17 during the period prior to separation as an important variable for the child's success in coping following separation. Children'e Perceptions of the Family Sysrem Individuals perceive family system changes in different ways. For instance, a child might perceive scolding by a parent as evidence of that parent not loving him/her, when from the parent's perspective (s)he is merely teaching the child what should or should not be done. At the same time, for a number of complex reasons likely to be undiscernible at the time, another child in that same family scolded in the same manner might perceive the scolding as punishment for his/her actions, rather than an indicator of the parent's lack of love. At first glance this may seem to be a trivial distinction. However, if a researcher were asking the first child at that point in time about his/her perception of the scolding, that response might greatly differ from the second child's or parent's response. If the researcher in question is, for instance, examining the effects of scolding on a child, given the different perceptions of the scolding by the two children, the scolding may in fact have very different effects on the two children. 18 It is the contention of this paper that the above example represents a major point that has been missed in the research examining the effects of marital discord and marital separation on children. In order to understand how the events involved in marital distress and marital separation are affecting children, one must first assess how the ehilg perceives these events. In other words, the relative effects of the marital discord and marital separation are in some part dependent on the manner in which the child perceives and incorporates the events into his/her own understanding. To be more specific, children's perceptions of their parents' behaviors are hypothesized to be as important a predictor of adjustment as actual parental behavior (Schaeffer, 1964). In his work on devising an empirical instrument to measure this hypothesis, Schaeffer (1964) reviewed studies dating back to 1894 which attempted to create statistically sound instruments that measure this phenomenon. For example, studies were presented that indicated a relationship between children's reports of parental behavior and measures of child adjustment (Berdie 8 Layton, 1957), observers' reports of child behavior (Bronfenbrenner, 1961), and school achievement (Morrow 8 Wilson, 1961). 19 To return to the initial discussion of family systems theory, notions of structure and function within a family system have provided a new way in which to discuss families, and in particular to discuss more microscopically the events involved in the change and reorganization of family systems at points in time. Using this notion, it is now not only possible to obtain "objective and empirical" notions of family structure and changes in that structure, but it is also possible to obtain family members' observations and perceptions of family structure and function. This then provides an empirical way to access each family members' perceptions of family structure. To now apply this to the specific situation of marital distress and marital separation, it becomes possible to assess changes in family structure as perceived by all family members. By the use of standard psychological instruments designed to measure behavior problems, self-esteem, and depression, it is also possible to relate these perceptions to a sample of outcome measures, thereby empirically measuring the importance of the way in which a child perceives family structure for that child's successful coping with this situation. Rationale The majority of research examining the effects of marital separation and/or divorce on children has provided mental health professionals with a view of the potential outcomes resulting from a long, complex, and variable process. However, information on the consequences of an event or series of events does not provide much insight into the potential causal components of the consequences. Knowledge of the circumstances leading up to these outcomes provides the crucial additional information necessary for taking preventative steps to ameliorate the problem, rather than treating its results. The majority of the literature on child outcome following divorce has typically obtained data about the divorce from children after (often several years after) the divorce process has concluded. The major problem inherent in this methodology is that the data obtained in this manner are retrospective in nature, and are likely to be subject to distortion and response bias (Block, Block, 8 Gjerde, 1988). In order to ameliorate this problem, this study gathered information about the process of marital discord and marital separation from children whose families were at different stages of this process. In this way, it was possible to obtain 20 21 children's perceptions of the family structure while discord and/or separation are occurring, rather than acquiring outcome information after the divorce has occurred. By sampling families ranging from those currently reporting marital discord to those already divorced, it was possible to gain insight about the antecedents of the divorce process, and how these may or may not have affected the child in different ways. Both theoretical and applied family systems theory have provided researchers with a new way in which to examine systemic change in smaller steps. Based on this theory, the process of marital distress leading to divorce involves many systemic changes in the family system, creating intermediate family structures. Because of the nature of the adversarial process of separation, these intermediate structures can often be pathological in nature. According to family systems theory, since the role in which this child has been functioning will be altered by these structural changes, this in turn may cause the child to exhibit pathological behavior as a result. It may be the case that how the child perceives these structures, rather than either family type (intact or divorced) or the way in which others perceive these structures, is most predictive of whether this pathology appears. Since, as previously stated, the family systems model carries 22 with it certain ways of conceptualizing families and individual's behaviors within families, the assessment of children's (or other's) perceptions of family functioning was obtained using an instrument derived from a family systems perspective. Previously discussed research has emphasized the importance of children's perceptions of parental behavior as being as important for predicting adjustment as actual parental behavior. This knowledge can be applied here to the circumstance of marital discord and marital separation. It may be the case that children's perceptions of family functioning is as important a predictor of adjustment and coping with marital discord and separation as actual family type, or other's perceptions of family functioning. The present study attempted to use the basic findings of previous research as a base, and present a new way in which to examine and interpret the ways in which children are affected by, and cope with parental discord and separation. This was accomplished in several ways. The first step was to determine whether a relationship existed between children's perceptions of family functioning and their current level of psychosocial adjustment. According to family systems theory, problems affecting the family system are often 23 reflected in the development of low self-esteem and pathological behaviors in individual family members, often children (e.g. presence of moderate/severe depression). Therefore, it may be the case that children who view their family functioning as more disturbed will themselves be functioning more pathologically. Specifically, these children may exhibit higher levels of overall behavioral problems, exhibit a higher incidence of depressive feelings, and report lower self-esteem, than children who perceive their own family as functioning in a more healthy manner. This concept was researched in part in a study by Cooper, Holman, and Braithwaite (1983), in which they examined the relationship between family cohesion and self-esteem. In the study, 467 children (ages 9-12 years) completed two self esteem questionnaires (Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory and Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale), as well as a questionnaire designed to obtain information concerning the child's happiness with in his/her family, and another questionnaire assessing family cohesion. The authors also obtained any information that the child's teacher had concerning family structure and family relationships. 24 Results indicated that indeed, as hypothesized, children's perceptions of family relationships are related to self-esteem, and the authors found a significant negative relationship between perceived level of both interparental and child-parent conflict, and self—esteem in the child. Once the relationship between children's perceptions of family functioning and their level of psychosocial adjustment was examined, the importance of these perceptions to adjustment, as compared to other's perceptions, or the more typical notion of actual family type (i.e. intact or divorced) was assessed. Since the literature suggests that children's perceptions of their parent's behavior is as good a predictor of adjustment as the actual parental behaviors (Schaeffer, 1964), it was hypothesized that children's perceptions of family functioning during marital discord and separation will be as good or better a predictor of the level of psychosocial adjustment than, for example, their mother's perceptions of family functioning, or family type. More specifically, children's perceptions of family functioning will be as good or a better predictor of overall behavior problems, occurrence of depressive feelings, and reports of low self-esteem, than their mother's perceptions of family functioning, or family 25 type. Overall adjustment was assessed using common examples of psychopathology in children (behavior problems, depression, and low self-esteem), to determine the contribution of perception of family functioning to each of these areas of categories of psychosocial functioning. The questions posed above concerning the importance of children's perceptions of marital discord in predicting behavioral difficulties utilize the family systems model specifically to describe a child's perceptions of his/her family. As an additional test of the efficacy of this model, another questionnaire aimed at obtaining children's perceptions of family functioning was included. This measure is based on a more traditional behavioral observation model, providing a basis for comparison of the family systems model with a well accepted alternative model. HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1: The more dysfunctional the child views the family structure, the higher will be the levels of general behavior problems. Hypothesis 2: The more dysfunctional the child perceives the family structure, the higher will be the level of depressive feelings. Hypothesis 3: The more dysfunctional the child perceives the family structure, the lower will be the child's self-esteem. Hypothesis 4: The child's perception of family structure will be more predictive of the child's level general behavior problems than either the child's mother's perception of family structure, or the actual family type. Hypothesis 5: The child's perception of family structure will be more predictive of the child's depressive feelings than either the child's mother's perception of family structure, or the actual family type. Hypothesis 6: The child's perception of family structure will be more predictive of the child's self- esteem than either the child's mother's perception of family structure, or the actual family type. 26 27 Hypothesis 7: A child's perception of family structure obtained through a family systems oriented method will be more strongly related to the above mentioned measures of psychosocial functioning than that same child's perception of family structure obtained through a behavioral observation oriented method. Methods The data for this research have been obtained through the Family Studies Project at Michigan State University. Since it therefore is archival in nature, a large portion of the following methodology section will refer to the previously established procedures of the Family Studies Project. v s ' ' o h ro' The Family Studies Project (FSP) was a project intended to examine the effects of marital distress and marital separation on various aspects of the family system. The major goal of the project was to recruit families that were either currently reporting marital distress, or families in which the marital partners had separated within the previous two years, and to interview both spouses and any children aged 6—17 years. The adult interviews consisted of a series of open-ended and closed-ended questions administered orally by a clinical psychology graduate student, along with a series of standardized questionnaires that were completed by the adult and returned through the mail. The child interviews consisted of a series of standardized questionnaires administered orally to all child and adolescent participants by trained undergraduate research assistants. 28 S ' ec ' en Through the resources of the FSP, many techniques were used to recruit appropriate subject families. The fact that many of these families were currently experiencing high levels of stress due to the distress and/or separation was reflected in the difficulty in subject recruitment, and therefore a number of different ways of contacting perspective subjects. were utilized. The first attempt to recruit subjects was to contact professionals in the community who would be likely to have had exposure to this population. Approximately 200 letters were sent to clergy, mental health professionals, and attorneys in the area describing the project, along with letters of introduction that could be given appropriate families (Appendix A). No subjects were recruited via this method. The second attempt at subject recruitment consisted of a series of advertisements in the classified sections of various newspapers in the Metropolitan Lansing area. Letters were also sent home with elementary and high school students in three of the local school systems that described the project to parents, and requested volunteers. This effort was reinforced by sending home a follow-up letter with 29 30 those same school children. Also at this point, the Friend of the Court of the Lansing Court system was contacted in order to aid the project in subject recruitment by providing information to interested families who were currently involved with the agency. Ihi iel Preeegure with Ihteresreg Femiiiee During the first phone contact with a potential subject family, an initial screening interview was done assessing the eligibility of the family (Appendix B). This goal of this interview was to screen out families on the bases of any one of the following: 1) parents were not the biological parents of the children, 2) marital partners had been separated for more than two years, or 3) children were less than 6 years of age or greater than 17 years of age (in the cases where families fell into the categories subsumed under point #1 or point #3 above, the adults were interviewed for other aspects of the project, but the data was not used for this research). The final sample consisted of 43 mother/child pairs who agreed to participate in the study due to recent marital separation or currently reported marital distress. These pairs were derived from 25 different families. In six of the families (10 mother/child pairs), both parents were currently residing at the family home, and in the balance of the families, 31 parents had been separated for an average of six months. Of the children who participated in the study, 24 were females (mean age=10.6 years), and 19 were males (mean age=8.3 years). The sample of mothers was 95% Caucasian, and reported an average education level of two years of college. T-test and Analysis of Variance procedures yielded no significant age or gender effects on any of the independent variables. Ihteryiew Once the determination was made that a family was appropriate for participation in the study (from this point it will be assumed that the family had children also appropriate for the project), an interview time was scheduled either at the home of the family or at the Michigan State University Psychological Clinic, whichever was more convenient for the family. If the marital partners were separated, every effort was made to contact and interview the (ex)spouse and any children that might be living with that person. Due to many mitigating circumstances, this was not always possible, and therefore the data from only one spouse was used for the research. Possible differences that might arise with information from only one spouse will be taken into account in the statistical analyses. For the actual interview, one or two graduate students (depending on whether there were one or two 32 adults participating) and as many undergraduate research assistants as there were children participating interviewed each individual in a separate, private room. The adult interview lasted from 30 minutes to 1 hour, and the child interview lasted from 1-1 1/2 hours, depending on the age and verbal ability of the child. Inetrumsnte For the purposes of this proposal, only the instruments pertinent to this particular aspect of the FSP will be discussed. Seeiee;11 LFAQE§_IIL. The FACES II (Olson, Portner, 8 Bell, 1982) is a 30 item questionnaire derived from family systems theory that provides a measure of family structure as defined by the Circumplex Model of Olson and his colleagues (Olson, Russell, 8 Sprenkle, 1979, 1980, 1983), The FACES II yields scores on two dimensions of family structure: family adaptability and family cohesion. Basically, the model provides for four levels of adaptability and four levels of cohesion, yielding sixteen descriptive cells into which family structure can be categorized (Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, 8 Wilson, 1983). 33 According to the Circumplex Model, family cohesion refers to "the emotional bonding that family members have toward one another" (Olson, 1982). Family adaptability is defined as "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, 1982). These two dimensions combined provide a gross measure of family structure that can be easily utilized for research. For the purposes of this study, it was necessary to slightly alter the form of the FACES II in order to make it more relevant to the questions being researched. In particular, the fact that some families were "intact" at the time of the interview and in other families marital partners had already separated, different forms of the FACES II were developed within the sample of adults and within the sample of children. For the adults, two forms of the questionnaire were devised. For intact families, the standard FACES II form was used (Appendix C). For families in which the marital partners had already separated, the adult was given a form in which rather than each item beginning with the phrase "when with my family", the form for separated adults contained the phrase "when with my children" substituted for "when with my 34 family". In this way, it was more possible to obtain a measure of family structure in the two family systems that develop after parental separation. Except for that phrase substitution, the items remained identical to the original FACES II measure. Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, et al. (1982) reported an internal consistency reliability coefficient of .87 for the Cohesion scale, and .78 forthe Adaptability scale. so ' t o ' d e I . The PIC (Wirt, Lachar, Klinedinst, 8 Seat, 1984) in its original form is a 600 item behavioral checklist completed by parents. It yields T-scores on 3 validity , scales, one Adjustment Scale, and 12 clinical scales. For the purpose of this research, the short form (131 items) factor analysis of the PIC was used (Lachar, Gdowski, 8 Snyder, 1982) (Appendix D). This provides T-scores on 4 factor scales measuring overall behavior. The 4 factor scales are as follows: Scale I: Undisciplined/Poor Self Control, Scale II: Social Incompetence, Scale III: Internalizing/Somatic Problems, and Scale IV: Cognitive Development. As previously mentioned, these four scale scores provided an overall measure of behavior, and were used as one general measure of the current level of psychosocial functioning of the child. 35 Lachar, Gdowski, 8 Snyder (1982) calculated alpha coefficients for the internal consistency of the four broad-banned factors of the PIC. The coefficients are as follows: Factor I=.92, Factor II=.89, Factor III=.82, and Factor IV=.81. In terms of validity characteristics of the four broad-band factors, the above authors found the four factors to differentiate varying inpatient and outpatient samples "significantly and meaningfully in a manner that would be expected based upon group characteristics" (Lachar, et al., 1982). Meeehree Qempleteg by thig As previously stated, the child measures were divided into two categories: measures of the child's individual psychosocial functioning and measures of family functioning. It should be noted that the latter category is broad in nature and within it the measures differed in nature, however these titles are applied here for pedantic reasons. '5 s osoc' ion'n In order to assess current psychosocial functioning as it related to family functioning, standardized measures of psychopathology in children were included. Much of the initial literature in the field included case reports and subjective descriptions of behavioral problems and the use of diagnostic 36 categories derived merely through observations and parent report. This is evident in the work of Wallerstein and Kelly, in which much of their outcome results were reported in an anecdotal way acquired from observations of the child. As previously mentioned, an important step in the research process was the inclusion of empirically derived questionnaires to assess psychopathology in the children. Well- standardized measures of behavior problems in children provide a more empirically-sound manner of comparing these children to other populations. The first measure of children's psychosocial functioning was the PIC (a parent checklist) which was discussed in the previous section. Children'e Depression Ihventery (QQI). The CDI (Kovacs, 1981) is a 27 item rating scale developed to assess depression in school aged children (Appendix E). Each of the 27 items consists of 3 statements graded from 0 (absent) to 2 (severe). The time frame for the questionnaire is the past week before presentation. As is true with all of the child measures, the CDI was presented orally to the child. The score on the inventory can range from 0 to 54. A score of 19 or greater has been used as a cut-off for clinical depression (Kovacs, 1981). 37 In their review book of child assessment techniques, Goldman, L'Engle, 8 Guerry (1983) discussed the work of Friedman and Butter (1979), who studied the reliability of the CDI by administering the measure to 875 Canadian children aged 10-17 years. They found a coefficient alpha of .86 for this sample, with no age or sex effects emerging. Validity characteristics of the CDI were obtained in a study by Carlson and Cantwell (1980), in which they administered the instrument to 102 children ranging in age from 7 to 17 years. These children were evaluated as outpatients, and of 93 that received DSM- III diagnoses, 28 received diagnoses of an affective disorder. These 28 children obtained significantly higher scores on the CDI than did the other 65 children who carried various other DSM-III diagnoses. Also since poor self-esteem is related to depression, Carlson and Cantwell (1980) did find a significant negative correlation between scores on the Piers-Harris and scores on the CDI. This finding permits another way to obtain convergent validity for assessing psychopathology in the sample for this study (Goldman, et. al., 1983). - ' C e ' -Conce t Sc . The Piers-Harris is an 80 item self-report questionnaire designed to measure self-concept in children and 38 adolescents (Piers, 1984). Each item consists of a statement about how some people feel about themselves, and the child is asked to respond "yes" or "no" as to whether that item applies or does not apply to themselves (Appendix F). Forty of the items (50%) are scored so that the response "yes" is indicative of high 'self concept, and forty items are scored so that the response "no" indicates high self-concept. Each item of the inventory is therefore scored 1 (high self-concept) or 0 (low self-concept), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 80: hypothetically no self-concept to extremely high self-concept, respectively. In the revised manual for the Piers-Harris Inventory, Piers (1984) reported data on the statistical properties of the scale. Test-retest reliability coefficients for the measure ranged from .42 (interval= 8 months) to .96 (interval= 3-4 months), with a median coefficient of .73. In the manual, the author reported on an earlier standardization study of hers (Piers, 1973) in which she calculated internal consistency for the measure. Using the KR-20 test, she found reliability coefficients for the total score to range from .88 to .93. 39 In the manual, Piers (1984) presented a number of validity studies for the her instrument, in which the relationship between the Piers-Harris instrument and other commonly used self-concept measures was examined. She reported a number of moderate but statistically significant correlations, along with a number of non- significant correlations. The author explained these small correlations as being mostly due to the fact that the Piers-Harris is an instrument designed to span a large age range (8-18 years), while the majority of instruments used in the validity studies were specifically designed to target some particular small range of children's ages. ' es 0 m' u c 'o 'n b ’ h 'o v a Seeleezll. For a more in-depth discussion of the basic format of the FACES II, see previous discussion in this methodology section. Two forms were developed for this project to focus on the two populations of children in the sample. For children in families in which the parents were not separated, the standard form of the FACES II was administered (Appendix C). For children of families in which the parents were separated, two different forms of the FACES II were administered. Each item on these questionnaires was identical to the standard form, except for the fact 40 that on one form each item began with the phrase "when with my mother...", and on the other form each item began with the phrase "when with my father...". In this way, the "mother" form (Appendix G) and "father" form (Appendix H) of the FACES II obtained a separate measure of family structure for the "two" families in which the child might live following a separation. Eareht Perception Inventory (PEI). The PPI (Hazzard, Christensen, 8 Margolin, 1983) is an 18 item questionnaire developed to assess children's perceptions of 18 parental behavior classes, based on a traditional behavioral observation model (Appendix I). The 18 behavior classes are divided into 9 positive types of behavior (positive reinforcement, comfort, talk time, involvement in decision making, time together, positive evaluation, allowing independence, assistance, and nonverbal affection) and 9 negative types of behavior (privilege removal, criticism, command, physical punishment, yelling, threatening, time-out, nagging, and ignoring). Each item is presented as a short list of behaviors descriptive of that particular class of behaviors. The instrument is administered twice, once for the father and once for the mother. Each item is scored 0 ("never") to 4 ("a lot"). Four subscales are obtained: Mother Positive, Mother Negative, Father Positive, and Father Negative. 41 Each subscale score can range from 0 to 36. The PPI has been used in other studies examining differences in children's perceptions of parental behaviors in distressed and nondistressed families (Hazzard, Christensen, 8 Margolin, 1983). The instrument was shown to have some sensitivity in documenting differences in parental behaviors in distressed families. Also, it was suggested and statistically illustrated that parental behaviors in distressed families would be viewed as being more discrepant than parental behaviors in control families In examining the statistical properties of the PPI, Hazzard, Christensen, 8 Margolin (1983) first determined internal consistency by computing Cronbach's alphas on each of the four subscales (Mother Positive=.84, Mother Negative=.78, Father Positive=.88, Father Negative=.80). The standardization sample was also split into two groups of children by age (5-9 yrs. and 10-13 yrs.), in order to examine internal consistency for different ages. The Alphas in these analyses ranged from .74-.89. Convergent validity was assessed by computing correlations between the PPI and the Piers Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale and the externalizing scale of the Child Behavior Checklist (a parental measure of child behavior problems). For these 42 analyses, the PPI was completed by both children and parents. Results yielded a positive correlation between Mother's and Father's positive PPI scores and children's self-concept. The logical reverse also was illustrated, in that Mother's and Father's negative PPI scores were negatively correlated with children's self- concept. In terms of the CBC externalizing scale, Positive PPI scores for both parents were unrelated to conduct problems, whereas negative PPI scores for both parents positively correlated to conduct problems in the children. Discriminant validity was assessed by correlating the four PPI scales with the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT) and the Becker Intellectual Inadequacy Scale, both of which are expected to not be highly correlated to PPI subscales. Six correlations were found to be insignificant. However, the authors did report one seemingly counterintuitive finding, in that Mother's Positive PPI scores were negatively correlated to WRAT scores. Also, Mother's negative PPI scores showed a weak relationship to mother-completed scores on the Becker (Hazzard, et. al., 1983). Results Measurement of Perceptions of Femiiy fitrpcrure First, an overall family dysfunction score from the mother and child versions of the Faces II was calculated. Based on standardization means published by Olson, Portner, and Bell (1982), the dysfunction score represents the distance that a subject's score (both on the "mother" and "child" form) on the Adaptability and Cohesion factors lies from the published means of the two factors. Since each pair of Adaptability and Cohesion scores forms a point on the Circumplex Model grid (Appendix J), using basic geometric theory, the distance between any two points on a graph (e.g., a subject's point and the published mean) is calculated as the square root of the sum of the squared differences between the pairs of Cohesion and Adaptability coordinates (the distance between X“)!1 and X2,Y2=Square Root((X2-X1)2 + (Ya-Y1“) . This simple arithmetic manipulation provides one number that illustrates how discrepant any pair of Adaptability/ Cohesion scores falls from the published means, or how, as predicted on the circumplex model, the structure of a given family is deviant from the norm. The other measure of the perception of family functioning was the PPI. The published method for 43 44 analyzing scores on the PPI consists of summing the positive and negative scores for each parent, providing one overall composite score for child-perceived, parent-child functioning for each parent. A higher score (composite scores will range from 0 to 72) represents a more positive perception of the parent by the child. It should be noted that due to the lack of sustained contact that many of these children experienced with their fathers during the marital separation/divorce process, the ability to accurately compare PPI results for the mother and father is lessened. Since a large percentage of the children (70%) live with their mothers for the majority of the time, for the purposes of this project only the mother forms of the PPI were included in the analyses. Table 1 contains the scale score means and standard deviations of independent and dependent variables for the entire sample. Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent and Independent Variables VARIABLE MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION PIC FACTOR 58.44 16.10 I PIC FACTOR 52.18 12.79 II PIC FACTOR 55.15 14.58 III PIC FACTOR 49.40 7.12 IV PIERS- 62.09 11.01 HARRIS CDI 7.33 4.53 CADAPT 56.12 7.12 CCOHES 57.64 7.86 PPI + 26.79 6.68 PPI - 11.21 6.13 MADAPT 56.54 6.25 MCOHES 57.49 9.56 CTOR I=Undsicip ined-Poor Self-Contra. PIC FACTOR II=Social Incompetence PIC FACTOR III=Internalization/Somatic Symptoms PIC FACTOR IV=Cognitive Development CADAPT=Child Adaptability-FACES II CCOHES=Child Cohesion-FACES II PPI +=PPI Positive Score PPI -=PPI Negative Score MADAPT=Mother Adaptability-FACES II MCOHES=Mother Cohesion-FACES I 45 I 46 A theoretical and statistical point concerning the use of the PPI and its devised scoring system arises when using the method presented above. The scoring system assumes that a higher positive score is somehow indicative of "better" parenting. In fact, a parent whose behavior contains some aspects viewed as positive by the child, and some aspects viewed as negative by the child, might be objectively rated as a more functional and effective parent than one whose interactions with the child were mostly rated as positive by that child. Examining this problem from a statistical perspective, the above arguments suggest a potential curvilinear relationship between PPI scores and the outcome measures used in this study. Parents falling at either end of the spectrum on the PPI (with large positive or negative scores) might exhibit low, or even negative correlations with positive outcome measures, and the parents whose scores fall in the middle range might correlate positively with positive outcome. If this were found to be the case, a traditional linear correlation coefficient would not be the appropriate statistic to measure these relationships. To test this premise statistically, the PPI scores were first correlated with the square of the outcome variables, to assess the strength of the quadratic 47 component of the relationship. Any significant correlations were then examined graphically to rule out the possibility that these relationships were nonlinear in nature. The combination of these two procedures yielded no patterns suggesting any nonlinear relationships. 5 s s 0 se Hypotheses #1-#3 predicted that a child's perceptions of family structure and functioning (as measured by the FACES II and PPI) would be related to his/her current level of psychological functioning. Each of these hypotheses was structured in the same manner, with the only difference being the outcome variable being analyzed. Before proceeding with the results of the first three hypotheses, it is important to note that within this sample, there were a number of families with more than one child participating. When analyzing separately those families with siblings, the correlations between dependent and independent variables were significantly larger than those found when examining the entire group. Hypothesis #1 tested the relationship between children's FACES II and mother PPI scores, and an overall measure of child behavior problems, as measured by the PIC. This hypothesis predicted that children's perceptions of the family as more deviant would 48 correlate with more pathological scores (higher factor scores on the PIC subscales). Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were first computed between FACES II Adaptability and Cohesion scores separately, and then difference scores obtained using the previously described arithmetic transformation, and the four broad-band PIC factor scores. Negative but nonsignificant correlations were found between Adaptability scores and all four PIC factor scores. For Cohesion scores, three of the four correlations were also in the negative direction, but again none of these reached statistical significance. FACES II difference scores yielded three negative and one small positive correlation: none reaching statistical significance. To test the second part of Hypothesis #1, Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated between the child-completed "mother" forms of the PPI and the four PIC factor scales. Correlations were calculated examining PPI positive and negative scores separately, as well as the computed PPI difference scores. The positive PPI scores yielded four small, statistically nonsignificant correlations in the negative direction. The negative PPI scores were significantly correlated with the first two PIC factors (Undisciplined/Poor Self Control and Social 49 Incompetence), while small but nonsignificant positive correlations were found with the remaining two factors of the PIC. Correlations between the PPI composite scores (positive score minus negative score) and the four PIC factor scale scores revealed four negative coefficients. Again, as with the PPI negative scores above, the correlations with the Undisciplined/Poor Self Control and Social Incompetence factors were statistically significant. See Table 2 for a summary of the results of Hypothesis #1. Table 2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Children's FACES II and PPI Scores and PIC Broad Band Factors FACTOR Ia FACTOR IIb FACTOR III? FACTOR IVd FACES II -.27 -.29 -.01 -.14 ADAPTAB. FACES II -.23 -.21 .07 -.25 COHESION FACES II -.19 -.31 0.00 -.18 COMPOSITE PPI -.l7 -.14 -.22 -.18 POSITIVE PPI .42* .50** .08 .24 NEGATIVE PPI -.38* -.42* -.20 -.28 COMPOSITE *p<.01, **p<. 01 '=Undisciplined-Poor Self-Control, b==Social Incompetence, c=Internalization/Somatic Symptoms, ¢=Cognitive Development 50 51 In order to test Hypothesis #2, the same independent variables used in Hypothesis #1 were correlated with scores on the CDI. Small but nonsignificant negative correlations were found between all FACES II scores and the CDI. Correlations with the PPI also yielded statistically nonsignificant results. Results of Hypothesis #2 are presented in Table 3. Hypothesis #3 substituted Piers-Harris scores as the dependent variable. The Piers-Harris correlated positively, but nonsignificantly with all FACES II scores. The negative PPI subscale and the PPI composite score revealed statistically significant correlations with Piers-Harris scores. Results of Hypotheses #3 are also presented in Table 3. Table 3. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients Between Children's FACES II and PPI Scores and CDI and Piers-Harris Total Scores CDI Piers- Harris FACES II -.03 .17 ADAPTAB. FACES II -.13 .34 COHESION FACES II -.07 .15 COMPOSITE PPI -.05 .15 POSITIVE PPI .28 -.56** NEGATIVE PPI -.21 .49** COMPOSITE *p\ A“‘A-‘--A--“A‘- a ' 0 77063609 . ....23. Pauly traders like to spend theirefree time with each other. AQQQOO .....24. It is difficult to get a rule changed. I - vv ~_a —r 4" saw-IV T ~ A a. A. ’7‘ -. A, arx- .. ...25. Family members avoid each other at home. ‘ A r 5 if 5.5,." " A: . ... .26. If problems arise, we Cohmromise. ; cm ”5,.“ do car: A. . . ...27. We approve of each other's friends. . ”more, .....28. Family members are afraid to say what's on. their mind. a e 0 Q)? first." ’7 ’7. .....29. 1?me members pair up rather than do things as a total family. . CCCQQCQQ .....30. Family meters share interests and hobbies. r g . A I o -Jooo¢ooooo fiaooooooooo ioooooooooo Eoooooooooo 3oooooooooo ;Dooooooooo ‘ I J ‘4 I v v loooooooooo oooooooooo A GOA/an, drama - a, \J \4 \II {4' f. 4 v .ooooooooco 81 () () IIIIIIIUIUHIIIIII|IIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIUIII' Appendix D Personality Inventory for Children (short form) DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS ON THIS BOOKLET PART I J ';J My chtld Often plays wnth a group or chtldren. My chtld hardly ever smtles. Other chttdren otten get mad at my cntld. My cnttd worries about tntngs that want only tdults vmrrv anuut My chtld has many l'rtcnds. M v cntld :ntelltgence. seems average or above average to My chtld‘s manners somettrnes embarrass me. M y chtld has a good sense of humor. My chtld somettmcs sees thtngs that aren‘t there. My chtld IS warned about snn. Other chtldren don't seem to ltstento or nottce my chtld much. My chtld somcttmts undresses outStde. My cntid has ltttle self-conndencc l otten wusn my chtld woutd be more trtendlt My chtld can comb hts (her) own natr. M y chtld IS usually retected by Other cntldren My chtld seems to entoy destroytng thtngs. Now and then my chtld wrttes letters to trtends. Thunder and ltghtntng bother my chtld. The school says my chtld needs help tn getttng along wuh other children. My chtld Ottcn asxs II I love mm then. . Other chtldren look up to my chtld as a leader. My chtld could nde a trtcycle by age the years. My chttd somettmes gets angry. My chtld frequently comptatns ot ocmg not even on cotd days. 82 40 4|. 42. 43, ~14. 45. ~16. 47. 43. to My chtld‘s behawor often makes others angry. Recently my cntld has complatncd 0! eye trouble. ()thcrs tntnk my chtld ts talented. \Iv chtld treuuenttv has gas on the stomacn (sour My parenta expect too much of me. I I like being the way I aan feel left out of thinge. 91 NW 'TPHEF :IIIIAHHEE¥¥ .!l. ..lll .I'lllllll'Illll!llI|lllll!llllllllllll ..ll..! NEWSWE- . . ‘ . ..v my“; ~pm~gmwmflxfl§ .5.-’ ‘-’-~"-"- m4 ' '73 3033333303 30333369303 a ®O®®®@©®®@ ©®©®®CD®®®® v.1. I have nice hair .......................................... (DOC-3333633061 3.2. I often volunteer in school ............................... 3033333036 '43. I wish I were different ................................... 30333363003 1.1.. I sleep well at night ..................................... - ®O©@®@©®.@ oi InuamenuuuunuuuuA ...................... g ©Q@@@®Q@0@ 46. I am among the last to be about: for games ................ @®©@®@@®.@ 47 I am eick a lot ........................................... ®®®@®@®@®® as. I am often mean to other people ........................... 00006030636) 49. My claaemetea in achool think I have good ideae ........... @@@@@@@@®@ 50. I an unhappy .............................................. @@@@@@@@@® 51. I have many friends ....................................... QQQQ®®@®.® 52. I an cheerful ................. A ............................ V @0@@@@@@@@ 53. I an dumb about moat things ................. ............. @®®®®®©®.® 54. I am good looking.............; ........................... @®@@®®@@.® 55. I have lots of pep ........................................ QCCCGQQOCDQ) 56. I get into e lot of fights ................................ @®©@®®©®O® 5L Impwuuwunmn .................................... ©®©®®®@®®® 58. People pick on me ......................................... Q©©®®©®©®® 59. My family is disappointed in me ........................... 0 (33333036) 69 IMwaphumthu .................................... O©©G®®®®®® 0303333006) 30333630633 OOCC®©®O®® 300333.036) GOG-33 33300 0333330036) 92 0900999991 «MHA’N‘QAAA U 0 <) () C) .- C) (3 CD . C) (9 G) l) () () (J (J (3 C) k) L) L) K) (3 C) CD 1- C) C) C) C) C) C) CD 0 () () C) () C) C) C) C) (J C C) , C) () C) (3 Kg) (3 (A) «AAAAA 'J‘VVVVUCCOC‘ i3000990099 61. < :62. 63. 166. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 76. 75. 76. ' ‘77. $0000999999 $300000 9099 AA \A.‘ A _ ‘ A « .—‘ A A a A A 78. 79. When I try to make something. everything seems to go wrong. I I I In games and sports. I watch instead of play. I I am picked on at home. an a leader in gamea and sports. am clumay. forget what I learn. an easy to get along with. loae my temper easily. an popular with girls. an a good reader. would rather work alone than with a group. like my brother (sister). have a good figure. am often afraid. am alwaya dropping or breaking things. can be trusted. am different from other people. think bad thoughts. cry eaeily. am a good person. SCORE: 93 H!!!” P UIIIHIHHHH'HHHIIIHUHIIHII'HH”HUN S . S > - I ‘ Aooendix b FACES II Mother Form [101 -s mNDT «WRUEHEI. : . 3.....- one...» _,,-, , , _- 3333333333 _- FACES-M 3333333333 _. 3333333333 —~ WIONS: Please describe what your family is like now on —. each of the 30 it's using the following scale: 3333333333 -‘ 1 = Almst never : 2 '- Once in a while ©06©®©.®®® 3 - Sometimes : :1. Frequently 3333333303 .. = ' “in" “"3“ 99999999991 :' 1. When with my mother. family meters are supportive of each ©6©®®®©®®® _ other during difficult t Ives ................................. _ 2. When with my mother. it is easy for everyone in the family @®©®®©©®®® -_ tam; his,” op "'0'" ..... 6......“00000000‘.000......O __ 3. when with or Wait!“ rerasienfltrn discussufloblees with @®®®®®®®®® _ people outside the y t an w other y meters"... _' 4. When with my antiwar. each family meter has input in major @®©®®©®®.® ' family decisions ............................................ l 5. When with my mother. our family gathems together in the so. ®®®®®@@®©® ”0 CW On.0......'5..“OOC.O0.000“C'”OOOO...O. :6 G. Hheewith my mother. children haves say in their ®®®®®®®®®Q _, discipline ..................... . ..... . ....................... @o@@@@@@@g :; 7. When with my mother. our family does things together ......... _ 8. i-lhen with my mother. family eaters discuss problems and @GGXDGQGDGGDQ __, feel good about thersolutions.......... ...................... @®@@®®©®®Q :., 9. when with my mother. everyone goes his/her own way........... , _, 10. When with my mother. we shift household responsibilities ®O®®®C9©®®® _, from person to person ....................................... _ 11. When with my mother. family mailers know each other 5 close ®®®®®®G>®©® _ friends ...................................................... @©@@®@@®.® :- 12. When with my mother. it is hard to knot what the rules are... 0 _. 13. when with my mother. fauly waders consult with each OGQQQQQGDGMN _ other on decisions ............................................ @@@@@@@@®® :_' 14. when with my anther. family meters say what they want ....... (g) _. 15. when with my mother. our family has- difficulty thinking ©®®®®®®® 3 _ of things to do ............................................ @303333303 ., 16. In solving problems. when with my mother. the children‘s _ suggestions are followed .................................. @@@@®®.333 _ 17. When with my mother. family manners feel very close. to _. each other ................................................... @@@@@@@3®3 : 18. When with my mother. discipline is fair in our family ........ o _ 19. When with my mother. family newer-s feel closer to people @®®®®@.®©@ _ outside the family than to other family sewers .............. 3333333333 _ 20. When with my mother. our family tries new ways to deal _ with problems .............................................. 3333333333 _ 21. when with my mtlier. family mowers go along with what the _ family decides to do ......................................... 3333333303 _ 22 In our family. when with my mother. everyone shares _ responsibillties ............................................. 3333333333 94 (33363363636336) 9 .3999999099 :0999999909 {0090999999 I3000999099 0099999999 09«~ 9 U C) C) O O 3 L) AAA AA 33*3 3333~333 3099999999 33390 3333 3999999999 3999999999 0999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 0900999999 19999999999 0099999999 3099009099 Q099999999o i0099999999 30-0000090 '0000999099 [0099999999 [9099999999 .0000000009 0099999999 ‘999999o999 AAAAAAAAAR when with my mother. when with my mother. mwgm when with my mother. Mu. ”h.“ "It" W ”ti...“ HanflnwmuMn When with my mother. family members like to spend their free timalwith each other. it is difficult to get a rule family members avoid each other at if problems arise. we coowomise. we approve of each other's friends.. family members are afraid to say what‘s on their minds. mmnflmmwnwu; do things as a total HunflflnwmuMn ham”. 95 family members pair up rather than- nmw. fondly members share interests and HHHHHHHH'HHH!HHHHIH‘HIlliililliiiiiiliiiliifl Appendix H FACES II Father Form mum-um- . fl 1 18. FACES-F INSTRUCTIMS: Please describe what you: family is like now on each of the 30' item using the following scale?- 1 - Almost never 2 - Once in a while 3 - Sal-times 4 I Frequently 5 - Almost always . When with my father. famtly mats. are supportive of each 0M during d‘ff'wlt t‘”060000000”0”OOOOOOOOOOCOO-.00... . Hhen with my fewer; it is easy for'everyone in the flaily ‘ to 819'!!! "‘3’"? ONII‘OII ooooo eeeee eeeee eee-eeeeeeeee eeeeee When with my father, it is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other family mailers-n... Uhen with my father. each f-ily “er has input in major f-‘ly MS?” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -.OOOOO"OOOOOOOOOOOO iihen with my father. our family gathers together in the s- We OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0...... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO when with my father. children have a say in their dimpl'm OOOOOOOOOOOOOO ."HOOOO..“OOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO . lihen with my father. our family does things together......... when with my father. faily m‘ers discuss probl- and feel good about the solutions ................... ..... ........ ab 0'! # u N H O O O 0 “N a 9. when with my father. everyone goes his/her own way. ...... 10. when with my father. we shift household responsibilities f" ”a” to ”flmOOOO0.0.0.0...00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11. gwngth my father. family mars knot each other‘s close 0 eeeeeeeeee O. 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 12. When with my father, it is hard to know what the rules are... 13. :23 with my father. family memers consult each other on : om ......... O... ...... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 000000 When with my father. family meters say what they want....... When with my father. our family has difficulty thinking of things to do ............................................... 16. In solving problems when with my father. the children‘ s suggestions are followed .................................... 17. um with my father. family we“ feel very close to each 0 r OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ......... I4. 15. when with my father. discipline in our family is fair ........ 19. When with my-father. family meters feel closer to people outside the family than to other family meabers .............. 20. When with my father. our family tries newways to deal with DWI” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO .0. 21- when with my father. family medial-s go along with what the . fmly deC‘da to do... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..OOOOOOO~ ....... 22. In our family when with my father. everyone shares responsibilities ............................................. 96 ‘t , 70- y. ..4 0e ' ‘ J. 1*" ‘1 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9909999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 (999999999 tel al-II‘.’ III.“ «lid‘ll-I‘ UL ’ It'IJL/ , , ..w All: new: 51.": ( I've") 59999999999 39999999999 g9999999999 ;9999999999 €9999999999 @®@®®®@®®@ @®®@®@®®®® @®©®®@©O®® @®@®®@©®®® @®©®®®©®Q© @®©@®©@O®@ ©0®®®©®®0® ©0©®®®®®®® ®®©@®®@O®@ @®®®®@®O®® @®®@®©@®®® @®®®@©©O©® ©0®®®®®®®® @0©®®©©®®® @GQQQQQGQQ @O®@®®®O@® @®©®®®®00® ©06®®®®O®® GOO®®®®O®® @©Q®®®®®®@ oonfififlofifiG V‘t‘a‘JJJ—I @OQQGGDOCQG) @O©@®@@C®® 6399999999' T l Is.‘_..4\_4_.__ when with my father. family mowers like to spend their free time with each other. lihen with my father. it is diffiylt to get a ruler. changed. When with av father. family waders avoid each other at“ ‘ hue. When with my father. if problems arise. we coomromise. . When with my father. we approve of each other‘s friends. When with my father, family meters are afraid to say what‘s on their mind. when with my father. family mders pair up rather than do things as a total family. :miwith my father. family m-bers share interests and as. 97 I.IlimmumlIlmulIaHHuman-umIUlIIIIIIIuIrwi Aooendix I Parent Perception Inventorv IIIIIIIII'I!III'II!’I”IIHIIl!||ll,’!ll ' I o v 0 1' ill 2. «9‘... Pretty Much PARENT PERCEPTION INVENTORY (HY PARENT? AT HM) Ann Haizard and 'Andrew' Christensen Read the child the following directions: . NE HOULD LIKE TO'KHW HW RICH YOO'THIHK YODR'DIH AND DAD DO CERTAIN THINGS ATM» HEEHILLNOT‘TALK TO'YOUR PARENTS‘ABIIIT mm YOU TELL us: SO-TPLEASE- TELL Merino REALLY. mm. LET'S TRY A PRACTICELQJESTIU‘: How often does your unclean the.house1—- Does she clean it never. a little. soutimes. or a ot? Using the answer-key above. fill in the circle which tells hat often your ma‘cl'eaes; the house. ' (AFTER THE CHILD HAS GIVEN HIS/HER AHSER. HEISHE MRSTME. THETASK.) .. SO YWR Mi CLEANS THEM (Child's answer)" hOH HE' LL START. pntty Nd‘e (For each concept: a) State the it. Mr. b) Ask “Hail OFTEN DOES YOUR now” c) Give exasples until the child understands the concept. For starred items. repeat the‘response choices (e. 9.. Does she NEVER. A LITTLE. SOIETIHES. ' PRETTY RICH. OR ‘A LOT?) as you point to each response.) * 1. (POSITIVEREIIIFORCEIENT) - Thank you for-doing things. Tell you when she likes what you did. Give you something or let you do something special when you‘ re good ................................... (anuemanvm Take away thingswhen you misbehave .(slike° not. letting,you watch TV or ride your bike or stay up late or eat dasert) ....... 0.. ..... OI0.00.00.00.00.00.0.0000... ........ 3. (cmm Talk to you when you feel bad and help you to feel better. help you with your problem. comfort you... ................. 4. (CRITICISM) Tell you you're no good. tell you that you messed up or didn't do so scathing right. criticize you ................ * 5. (TALK TIME) Talk to you. listen to you. have a good conversation with you ........................................................ 98 9999999999” ,.©®®®®©®®©® '9999999999 '9999999999 .‘9999999999 -'9999999999 '9999999999 “9999999999 ‘9999999999 "'9999999999 CHECK TO “SURE-THAT .9999999999 ‘9999999999 @®®®®©®®®G} 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 @0®®®®®®®® 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999990 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999999 9999999909 999999999 3999999999 f3999999999 399::99999 399::39999 :9::::9999 ;:::::999 3993999999 399:- 9999 :9:::::999 'ECDCZ 0 ETCDCDCDCDCD 3000000000 3000000000 3000000000 3000000007 3000000000 3000000000 3000000000 030000 \AA—‘AAAAAA - . .e .— .r r — v v 3000000000 3000000000 ”DCDCZTZIZCDCDCDCDCD “CDCDCICIZDCDCDCDCDC3 «AAA-\AAAAA ..*IO.. '......11. 00.0012. 0.0.013. 0...;14. ....*IS. .....16. ..... 17. ..... 18. (COMMAND) ‘ ' Order you around. tell you what to do. give conuands. (INVOLVEMENT IN necxsrou-nAxtus) Let you help decide what do to. let you help figure out how to solve problems. (PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT) Spank you. slap you. hit you. (TIME-TOGETHER) Rlay with you. spend time with you. do things with you. which you like. (YELLING) Get,mad at you. yell at you. holler at you. scream at you. shout at you. (POSITIVE EVALUATION) . Say nice things to you. tell you that you‘re a good boy/girl. compliment you. (THREATENING) Threaten you. tell you that you‘ ll get into trouble if you do something wrong. warn you. (ALLONING INDEPENDENCE) Let you do what other kids your age do. let you do things ..on your own. (TIME-OUT) ‘Send you to a room or corner when you do something wrong. (ASSISTANCE) Help you when you need it (with a hard job. with homework. when you can‘t do something by yourself) (NABEING) Nag you. tell you what to do over and over again. keep after you to do things. (NONHVERBAL AFFECTION) Hub you. kiss you. tickle you. smile at you. (IGNORING) Ignore you. not. pay any attention to you. not talk to you or look at you. (After completing items.with reference to MOM. say. “Now I'm going to ask you how often your DAD does these things. Go revisions.) through items in the same order making appropriate gender 99 .~ ’ ’l 0' "..' t'.""'.".500""'1!9 Aooendix J The Circumolex Model FIGURE 1. CIRCUMFLEX MODEL: SIXTEEN TYPES OF MARITAL AND FAMILY SYSTEMS < Low COHESION High—9 puseaoaoep swamp snowstorm sawesaso . 6 7 : \\\\\“” “‘\ V cmonc gaaonm\ caapncam / CHAOTICALLY canonca\ DISENGAGED ssraamp comma eaaesaep 7 High \ I A \ D 6 § \\ A FLEXIBLE swam FLEXIBLY meow \ P onseuoaoep coauemp masaeo \‘ T 5 //// A . B 1 a 47//// Mi | sraucruaep smucruaam smucmaum sTaucTuaALLv smucTuaALu 5 1- DISENGAGEO SE?ARATEO comma 'ENMESMEO § v a // 9 Law § 9 mono \ amnou RIGIDLY aupupu RIGIDLY . 1 \Iseacacep\ swamp / CONNECTED eawesaeo w 9\\\\\\\\\ / \\ I I mean [m mumps [ml EXTREME aATm; TOTAL coussuon: FAMILY: TOTAL ADAPTABILI’IY; (Name or Number) FAMILY TYPE: DATE _,_______. __ _ _____ _._ TOTAL COMMUNICATION: EVALUAW )N ,_ Wm In... H): t _. A -. 100