no. . .Lfaev c... ~_s‘..v ll"- ‘nl, . ,1!!! I 3‘?" III! . rho... . {.55 0.! . .‘fl . ‘ I , lil.|va.‘ if .1 .:.,.f:.s. .8 . ow..ov-V..o. . 4 . 7 . - 3,1. bk .Id’u‘...v. . .MJIWVOflhn-uowuru... 4...}. I. a... Axr‘ THE-”SIS "Iulmlufllwzllllinl L This is to certify that the dissertation entitled FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-IMAGE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM DIVORCED AND INTACT HOMES presented by RONALD AARON LAPPORTE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH. D. degmin PSYCHOLOGY John Paul McKinney L [hue June 11, 1992 MS U is an Affirmative Action/£4 ual Opportunity Institution 042771 H Mm,“— I’ W . LIBRARY Michigan State University k .- PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. fin TO AVOID FINES return on or before dete'due. DATE DUE DATE DU E _‘ DATE DUE .g"”fis’]8“’*' + L.____l ___.=:_l J MSU Is An Affirmative ActIorVEquel Opportunity InetItutIon ammo-9.1 FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-IMAGE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM DIVORCED AND INTACT HOMES By Ronald Aaron Lapporte A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1992 ABSTRACT FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-IMAGE IN COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM DIVORCED AND INTACT HOMES By Ronald Aaron Lapporte College students (n=370) whose parents were either married or divorced since the student's 12th birthday, were studied to test a mediational model in which the relation between parental marital status and college students' self-image was mediated by students' perceptions of interparental conflict, and interparental conflict was mediated through subjects perceptions' of the nature and quality of the parent- adolescent relationship. Four aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship were studied: parental use of firm control, psychological control, acceptance of the adolescent, and parent-adolescent conflict. The study also sought to evaluate the independent contributions of students' perceptions of these family relationship variables at two points in time, corresponding with pre~divorce (memories of age 11) and post-divorce (current) periods for those students whose parents were separated or divorced. The impact on self-image due to perceived changes in these relationships across the two time periods was also explored. Eight separate tests of the model, varying by sex of subject and parent, and time period in question, revealed that adolescents from divorced homes perceived significantly more interparental conflict and that most of the association between interparental conflict and adolescent self-image could be explained through aspects of the parent- adolescent relationship. No direct association between parental marital status and adolescent self-image was found, although marital status was directly associated with certain parent-adolescent relationship variables, but not always in the expected direction. Interparental conflict directly impacted self-image only when perceptions of the current mother-son relationship model was evaluated. The model accounted for greater variance in self-image for male subjects and was quite similar when adolescents recalled current or past family relationships. The impact of various aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship differed according to the particular parent-child dyad. Perceptions of increases in interparental conflict and father-adolescent conflict were generally associated with higher self-image scores for subjects from divorced homes and lower scores for those from intact homes. The role of the predivorce family environment and specific aspects of the parent-child relationship were discussed as they relate to adolescent self-image. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I conclude the final phase of my doctoral training with the completion of this dissertation, and rejoice in self-satisfaction, I would also like to acknowledge my tremendous appreciation for those whose efforts and support helped me attain this goal. I wish to thank John McKinney, for the many ways in which he has extended himself to me as a mentor and a friend. In addition to chairing my dissertation and guidance committees, John provided supervision for my first clinical experience in pediatric psychology, and allowed me my first teaching experience. As he is not a core member of my particular interest group, and hence is not expected to assume any major role in my education, I can only interpret the nature and extent of John's involvement in my training as acts of professional dedication, caring and friendship. For the many ways in which you have guided me and believed in me, I wish to express my heart-felt gratitude. I would like to thank the other individuals who comprised my joint dissertation and guidance committees for sharing their individual talents, their unyielding support, their willingness to meet on short notice, and the respect and kindness they always demonstrated. More specifically, many thanks are owed to Susan Frank for her time and effort spent reading rough drafts, her recommendations for statistical analysis, and her critical thinking which helped to make this dissertation a more refined product. Equally as beneficial iv for my professional development was the clinical supervision I received from Susan who provided a model of competency and helped me enhance my own clinical skills. I would like to thank Frank Floyd for his helping me to organize and solidify my research ideas, his statistical expertise, and his warm, humorous interpersonal style which helped me maintain a reasonable perspective during the most daunting episodes of this research projebt. Gary Stollak deserves a special thanks for his role on my doctoral committees and previously for his membership on my masters thesis committee. Always recognizing my assiduous effort as a researcher, he provided positive recognition while challenging me to consider the significance of my findings within a larger context. In addition to the faculty who have directly shaped my professional skills and identity, I would like to thank my mother, and my siblings, Robert, Jill, and Sharyn for their encouragement and caring which were equally vital for my successful completion of graduate training. Similarly, I owe a special thanks to many friends, especially my long-time friends, Kevin Aranyi, Dan Strickland and Dan's wonderful family for all of their support. To all of these significant peeple, I want to extend my love, gratitude and appreciation for all that they have given to me, and for their acceptance of my limited availability to them during many periods of my graduate training. Finally, I wish to express my deep love and appreciation to Ginny Wright, the individual who serendipitously and graciously accepted a multiplicity of roles during the last four years of my life. To my most trusted colleague, my closest friend, and my greatest support, I am truly thankful for the numerous ways in which you have helped me through these years and enhanced my life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter 1 - Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter 2 - Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . 6 Rates and Prevalence of Divorce . . . . . . . . . 6 Milestone Postdivorce Studies . . . . . . . . . . 7 Effects of Divorce on Children and Adolescents . . . . 10 °Sex Differences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Salient Postdivorce Factors Related to Child Outcome . . 17 Pre-Divorce Family Functioning. . . . . . . . . . 23 Pre-Divorce Child Functioning . . . . . . . . . . 25 Pre-Divorce Parental Functioning . . . . . . . . . 28 Effects of Parental Conflict on Children's Psychological Development . . . . . . . . . . 31 Effects of Parent-Child Relationships on Child Development 38 Indicators of Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Studies of Normal Child and Adolescent Self-Esteem . . . 49 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Chapter 3 - Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 subjects 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 58 Procedure and Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Ins truments I O C O I I O O O O O O O O O O 59 Chapter 4 - Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Demographic Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Test of the PrOposed Model . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Predicting Self-Image. . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Effects of Parental Conflict . . . . . . . . . . 81 Effects of Marital Status . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Current Vs. Past Relationships for Predicting Global Self-Image. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Effects of Perceived Change in Family Relationships Over Time on Self-Image . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Chapter 5 - Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 vi Appendices Appendix A - Tables Appendix B - Instruments. Appendix C - Testing Procedures List of References . vii 106 120 162 167 Table 4a 4b 4c 4d LIST OF TABLES Page Means, Standard Deviations, and Significance of t-tests for Demographic Variables for Divorced and Intact Samples. . . . . . . . . . . 66 Univariate Correlations for Predictor and Criterion Variables for all subjects combined . . . . . 106 Total Variance Explained in Predicting Self-Image Scores for each test of the Model and Tests of Significant Differences for Pairs of the Model by Sex of Subject . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Males' Relationships with their Mothers . . . . 112 Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Males' Relationships with their Fathers . . . . 114 Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Females' Relationships with their Mothers . . . 116 Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Females' Relationships with their Fathers . . . 118 Unique and Shared Variances for Past and Current Perceptions of Family Relationships a d Tests of Significant Differences for Unique R (Kenny's Formula) for Paired Comparisons of the Model (e.g., past vs current relationships with father for males) . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Analysis of Variance for Offer Self-Image Questionnaire scores by Perceived Change in Relationship Factors (increased, unchanged, decreased) by Current Parental Marital Status (divorced/separated, intact). . . . . . . . 88 viii Mean Offer Self-Image Scores as a function of perceived Change in Relationship Status from Age 11 to Present for each Parental Marital Status group for all subjects. . . . . . 89 ix Figure 1a 1b 2a 2b 3a 3b 4a 4b LIST OF FIGURES Proposed P th Model including Beta Weights and the T0t81 R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Male Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposed P th Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Current Relationships for Male Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Male Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Proposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Current Relationships for Male Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposed P th Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Female Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposed Pith Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Current Relationships for Female Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposed Pith Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Female Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Preposed P th Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Current Relationships for Female Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Chapter 1 Statement of the Problem According to Wallerstein and Kelly (1980, p. 4): "Divorce is a process which begins with the escalating distress of the marriage, often peaks at the separation and legal filing, and then ushers in several years of transition and disequilibrium before the adults are able to gain, or to regain, a sense of continuity and confidence in their new roles and relationships." Accepting this definition for the purpose of study requires the analysis of divorce not as an event or even a period surrounding parental separation, but as an extended process with a vaguely identifiable beginning and end. Several researchers, including Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), have pointed out that even two or three years of parental instability represent a significant portion of a child's life. As the onset of this instability or discord may occur at any point during a child's development, or perhaps even prior to the conception of a child, it follows that any impact of the divorcing process may have its roots well before the actual separation or legal divorce. Most of our acquired knowledge about the effects of divorce on family members is derived from cross-sectional and longitudinal research beginning at the point of marital separation or perhaps years later. The focus of many of these studies has been to measure the differences between divorced and intact families on a variety of dimensions shortly after the parental separation and/or at a later point in time and to assess developmental changes on these dimensions. 2 Commonly studied areas include parenting agreement, parent-child relationships, child personality, and changes in child cognitive, emotional, and social skills. Interestingly, one of the most comprehensive and influential longitudinal studies of the impact of divorce on families failed to include a control group for comparison (i.e., Wallerstein and her colleagues). Inherent in most of these studies has been a disregard, or at best, a cursory analysis of predivorce factors and a minimal discussion of the possible significance of these factors on later outcome. The predivorce description of the children from the Wallerstein et a1. study stated that these children "were a relatively normal group" (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Although this study has provided a wealth of important findings about the parents and children in divorced families, it must be noted that children who had been previously referred for psychological or psychiatric treatment were excluded from the study. As the senior investigator of the study concluded: "The study group represented, therefore, young people skewed in the direction of psychological health since they had been able by all accounts to maintain their developmental pace within the failing marriage" (Wallerstein, 1985, p. 546). Although many publications from this study have helped to identify and elucidate numerous postdivorce adjustment problems and issues, it is quite possible that the pre- and postdivorce families in the general population may be more dysfunctional and/or that the Wallerstein et al. study may have failed to detect more subtle effects associated with predivorce marital strife on the children's development. The generalization of postdivorce 3 findings from studies with such sampling biases should be made judiciously when being applied to the larger pepulation of divorced families in the United States. Although most studies of divorced families, regardless of sampling procedures, have discovered group differences in functioning when compared to intact families, it may be erroneous to conclude that these differences are attributable to the divorce itself. Evidence from an extensive, prospective, longitudinal study has indicated that families that will eventually experience a parental divorce differ on a number of dimensions from families that remain intact. Block, Block, and Gjerde (1986) found that the personality characteristics of boys whose parents later divorced could be described by age three, up to 11 years prior to their parents' divorce. It was also found that predivorce stress seemed to affect girls and boys differently and that these sex differences in personality were also evident at age three (Block et al., 1986). Such findings are in agreement with findings regarding child characteristics found after the parental divorce but often attributed to the actual divorce. Research has demonstrated that children's exposure to marital conflict is stressful for most children and that this impact has been identified in children as young as one and two years old (Crockenberg, 1985; Cummings, Iannotti, & Zahn-Waxler, 1985; Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow, 1981; Dunn & Munn, 1985). Marital conflict is also associated with a deterioration in parent-child relationships (Fauber, Forehand, Thomas & Wierson, 1990; Hoffman & Lippitt, 1970; Wadkar, Gore & Palsane, 1986; Amato, 1986). Numerous studies of family processes 4 indicate that the nature and quality of marital and parent-child relationships may be more associated with child adjustment than the child's experience of the divorce itself. Differences in parental functioning (Block, Block, and Gjerde, 1988) and parental agreement- disagreements (Block, Block, and Morrison, 1981) have been found in families up to 11 years prior to parental divorce. Challenges to the commonly accepted notion that parental divorce ultimately impairs children's adjustment are not new in the psychological literature. Nye (1957, p.358) found that adolescents from broken homes showed "less psychosomatic illness, less delinquent behavior and better adjustment to parents than do children in unhappy unbroken homes." Raschke and Raschke (1979), found no differences in self-concept according to family structure for third, sixth, and eighth graders but found that self-concept was lower for children who reported higher levels of family conflict. In a study using interviews with intact and divorced non-clinic families, Ellison (1983) found that parental harmony scores were only slightly higher for married than for divorced couples but that the difference was not significant. She also found no difference in the children's psychosocial adjustment scores mccording to family type, but a positive correlation was found between Parental harmony in divorced couples and their children's assessment of their own psychosocial adjustment. The purpose of this study was to construct a path model to examine tr“? impact of parental marital status on college students' self-image thrOugh its effects on parental conflict and parent-child relations. Students' perceptions of these family relationships were measured as 5 they were believed to have been at age 11 (prior to parental divorce in the divorced sample) and as they are perceived to be currently. The model was evaluated using perceptions of past relationships and again using perceptions of current relationships separately for 17-20 year- old male and female subjects. Chapter 2 Review of the Literature Rates and Prevalence of Divorce A significant increase in the incidence of divorce took place in the late 19605 and early 19705. This trend then continued until 1979 with over a million new children under age 18 experiencing the divorce of their parents (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980; Report of Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, 1983). Block, et al., (1986) point out that it has been estimated that approximately 50% of the marriages contracted in the 19708 will end in divorce and that 70% of those divorcing couples will have children under 18 years of age. Wallerstein (1986), citing a 1985 personal communication with the Assistant Chief of the Population Division of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, stated that an estimated 45% of children born in the early 19809 will experience the divorce of their parents, 35% will experience a remarriage and 20% will experience a second divorce. In 1981, approximately 22.5 million, or 36% of American children under age 18 years were living in other than a two-parent family. A further breakdown indicates that 11.4 million children were living with their INDthers only, 1.2 million with their fathers only, 6.4 million living witfll a biological parent and a stepparent, and the remainder were 1iviug with grandparents, adoptive parents, or foster parents (Wal lerstein, 1986) . 7 Not surprisingly, psychotherapy research has revealed that compared to the general population, children from divorce utilize significantly more outpatient psychiatric, private practice and community agency services (Gardner, 1976; Kalter, 1977). Zill (1983) found that 30% of the adolescents whose parents divorced by the time they were seven-years-old received some type of psychotherapy compared to 10% of the adolescents from intact families. Milestone Post-Divorce Studies Likely due in part to researchers' awareness of the increasing numbers of children from divorced families utilizing mental health services, a number of efforts have been made to better understand the nature and quality of the postdivorce family. Perhaps the best known contribution to the current divorce literature came from the post- separation longitudinal research studies by Wallerstein and her colleagues (Kelly & Wallerstein, 1976; Wallerstein and Blakeslee, 1989; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1980), and Hetherington and her colleagues (Hetherington, 1979, 1988; Hetherington, Cox, and Cox, 1976, 1978, 1985). Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) reported that they had anticipated completing their data collection within the first post separation year as they had expected the transition period for most of the families to have ended by that time. Discovering that many issues t”emained unresolved one and a half years following the separation, the researchers realized their underestimation of the length of this reSolution period. The remarkable persistence of Wallerstein and her colleagues has resulted in numerous publications, including lO-year follow-up reports. 8 The subjects in their clinical/empirical study were sixty divorcing families and their 131 children. The parents were volunteers who sought help in resolving the problems associated with the divorce as it related to their children, and not for specific psychological help. Forty-eight percent of the children were male and 52% were female. Most of the parents were white, middle-class, well educated and had been married an average of 11.1 years prior to the final separation. The authors concluded that the children in their sample were relatively normal "having performed at age-appropriate levels in school, on the playground, and at home prior to the divorce" (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, p. 7). This critical conclusion based on rather insufficient diagnostic criteria allowed the authors to infer that adjustment difficulties experienced by children following the parental divorce were largely the result of post-divorce related trauma. The conclusions made by Wallerstein and Kelly (1981) can also be questioned on a number of other grounds. For example, they discovered that 36 of the 131 children "enjoyed the affection and close cooperative parenting of both parents, who seemed entirely able to set aside their disagreements in matters relating to the children" (p. 383). Approximately half of the children had at least adequate relationships with their fathers, and of these children, approximately one-third were described as having exceptionally close relationships with their fathers. Approximately 66% of the sample were found to have adequate relationships with their mothers, and of these children, approximately half of them were very close to their mothers (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1981). The authors speculated that for those 9 children with at least one close relationship with a parent, the parent likely sought out the companionship of the child to help combat their own loneliness. These relationships and associated parent-child activities were described as an attempt by the parents "to obtain relief from the presence of their spouses but also encouraged the development of close camaraderie with children who considered themselves very fortunate and were the envy of their friends" (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1981, p. 384). Accepting the authors' Speculation about the parent-focused or parent-need based nature of these relationships, it seems unlikely that these relationships were healthy and adaptive for the children. Rather, the above descriptions of these relationships may be more indicative of children being placed in roles with strong demands to meet unmet parental needs and perhaps become pawns between parental conflicts. Moreover, over 40% of the children were described as having extremely poor relationships with their father during the marriage. Included in these relationships were physical abuse, overt seduction, destructively critical attitudes toward the children, gross psychOpathology, and chronic disinterest. Twenty-five percent of the sample had extremely poor relationships with their mothers. The psychopathological aspects of both the mother-child and father-child relationships were not significantly related to socioeconomic factors. Given this high percentage of acknowledged pre-divorce family dysfunction in this study, the authors' conclusions regarding the children's pre-morbid functioning must be questioned. 10 Effects of Divorce on Children and Adolescents Contained within many of the studies of the deleterious impact of parental divorce on children is the belief that these damaging effects are a result of the separation/divorce process itself. Therefore, the majority of the research in this area has focused on differences between the children from intact vs. divorced homes on a number of outcome variables and/or the isolation of specific post-divorce factors which account for these differences. Initial and later responses to divorce by children and adolescents. Most appropriately, Wallerstein (1986) noted that a child's age and developmental stage seem to be the most important factors dictating the child's initial response to the marital rupture. Among the identified salient intrapersonal factors are the child's central needs, conflicts, available defenses and coping skills. Also developmentally related are the child's perceptions and interpretations of the surrounding events (Wallerstein, 1986). Children within the same age groups tend to share similar "perceptions, responses, underlying fantasies, and behaviors" (Wallerstein, 1986 p. 113). Adolescents may be highly reactive to their parents divorce. Acute depression, suicidal ideation, and intense anger are not uncommon in this age group. Although infrequent, Springer and Wallerstein (1983) report the occurrence of violent attacks against custodial parents by adolescents with no prior history of such behavior. Adolescents may be highly judgmental of their parents' behaviors and establish a clear alliance with one or the other parent. Concerns about their own future ability to maintain a marital relationship are 11 also common (Wallerstein, 1986; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1974). More positively, however, for some of the adolescents the experience can be viewed as a psychological growth experience. For these individuals, adapting to the divorce was experienced as rewarding and conducive to expediting their maturational process (Sessa and Steinberg, 1991; Wallerstein, 1986, Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). Similarly, in another study Reinhard (1977) found that many adolescents saw themselves as maturing faster and did not feel that they had been adversely affected by their parents' divorce. In a 10 year follow-up, researchers found many children who were older at the time of the divorce to be angry and resentful for having had to take on so much of the responsibility in the home created by the change in family structure. These children often felt burdened by their parents' inability to maintain a marriage or their parents exploration of their own new social and sexual relationships. They resented having to give up much of their own free time in order help take care of their parents and younger siblings (Wallerstein, 1985; 1986). Sex Differenceso Most studies that have examined the sex differences in children's responses to divorce have found differences indicating that boys generally experience more difficulty adjusting to the marital breakup than girls. Although Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) failed to find differences in overall psychological adjustment at the time of the separation, 18 months later they found that the boys' psychological adjustment had deteriorated while the girls had demonstrated 12 considerable improvement. However, it appears that over time this pattern may be altered. Data taken from 10 years after the separation indicate that girls have greater conflict during adolescence and early adulthood than boys. Effects of father absence on girls. Those studies that have found a significant negative impact of divorce on girls share some methodological similarities. Studies of teenage girls yield more consistent results than studies of younger girls. Although outcome measures such as cognitive development, academic achievement and social adjustment have not led to consistent findings, studies measuring self-evaluation and/or heterosexual adjustment share more similar findings. Also, these areas appear to be best addressed by use of life experience reports rather than standardized measures (Kalter, Riemer, Brickman & Chen, 1985). Studying a large sample of 11-18 year-old girls, Kalter et al. (1985) found that girls from divorced homes reported engaging in significantly more delinquent acts than girls from intact homes. Included in these delinquent behaviors were use of marijuana and other illicit drugs, skipping school, and larceny. It should be noted that although the frequency of reported delinquent acts was substantial, the sample of girls in the Kalter et a1. (1985) study could not be considered a truly delinquent group as over 90% of them had not had any police contact. In a study of 13-17 year-old girls, Hetherington (1972) found that compared to girls from intact families and families in which the fathers were deceased, girls from divorced homes were more forward and l3 attention seeking with males, had lower self-esteem and reported more sexual activity than girls from widowed or intact families. Additionally, she noted that these differences were strongest for girls whose parents had been divorced for the longest time. Similarly, Kalter and his colleagues (Kalter, 1977, 1984; Kalter and Rembar, 1981 Kalter et al., 1985), found that the deleterious effects associated with parental divorce seem to be most prominent in those girls whose parents divorced in early childhood. Since these adolescent girls were clearly no longer experiencing the most acute effects of the marital rupture, and since these problems appeared to be years delayed, Kalter et a1. referred to these adolescent reactions as "time bomb-like"' (1985, p. 538). A study of female college students from a "highly selective, expensive college" indicated that both those from divorced and intact families were high in their rating of dating satisfaction and similar in dating frequency (Kalter et al., 1985). No differences were found between these groups on measures of global self-esteem and current life satisfaction; both groups reported relatively positive self-evaluations and sufficient social activity. However, coding for attitudes expressed toward male and female figures from the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) revealed that the subjects from divorced homes viewed men as significantly more unfeeling and less strong than did females in the intact group. Females were also seen more negatively by the divorced group as they were described as less sensitive and less mature. The group from divorced homes were also less certain about having a lasting marriage and less optimistic about the future (Kalter et al., 1985). 14 Although the college females from divorced homes studied by Kalter et a1. (1985) exhibited more pessimism about the future as well as more negative views of masculinity and femininity, for the most part these women were functioning quite well. The authors note that this sample is unlikely to represent the general population for their age group and that more troubled girls would likely have been selected out prior to admission to a competitive college. However, their subtly expressed negative self-views and impressions of men may indicate the presence of underlying difficulties which would be more readily experienced in the area of mature heterosexual relationships (Kalter et al., 1985). Problems with heterosexual relationships have also been reported for adult women who experienced parental divorce during childhood. Kulka and Wiengarten (1979) found that compared to women from intact families, the adult daughters of divorced families reported more marital problems and were more likely to divorce. Hetherington and Parke (1979) found that women from divorced homes were more likely to have married earlier, to have married less adequate husbands, and to have been pregnant at the time of the marriage. As Kalter et al. (1985, p. 539) pointed out "the vulnerability to problems in feminine self-esteem and heterosexual adjustment may not emerge until these issues become centrally important developmentally." Effects of father absence on boyg. Numerous studies have demonstrated a correlation between parental divorce and conduct problems in boys (Hetherington, et al., 1985; Santrock & Warshak, 1979). Santrock (1977) examined the effects of father absence (by divorce or by death) and the age of onset of the 15 fathers' absence on a variety of dependent measures for a sample of 10- 11 year-old boys. Using a structured doll play interview, boys from father present homes were found to be less masculine than boys from father absent homes. Teacher ratings indicated that boys from father present homes were less physically aggressive, less disobedient, and more dependent on adults than boys from father absent homes. These results are consistent with those of other studies indicating that boys from father absent homes typically exhibit more typically masculine- type behaviors (Gregory, 1965; Hoffman, 1971). Comparing the two different types of father absent homes, the only significant difference found was that boys from divorced homes were more aggressive than boys from widowed homes (Santrock, 1977). The author theorized that divorced mothers may present the male model in a negative manner and that the sons have more opportunity to observe conflict in the divorced family than in the widowed (Santrock, 1977). The effect of age at onset of father absence was more contradictory. The earlier the absence onset, the more disobedient the child was, but the later it occurred, the more aggressive the child was found to be (Santrock, 1977), a finding in support of earlier data by Hetherington (1966). Speculating about the seemingly discrepant nature of his findings, Santrock (1977) suggests that later father absence is more likely to produce less serious aggression, including yelling at siblings; while earlier absence may lead to more antisocial types of aggressive behavior, including stealing, disobedience and lying. Reviewing some of the theoretical viewpoints accounting for the Possible etiology of childhood aggression and delinquency in boys from 16 divorced homes, Lahey et al., (1988a) cited three plausible causes preposed by other researchers: 1) that the interparental discord that precedes and may often follow the divorce is most significant (Rutter, 1971); 2) that factors resulting from the divorce, such as increased role demands and decreased income, decrease the effectiveness of the custodial parent (Hetherington & Martin, 1986); and 3) that the stress of divorce causes the parents to become less effective disciplinarians, which then leads to increased conduct problems (Forgatch, Patterson, & Skinner, 1985). An alternative body of literature suggests that antisocial personality disorder (APD) in parents may be crucial in the development of childhood conduct disorder. APD has been shown to be more prevalent among the parents of children with conduct disorder than children referred to clinics for other problems (Lahey, et al., 1988b; Stewart, deBlois, & Cummings, 1980). Parents of juvenile delinquents have also been found to exhibit a much greater degree of antisocial behavior than do the parents of nondelinquent children (Robins, West, & Herjanic, 1975). Although the method of transmission of antisocial behavior across generations is not clear, it is well accepted that consistent antisocial behavior in parents plays an important etiological role in the develOpment of conduct disorder in their children (Lahey et al., 1988a). A recent study by Lahey et al. (1988a) was devised to separate the confound associated among parental divorce, parental APD, and childhood conduct disorder. Using 62 consecutive male referrals between the ages Of 6 and 13 years to an outpatient clinic, and a multivariate design, 17 the researchers discovered that 88% of the parents with APD had divorced compared to 20% of the non-APD parents. Among the boys with divorced parents, 80% of the sons of a parent with APD exhibited conduct disorder compared to 33% of the sons of divorced parents without APD. Further, among parents without APD, no difference was found in the prOportion of sons with conduct disorder between divorced (31%) and nondivorced parents (33%). Lahey et al. (1988a) offer compelling evidence implicating parental APD, and not parental divorce, to be associated with childhood conduct disorder. As the authors discuss, the outcome of their study calls into question the many previous findings suggesting an association between parental divorce and childhood conduct disorder. Although the associations found in this study relate specifically to children with antisocial behaviors serious enough to warrant a conduct disorder diagnosis, it is still possible that less severe conduct problems or internalizing symptoms are associated with parental divorce (Lahey et al., 1988a). Alternatively, less severe conduct problems and internalizing problems may be associated with other, unmeasured, aspects of the parents as individuals or partners. Perhaps more noteworthy for purposes of this literature review, is the methodology employed in this study (i.e. partialling out a pre-existing parental factors from divorce) and the challenge the results pose to one of the commonly accepted findings from the divorce literature. §alient Post-Divorce Factors Related to Child Outcome Although the vast majority of research to date has been concerned With divorce as an episodic event, it is critical to acknowledge the l8 complex familial changes which result when parents divorce. Moreover, the systemic changes which follow a divorce can be considered important mediators of child outcome. The nature and quality of visitation, parental adjustment, single parent custody, and changes in the parent- child relationship have all been reported to contribute to child outcome. Visitation,4parental adjustment, and the post-divorce parental relationship. A great deal of clinical and research attention has been given to the description of, and problems encountered in post-divorce parent and child relationships and the effects of visitation with the non- custodial parent. Wallerstein and Kelly (1981) "recognize the visiting relationship as a singular relationship that has no counterpart in the intact marriage" (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1981, p. 381). In fact, in their study, this new relationship could not be reliably predicted given knowledge of the previous father-child relationship. They found no correlation between the predivorce father-child relationship and the frequency or regularity of the visiting pattern 18 months after separation. At that time, half of the father-child relationships were significantly changed from their status when the parents were still married. Of those which had changed, about half became closer while the other half experienced deteriorating relationships. These changes were found to be both age and sex related. Father-daughter relationships were found to remain more stable over time, evidencing little change from the predivorce relationship. Relationships with Children less than 8 years old at the time of separation were 19 significantly more likely to improve. Conversely, the father-child relationships in 9-12 year olds evidence more deterioration. By two years after their divorce, approximately 17% of the divorced fathers in another longitudinal study (Hetherington, Cox, and Cox, 1976) who had initially been extremely attached and involved with their children, reported that seeing their children intermittently was very painful. In an attempt to cape, these men saw their children infrequently and continued to report depression and a sense of loss. Conversely, approximately 21% of the fathers in the same study indicated that their relationship with their children had improved and was more enjoyable. The majority of these fathers came from marriages with a high degree of marital conflict. According to Wallerstein and Kelly (1981, p. 390), "Children who were visited infrequently because of the fathers' lack of interest or rejection during the years after the divorce were likely to suffer severely diminished self-esteem. The most stressed children were those whose relationship with their father had been close and affectionate during the marriage and who experienced a disruption in this relationship after the divorce. Children found this sudden disruption incomprehensible and remained unable to assimilate the loss and the intense hurt of the rejection during the 5 years that followed." Effects of single parent custody. Examining a small number of fathers with custody, Gasser and Taylor (1976) determined that these men were running their households With few problems and that they were quite confident in their abilities ‘13 parent. In a more extensive study examining families almost three 20 years post divorce, Santrock and Warshak (1979) compared parent-child interactions in intact, mother custody, and father custody families. Comparisons of the relationships between father custody children and their fathers and the relationships between intact family children and their fathers yielded a consistent set of results indicating that boys from father custody homes were more socially competent. Specifically, these boys were found to have higher self-esteem and to be warmer, less demanding, more mature, more sociable, and independent with their fathers than did intact family boys with their fathers. In contrast, girls whose fathers held custody were found to have lower self-esteem and to be less warm, more demanding, less mature, less sociable, less conforming, and less independent than were girls from intact families (Santrock and Warshak, 1979). It can be concluded that for elementary- school-age children, behavior problems tend to be minimized when custody is with the same sex parent (Santrock and Warshak, 1979; Warshak and Santrock, 1983; Peterson and Zill, 1986). Few significant differences were found when mother custody families were compared with intact families. Boys from mother custody homes demonstrated higher self-esteem and lower anxiety than boys from intact homes while the Opposite was true for girls (Santrock and Warshak, 1979). The overall lack of child differences found comparing mother custody families to intact families may suggest that the fathers in intact families are less influential as parents whereas mothers are influential parents more equally in intact and single-parent families. Earlier research on the effects of father absence indicated less positive outcomes for boys. Hetherington (1966), using a sample of 21 nine to twelve-year-old lower SES boys found that father absent boys (no distinction between father desertion, divorce, death, and illegitimacy), whether separated from their fathers early (age four or earlier) or later (after age 6 years) were significantly more dependent on peers than were boys from intact homes. The author suggested that the increased peer dependence in the father absent groups may be compensatory due to a mistrust of adults. Boys from both the later separated group and boys from intact homes manifested more aggression and had more masculine sex-role preferences than boys who were separated from their fathers at an early age. Hetherington (1966) concluded that if the father is absent in the first four years before masculine identification has been established, long-lasting disruption in sex-typed behaviors may result. Divorce and parent-child relationships. Hetherington et al., (1976) compared the parent-child relationships in divorced versus intact families on numerous variables. Although the greatest number of differences were found at the one year post-divorce mark, differences on many dimensions were also found at two years after the marital rupture. As discovered by Wallerstein and Kelly (1980), the divorced parents were greatly lacking parental control. In an apparently ineffective attempt to gain control, the divorced mothers were more restrictive and gave many commands which the child resisted or ignored. These mothers also used more negative sanctions than the divorced fathers or the parents from intact homes. Alternatively, the divorced fathers initially tried a more conflict avoidant approach, being extremely permissive and indulgent with his 22 children. Over the two year period following the divorce, these fathers became increasingly restrictive, although not to the degree found in fathers from intact families. Additionally, by this time the divorced mother's use of negative sanctions was declining and her use of positive sanctions was increasing while the opposite was found for the divorced fathers (Hetherington et al., 1976). The divorced parents were functioning less well in a variety of areas including their abilities to communicate with their children, discipline consistently, display affection, and make mature demands of them. By two years after the divorce, parents from this group were demonstrating some improvement in parenting skills as demonstrated by increased demands for more autonomous behavior, better communication with their children, and increased use of consistency with their children. However, while the divorced mothers were also found to be more nurturant, the fathers became less so, and became more detached, ignoring, and less affectionate toward their children over time (Hetherington et al., 1976). Although any possible causality is unclear, the divorced father's decreased involvement with his children over time occurs along with a decline in his impact and influence over his children and an increase in the mother's influence. Additional support systems such as close friends, siblings, other divorced friends or even a competent housekeeper, were positively related to the divorced mother's effectiveness in interacting with her children. This was not true for mothers in intact families. "However, none of these support systems were as salient as a continued, positive, mutually supportive relationship of the divorced couple and continued 23 involvement of the father with the child" (Hetherington et al., 1976, p. 426). Mother-adolescent relationships have been found to differ significantly for boys and girls from divorced families. Regarding mother-daughter relationships, Block, et al., (1988) found that compared to married mothers, divorced mothers were seen as unevaluative, egalitarian, aware of and comfortable with their daughter's sexuality, and affectively warm. The mother-son relationships were found to be more conflicted than the mother-daughter relationships. In the mother-son relationship, the mother was characterized as being competitive and lacking influence over the sons. Compared to intact families, divorced families were characterized in part as lacking a sense of permanence, stressing practicality in the home, having a career-oriented mother yet lacking financial comfort, having an unkempt house, having a discordant, conflicted, and suppressive family atmosphere, and having the mothers' needs and limitations apparent to the child. "Ever present is a sense that the mother is close to being overwhelmed, and her child knows this" (Block, Block et al., 1988, p. 211). Pre-Divorce Family Functioning Although it is indisputable that children suffer significant life disruption and psychosocial stress surrounding the period of their parents' divorce, studies have indicated that the families in which these children are raised may differ from intact families in fundamentally important ways well before the divorce. According to Amato (1986, p. 403) "many researchers have come to the conclusion that 24 family processes, such as the level of interparental conflict and the quality of parent-child relationships, are more important in explaining child outcomes than is the experience of divorce itself." Additionally, prospective evidence exists suggesting that pre-divorce child functioning is predictive of post-divorce child functioning. Perhaps the most comprehensive prospective study to address pre- divorce family functioning comes from the research data of Block, Block, and colleagues. In particular, Block et al., (1986) report on an 11 year, longitudinal, prospective view of children's personality prior to their parents' subsequent divorce. The data collected from this study allowed for the evaluation of whether it is the conflict and instability in the family prior to the divorce which impacts on the child's personality development, or whether it is the family breakdown resulting from the divorce itself which creates the observed personality and behavioral problems found in children of divorce. Multimethod assessments were repeated with children at ages 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 14 years. The number of subjects varied for the different assessments and ranged from 104 at age 7 years to 128 at 4 years. The subjects were primarily white middle and upper-middle class, although the SES range was reported to be wide. The SES and parent educational level did not differ for the divorced and intact families in the study. Analyses were based on comparisons between children whose families subsequently experienced divorce and children whose families were intact at the time of the last assessment (child age 14-15). 25 Pre-Divorce Child Functionigg Numerous interesting findings came out of the Block et al., (1986) study. Three-year-old boys from families that would later experience divorce were described as evidencing problems with impulse control, emotional lability, stubbornness, and restlessness. Problems were found in relations with both adults and peers, as they seemed to push the limits of acceptable social interaction and were inconsiderate of others. Although the results from testing at age four are quite similar to those at age three, the former results yielded fewer significant correlations between behavioral problems and subsequent parental divorce and were hence less discriminating. At seven-years-old, the behavioral pattern remained quite similar for the children who would eventually experience a parental divorce. In fact, many of the impulsive behaviors evidenced at the age three and four testings had actually increased. These boys were again described as emotionally labile, restless, aggressive, and physically active. These boys were unlikely to use or respond to reason. They continued to push limits and their interpersonal relationships remained transient. "When the environment was unpredictable, these boys became anxious. Rather than withdraw, they tended to go to pieces under stress. In a more positive vein, these boys did not show specific mannerisms, nor were they easily victimized by other children" (Block et al., 1986, p. 833). The results from the Block et al., (1986) study provide evidence that the personality characteristics of boys prior to divorce can be described by preschool age. The authors stress that their data 26 indicate that boys from subsequently divorcing families are seen as undercontrolled up to 11 years prior to their parent's divorce. Similar to the findings from the post-divorce studies, the results for the female subjects in the Block et al., (1986) study were less clear and consistent. Three-year-old girls whose parents subsequently divorced were found to be competent, planful, skillful, agile and well coordinated. They were not seen as easily victimized by other children and in contrast to the boys, did not experience anxiety in unpredictable environments. Based on the assessment data at age three, it does not appear that this sample of girls were negatively affected by their family environment. Compared to girls in families that remained intact, girls from families that eventually divorced were described as more resilient. By age four, these girls began being described in less positive terms than previously. "At this age, these girls were described as not being eager to please, as tending not to yield or to give, and as not getting along with other children. Furthermore, they neither used nor responded to reason, tended not to behave in a sex-typed manner and were not seen as calm and relaxed. Additionally, they were emotionally labile, inappropriate in their emotive behavior, likely to be by themselves and preferred nonverbal communication" (Block et al., 1986, p. 834). Compared to when these girls were three-years-old, correlations with resiliency decreased in strength while correlations With undercontrol became more positive. On the positive side, these girls were described as not tending toward indecision or vacillation. 27 By age seven years, the girls in families subsequently experiencing divorce were described in more mixed terms. The more negative descriptions were related to interpersonal skills. At age seven, these girls typically did not get along with other children, and had transient interpersonal relationships. They were also described as being jealous and envious of others as well as tending to be stingy with their possessions which they rarely gave, lent, or shared. More positive characteristics included having high performance standards for self, high intellectual capacity, and a readiness to feel guilt. As with the age four results, compared to when these girls were three, there was a decrease in the correlation with resiliency and a more positive correlation with undercontrol. On the basis of this study, it appears that predivorce stress seems to affect girls and boys differently. This finding was most evident at age three when the sex difference in personality findings were clearest. Summarizing their findings on boys, the authors conclude that the predivorce boys' behaviors were characterized by a lack of impulse control, aggression, and abundant but misguided energy (Block et al., 1986). Also in agreement with other studies (Hetherington, Cox, and Cox, 1979), girls' behavior problems were less uniform and severe compared to boys'. However, as previously noted, it should not be prematurely concluded that girls are not affected as strongly by marital turmoil as boys. It is possible that they are expressing their distress in more sex role apprOpriate, internalizing ways (Emery, 1982) or that the effects may be more latent and not discernible until a later age when girls establish their own intimate relationships (Block et al., 1986). 28 As Block et al., (1986) note, the results of their study yield personality descriptions of children that are quite similar to the findings by other researchers after parental divorce (Hetherington et al., 1979; Wallerstein, and Kelly, 1980). Many of the postdivorce behavior problems may be present years before marital rupture occurs. However, as the authors also point out, divorcing parents rarely acknowledge that the preseparation period may have had deleterious effects on their children. Evidence to substantiate this observation has been found by Cantor (1979) who discovered that parents believe that their children are ignorant to what was taking place with the parents when in reality the children were often quite sensitive to and aware of the approaching family crisis (Block et al., 1986). The results of the Block et al., (1986, p. 837) study "provide further evidence that the preseparation period is, indeed, important to children, and that the impact of conflicting and/or inaccessible parents can be considerable." Pre-Divorce Parental Functioning Post-divorce parental conflicts, family stress, and behavior problems in children have been well documented in numerous studies. Yet, little evidence is available to examine family functioning prior to divorce or to identify specific factors which may serve to enhance or mediate these observed outcomes. Results from the study by Block, Block, and colleagues, which indicated that the children of parents who would subsequently divorce differed on a number of behavioral indices from children of intact homes, also indicated that differences in parental functioning (Block et al., 1988) and parental agreement- 29 disagreements (Block et al., 1981) were noted up to 11 years prior to divorce. Reports from when their children were as young as three-years-old indicated that parents who would eventually divorce were relatively unsupportive of their children up to 11 years prior to divorce. The fathers of boys from this group tended to classify themselves as often angry with their sons, as having conflicts with their sons, as uninterested in how well their sons ate, as being without strict rules for their sons, and as expecting a great deal of their sons. The mothers of these boys reported more conflict with their sons, wished their husbands were more interested in their sons, were strict and tense with their sons, and were accepting of the chances their sons must take while growing up (Block et al., 1988). It appears that by age three, both fathers and mothers were having difficulties with their sons. The authors speculated that the fathers' disinterested and disengaged behaviors may be in response to these acknowledged interpersonal difficulties with their sons. Mothers appeared to be struggling to exert the control and guidance over their sons, who were already undercontrolled (Block et al., 1986), that their husbands had relinquished (Block et al., 1988). The fathers of girls in families that would subsequently experience divorce saw themselves as generally tolerant and relaxed with respect to this father-daughter relationship. When their daughters were three-years-old, fathers in this group described themselves as prohibiting their daughters to tease and trick others, but they were in no rush regarding weaning and toilet training, and 30 were easy-going and relaxed with their daughters. The mothers of this group were more strict, were in favor of competitive games for their daughters, encouraged them to do their best, and believed that physical punishment was the choice discipline (Block et al., 1988). The mothers in families that would subsequently divorce tended to give negative self-descriptions prior to the divorce. Compared to mothers who would remain married, they described themselves as easily upset, restless, relatively unsociable, self-centered, not obedient, ambitious, and lacking assertiveness. These mothers also described their husbands prior to the divorce as ambitious, assertive, not calm or relaxed, not affectionate or loving, not obedient or helpful, talkative, critical, and stubborn. The authors emphasize that these character descriptions were given up to eight years prior to the divorce (Block et al., 1988). Compared to married mothers, later self-descriptions of the mothers following the divorce indicate that they saw themselves as disorganized, distractible, easily upset, lacking creativity, illogical, lacking confidence, but affectionate. Compared to married fathers, the divorced fathers saw themselves as rebellious, curious, not needing approval, self-controlled, not easily upset, and not helpful (Block et al., 1988). The pre- and post-divorce self-descriptions demonstrate remarkable consistency over time and thus indicate that many of the self- characterizations associated with divorced individuals had clear roots well before the demise of the marital relationship. The mothers saw themselves as possessing low self-esteem, and as typically tense, 31 erratic and lacking control of their own lives. The fathers described themselves as independent, aloof, unavailable and self-controlled. Interestingly, the authors note that the positive attributes that the fathers ascribe to themselves "can be seen as the obverse of a personality described earlier by wives as assured but unrelating and unsupportive" (Block et al., 1988, p. 211). Effects of Parental Conflict on Children's Psychological Development Based on a number of studies, parent conflict (in both pre-divorced and non-divorced families) has been found to be related to a number of indices of child adjustment (Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984; Hess & Camara, 1979; Jouriles, Barling & O'Leary, 1987; Raschke & Raschke, 1979), some of which have been evidenced very early in the children's develOpment. For example, low marital adjustment has been associated with more insecurity in both the toddler-mother and toddler-father attachments (Goldberg & Easterbrooks, 1984). Comparing mothers of infants who were insecurely attached to them at one year with mothers whose infants were securely attached, Belsky (1984) found a decrease in positive and an increase in negative aspects of the marital relationship from pregnancy through the first year of life for the mothers with insecurely attached infants. Easterbrooks and Emde (1988) acknowledge that although parental involvement may increase due to marital dissatisfaction, the quality of the parenting is likely to be compromised. To understand the association of marital quality with child development, it is also essential to consider the stimulus value of the child'and the interdependence of the child's individual characteristics 'I’lIT. CA a: VA be ; it a“ a: n.1, '1. I. I. 5 WV . iNJ 32 with the parental dyad. "Characteristics of the child (such as temperament or gender) may also play a role in mediating the effects of marriage and parenting on other aspects of children's development (e.g. attachment, cognitive development). Child temperamental difficulty and marital quality may also interact to influence the nature of parenting" (Easterbrooks and Emde, 1988, p. 88). A study of fathers of two-year- olds supports this interactional model (Zeren & Wallace, 1985). In this study, marital satisfaction and child positive reinforcement of paternal interaction was associated with high paternal nurturance and "purpose in life" thus indicating an interaction between marital and child characteristics (Easterbrooks and Emde, 1988). The issue of directionality concerning child characteristics and the marital relationship is certainly unresolved. Some of the early studies of perinatal risk status suggested that non-normative developmental status increased marital discord (Seashore, Leifer, Barnett & Leiderman, 1973; Pawl and Petarsky, 1983), while other studies have found either no relation or enhancement of the marital relationship due to increased support and communication (Harmon 1980; Easterbrooks and Harmon, 1986; Easterbrooks and Emde, 1988). A study by Oltmanns, Broderick, and O'Leary (1977) which found that parents did not report increased marital satisfaction with improvement in their child's behavior problems, certainly suggests that the influence is from the marriage to the child. O'leary and Emery (1984, p. 346) conclude, from their own data with general pOpulations, "that the probability of having a discordant marriage given that you have a child with psychological problems is less than the probability of having a child with psychological problems given a discordant marriage." 33 A recent longitudinal study of 35 married middle-class couples and their first born children addressed the relationships among parenting behavior and attitudes, marital adjustment, and child behavior. Assessments were repeated every six months when the infants were 6-24 months old. Results from this study indicated "that when reported marital harmony was high, parents perceived their child as less difficult" (Easterbrooks & Emde, 1988, p. 94). Although no significant associations were found at six months, at 18 months the mothers who were observed to demonstrate high marital harmony perceived their toddlers as easier than did mothers who demonstrated less marital harmony. Children of more harmonious parents also tended to receive more physical affection and approval and were perceived as less of an interference in their parents lifestyles. As emphasized by Easterbrooks and Emde (1988, p. 98): "By knowing the overall quality of the marital environment, we were also informed about the characteristics of the emotional/affective climate to which the child was exposed." More positive marital adjustment was significantly associated with parents experiencing fewer negative emotions and tended to be coupled with more positive emotional experience. In discussing the impact of the parents who experience chronically high levels of negative emotion, the authors speculated "that as family development proceeds, these emotion effects will exert a stronger influence on parenting behavior and on the child, by way of parental emotional unavailability" (Easterbrooks and Emde, 1988, p. 98). "Thus, one might anticipate differential socialization of emotions in these families, and different patterns of emotional 34 develOpment in their children" (Easterbrooks and Emde, 1988, p. 99). In sum, these studies suggest that although certain child characteristics may enhance marital discord either directly or in various interactions, more clear effects have been found to implicate the marriage as impacting on the child. Amato (1986) examined marital conflict and the parent-child relationships in association with the children's self-esteem in 8-9 year-olds and 15-16 year-old children and their volunteer families. All families were headed by two parents, but not necessarily the child's biological parents. Marital conflict was rated by children, parents and external judges based on interview data. Adolescent report of marital conflict was correlated .59 with parent report and .55 with external raters and both were highly significant. The author hypothesized that marital conflict would be negatively associated with children's self-esteem and that this association would be stronger for boys than girls and for younger children than adolescents. None of these hypotheses was supported. Instead, the author found a strong negative association between marital conflict and self-esteem among the younger girls and a lack of any association between these variables among younger boys. Of the possible explanations offered for this unexpected finding, Amato noted that by using self-esteem as the dependent variable, one may not detect the externalizing behaviors commonly associated with boys in high-conflict families, but would detect the more covert, internalizing of conflict associated with younger girls in these families. 35 Coopersmith (1967) found significantly less tension between the parents of children with high-self-esteem than in other families. The mothers of children with either high or medium levels of self-esteem were almost invariably satisfied with their husband's performance in a paternal role while the mothers of boys with low self-esteem were largely dissatisfied with their husbands performance in this area. In speculating on the association between parent conflict and child self- esteem, Coopersmith (1967, p. 111) stated that "considerable conflict could produce a sense of uncertainty of what standards to apply; competition between parents could result in attempts to make the child take sides and thereby suffer ambivalence and guilt; and the child might falsely conclude that he was responsible for the discord and thereby feel rejected or guilty." The effects of pre-existing marital conflict (i.e., prior to divorce) were examined in the Block and Block prospective study. Block et al., (1981) examined the effects of parent agreement-disagreement, assessed when the children were three and a half years of age, on later child personality characteristics. "Because socialization of the child's primitive impulses is a major goal of child rearing, it was expected that children coming from homes in which the parents had discrepant child-rearing orientations would be less socialized and therefore less controlling of impulses" (Block et al., 1981, p. 966). The results of the prospective study were only partially in agreement with the original hypotheses. As hypothesized, for boys, parental agreement was found to be positively associated with ego resiliency (resourceful adaptation to changing circumstances when I V an iv .. e - n .t .: 4“ si Au!» n- .1.\ viii his .5 A .A0 «A n It. on. "A 'u q ‘ N4 ‘9‘ 36 presented with change) and negatively associated with ego undercontrol (poor modulation of impulses). For girls, parental agreement was positively associated with ego undercontrol and unrelated to ego resiliency. Parental agreement was also found to correlate with intelligence (.45) for boys but was unrelated for girls (-.O7). Such sex differences are consistent with the frequent finding that the impact of divorce is typically more negative and powerful for boys than girls. These studies suggest that the quality of parental interactions when children are young is more salient for the later psychological develOpment of boys than girls. Block et al., (1981) offer four possible explanations to account for these sex differences. First, the salience of their relationship with each parent may be different for boys and girls. According to Lamb (1976) the emotional bond between the father and son is stronger than that between father and daughter. Therefore, during periods of parental conflict the daughter may experience less anxiety as she can align herself with less ambivalence to her mother, the more salient parent. However, for sons both parents are highly and equally salient, although for different reasons. The mother's significance is due to her greater physical presence and role as caregiver, while the father derives his salience through his psychological bonding with his son. With equal salience of both parents, parental conflicts may cause sons to experience conflicting loyalties and hence find themselves alternating their alliances between their parents. Sons would therefore experience more anxiety and psychological dysfunction as a result of overt parental conflict (Block et al., 1981). 37 A second hypothesis offered for the observed sex differences related to parental agreement-disagreement is based on the results of study by Gunnar-Gnechten (1978). Gunnar-Gnechten found, and later replicated, that the inability to control or predict the onset of an aversive stimulus was more distressful for boys than for girls. If it is more important for boys to have control over their environment than girls, they may be differentially affected by an environment given to parental outbursts and characterized by unpredictability. Such an environment would likely be more stressful and arouse greater anxiety for boys than for girls. Additionally, a less conflicted, structured environment may be especially beneficial to males in the development of internal control structures (Block et al., 1981). The third interpretation offered by Block et al., (1981) is based on Rutter's (1979) findings that males appear to be generally more vulnerable than females. Along with an apparent vulnerability to physical stress, Rutter observed in a variety of clinical populations that males exposed to family pathology or discord are more susceptible to psychosocial stress than are females (Rutter, 1970). The Block et al., (1981) study extends Rutter's findings by offering similar findings indicating that boys were more adversely affected by their parents disagreement than were girls, but within a normal sample. It is suggested that girls may be insulated from the negative effects of parental agreement-disagreement due to their lesser biological vulnerability to stress as well as their the differential salience of the two parents, at least during their childhood years (Block et al., 1981). 38 The last interpretation of the sex differences in response to parental agreement-disagreement offered by Block et al., (1981) is derived from their own earlier work suggesting that the socialization process is different for boys and girls (Block, 1971; Block, 1973; Block, von der Lippe, & Block, 1973). The authors suggest that for males, the socialization process develops impulse control to attenuate aggression. However, for females, the traditional socialization process develops impulse control in order to create or reinforce solicitude and compliance. The authors refer to findings indicating greater aggressiveness in males and suggest a greater societal need to regulate these impulses in males than in females. Extrapolating from this premise, the authors offer the hypothesis that "if the level of socialization experienced by boys and girls tends to be comparable, it may be expected that what is suitable socialization for males may be oversocialization for females by virtue of their lower levels of aggression" (Block et al., 1981, p. 973). It also follows that what may be suitable socialization for females may be undersocialization for males. Each of the four hypotheses outlined above have received some empirical support. Regardless, it is likely that studies of the impact of divorce on children will find stronger results for males than for females. Effects of Parent-Child Relationships on Child Development. Although much research has suggested that parental conflict impacts negatively upon child development, many researchers have argued that this negative impact is due, to a large extent, to its negative impact on parent-child relationships (Hoffman, 1960; Hoffman & Lippitt, 39 1970; Jouriles et al., 1987); O'Leary & Emery, 1984; Stagner, 1974; Wadkar et al., 1986). Amato, (1986) also found evidence that marital conflict is associated with a deterioration in parent-child relationships, especially with the father. Marital conflict was also found to be associated with children's desire to spend more time with their fathers, suggesting that the decreased father involvement in high conflict families is due to fathers withdrawing rather than the children rejecting them. Landis (1960) found that college students who perceived their homes as happy before their parents' divorce were much closer to their mothers and fathers than were those children who perceived their homes as unhappy. However, following the divorce both groups reported being drawn closer to their mothers and became less close to their fathers. Positive relationships between children and both of their parents are unlikely to buffer the impact of marital conflict on children (Amato, 1986). In Amato's study, for the young girls, it was only when good relationships with only one parent were found that a buffering effect was present. It was suggested that the situation in which marital conflict may be most painful for these girls may be when they are close to both parents and as a result experience strong loyalty conflicts. The author concludes that young girls may cope with high marital conflict best by siding with one parent against the other. Wadkar et al., (1986) using the reports of 14-year-old Indian children found a significant association between parental mutual relations and parent-child relations. They suggest that parental conflict may result in parents' imprOper child training, anger, and 40 poor relations with children and may consequently present the child with conflicting demands, leaving the child with feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt. Wadkar et a1. (1986) also found that parental relations are better correlated with father-child relations than with mother-child relations. Mothers were found to remain more accepting of their children and adhere to their expected caretaking roles regardless of the disturbance between themselves and their husbands. This may be a compensatory emotional investment in the child due to the mother's disappointment in her husband (Hoffman & Lippitt, 1970; Wadkar et a1. 1986). Similarly, Landis (1960) found that children felt closer to their mothers than to their fathers following parental divorce. Wadkar et al., (1986), stated that children develop unfavorable attitudes toward their parents when the marriage is unhappy. Possible explanations offered for this attitude include those by Wallin and Vollmer (1953): 1) Each parent likely presents many arguments for disliking the other; 2) a happy marriage provides the security to be permissive and to encourage the develOpment of independence and responsibility in children; and 3) unhappy parents may resolve inner tensions by trying to impose controls on their children and hence limiting their children's freedom to develop as an individual (Wadkar et al., 1986). In a recent study, Fauber et al., (1990) used a sample of 97 adolescents and their mothers (51 adolescents from recently divorced families) to test a mediational model of the effect of parental conflict on adolescent adjustment through its impact on three aspects of parenting behavior. Included among their measures was the Child's (1m Oink- dire: pare: 41 Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1970) which measures three dimensions of parent behavior: Acceptance vs. Rejection, Psychological Control vs. Autonomy, and Firm Control vs. Lax Control. The authors failed to find a significant direct effect of parental conflict on either internalizing or externalizing problems, once a correction for common source variance was made, but they did find that negative effects of parental conflict were mediated through disruptions in parenting behavior and the parental-child relationship. Studying factors associated with self-esteem in pre-adolescent males, Coopersmith (1967) found that the children's self-esteem was positively associated with a variety of parental factors such as mothers' self-esteem and emotional stability. These mothers were also found to be more accepting of their maternal roles and reported being able to carry them out more effectively. Indirect information about fathers based on mother and child report suggest that fathers of high self-esteem boys were more likely to be attentive and concerned with their sons, and to have their sons confide in them. A.more active or vigorous treatment of children by parents seems to be associated with higher self-esteem, at least for males. These children do not seem to come from homes considered tranquil or harmonious but rather from families noted for high activity, with "strong-minded parents dealing with assertive children, stricter enforcement of more stringent demands, and greater possibilities for Open dissent and disagreement" (C00persmith, 1967, p. 252-253). 42 Boys with high self-esteem are more likely to have parents who make demands on them and enforce these demands firmly but with care. Families of high self-esteem boys provide the tightest and most extensive rules and are the most vehement about enforcing them. "Parental treatment within these limits is noncoercive and recognizes the rights and Opinions of the child. His views are sought, his Opinions are respected, and concessions are granted to him if differences exist" (COOpersmith, 1967, p. 214). Although reward is the preferred means of affecting behavior, punishment is used when indicated but with the goal of managing undesired behaviors as opposed to harsh treatment or the withdrawal of love. The frequency of punishment is no different in these families but is perceived as justifiable by high self-esteem boys (Coopersmith, 1967). Low self-esteem boys are more likely to come from backgrounds that lack parental guidance but include harsh and disrespectful treatment. Punishment, especially from the mothers, is likely to be inconsistent, ineffective, and more likely to be used than reward. Relative to these findings, COOpersmith (1967) drew some interesting interpretations. He noted that; 1) because more demanding regulations are associated with higher self-esteem and, 2) the amount of punishment is unrelated to self-esteem, although the type of punishment is related, then the interpretation of these actions by the child likely differs. The type of punishment administered to high self-esteem boys seems to be interpreted as parental concern and provides external controls which promote the development of the child's inner control. For the children With high self-esteem, Coopersmith (1967, p. 197) suggests that: 43 "Punishment is interpreted in the context Of other expressions of attentive and respectful treatment and does not assume any added positive or negative significance." Parents of boys with high self-esteem were found to handle decision-making differently than parents of other boys. According to COOpersmith (1967, p. 115-116): In these families one individua1--generally the father--is empowered to make the major decisions...This pattern of decision- making and implementation requires that the authority of the dominant figure be accepted and that there be trust between the parents to implement the prescribed goals. As these findings are over twenty years old, this relationship may not be accurate within contemporary households. Nonetheless, the decision making pattern outlined above does demonstrate that "clear and definite lines of power, privilege, and responsibility are drawn for those decisions that most profoundly affect the lives of family members" (Coopersmith, 1967, p.114). Indicators of Outcome Children'sgperceptions of others. Many arguments have been Offered for studying children's perceptions of parent behaviors, and parent-child interactions as Opposed to obtaining parent reports or using observers' ratings. Ausubel et a1. (1954, p. 173) emphasized that: First, although parent behavior is an Objective event in the real world, it affects the child's ego development only to the extent and in the form in which he perceives it. Hence, perceived parent 44 behavior is in reality a more direct relevant and proximate determinant of personality develOpment than the actual stimulus content to which it refers. The relationship between parent behavior and its perceptual equivalent is, of course, an important problem in its own right. But in attempting to identify causal factors influencing personality develOpment, it is less relevant to establish the nature of the actual environment to which the individual is exposed than to ascertain the distinguishing features of his perceived world. Second, it seems reasonable to suppose that children's perceptions of parent behavior and attitudes can be measured more validly than these latter phenomena themselves. As more succinctly stated by Serot and Teevan (1961, p. 373): "the essential relation is that which exists between the child's ,5 ,( ., 7’ .t .I perception of Eisjfamilial environment and His adjustment and not, as has been thought, between expressed parental attitudes and childhood adjustment." In their study of children's adjustment and perceived parent-child relationships, Serot and Teevan (1961) found that: 1) well-adjusted children perceived their relationships with their parents as relatively happy and close to the theoretical ideal, and that maladjusted children perceived these relationships as far from ideal; 2) the correlations between the parents' and children's perceptions of the parent-child relationships were insignificant, and; 3) the parents' perception of the parent-child relationship was not related to their children's adjustment. The authors concluded that the child's perception of the relationship is what is important to him and is 45 directly related to his adjustment. They also concluded that the actual parent-child relationship is only indirectly related to the child's adjustment. Discussing a more recent trend in research on child socialization, Michaela, Messe and Stollak (1983) pointed out that there has been an increase in the use of direct observation of parental caregiving rather than relying on the reports Of family members themselves. This has been attributed, in part, to a desire to increase measurement "accuracy" by minimizing the potential for response biases such as social desirability. The cost of this methodological approach has been a decrease in the focus on various important person perception processes that Operate within the family and are brought into family interactions. "The perceiver's role is an active one in which he or she (not always consciously) selects and synthesizes stimuli, Often in idiosyncratic ways. Person perceptions, then, are not always accurate reflections of the actual characteristics and behaviors and vice versa" (Michaela et al., Stollak, 1983, p. 6). Self-image as an indicator Of outcome in divorce studies. Various terms have been used to describe one's perception of oneself. "Self-Concept" or "Self-Image" typically refer to one's self- view and/or feelings about oneself and is evaluated in terms of specific and distinct selves (i.e., the social, sexual, intellectual, or moral selves). Self-Concept has been defined by Knoff (1986, p.52) as "a current perception of reality, and awareness of others' perceptions, a projection of future directions, and an overall cognitive process of self-evaluation." "Self-esteem" is more often 46 used to indicate an evaluative judgment of one's self appraisals and is hence a more subjective self-evaluation whereas "self-concept" refers to a more intellectual self-evaluation (Coopersmith, 1967; Knoff, 1986). Despite the subtle difference between these terms however, they are used rather interchangeably. Measures of children's "self-esteem" and/or "self-image" are frequently used as outcome variables in studies of divorce. Both theorists and researchers agree that family-related factors play a crucial role in the development of children's views and perceptions Of themselves. Thus, although the evaluation Of children's self-image may invariably be useful when evaluating the impact of a variable on children's adjustment, self-image measures become especially pertinent when investigating the impact of family-related variables. Numerous theoretical views of child develOpment lend insight into why self-image is a particularly relevant measure Of outcome when studying the effects of parental divorce on children. Neoanalytic writers have provided much of the framework for understanding such influences on children's self-image. Although a complete review of such a theoretical history is beyond the scape of this paper, an overview of several specific theories is warranted. According to Adler (1927), all humans begin life weak and helpless and possess the innate drive to overcome this inferiority by seeking mastery or superiority in their environments. Hence, feelings of inferiority which motivate the individual to strive toward perfection are not to be considered abnormal or undesirable (Ewen, 1988). It is the child's ability and courage to compensate for his weakness that 47 allows him to develop adequate or superior adjustment. Adler placed responsibility on parents as agents who promote or impede a child's development of self-esteem. As a child faces his/her weakness, parents must provide appropriate degrees of acceptance, support, and encouragement. The neglected child would be expected to form an impression of the world as cold and unfriendly and will not know that he can Obtain affection and esteem by his own actions. Additionally, the pampered child would suffer from the erroneous belief that he lacks ability rather than lacking apprOpriate training. Therefore, this child would not learn self-reliance and would become overly dependent upon Others. Horney (1950) also emphasized the importance of the parent/child relationship when discussing the develOpment of a child's self-image. She noted, for example, that people in a child's environment may be too involved in their own neuroses to be capable Of loving the child and that their own attitudes toward the child are determined by their own neurotic needs and responses. Some of the deleterious factors which might produce insecurity, isolation and helplessness in the child include parental domination, overindulgence, intimidation, irritability, lack of warmth, and indifference. Horney emphasized, however, that "it is never a single factor, but always the whole constellation that exerts the untoward influence on a child's growth" (Horney, 1950, p.18). Sullivan's (1953) interpersonal theory postulated that the individual is continually guarding himself against a loss of self- esteem and it is this loss that produces feelings of anxiety. From 48 this perspective, a person considered to have low self-esteem has a history in which derogation by significant others has occurred and hence the person anticipates or perceives similar responses by others in the present. According to Sullivan, some of the factors which may result in decreased self-esteem include: excessive maternal anxiety during infancy, loneliness, inconsistent punishment, and insufficient caring or tenderness during childhood (Ewen, 1988). Sullivan also suggested that individuals must learn strategies to diminish or combat threats to self-esteem and implicates the role of early family experiences in the develOpment of these coping strategies. As previously reviewed, parents who divorce encounter their own stressors and life changes which interfere with their capacity to parent. Furthermore, these stressors may be present for a long time prior to divorce. For example, parents who are in chronic conflict with one another may become, as Horney puts it, "irritable" or even "indifferent." Due to their own distress, parents may teach their children ineffective ceping strategies, and/or provide inconsistent discipline. Following a divorce, parents may become overindulgent or pampering if they experience guilt about the potential impact of the divorce on their children. Regardless of the specific theory espoused, it seems evident that the multiple changes and stresses experienced by families in which the parents divorce (either before or after the divorce itself) are congruent with those family factors proposed to impact negatively upon the development Of children's self-image. 49 Studies of Normal Child and Adolescent Self-Esteem Using the Offer Self-Image Questionnaire (0810), Offer, Ostrov and Howard (1981a), have demonstrated that the self-image of normal adolescents is significantly higher than that of deviant or disturbed samples and that males and females also differ in their self-image profiles. In general however, they have concluded that normal adolescents are relatively happy and have good relationships with their parents (Offer, Ostrov and Howard, 1982). Offer, Ostrov and Howard discovered that although mental health professionals do not view normal adolescents as positively as the adolescents view themselves (1981b), parents typically agree with adolescents' more positive self-views (1982). Areas of disagreement "underestimating between adolescents and their parents include parents the importance to their child of having a boyfriend or girlfriend, underestimating adolescents' enjoyment of a 'dirty joke,‘ and overestimating adolescents' physical attractiveness" indicating that "parents show that they may want to view their adolescent children as pre-sexual and, in a child-like way, attractive" (Offer et al., 1982, pp. 8-9). Parents also seemed to underestimate their sons' interest in sexy shows and overestimate their sons' confidence in heterosexual situations (Offer et al., 1982). The quality Of parent-adolescent communication has also been found to be positively associated with adolescent self-esteem (Offer et al., 1982). Sex differences in this area have also been demonstrated with daughters' self images being more strongly associated with parent-child communication than were the sons' self-images. More specifically, the 50 mother-daughter communication quality was the most strongly related to the daughters' self-image. Ostrov, Offer, and Howard (1984) point out that although studies of adolescents' global self-esteem indicate relative similarity across gender, more detailed dimensional analyses indicate that girls perceive themselves more positively regarding interpersonal relationships and sociability while boys perceive themselves as higher regarding achievement, academic goals, self-assertion, and body image. Similarly, findings from an earlier study by these authors (Offer et al., 1981a) found adolescent boys to acknowledge less depression, less neurotic adjustment and a more positive body image than did girls, although the adolescent girls described a stronger adherence toward moral standards than did the boys. A later study (Ostrov et al., 1984) also failed to find differences in global self-concept between adolescent girls and boys using data from younger and Older subjects collected four years apart. However, using the OSIQ as the dependent measure, the authors found that "adolescent girls, during either early or late adolescence, feel significantly less in control of themselves, more depressed and anxious, and less secure about their bodies and more maladjusted than do adolescent boys. At the same time, adolescent girls attest to having-higher moral standards and to being more invested in vocational and educational goals than do adolescent boys" (Ostrov et al., 1984, p. 6). More conservative sexual attitudes were also reported by the adolescent girls compared to the reports of the boys. 51 Self-image is Often used as an indicator of general development because of its association with numerous more specific indexes of functioning. Rice (1984) suggests that higher self-concept is associated with positive mental health, interpersonal competence, social adjustment, academic achievement, vocational aspirations, and delinquency. Academic achievement also appears to be positively related to self-concept (Bell and Ward, 1980) at all grade levels through college, especially for males (Strathe and Hash, 1979). Low self-esteem has been associated with anxiety, psychosomatic complaints, and feelings of worthlessness and instability (Knoff, 1986). A study by Kawash, Kerr, and Clewes, (1985) looking at self-esteem in children as a function of their perceptions of parental behavior found that self-esteem (as measured by a shortened version of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory) was significantly associated with scores on a shortened version Of Schaefer's Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory. Boys who perceived both parents as high in acceptance had significantly higher self-esteem scores than those who perceived both parents as low in acceptance. Boys who perceived both parents as lax in discipline had higher self-esteem scores than boys who reported firm discipline. Girls who perceived both parents as high in granting psychological autonomy scored significantly higher on the self-esteem measure than those reporting both parents as low on this factor. Interestingly, psychological autonomy was found to be more related to girls' self-esteem than to boys' self-esteem. The authors conclude that "the combination of parental acceptance, lax discipline, and the granting of autonomy may lead to the highest levels mi; Ill and SUM (Pf: Per: 52 of self-esteem among boys. Parental acceptance, firm discipline and autonomy would appear to be the optimal combination for girls" (Kawash et al., 1985). In summary, various studies have demonstrated an association between parent-child relationships, and parent mutual relationships with adolescent self-esteem. Although many studies have suggested that children of divorce suffer from diminished self-esteem, newer studies using control groups have indicated that self-esteem may be more strongly associated with these family relationships than with the status of one's family of origin; i.e. divorced vs. intact. In fact, a longitudinal prospective study of families that would later divorce (Block et al., 1986) found differences in marital and parent-child relations up to 11 years prior to the actual divorce. Additionally, a large body of theoretical and empirical literature has suggested that assessing individuals' perceptions of these relationships and their own self-concept serves as a valid and meaningful mode of inquiry. New research is needed to provide additional insight into the ways in which adolescents perceive significant relationships in their lives and how these perceptions relate to their psychological development. The proposed study is designed to further study the association between the aforementioned relationships and self-image in college students from divorced and intact families using the students' perceptions of these relationships. In addition, this study will examine the college students' memories of these relationships when they were 11 years-Old (prior to parental separation for the divorced group), their current perceptions of these relationships, and any change in these perceptions 53 as a function of the time period, and determine the extent to which these perceived relationships are associated with the students' currently reported self-image. Hypotheses: As discussed, many researchers have found behavior problems and poorer self-concepts in children from divorced homes. It has traditionally been accepted that the parental separation/divorce, and perhaps the nature Of the associated changes in subsequent family relationships, financial strains etc., have been largely responsible for lowered functioning in these children following the divorce. However, as also noted, evidence exists indicating that children in families that later divorced were found to be less well adjusted as early as three-years-old, up to 11 years prior to their parents' divorce. Difficulties within the marital relationship and the parent- child relationships were also noted in these families well before the actual parental separation or divorce. Given these findings, it seems likely that the children from divorced homes may be exposed to less positive family environments many years prior to their parents' divorce. Personality theorists, developmental theorists, and empirical researchers have identified qualities of parent-child relations, and the mutual relationship between parents, to be associated with Observed child behaviors and child reported self-evaluations. Evidence for these associations has been demonstrated using various methodologies and information sources including reports by children, parents and outside observers. Evidence also suggested that children's perceptions P!!! .1 i g’. u A col :a'; 54 of these critical relationships are related to their perceptions of their self-image and evaluation of themselves. The following hypotheses were tested to further evaluate the associations between college students' perceptions of their relations with their parents, their perception of their parents' mutual relationship, and any changes in these perceived relationships between the way they are remembered to have been at age 11 years and in the present. The association between improvement or deterioration in these relationships following parental divorce, and students' current self-concept, was tested to provide useful information about the significance of changes in these perceived pre- and post-divorce relationships for college students' self-image. Multiple regression analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy of a model which proposed a number of variables which mediate the impact Of parental divorce on late-adolescents' self-image. The primary hypothesis of the prOposed model was that a series of interrelated family relationship variables would affect the global Self-Image of late adolescents independently Of parental marital status, and that parental marital status would impact self-image only indirectly through it's impact on parental conflict. More specific hypotheses follow. Hypothesis 1: It was hypothesized that a significant univariate correlation would be found between current parental marital status and current global Self-Image in college students. 55 Hypothesis 2: Marital Status It was hypothesized that within the prOposed path model, parents marital status will be associated with adolescents' perceptions of Parental Conflict such that divorced parents will be perceived by their children as engaged in more conflict both at age 11 (prior to parental divorce for all subjects) and currently. No direct effects of marital status on the parent-adolescent relationship variables or on global Self-Image were predicted. Hypothesis 3: Parent Marital/Mutual Relationship 3a It was hypothesized that within the prOposed path model, adolescents' perceptions of Parental Conflict will account for the relationship between parental marital status and adolescent global Self-Image. More specifically, a higher frequency of recalled Parental Conflict at age ll-years-old (prior to parental divorce for all subjects) and currently will be associated with lower current global Self-Image. 3b It was hypothesized that within the proposed path model, adolescents' perceptions of Parental Conflict, rather than parents eventual marital status, will be directly associated with each of four aspects Of the parent-adolescent relationship. More specifically, perceptions of a higher frequency of recalled Parental Conflict at age ll-years-old (prior to parental divorce for all subjects) and currently will be associated with higher Parent-Adolescent Conflict, lower Parental Acceptance, higher Psychological Control, and lower Firm Control. 56 Hypothesis 4: Mother-Child, Father-Child Relationship It was hypothesized that within the prOposed path model, adolescents' perceptions of the nature and quality of the parent-child relations at age ll-years-old (prior to parental divorce for all subjects) and currently will be associated with the adolescents' current global Self-Image. More specifically, higher global Self-Image will be predicted by a low frequency of Parent-Adolescent Conflict, high Parental Acceptance, low Psychological Control, and high Firm Control. Hypothesis 5: Changes in Family Relationships Over Time These analyses were proposed to measure the effects of family status (presently divorced sample vs. intact sample), perceived changes (increase, decrease, no change) in family relationship variables (Parental Conflict, Parent-Adolescent Conflict, Parental Acceptance, Parental Psychological Control, Parental Firm Control) over time, and the interaction of family status, and perceived change in family relationship variables over time on adolescents' global Self-Image. Based on a review of the literature, specific hypotheses were made only for the father-child relationships, as the literature addressing changes in mother-child relationships produced results that were too inconsistent. 5a For the father-child relationship, it was hypothesized that a perceived deterioration in this relationship from the way it was recalled to have been at age 11, compared to the way it was currently 57 perceived will be associated with lower global Self-Image. More specifically, lower current adolescent Self-Image will be associated with a perceived decrease in Paternal Acceptance, a perceived increase in Father-Adolescent Conflict, and a perceived increase in Paternal use of Psychological Control. NO specific hypothesis for perceived changes in Paternal use Of Firm Control is offered due to an expected decrease in the variance of this variable once adolescents no longer live with one or both parents. Sex Differences The literature on sex-differences in normal adolescent self- concept indicates a lack of overall differences in global scores, but a few differences in more specific areas (Ostrov et al., 1984). However, the literature on the effects of parental divorce and family relationships has presented less consistent sex-differences in self- image using adolescent populations. Therefore, possible effects due to gender will be assessed for the prOposed analyses but no hypotheses regarding sex differences will be Offered. U) (1‘ I l..- Subj hOuI °Pti Chapter 3 Method Subjects Three hundred and seventy subjects were recruited from Introductory Psychology courses at Michigan State University. Subjects ranged in age from 17-20 years Old with a mean age of 19.0. One hundred and twenty-four subjects (53 male and 71 female) were from homes in which their parents separated or divorced after the subjects' 12th birthday and 246 subjects (123 males and 123 females) were from intact homes. The mean period since parental separation for the divorced group was 5.06 years. Only subjects whose biological parents were living were eligible for inclusion. Subjects who ceased to have contact with one of their parents following the divorce were excluded from the study. Subjects' participation in the study served as one means of Obtaining extra class credit. Signs announcing the name of the study and and inclusion criteria were posted in the classrooms where the courses were taught. Procedure and Study Desig2_ After reading the inclusion criteria on the advertisements, subjects who wished to participate signed-up for a two and one half- hour period on a particular day, time, and location from a list of Options. Groups ranging from 4-35 subjects met with the primary investigator and/or a trained volunteer graduate student with a M.A. degree. Students received an informed consent form to read prior to receiving the questionnaires (Appendix C). The tester reviewed the 58 59 inclusion criteria to ensure that all of the willing volunteers were eligible. Subjects were not required to sign the consent form but acknowledged their consent by turning in the completed questionnaires at the end of the session. After a brief introduction to the study and overview of the procedures, subjects completed a series of questionnaires. All subjects completed a demographic questionnaire first (Personal Background Questionnaire) and the Offer Self-Image Questionnaire in the middle of the questionnaire package. The remaining questionnaires were grouped according to the time period that they referenced (age 11 or current) and counterbalanced so that half of the subjects completed the measures regarding family relationships at age 11 before completing the Offer Self-Image Questionnaire and half of the subjects completed the measures regarding current relationships before the Offer Self-Image Questionnaire. Once all questionnaires were completed and checked by the examiner, subjects received a brief written summary describing the study and information about how to Obtain a cOpy of the results upon completion of the study (Appendix C). Instruments (Appendix B) Demographics: The Personal Background Questionnaire for the students addresses relevant demographic information, current parental marital status, mother's employment, and with whom the student lived after the divorce. Measures of Students' perceptions of their parents' mutual relationship: 60 Subjects were asked to complete a modified version of the Dyadic Consensus subscale from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spanier & Cole, 1974). This scale was derived from factor-analysis of the DAS by the authors and contains 15 items inquiring about various areas of agreement and disagreement. The scale is designed to be completed by marital couples or other intimate dyads. For this study, students were asked to complete the modified version of the scale as they recall perceiving their parents' marital relationship when the student was 11- years-Old. Included in this scale are items pertaining to finances, recreation, philosophy of life, major decision making, and household tasks among others. The item inquiring about sex relations was omitted from the scale. Since many of the items on the Dyadic Consensus subscale from the DAS would be less germane to parent mutual relationships in divorced families and potentially difficult for children to be able to respond to, this measure was not used to assess the subjects' perceptions of their parents current relationship. Instead, two brief items were used to measure the child's perception of the general level of conflict and hostility in the current relationship between his parents. In a study of marital conflict, parent-child relationships and child self-esteem, Amato (1986) asked younger children and adolescents just two questions to assess their perceptions of the parental relationship: "How well do you think your parents get along with each other?" (1 - very well, 4 - badly) "How Often do your parents get angry with one another or disagree?" (1 = never, 5 = all the time) 61 These two items were found to be intercorrelated (r = .47, p<.001) and when equally weighted and summed yielded a coefficient alpha of .64. When responded to by adolescents, these two questions correlated (r 3 .59, p<.001) with parent report based on 15 items from a parental interview. Correlations between the adolescents report and external raters of the parental relationship were r = .55 (p< .001), and correlations between parent ratings and external raters were r = .66 (p<.001). Measures of the Parent-Child Relationships: The Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI; Schaefer, 1965a; 1965b; Schludermann and Schludermann, 1970). The original CRPBI consists of 26 scales of 10 items each, yielding three factors. A more recently develOped 108 item version has been shortened to 18 scales. Twelve of these scales contain 5 items each and 6 scales contain 8 items each. The scales on the shortened version (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1970) were those with high reliability, variability and applicability to parental behavior and were used in the present study. This measure was used to assess the college students' perceptions of their relationships with each of their parents at two different times. This measure was completed twice by each student, once referencing recalled perceptions of these relationships when he was ll-years-old and cOmpleted again in reference to his current perceptions of these relationships. Three factors are found repeatedly in different studies and were used in their published form in the present study: 1. Acceptance vs. Rejection 62 A bipolar scale of parental behavior, according the which the child describes the degree to which a parent accepts or rejects him. 2. Psychological Autonomy vs. Psychological Control The scales on this factor describe indirect means of control or the degree to which the parent attempts to control the child through psychological pressure. 3. Firm Control vs. Lax Control This factor represents the degree to which the parent controls the child's behavior by direct means such as making rules and insisting on compliance or neglecting to enforce any existing rules. Various versions of the CRPBI used in different studies, cross- culturally, have yielded the three basic factor dimensions. These factors have been found in the concurrent inventory responses of fifth and sixth grade midwestern children (Burger & Armentrout, 1970 unpublished manuscript cited in Armentrout and Burger, 1972), 13-18 year-old French-speaking Belgian children (Renson, Schaefer & Levy, 1968) and twice using samples of college students asked to complete the inventory as they would have at the age of 16 years-old (Cross, 1969; Armentrout & Burger, 1972). Schludermann and Schludermann (1970) have administered the instrument to Manitoban university students and Canadian Hutterite adolescents (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1971), and Canadian and Indian adolescents (Schludermann and Schludermann, 1983). The Dyadic Consensus subscale from the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) was also modified to address the subjects' perceived level of conflict in their relationships with their parents. Subjects completed 63 this questionnaire four times according to parent (mother, father) and time period (age 11, current). Included in this scale are items pertaining to finances, recreation, philOSOphy of life, major decision making, and household tasks among others. The item inquiring about sex relations was omitted from the scale. In retrospect, other previously validated measures of parent-adolescent conflict and negative communication (e.g., Robin and Foster, 1981) may have provided more robust and detailed information pertaining to this aspect of the parent-adolescent relationship. Measure of the Adolescents' Self-Perception: The Offer Self-Image Questionnaire (OSIQ) (Offer, Ostrov, and Howard, 1977) is a 130 item measure consisting of statements to be ranked on a six point scale ranging from 1 (describes me very well) to 6 (does not describe me at all). Although this measure was validated on samples of high school children, it was later used in research with college students (Miner, 1991). This well validated measure was selected for use in the present study as a means of assessing college students current feelings and attitudes toward themselves. Half of the OSIQ items are written positively and half are written negatively. The authors describe each of the 11 factors produced by this scale as belonging to one of five "Selves." The Psychological Self includes three scales: 1) Impulse Control (10 items); 2) Emotional Tone (10 items); and 3) Body and Self-Image (10 items). The Social Self also includes three scales: 1) Social Relationships (10 items); 2) Morals (10 items); and 3) Vocational and Educational Goals (10 items). The Sexual Self is comprised of only the Sexual Attitudes 64 scale (10 items), and the Family Self contains only the Family Relationships scale (20 items). The Coping Self contains the last three scales: 1) Mastery of the External World (10 items); 2) Psychopathology (15 items); and 3) Superior Adjustment (15 items). The Offer Self-Image Questionnaire has demonstrated moderately high internal consistency (Offer et al., 1977). Test-retest stability of the measure over time was shown to range from .48 to .84 for the scales and .73 for the total score measured at six months apart (Offer et al., 1981a). The authors also report data from an eight-year longitudinal study (Offer, 1969; Offer and Offer, 1975) indicating that subjects selected for their normality on the basis of their OSIQ scores, were later found to be consistently nonpsychOpathological. Three independent studies (Offer, 1969; Coche and Taylor, 1974; Hojorth, 1980) assessed the concurrent validity of the measure and discovered moderate to high correlations between the OSIQ and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Bell Inventory, and the Tennessee self-image test. CHAPTER 4 Results The results will be presented in 7 subsections: a) analysis of demographic variables; b) multiple regression tests of the proposed model c) predicting self-image; (1) analysis of the independent effects of parental conflict on self-image and on the parent-adolescent relationship; e) the effects of marital status on self-image and the parent-adolescent relationship; f) a test of the shared and unique Variance accounted for by perceptions of past (age 11) vs. current 1‘81ationships and; g) the effects of perceived changes in family relationships over time on self-image. De3&graphic Variables The means and standard deviations of the demographic variables thOught to possibly contribute independent variance to the prOposed model are shown in Table l. T-tests revealed between group differences (Divorced vs. Intact) on several of the demographic variables. Spe-Cifically, the groups differed in age (older in Divorced), high sch001 Grade Point Average (GPA) (higher in Intact), and college GPA (higher in Intact). However, as shown in table 1, the magnitude of “1382 differences was quite small suggesting little meaningful differences between the groups on the demographic variables measured. Nonetheless, Pearson correlations were performed to determine whether Significant associations existed between these demographic variables and tihe variables in the predicted model. Small but significant 65 66 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and Significance of T-tests for Demographic Variables for Divorced and Intact Samples. Divorced Intact (N=124) (N=246) Variable _M_ _S_D_ M SD _P Age 19.11 .77 18.93 .83 <.05 GPA (High School) 3.28 .34 3.35 .81 <.05 GPA (College) 2.74 .45 2.88 .45 <.01 Hrs. Employed/Wk. 7.61 8.64 6.29 7.57 (during school year) Hrs. Homework/Wk. 15.73 8.74 15.94 8.59 67 correlations were found between three of the demographic variables and variables from the predicted model. Subjects' age was correlated significantly with Past Mother-Child Conflict (r=.11, £5.05), and Current Mother Acceptance (r=.10, £5.05) such that older adolescent girls recalled greater conflict with their mothers at age 11-years and they reported greater maternal acceptance in the present. Subjects' college GPA was significantly correlated with a number of father-child variables and parental conflict such that higher GPA was associated with better family relationships. Given that GPA serves as one indication of child functioning, its positive association with better family relationships is not surprising. Specifically, college GPA was significantly correlated with Past and Current Father Acceptance (r=.13, £5.05, and r=.13, £5.05), Past and Current Father use of Psychological Control (r=-.12, £5.05, r=-.13, £5.05), Past and Current Father-Child Conflict (r=-.11, £5.05, r=-.17, £5.01), Past and Current Parental Conflict (r=-.21, £5.01, r=-.17, £5.01), and Negative Self- Image (r=-.l3, £5.05). High school GPA was significantly correlated with Past and Current Father Acceptance (r=.13, £5.05, r=.13, £5.05), and Past Father use of Psychological Control (r=-.11, £5.05). Test of the Proposed Model The primary hypothesis of the prOposed model was that a series of interrelated family relationship variables would affect the global Self-Image of late adolescents independently of parental marital status, and that parental marital status would impact self-image only indirectly through it's impact on parental conflict. Univariate correlations for predictor and predicted variables for all subjects 68 combined are shown in Table 2 (Appendix A). Multiple regression was used to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed model. Specifically, Self-Image was regressed on four parent-adolescent relationship variables (conflict, acceptance, psychological control, and firm control), parental conflict, and parents current marital status. The four parent-adolescent relationship variables were each then regressed on parental conflict and parents current marital status. Finally, parental conflict was regressed on parents current marital status. Initially, the model was tested for adequacy with eight separate analyses varying according to whether the perceived relationship was with father or mother; the time period of the perceived relationship (Age 11 vs. Current), and the sex of the subjects. Parents current marital status is included in the mediational model for perceptions of past and current relationships because it identifies group membership believed to be pertinent at both points in time. Figures 1a through 4b demonstrate the eight tests of the model, including the beta weights and the amount of variance (R2) accounted for in each of the predicted variables by the antecedent variables. Predicting Self-Imagg Male vs female subjects. Results of the multiple regression analyses were essentially consistent with the predicted relationships although the model accounted for a greater portion of the variance in males' Self-Image scores than in females' Self-Image scores. Table 3 demonstrates that a maximum of 24% of the variance in Self-Image was accounted for by the model as applied to the father-son relationship (Age 11 and Current) 69 Table 3. Total Variance Explained in Predicting Self-Image Scores for each test of the Model and Tests of Significant Differences for Pairs of Models by Sex of Subjects. Perceptions of Past Relationship with Father Total R2 of self-image scores explained Kenny's test Male Female .24 .15 t(160)=4.35, p<.01 Perceptions of Current Relationship with Father Total R2 of self-image scores explained Kenny's test Male Female .24 .13 t(160)=4.81, p<.01 Perceptions of Past Relationship with Mother Total R2 of self-image scores explained Kenny's test Male Female .19 .13 t(160)=3.44, p<.01 Perceptions of Current Relationship with Mother Total R2 of self-imagg scores explained Kengy's test Male Female .22 .14 t(160)=4.05, p<.01 70 and a minimum of 13% of the variance in Self-Image was accounted for by applying the model to the current father-daughter and past mother- daughter relationships. Kenny's Formula for paired comparisons of R2 was used to compare the total R2 in Self-Image scores accounted for by the model by sex of subjects. The formula is as follows: the square root of the equation [(sz - Rza) (N-K-l) divided by (l-sz)], where K = the number of predictions for all variables in the full model and the degrees of freedom = (N-K-l). The equation yields a t-score which is evaluated using the standard t-test distribution. As shown in Table 3, the model accounted for significantly more total variance in predicting Self-Image scores when applied to male subjects than when applied to female subjects for each paired comparison (e.g., past relationship with fathers for males vs females). The mother-son relationship. Tests of the model for male adolescents' relationships with their mothers indicated that mothers' past and current use of Acceptance and Psychological Control predicted global Self-Image (Figures 1a & lb). Acceptance was positively associated with Self-Image while Psychological Control was negatively associated with Self-Image and was the stronger predictor. Maternal Acceptance was not significantly impacted by either Parental Conflict or marital status while maternal use of Psychological Control was positively impacted by Parental Conflict but unrelated to marital status. The path from maternal use of Firm Control to adolescent Self-Image was weak but significant for the past mother-child relationship (greater Firm Control associated with more positive Self-Image) and unrelated for the current Figure 1a. Preposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R 71 2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Male Subjects. /.22** > (3)(Past) Mother- .56***-—> Child Conflict —-.os It(175)=3.081** ‘3 (4)(Past) Mother /12 //.12———) Acceptance .21**\ (1)(Current) (2)(Past) (7)(Current) Marital---->Parental %‘ Self-Image Status It(175)=2. 031* 38*** Conflict -.16 \\\\;::\\\\05 \\\x\ .26***9(5)(Past) Mother--. 33*** 4).Psychological Control .11-——>(6)(Past) Mother \.16* ~9> Firm Control .16* -.O7 .R 7.1-6=.19*** .3’6. 1,2 .03 R 5.1,2=.O8*** R 4.1 ,2=.02 _R 3.1,2-.27*** .R'Z. l=. l4*** Note: * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = 1, married 8 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. 72 Figure lb. PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Current Relationships for Male Subjects. )‘(3)(Cur.) Mother- .27** -—> Child Conflict .07 7'(4)(Cur. ) Mother m///-.16-—-—9’Acceptance .14 (1)(Current) (2)(Current) (7)(Current) Marital---->Parental } Self-Image Status - .56*** Conflict -.25** I\ \\\\\\\m \\\\\ .32***>(5)(Cur. ) Mother“ -.32*** >-Psychological Control It(175)=2. 361* .05—> (6)(Cur. ) Mother—.00 \.21* $Firm Control -.10 .5 7.1-6=.22*** R 6.1,2=O4*.§_5.1,2=.08*** ‘5 4.1,2=.02 .3 3.1,2'.06** .3’2.1=.32*** Note: * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = I, married = 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. 73 Figure 2a. PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Male Subjects. .17* >(3)(Past) Father- .62*** -> Child Conflict — - .05 [t(175)= 2. 491** /(4)(Past) Father /12 //-. 14 —‘——§Acceptance ——.39*** (1)(Current) (2)(Past) (7)(Current) Marital——- Parental ), Self-Image Status -.38*** Conflict ' -.O6 /\ \\\\\\\\\ .26***>(5)(Past) Father--.16* -.O4 3 Psychological Control [t(175)=2.12]* \ .14 ——> (6)(Past) Father .14* .17* ‘ ) Firm Control -.06‘ 3:7.1-6=.24*** .R 6.1, k03( 06) .§.5°1:2='08*** .§.4°1’2=°05* _R 3.1,2'.34*** R 2.1'.214*** Note: * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = l, married = 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. Figure 2b. 74 PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Current Relationships for Male Subjects. .39***-—> Child Conflict-—- -.10 ) (4)(Cur.) Father 02/-. .45*** aAcceptance .34*** (1) Current) (2)(Current) (7)(Current) \ Marital-----Parental <—7 Self-Image Status - .56*** Conflict -.13 ’ A \o 5\\ .35*** (5)(Cur. ) Father—-. 14 ;-Psychological Control [t(l75)=2.00]* \ .16 ——-} (6)(Cur.) Father ———-.08 .18* > Firm Control '>(3)(Cur.) Father- }; 7.1-6=.24*** g 3.1,2=.12*** 6.1,2=.03 .3 5.1,2=.l4*** ‘R.4.1,2=.21*** 2.13.32*** Note: * p<.05 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = 1, married = 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. 75 Figure 3a. Proposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Female Subjects. .15* >(3)(Past) Mother- .52***-—€>Child Conflict---.06 [t(193)=2.291* - .1S* 4>(4)(Past) Mother / - /26*** -fi>Acceptance .15 [t(1/93)-—1. 981* \ (1)(Current) (2)(Past) (7)(Current) Maritalm Parental 3r Self-Image Status - .36*** Conflict -.10 21 IN \ [t(193)=2. 221* .30***?(5)(Past) Mother- -.20* ‘-Psychological Control .06'——9(6)(Past) Mother .15* .05 ‘) Firm Control 6.1,2=.oo gs.1,2=.08*** R4.l,2=.06** 2.1=.13*** g 7.1-6-.13*** g 3.1,2-.24*** Note: * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = 1, married = 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. 76 Figure 3b. PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Mother-Child Current Relationships for Female Subjects. >(3)(Cur.) Mother- .07 L .27*** ——>Child Conflict —- -. 12 4>(4)(Cur.) Mother .12 -.08 / /-. 24** _9 Acceptance (7)(Current) (1)(Current) (2)(Current) Marital Parental } Self-Image Status -.33*** Conflict -.11 /\ .25***9(5)(Cur.) Mother-—-.l8 ) Psychological .11 Control .01-—%>(6)(Cur.) Mother ————-——708 .07 ; Firm Control 6.1,2=.oo .R'S.1,2=.06** .§_4.1,2é.05** 2. 7.1-6-.14*** 1-.11*** .5 .3 11_ 3.1,2-.06** 5 Note: ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = I, married I 2 77 Figure 4a. PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Relationships at Age 11 for Female Subjects. /.16* >(3)(Past) Father- . .54*** —) Child Conflict— -.16 It(193)= 2. 381* >—(4)(Past) Father /01 /— 34*** -—)Acceptance '—-—-.30\ (1)(Current) (2)(Past) (7)(Current) Marita1_ _Parental 4%: Self-Image Status -.36*** Conflict -.02 ”i It(193)=2.29]* .39***§(5)(Past) Father--.O7 . 7* )Psychological Control .l6*‘-)(6)(Past) Father .10 —) Firm Control .13 -.O3 3.1,2=.26*** 6. 1, 2‘ .02 R 5.1,2=.13*** .§_4.1,2=.11*** 2 1. 13*** ”who laflw Note: * p<.05 *** p<.001 Marital status; separated or divorced = l, married = 2 T-scores derived from partial multiple regression and indicate significant unique variance accounted for by marital status once the effects of parental conflict are controlled for. 78 Figure 4b. PrOposed Path Model including Beta Weights and the Total R2 (Explained Variance) for the Model using Perceived Father-Child Current Relationships for Female Subjects. .03 ”2(3)(Cur.) Father- .28***—'> Child Conflict—- -. 12 “(4)(Cur. ) Father 1/ -/43*** —-) Acceptance . 20* / (1)(Current) (2)(Current) (7)(Current) Marital_ Parental 44%? Self- Image >rPsychological Control Status - .33*** Conflict -.05 ///;D IN \\\\\\\\\0 7\\\\\ .33***€K5)(Cur. ) Father--.13 .03-€>(6)(Cur.) Father ———————aO9 .06 ¥ ) Firm Control -.04 3 7.1-6=.l3*** ‘R_6.1,2=.00 .§.5°192=°10*** .R.4.1,2=,19*** _1: 3-1.2-.07*** g 2.1=.11*** Note * p<.05 Marital status; separated or divorced = 1, married = 2 79 mother-child relationship. Although Firm Control was not affected by Parental Conflict, it was predicted by marital status such that greater past and current use of maternal Firm Control was reported by males from intact homes. The path from Mother-Child Conflict to adolescent Self-Image was not statistically significant for perceptions of age 11 or current relationships. Mother-child Conflict was found to be impacted by Parental Conflict and marital status such that greater mother-child Conflict was reported by males from intact families and by males who reported greater Parental Conflict. The father-son relationship. The test of the hypothesized father-son relationship model (Figures 2a & 2b) revealed that Father Acceptance was the only variable that consistently predicted subjects' Self-Image. Greater paternal Acceptance was associated with a more positive global Self-Image. Father Acceptance was not directly affected by current marital status, but it was strongly and negatively affected by Parental Conflict in the current father-son model. Father Acceptance was not significantly affected by Parental Conflict in the past father-son model. Weak but significant paths from Psychological Control and Firm Control to Self-Image were found in only one of the four father- adolescent models although the direction of the paths remained consistent and in the predicted direction across all four tests of the fatherradolescent model. For male subjects, paternal use of Psychological Control at age 11 was associated with more negative Self- Image while paternal use of Firm Control at age 11 was associated with more positive Self-Image. Perceived paternal Psychological Control and 80 Firm Control failed to predict Self-Image in the model using males' current relationships with their fathers. Paternal use of Firm Control was weakly affected by marital status in both the past and current father-son models such that greater paternal Firm Control was reported in families which remained intact. Paternal use of Psychological Control was moderately to strongly, and positively predicted by Parental Conflict, while current marital status failed to predict Psychological Control. Father-Child Conflict failed to affect adolescent Self-Image in any of the models, although it was moderately to strongly, and positively affected by Parental Conflict. The mother-daughter relationship. The results from tests of the model for females' relationships with their mothers are generally quite similar to those of the males' relationships with their mothers, but without the direct impact of Parental Conflict on Self-Image, and somewhat less robust direct paths from the significant parent-child factors to adolescent Self-Image (Figures 3a & 3b). Most notable are the smaller beta weights from maternal use of Psychological Control to adolescent Self-Image for the age 11 and current models for female subjects when compared to the same models for male subjects (Figures 1a and 1b). For the female subjects, this path was weak but significant for the past mother-daughter model while a non-significant trend was found for the current mother-daughter model. Regression of maternal Psychological Control on Parental Conflict and marital status produced similar results for the female subjects when compared to the male subjects. One addition was a weak significant path between marital status and Psychological Control for 81 the age 11 mother-daughter relationship model. In particular, greater maternal use of Psychological Control was found to be reported more by females from intact families (for the age 11 model) and by females who reported higher Parental Conflict (for the age 11 and current models). The father-daughter relationship. Similar to the tests of the father-son models, the father-daughter models (Figures 4a & 4b) revealed that Father Acceptance was the only variable that impacted on subjects' Self-Image. Greater paternal Acceptance was associated with a more positive global Self-Image in the female subjects. Father Acceptance was not directly affected by current marital status, but it was strongly and negatively affected by past and current Parental Conflict. The remaining variables predicted to directly impact Self-Image (Psychological Control, Firm Control, and Father-Child Conflict) failed to reach statistical significance. However, two of these variables (Father-Child Conflict and Psychological Control) were moderately to strongly, and positively affected by past and current Parental Conflict. Weak but significant associations were found between parental divorce and higher levels of both past Father-Child Conflict and past paternal use of Psychological Control. Contrary to the hypothesis, paternal use of Firm Control was weakly and positively affected by past Parental Conflict. Effects of Parental Conflict For males, Parental Conflict directly affected the subjects' Self- Image in only one of the four evaluations of the model. The direct path from less Parental Conflict to greater global Self-Image was found 82 to be significant even when males' current relationships with their mothers was taken into account (see Figure 1b). Thus, the current mother-son relationship model was the only one which showed both direct and indirect effects of Parent Conflict on Self-Image. Past and current Parental Conflict were found to directly affect the mother-son relationship in two ways. Increased Parental Conflict was associated with increases in both Mother-Child Conflict and maternal use of Psychological Control. The father-son relationship was affected similarly but with the addition of a strong negative path from current Parental Conflict to Father Acceptance. For Females, Parental Conflict failed to directly affect subjects' Self-Image in any of the four tests of the model. For both the mother- child and father-child models, moderate to strong associations were found between past and current Parental Conflict and three of the four parent-child relationship variables. Increased Parental Conflict was associated with increased Parent-Child Conflict (with mothers and fathers), increased use of Psychological Control (by mothers and fathers) and decreased Acceptance (by mothers and fathers). Firm Control was affected by Parental Conflict in the past father-daughter model only. Contrary to the hypothesis, a weak and positive association was found between Parental Conflict and use of Firm Control by fathers. Effects of Marital Status Contrary to expectation and research reporting the negative impact of parental divorce on children's self-esteem, the univariate correlation (Table 2, Appendix A) between marital status and Self-Image 83 was negligible (r=-.O4). As predicted, marital status did not directly affect the Self-Image of males or females in any of the tests of the model. Nonetheless, marital status distally affected the adolescents' Self-Image via its effect on Parental Conflict and indirect effects on the various measures of the parent-adolescent relationship. As hypothesized, parents who later divorced were described as exhibiting greater Parental Conflict, both in the past and currently. Contrary to the hypothesis, marital status directly predicted certain aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship in a few of the models after controlling for Parental Conflict, although it was generally a less powerful predictor than was Parental Conflict. Interestingly, the effect of divorce on some of the parent-adolescent relationship variables was in the opposite direction of the effect of Parent Conflict. These effects were unexpected and apparently the result of an unmeasured aspect of these relationships, independent of Parental Conflict. All except one of the associations between marital status and the parent-adolescent relationship variables were insignificant as univariate correlations but became significant in the mediational model, indicating that Parental Conflict served as a suppressor variable, suppressing effects of marital status on the perceived parent-adolescent relationship. As a further check of the validity of these findings, partial multiple regression analyses were computed to assess the independent effects of parents eventual marital status while controlling for the independent effects of perceived Parental Conflict within the model. These analyses were to determine if eventual marital status did 84 actually contribute independent variance or if the significant beta weights found in tests of the model were a statistical artifact of co- linearity, due to the significant univariate correlation between marital status and perceived parental conflict. T-tests from partial multiple regression indicated that marital status did contribute significant independent variance for some of the perceived parent- adolescent relationships and that significant scores were found for only those relationships in which a corresponding significant beta weight was found within the original tests of the mediational model. Additionally, the direction of the t-score remained consistent with the direction of the beta weights, indicating that the beta weights were in fact valid indicators of the effects of marital status on the perceived parent-adolescent relationship variables. Significant t-scores are shown along the paths from parents' eventual marital status to the perceived parent-adolescent relationship variables in Figures 1a-4b. Parents eventual marital status was weakly associated with males' recollections of their mothers' use of Firm Control and Mother-Child Conflict such that males from divorced families reported perceiving less past and current maternal use of Firm Control and less past Conflict with their mothers. The same pattern of effects from marital status was found for the father-son relationship. For the mother-daughter relationship, significant direct paths from marital status to parent-child variables were found for the past relationship only. Females from divorced families reported perceiving less Conflict with their mothers, less use of Psychological Control, and greater maternal Acceptance at age 11 than did females from intact 85 families. Similar to the mother-daughter relationship, marital status directly affected only the past father-daughter relationship. For female subjects, weak associations were found between parental divorce and perceptions of less use of Psychological Control, and less Father- Child Conflict at age 11. Current vs. Past Relationships for PredictingiGlobal Self-Imagg' Regression analyses suggested that the perceptions of the time period (age 11 vs. current) reported on by subjects did not substantially alter the utility of the model in accounting for the total variance in subjects' Self-Image. This appeared to be due to the considerable shared variance between subjects' perceptions of past and current relationships with each of their parents (see Tables 4a-d in Appendix A for univariate correlations of predictor and criterion variables by sex of subject and sex of parent). Communality analyses was used to provided a test of the relative utility of perceptions of past. vs current relationships in predicting Self-Image (Table 5). Partial multiple regression was used to subtract the unique variances from the total variance to determine the shared variance for each of the paired models (e.g., past vs. current father-son models). Kenny's formula was used for comparing R2 for significant differences. The results shown in table 5 indicate that for males and females, the majority of the variance accounted for by the model is shared and not independently contributed by time period. Comparing the separate contribution of variances from perceptions of past vs. perceptions of current relationships in predicting Self-Image scores indicated a significant difference in only one of the four pairs of 86 Table 5. Unique and Shared R2 (Variances) for Past and Current Perceptions of Family Relationships and Tests of Significant Differences for Unique R (Kenny's Formula) for Paired Comparisons of the Model (e.g., past vs current relationships with father for males). Males Father Mother Past Curr. Shared Past Curr. Shared .04 .05 .19 .05*a .08*b .14 Females Father Mother Past Curr. Shared Past Curr. Shared .04 .02 .11 .02 .03 .ll Note: *ab significant difference for paired comparison in R2 using Kenny's Formula [t(160)=2.14, p<.05] 87 models. For adolescent males, their perceptions of their current relationships with their mother and the current parental relationship, accounted for significantly more total variance in Self-Image scores than did their perceptions of these relationships in the past. Effects of Perceived Change in Family Relationships Over Time on Self- 12232 A series of nine separate three-way analyses of variance were performed (Relationship Change by Current Marital Status by Sex on the Offer Self-Image) in order to evaluate the effects of perceived changes in relationship variables from age 11 to current on subjects' Self- Image. Change in Relationship was determined by first converting scores on all relationship variables into Z-Scores. Past scores were then subtracted from current scores, yielding a change score. Changes equal to or greater than one standard deviation for that variable were considered significant. According to the direction of change, scores were considered Decreased, Unchanged (less than 1 S.D. change), or Increased for that relationship variable. Because no significant main effects for Sex or three-way interactions were found in any of the analyses, Sex was omitted from the analyses and the two-way analysis of variance results are shown in Table 6 with group means and paired least significant difference (LSD) test results presented in Table 7. Interestingly, changes in the conflict variables, which had little direct impact on Self-Image in the regression models, had the most profound effect on Self-Image scores. Analysis of variance (Table 6) revealed significant two-way interactions for Father-Child Conflict and 88 Table 6. Analysis of Variance for Offer Self-Image Questionnaire scores by Perceived Change in Relationship Factors (increased, unchanged, decreased) by Current Parental Marital Status (divorced/separated, intact). Relationship 2: E (main effects) (2-way interaction) Rel. Chg. Mar. Stat. Rel.Chg X Mar. Stat. Father- 3.13* 0.52 3.82* Child Conflict Father 1.00 0.34 0.44 Accept. Father 0.73 0.32 0.58 Psych. Control Father 1.34 0.68 0.87 Firm Control Parental 0.24 0.44 6.69*** Conflict Mother- 2.83(.06) 0.42 1.74 Child Conflict Mother 1.46 0.54 2.35(.097) Accept. Mother 2.36(.096) 0.45 0.36 Psych. Control Mother 1.77 0.78 0.82 Firm Control Note: * p<.05 *** p<.001 89 Table 7. Mean Offer Self-Image Scores as a function of perceived Change in Relationship Status from Age 11 to Present for each Parental Marital Status group for all subjects. Relationship Change Relationship Decreased Unchanged Increased Divorced Intact Divorced Intact Divorced Intact Father- 3.40 3.49 3.548 3.63b 3.62c 3.33abc Child (14) (28) (94) (191) (16) (27) Conflict Father 3.55 3.48 3.57 3.60 3.42 3.54 Acceptance (22) (20) (83) (196) (19) (30) Father 3.47 3.60 3.56 3.59 3.53 3.45 Psych. (15) (31) (83) (192) (26) (23) Control Father 3.66 3.58 3.53 3.61 3.51 3.48 Firm (17) (38) (88) (162) (19) (46) Control Parental 3.55 3.62d 3.49g 3.60e 3.69fg 3.27def Conflict (21) (25) (76) (202) (27) (19) Mother- 3.51 3.70 3.54 3.59 3.54 3.36 Child (11) (32) (95) (184) (18) (30) Conflict Mother 3.26 3.57 3.57 3.60 3.61 3.48 Acceptance (14) (26) (93) (190) (17) (30) Mother 3.61 3.53 3.56 3.61 3.38 3.44 Psych. (17) (32) (92) (191) (15) (23) Control Mother 3.64 3.68 3.53 3.57 3.48 3.55 Firm (22) (34) (86) (168) (16) (44) Control Note: Marital status; Divorced group ' divorced and separated Like superscripts indicate significant difference at p<.05 (LSD test) 90 Parental Conflict. Table 7 indicates that subjects from intact homes who perceived their parents conflict as increased since age 11 have significantly lower Self-Image scores compared to subjects from intact homes who perceive their parents conflict as unchanged or decreased over time, and compared to subjects whose parents have divorced and perceive their parents' conflict as increased. Conversely, within the sample of adolescents from divorced homes, those who perceive their parents conflict as increased have significantly higher Self-Image scores than those who perceived their parents conflict as unchanged. For father-child conflict, late adolescents from intact homes who perceived their conflict with their fathers as increased were found to have significantly lower Self-Image scores than those who reported increased conflict from the divorced sample, and lower Self-Image scores than those from divorced and intact homes who reported no significant change in conflict. CHAPTER 5 Discussion The primary purpose of this study was to assess the impact of parental divorce and various family relationship variables on the self- image of late adolescents. More specifically, a path model was designed to evaluate the impact of parental marital status on college students' self-image through its effects on students' perceptions of parental conflict and parent-child relations. The study also sought to evaluate the independent contributions of adolescents' perceptions of these family relationship variables at two points in time, corresponding with pre- and post-divorce periods for a sample of late- adolescents whose parents have separated or divorced. In addition, both sex differences and the impact of changes in family relationships over time on adolescent self-image were explored. Included among the hypotheses was the expectation that a significant univariate correlation would be found between parental marital status and adolescent global self-image (lower self-image in the divorced sample). This hypothesis was not supported. Marital status was also not found to impact adolescent self-image directly in the path model, although the predicted paths from marital status through the mediating variables to self-image were largely supported. Thus, there was no support for a significant direct association between parental marital status and adolescent self-image, regardless of whether family relationship mediator variables were also simultaneously 91 92 evaluated. One possible explanation for this result may be the presence of an inadvertent selection bias inherent in a college sample such that the adolescents who represent the greatest casualties of divorce (lowest self-image) are selected out before college. Another possible explanation, of course, is that parental divorce during adolescence does not in itself significantly affect late adolescents' global self-image. The model proved to be generally adequate for predicting a significant portion of the variance in late-adolescents' self-image. As predicted, children from divorced homes reported greater parental conflict both before and after the marital breakup. Also as predicted, parental conflict consistently and more strongly impacted the parent- adolescent relationship than did parental marital status. However, parents eventual marital status did consistently affect two aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship, although not always in the expected direction. First, children from divorced families recalled less conflict with their parents prior to parental divorce than did children whose parents remained married. Second, compared to males from intact families, males from non-intact families recalled their parents being more lax in control (i.e., less monitoring and supervision of behavior) both before and after parental divorce. Third, although females from intact and non-intact homes did not differ in their reports of parents' use of limit setting and external constraints, females from divorced families did report that their parents used less psychological pressure and guilt, before the divorce, to obtain compliance than did females from intact families. 93 These direct effects of marital status only became apparent once the effects of parental conflict were controlled for, as parental conflict served to suppress these effects. It appears, then, that an unmeasured concomitant of marital status, independent of adolescents' perceptions of parental conflict, underlies the observed association between eventual divorce and the quality of the parent-child relationship. Based on college students memories and perceptions of family relationships, these findings support the notion that reverberations of the marital dissolution begin up to several years prior to a divorce (Block et al., 1986, 1988; Block et al., 1981) and suggests that the entire family system may experience changes which are independent of parental conflict. It is possible, for example, that the lesser degree of parental control and parent-child conflict during the years prior to a divorce result from distancing or estrangement which occurs and limits parent-child interaction in general. This hypothesis is consistent with those suggesting that children from divorced families achieve earlier independence due to decreased availability of their parents and the resulting pressures to control their own behavior with less parental involvement (e.g., Sessa & Steinberg, 1991). What is interesting about the findings from this study is that late adolescents from divorced homes recalled more indices of parental detachment prior to the divorce than after. Although the magnitude of the direct effects of divorce on parent-child relations are small, the findings nonetheless suggest that parent-child relationships may, in fact, be somewhat more impacted by pre-divorce tensions than by a divorce itself and that these relationships may become more normalized by late adolescence. 94 Although the results of this study offer some intriguing information regarding divorce-specific outcomes for the parent-child relationship, it appears that the effects of marital conflict are more robust than those of the parental divorce itself. For the most part, marital conflict failed to impact late adolescents' self-image directly (except in the current mother-son relationship), but did so through its impact on the parent-child relationship. This finding supports the suppositions of many researchers who have suggested that the impact of parental conflict on children's adjustment occurs via the deterioration of the parent-child relationship (Amato, 1986; Hoffman, 1960; Hoffman & Lippitt, 1970; Stagner, 1974; Wadkar et al., 1986). In a study of young adolescents that shared some design similarities with the present study, Fauber et a1. (1990) demonstrated that the negative effects of parental conflict were mediated through disruptions in parenting behavior and the parent-child relationship. Thus, in order to understand the impact of parental divorce on late adolescents' self- image, it is most critical to look at the role played by various aspects of the parent-child relationship and how this relationship may be impacted by parental conflict rather than divorce itself. Four specific aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship were measured in the current study: parent-child conflict, parental acceptance, psychological control/guilt, and firm control. As predicted, greater parental conflict was associated with greater parent-child conflict. In fact, parental conflict was more strongly related to parent-child conflict than any other measured aspect of the parent-child relationship. However, contrary to 95 expectation, parent-child conflict failed to affect adolescents' self- image in any of the eight tests of the proposed model. One explanation for this finding is that the measure of conflict used in this study tapped into areas of conflict which have been identified as normative for the parent-adolescent relationship and that quantitative changes in these normative conflicts are not associated with adolescents' self- image. For example, Youniss and Smollar (1985) identified a number of similar areas of conflict which adolescents frequently experience with their parents (e.g., household tasks, friends, finances). Hence, although it was demonstrated that a higher conflict within the parental relationship is related to increased parent-child conflict, the assumption that this increased parent-child conflict is necessarily deleterious to the adolescents' self-image was not supported. In fact, it is possible that children who are exposed to more parental conflict (but perhaps not too extreme) may develop defensive strategies which help protect them from potentially damaging effects of parental conflict. In addition to parent-child conflict, this study also addressed the degree to which adolescents felt accepted by their parents and the impact of perceived acceptance on self-image. As measured by the CRPBI, the Acceptance vs. Rejection factor included adolescents' perceptions of parental acceptance, child centeredness, possessiveness, positive involvement, acceptance of individuation, and hostile detachment. This factor predicted self-image in the expected direction in seven of eight tests of the proposed model. Interestingly, adolescents' perception of paternal acceptance was consistently and 96 more strongly related to self-image than was adolescents' perceptions Of maternal acceptance. The greater impact of paternal acceptanCe may be partially related to greater variability in this aspect of the relationship for fathers and their children compared to mothers and their children. Youniss and Smollar (1985) discovered that both male and female adolescents were significantly more likely to describe their mother as meeting their emotional needs than their father. For example, the authors found that while 70% of sons reported that their mothers met their emotional needs, only 49% of fathers were said to have met these needs. Similarly, 70% of the daughters described their mother as meeting their emotional needs while only 35% reported that their father met these same needs. Fathers were frequently described by sons as judgmental, withdrawn, insensitive, criticizing, and distant. Youniss and Smollar concluded that "Father-son relationships involve a guardedness and a lack of acceptance that is not found in mother-son relationships" (1985, p. 69). Describing the father- daughter relationship, the authors concluded that "Contact between fathers and daughters occurs infrequently and when it does occur, it usually lacks intimacy, understanding, and acceptance... Thus, their relationship with their fathers may more aptly be described as a 'nonrelation' than as a negative one" (Youniss and Smollar, 1985, p. 51). The importance of parental acceptance and continued connectedness in the parent-adolescent relationship has received considerable attention in the adolescent develOpment literature (COOper, Grotevant, and Condon, 1983; Youniss and Smollar, 1985). One integral theoretical 97 argument to explain the psychological importance of this ongoing relationship is that although adolescents seek individuation and recognition as distinct individuals in the parent-child relationship, they must also remain connected "since they have been formed through this relationship, a complete severance would undermine the self" (Youniss and Smollar, 1985, p. 13). Results from the present study indirectly support this view and underscore the particular importance of parental acceptance within the father-adolescent relationship, a historically understudied relationship. As hypothesized (with the exception Of the past father-son relationship), high parental conflict negatively impacted adolescents' perceptions of their fathers' ability to offer acceptance and positive involvement in their lives while parental marital status was unrelated to this aspect of the father- adolescent relationship. Sons' recalled experience when they were 11- years-old indicated that although their fathers' acceptance was strongly related to their self-image, this aspect of their relationship was essentially unrelated to parental conflict and marital status. No clear reason for this isolation from the parental relationship can be offered based on the current study. Adolescents' perceptions of paternal acceptance clearly stood out as the salient aspect of the father-child relationship which impacts adolescent self-image. Whereas maternal acceptance was also important for predicting self-image, adolescents' perceptions of maternal control (more strongly through guilt induction than limit setting) was equally, and in some cases more, important (than maternal acceptance). Maternal control was consistently related to self-image such that reports of 98 maternal use of guilt and anxiety as control mechanisms was related to poorer self-image, whereas greater limit setting and supervision had a more favorable outcome. Not surprisingly, self-image was exclusively related to perceptions of past (rather than current) maternal limit setting, which was likely due to the decreased Opportunities for, and salience of, parental limit setting when children live outside of the home. Conversely, the negative effect of maternal psychological control on self-image remained essentially unchanged over time, and more influential for sons than for daughters. As predicted, both parents' use of this negative psychological/emotional control was more common in families characterized by greater parental conflict and was not associated with marital status. However, only maternal use of this type of control was found to impact adolescents' self-image negatively while paternal use was, for the most part, unrelated to self-image. As noted by Fauber and his colleagues, parental conflict can result in an increase of this type of control as a means of "securing and maintaining a strong emotional alliance and level of support from the child (1990, p. 1113)." These data suggest that mothers' attempts to secure such support from their children have negative implications for their adolescent children's self-image. A plausible explanation for the differential impact of paternal vs. maternal use of control on adolescents' self-image relates to the general differences noted between parents' levels of emotional connectedness with their children. The distancing found in the father- child relationship may create an environment in which rules and rule 99 violations are dealt with less emotionally and more straightforwardly. Youniss and Smollar (1985) reported that adolescents were more likely to perceive their mothers as harming the relationship through "misuse" of authority than to describe their fathers as hurting the relationship this way. Additionally, mothers and sons were described as engaging in a long-term process for resolving rule violations, requiring sons to prove themselves to their mothers. Alternatively, fathers tended to settle matters quickly through punishments which were accepted by sons as fair. Hence, even though both parents are seen as authority figures, and the present study indicates that both parents use psychological control as one means of directing their children's behaviors, it seems that adolescents may not internalize their fathers' use of guilt in such a way as to impair their self-image. It is possible that maternal use of psychological and emotional control may be experienced by adolescents as an effort to meet maternal needs or as a critical judgment of the child. Moreover, this type of maternal control seems to occur more frequently in families which have experienced (or continue to experience) high parental conflict. In addition to providing a mediational model for the often-cited relationship between marital status and adolescent self-image, this study sought to address the question of whether pre- or postdivorce factors were more suitable for predicting late adolescent self-image or if a significant change in these relationships was most critical. These questions were raised in part by current popularized theories which suggest that children's self-image may be compromised considerably by increasing, or at least continuing, conflict between 100 parents in post-divorce years (e.g. Wallerstein and her colleagues). This study was designed to question the underlying assumption that the divorce itself and the ensuing repercussions within the family are most critical in affecting the later self-image of adolescents. The results of this study suggested that, in general, adolescents' perceptions of past and present relationships with their parents similarly impact their self-image. This finding may suggest that the measured aspects of the parent-child relationships are relatively stable over time. Another possible explanation is methodological in that students may have been unable to clearly recall their past relationships and hence were heavily biased by their current perceptions. However, one exception to the overall similarity of relationships over time was found in the mother-son dyad. In that dyad, the effects of past vs. current perceptions of this relationship were more distinctive in their impact on adolescent self-image. Perhaps then, mother-son relationships may undergo more meaningful change from early- to late-adolescence, or sons may be more able to recall distinctions between past and current relationships with their mothers. To explore the relative contributions of pre- vs. post-divorce family relationships on adolescent self-image, group differences in self-image were compared based on adolescents' perceptions of changes in family relationships over time. Results of these analyses were generally insignificant, suggesting that increases or decreases in the measured aspects of family relationships had no significant effect on adolescents' self-image. However, two significant findings were 101 particularly interesting and worthy of note. First, a comparison of decreased, unchanged and increased parental conflict over time found that increased parental conflict was associated with the most favorable self-image scores for children of divorce, but the least favorable self-image for children of intact families. Second, a similar pattern was found for father-child conflict such that increased father-child conflict was associated with higher self-image scores for children from divorced families and lower self-image scores for children from intact homes. These results seem consistent with previous studies which have found that parental relationships are better correlated with father- child relationships than mother-child relationships (Amato, 1986; Wadkar et al., 1986). These findings suggest that the experience of increased conflict over time in these two relationships may be quite different for adolescents from divorced vs. intact families, resulting in Opposite effects on adolescents' self-image. For children of divorced parents, observed increases in postdivorce parental conflict may serve as a validation of feelings which were either denied, displaced, or more covertly expressed between the parents during the marriage. The increased conflict may be a welcome affirmation that parents are indeed in conflict and that the conflict has been acknowledged, as demonstrated by the divorce itself. Additionally, increasing conflict within the family may promote early independence or behavioral autonomy (Sessa and Steinberg, 1991) and as such result in higher self-image. Whereas overt family conflict may be beneficial for adolescents of divorced parents, similar increases in overt conflict within intact families may leave adolescents feeling trapped in a 102 maladaptive dysfunctional system. These adolescents may fear the possibility of impending divorce, feel the responsibility to insure family unity and/or may fall victim to chronic family discord. Regardless of the exact mechanisms, these results certainly suggest that changes in family conflict over time, including pre- and post- divorce periods, should be more extensively studied vis-a-vis its impact on adolescent outcomes. No gender differences were noted in the analyses of change in relationships over time. However, this study sought to explore possible gender differences in a variety of contexts and some gender- related findings are worth mentioning. Most notably, the results indicated that the prOposed model consistently accounted for a greater portion of the variance in self-image for males than for females. This finding is consistent with many areas of research in child development, demonstrating greater reactivity by males to a number of environmental stressors (e.g., Block, Block and Morrison, 1981; Rutter, 1979). Perhaps the most striking gender differences were noted within the context of males' and females' current relationships with their mothers. Males' current relationships with their mothers appeared to be quite influential for their self-image. Most notably, it appears that ongoing guilt-induction and perceived psychological control by mothers can continue to negatively impact males adolescents' self- image. In contrast, the current mother-daughter relationship had no significant association to the current self-image of girls. Several possible explanations for this exist. One possibility is that the four measured aspects of the parent/child relationship may not be salient 103 for the mother-daughter relationship. Contemporary feminist theory (e.g., Gilligan, 1982) suggests that the mother-daughter relationship is unique from all others and cannot be measured in the same ways. Another possibility is that using self-image as the outcome variable may be less appropriate for females than for males. (This hypothesis would also help explain the greater portion of variance predicted by the model for males.) Kalter et a1. (1985) suggest, for example, that the negative effects of parental conflict and/or divorce for females may be manifest in adult intimacy problems. One suggestion for future research which is directly related to these gender differences is that studies of the effects of divorce via parent/child relationships should account for probable differences in the various dyadic relationships. In other words, not only child gender, but also the interaction of parent and child gender should be addressed in future studies. Contemporary researchers in a variety of areas have demonstrated the utility in studying parent-child dyads (e.g., Youniss and Smollar, 1985). The results point to a number of additional recommendations for future research. Clearly, the study was limited in a number of ways. From a methodological standpoint, the use of single-source reporting via questionnaire measures presents problems. Future studies may benefit from employing multimethod, and possibly multisource, designs to better determine the construct validity of the measures used. However, several researchers (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1982) suggest that Openly expressed (i.e., child-observed) conflict between parents is related to child outcome, whereas more covert disagreements do not 104 appear to negatively influence child outcome. Hence, child-reported parental conflict (i.e. child perception) may remain more important in studies such as this than will parent reports of their own conflict or reports by trained observers. Nonetheless, as recently stressed by some researchers (Grynch and Fincham, 1990; Jouriles et al., 1991), greater specificity regarding the dimensions of marital/parental conflict (e.g., frequency, intensity, child involvement, content, resolution) may be important in order to more accurately understand the link between the marital relationship and child development. Given the apparent importance of the quality of the parent-child relationship as a mediator of the effects of marital conflict on child outcome, future studies may wish to include more specified measures of this relationship. For example, it may be useful to add measures to evaluate other develOpmentally salient aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship (e.g., based on current developmental theories of autonomy, separation/individuation) when studying the impact of marital conflict on adolescent outcome. In addition, future studies may wish to include a wider variety of outcome variables than were addressed in the current study. For example, when studying long-term outcome for late adolescent or young adult females, it may be useful to include adjustment to mature, intimate relationships as an indicator of outcome. Furthermore, instead of measuring global self-image as was done in this study, it would be interesting to look at the impact of marital conflict (via its effects on the parent-child relationship) on specific aspects of adolescents' self-image (e.g., the social self, sexual self, etc.). 105 Lastly, and Optimally, prospective longitudinal research is needed for a number of reasons, including the elimination of distortions specific to retrospective reporting and to allow for ongoing multisource, multimethod data collection. Although their original intent was not specifically to measure correlates of eventual divorce, the Block, Block and colleagues study serves as a model on which future studies can be based so that research can more systematically assess the influence of family interactions on child and adolescent development. Regardless of the limitations of the current study, two very important hypotheses were supported. First, the data suggest rather clearly that divorce is a distal predictor of child outcome and that marital conflict and the associated detriments to the parent-child relationship are more critical and proximal predictors. Second, these data suggest that the negative effects of marital dissolution may occur prior to the divorce and that pre-divorce difficulties may be equally deleterious to family relationships and, hence, adolescent self-image. Obviously, verification of these results would require a longitudinal, prospective study. Perhaps the most unique finding of the current study was that when either parental conflict or father-child conflict increased throughout the adolescent years, children whose parents divorced reported higher self-image, whereas children from intact families reported poorer self-image. Given that the vast majority of divorce research has been dedicated to understanding why children of divorce are at risk for negative outcomes, this finding underscores the need for future studies which also examine the mediational mechanisms of more positive outcome. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLES APPENDIX A Table 2 Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables for all subjects combined (excluding diagonals): Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past MO. Past Mo. Past Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy Cont. Fa. Past Accept. -.38*** -.18*** -.17*** .39*** -.16*** Fa. Past Psy. Cont. -.38*** .35*** .48*** -.15** .52*** Fa. Past Firm Cent. -.18 .35*** .40*** .06 .13** Fa. Past Conflict -.17*** .48*** .40*** .01 .25*** Mo. Past Accept. .39*** -.15** .06 .01 -.38*** Mo. Past Psy. Cont. -.16*** .52*** .l3** .25*** -.38*** Mo. Past Firm Cont. .11* .02 .41*** .12** -.14** .38*** Mo. Past Conflict -.03 .31*** .18*** .65*** -,14** ,43*** Fa. Curr. Accept. .81*** -.33*** -.l3** -.20*** .29*** -.17*** Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Firm Cent. -.10* .29*** .65*** .36*** .01 .13** Fa. Curr. Mo. Curr. Accept. .30*** -.08 .07 .02 .76*** -.36*** 106 107 Table 2. (Continued) Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Mo. Curr. Psy.Cont. -.16*** .40*** .03 .14** MO. Curr. Firm Cent. .11* .01 .20 .11** Mo. Curr. Conflict -.11* .28*** .06 .42*** Par. Past Conflict -.27*** .30*** .10* .50*** Par. Curr. Conflict -.36*** .21*** .00 .14** Offer Self-Image .38*** -.27*** -.02 -.l9*** Marital Status .14** -.05 .08 -.04 Mo. Past Mo. Past Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy. Cont. Fa. Past Accept. .11* -.03 .81*** -.34*** Fa. Past Psy. Cont. .02 .31*** -.33*** .76*** Fa. Past Firm Cont. .41*** .18*** -.l3** .22*** Pa. Past Conflict .12** .65*** -.20*** .41*** Mo. Past Accept. -.14** -.14** .20*** .11* Mo. Past Mo. Past Firm Cont. .30*** .10* .04 Mo. Past Conflict .30*** -.03 ,22*** Mo. Past Accept. -.33*** -.12** -.22*** -.10* -.19*** .01 Fa. Firm. Curr. Cont. -.10* .29*** .65*** .36*** .01 .13** .30*** .16*** Mo. Past Psy Cont. 0 74m .26*** .41*** .25*** .20*** -.3o*** -.03 Fa. Curr. Conflict -.18*** .43*** .25*** .61*** .43*** 108 Table 2. (Continued) Mo. Past Mo. Past Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm. Cont. Conflict Fa. Curr. Accept. .10* -.03 -.46*** -.21*** -.29*** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. .04 .22*** -.46*** .40*** ,55*** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. .30*** .16*** -.21*** .40*** .37*** Fa. Curr. Conflict .05 .43*** -.29*** .55*** .37*** Mo. Curr. Accept. -.10* -.13** .34*** -.13** -.05 -.06 Mo. Curr. Psy. Cent. .24*** .35*** -.21*** .50*** .21*** .27*** Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. .61*** .23*** .06 .13** .50*** ,13*** MO. Curr. Conflict .18*** .62*** -.17*** .34*** .18*** .60*** Par. Past Conflict .04 .47*** -.33*** .33*** .12** .47*** Par. Curr. Conflict -.01 .16*** -.44*** .33*** .03 .30*** Offer Self-Image .02 -.16*** .35*** -.30*** -.07 -.25*** Marital Status .07 -.01 .19*** -.14** .07 -.10* Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Par. Past Par. Curr Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Conflict Conflict Fa. Past Accept. -.ll* -.l6*** .11* -.ll* -.27*** -.36*** Fa. Past Psy. Cent. .28*** .40*** .01 .28*** .30*** .21*** Pa. Past Firm Cont. .06 .03 .20*** .06 .10* .00 109 Table 2. (Continued) Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. MO. Curr. MO. Curr. Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Fa. Past Conflict .42*** .14** .11** .42 Mo. Past Accept. -.22*** -.33*** -.12** -,22*** Mo. Past Psy. Cont. .41*** .74*** .26*** .41*** Mo. Past Mo. Past Conflict .62*** .35*** .23*** .62*** Fa. Curr. Accept. .17*** -021*** 006 -el7*** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. .34*** .50*** .13** .34*** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. .18*** .21*** .51*** .18*** Fa. Curr. Conflict .60*** .27*** .18*** .60*** Mo. Curr. Accept. -.35*** -.50*** -.22*** -.35*** Mo. Curr. Psy. Cont. .56*** .43*** .56*** MO. Curr. Mo. Curr. Conflict .56*** .37*** Per. Past ' Conflict .40*** .24*** .07 .40*** Par. Curr. Conflict .23*** .25*** -.03 .23*** Offer Self-Image .27*** -.34*** -.10* -.23*** Marital Status .00 -.04 .11** -.05 Par. Past Par. Curr Conflict Conflict .50*** .14** -.10* -.19*** .25*** .20*** .04 -.01 .47*** .16*** -.33*** -.44*** .33*** .34*** .12** .03 .47*** .30*** -.10* -.18*** .24*** .25*** .07 -.02 .40*** .23*** .52*** .52*** _.13*** -.23*** -.37*** -.44*** 110 Table 2. (Continued) Offer Marital Self-Image Status Fa. Past Accept. .38*** .14** Fa. Past Psy. Cont. -.27*** -.05 Fa. Past Firm Cont. -.02 .08 Fa. Past Conflict -.19*** -.04 Mo. Past Accept. .25*** .00 Mo. Past Psy. Cont. -.30*** -.03 Mo. Past Firm Cont. .02 .07 Mo. Past Conflict -.l6*** .01 Pa. Curr. Accept. .35*** .19*** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. -.30*** -.14** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. -.07 .07 Fa. Curr. Conflict -.25*** -.10* Mo. Curr. Accept. .27*** .19*** Mo. Curr. Psy. Cont. -.34*** -.14** Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. -.10* .07 Mo. Curr. Conflict -.23*** -.05 111 Table 2. (Continued) Offer Marital Self-Image Status Par. Past Conflict -.18*** -.37*** Par. Curr. Conflict -,23*** —.44*** Offer Self-Image .04 Marital Status .04 Note: * p£.05 ** p<.01 *** n§.oo1 APPENDIX A Table 4a Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Males' Relationships with their Mothers: Mo. Past Mo. Past MO. Past Mo. Past Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy Cont. Mo. Past Accept. -.26** -.03 .06 .70** -.19* Mo. Past Psy. Cent. -.26** .39** .41** -.22** .70** Mo. Past Firm Cont. -.03 .39** .32** .11 .18* MO. Past Conflict .06 .41** .32** .03 .29** Mo. Curr. Accept. .70** -.22** .11 .03 -.36** Mo. Curr. Psy. Cont. -.19* .70** .18* .29** -.36** Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. .00 .19* .50** .26** -.10 .41** Mo. Curr. Conflict -.04 .33** .17* .55** -.19* .49** Par. Curr. Conflict -.07 .26** -.01 .17* -.11 .28** Par. Past Conflict .08 .28** .05 .48** -.01 .26** Par. Marital Status .07 -.15 .12 .00 .00 -.11 Self- Image .28** -.34** .02 -.10 .28** -.31** 112 113 Table 4a. (Continued) Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Par. Curr. Par. Past Par. Mar. Self- Firm Cont. Conflict Conflict Conflict Status. Image MO. Past Accept. .00 -.O4 -.07 .07 .07 .25** Mo. Past Psy. Cont. .19* .33** .26** .28** -.15 -.27** Mo. Past Firm Cont. .49** .17* -.Ol .05 .12 .02 Mo. Past Conflict .26** .55** .16* .48** .00 -.21** Mo. Curr. Accept. -.10 -.19* -.11 -.01 .00 .27** Mo. Curr. Psy. Cent. .41** .49** .28** .26** -.11 -.31** Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. .37** -.07 .15 .18* -.08 Mo. Curr. Conflict .37** .23** .48** -.08 -.28** Par. Curr. Conflict -.07 .23** .54** -.56** -.20** Par. Past Conflict .15 .45** .54** -.38** -.20** Par. Marital Status .18* -.08 -.56** -.38** .02 Self- Image -.08 -.28** -.20** -.20** .02 Note: * £5.05 APPENDIX A Table 4b Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Males' Relationships with their Fathers: Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy Cont. Fa. Past Accept. -.39** -.12 -.12 .81** -.34** Fa. Past Psy. Cont. -.39** .28** .40** -.36** .77** Fa. Past Firm Cont. -.12 .28** .31** -.04 .11 Fa. Past Conflict -.12 .40** .31** -.19** .37** Fa. Curr. Accept. .81** -.36** .03 -.19* -.47** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. -.34** .77** .11 .38** -.47** Pa. Curr. Firm Cont. -.03 .25** .55** .35** -.13 .37** Fa. Curr. Conflict -.09 .37** .20** .58** -.26** .53** Par. Curr. Conflict -.3l** .25** .06 .23** -.45** .37** Par. Past Conflict -.19* .28** .08 .56** -.31** .32** Par. Marital Status .17* -.14 .12 -.07 .27** -.25** Self- Image .44** -.30** .02 -.15 .44** -.33** 114 115 Table 4b. (Continued) Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Par. Curr. Par. Past Par. Mar. Self- Firm Cont. Conflict Conflict Conflict Status. Image Fa. Past Accept. -.03 -.09 -.31** -.19* .17* .44** Fa. Past Psy. Cont. .25** .37** .25** .28** -.14 -.30** Fa. Past Firm Cont. .55** .20** -.06 .08 .12 .02 Fa. Past Conflict .35** .58** .23** .56** -.07 -.15 Fa. Curr. Accept. -.13 -.26** -.46** -.31** .27** .44** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. .38** .53** .38** .32** -.25** -.33** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. .38** .06 .20** .09 -.07 Pa. Curr. Conflict .38** .35** .51** -.14 -.25** Par. Curr. Conflict .06 .35** .54** -.56** -.28** Par. Past Conflict .20** .51** .54** -.38** -.l7* Par. Marital Status .09 -.14 -.56** -.38** .07 Self- APPENDIX A Table 4c Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Females' Relationships with their Mothers: Mo. Past Mo. Past Mo. Past Mo. Past Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy Cont. Mo. Past Accept. -.47** -.21** -.29** .78** -.39** Mo. Past Psy. Cont. -.47** .38** .53** -.45** .79** Mo. Past Firm Cont. -.21** .38** .29** -.23** .28** Mo. Past Conflict -.29** .53** .29** -.25** .41** Mo. Curr. Accept. .78** -.45** -.23** -.25** -.56** MO. Curr. Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. -.18* .32** .69** .22** -.28** .44** Mo. Curr. Conflict -.34** .47** .19** .67** -.46** .62** Par. Curr. Conflict -.25** .18* -.02 .18* -.21** .22** Par. Past Conflict -.21** .24** .04 .47** -.15* .22** Par. Marital status -005 .06 .03 -003 .00 -002 Self- Image .25** -.27** .02 -.21** .27** -.31** 116 117 Table 4c. (Continued) Mo. Curr. Mo. Curr. Par. Curr. Par. Past Par. Mar. Self- Firm Cont. Conflict Conflict Conflict Status. Image Mo. Past Accept. -.18* -.34** -.25** -.21** -.05 .25** Mo. Past Mo. Past Firm Cont. .69** .19** -.02 .04 .03 .02 Mo. Past Conflict .22** .67** .18* .47** -.03 -.21** MO. Curr. Accept. -.29** -.46** -.21** -.15** .00 .27** Mo. Curr. Psy. Cont. .45** .62** .22** .22** .02 -.3l** Mo. Curr. Firm Cont. .38** -.01 .01 .07 -.08 Mo. Curr. Conflict .38** .25** .37** -.02 -.28** Par. Curr. Conflict -.01 .25** .49** -.33** ~.20** Par. Past Conflict .01 .37** .49** -.36** -.20** Par. Marital Status .07 -.02 -.33** -.36** .02 Self- Image -.08 -.28** -.20** -.20** .02 APPENDIX A Table 4d Univariate Correlation Coefficients for Predictor and Criterion Variables (excluding diagonals) for Females' Relationships with their Fathers: Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Past Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Accept. Psy. Cont. Firm Cont. Conflict Accept. Psy Cont. Fa. Past Fa. Past Psy. Cont. -.38** .40** .56** -.31** .76** Fa. Past Firm Cont. -.22** .40** .47** -.19** .31** Fa. Past Conflict -.22** .56** .47** -.22** .46** Fa. Curr. Accept. .82** -.31** -.19** -.22** -.45** Pa. Curr. Psy. Cont. -.34** .76** .31** .26** -.45** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. -.15* .33** .71** .37** -.26** .42** Fa. Curr. Conflict -.25** .48** .29** .66** -.31** .58** Par. Curr. Conflict -.40** .21** .06 .12 -.43** .31** Par. Past Conflict -.34** .33** .12 .48** -.35** .34** Par. Marital Status .11 .03 .04 -.03 .13 -.04 Self- Image .34** -.23** -.05 -.22** .29** -.27** 118 119 Table 4d. (Continued) Fa. Curr. Fa. Curr. Par. Curr. Par. Past Par. Mar. Self- Firm Cont. Conflict Conflict Conflict Status. Image Fa. Past Accept. -.15* -.25** -.40** -.34** .11 .34** Pa. Past Psy. Cont. .33** .48** .21** .33** .03 -.23 Fa. Past Firm Cont. .71** .29** .06 .13 .04 -.05 Fa. Past Conflict .37** .66** .12 .48** -.03 -.22** Fa. Curr. Accept. -.26** -.31** -.43** -.35** .14 .29** Fa. Curr. Psy. Cont. .42** .58** .31** .34** -.04 -.27** Fa. Curr. Firm Cont. .36** .01 .06 .05 -.06 Pa. Curr. Conflict .36** .27** .44** -.07 -.24** Par. Curr. Conflict .01 .27** .49** -.33** -.20** Par. Past Conflict .06 .43** .49** -.36** -.20** Par. Marital Status .05 -.06 -.33** -.36** .02 Self- Image -.06 -.24** -.20** -.20** .02 APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX B PERSONAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE I am (circle one): female male I am (circle one): single divorced remarried married What is your age? Circle one: Fr. Soph. Jr. Sr. What is your major? What are your future career plans (be as specific as possible): What is your GPA? What was your high school GPA? What state are you from? Did you grow up mostly in a: large city medium or small city suburb rural area What is your race? Black White Hispanic Asian American Indian Other (specify) What is your religion? Protestant please specify denomination Roman Catholic Greek Orthodox Jewish Moslem None Other (specify) 120 121 Do you have a job during the school year? yes no If yes, how many hours per week do you work? 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours 21 to 25 hours 26 to 30 hours 31 to 35 hours 36 to 40 hours over 40 hours What is your job? Briefly describe your job responsibilities. How many hours per week do you spend doing homework? In ten years do you expect to be: a) working? yes no b) what will your job be like? c) married? yes no d) a parent? yes no e) how many children do you expect to have by then? Are your parents (circle one): divorced remarried married If they are divorced, how old were you when they separated? If your father remarried, how old were you when he remarried? If your mother remarried, how Old were you when she remarried? With which of the following did you live with from age 12 years until beginning college? Circle all those who you lived with for the following years. Age 12 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 14 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 16 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 18 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 20 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Did your mother work at all while you were in high school? yes no Age 13 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 15 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 17 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) Age 19 both natural parents natural mother only natural father only mother and stepfather father and stepmother other (please specify) If so, did she work part time or full time (35 hours per week or more)? 123 part time full time Did your mother work the entire four years you were in high school? How much influence career? none at all How much influence relationships? none at all How much influence of friends? none at all How much influence practices? none at all yes no do your parents a little do your parents a little do your parents a little do your parents a little have have have have on your decisions quite a bit on your decisions quite a bit on your decisions quite a bit on your religious quite a bit about choosing a a lot about your dating a lot about your choice a lot values and a lot APPENDIX B CURRENT PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP Please answer the following two questions based on how you perceive your parents' current relationship to be (whether married or not). 1. How well do you think your parents get along with each other? 1 2 3 4 Very well Fairly well Not very well Badly) 2. How often do your parents get angry with one another or disagree? 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always 124 125 DAS Current Relationship with Mother Most young adults still have disagreements in their relationships with their mothers. Please indicate below the approximate degree or frequency of disagreement between you and your mother for each item as you perceive it to be at this stage of your life. (Write the number that best describes your disagreement with your mother for each item.) 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always or or or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately Quite a bit Very much not at all 1. Handling your finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Friends 5. Conventionality (correct or prOper behavior) 6. Philosophy of life 7. Ways of dealing with your grandparents or other relatives 8. Aims, goals, and things believed important 9. Amount of time spent together 10. Making major decisions 11. Household tasks 12. Leisure time interests and activities 13. Your career decisions 126 DAS Current Relationship with Father Most young adults still have disagreements in their relationships with their fathers. Please indicate below the approximate degree or frequency of disagreement between you and your father for each item as you perceive it to be at this stage of your life. (Write the number that best describes your disagreement with your mother for each item.) 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always or or or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately Quite a bit Very much not at all 1. Handling your finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Friends 5. Conventionality (correct or prOper behavior) 6. PhilosOphy of life 7. Ways of dealing with your grandparents or other relatives 8. Aims, goals, and things believed important 9. Amount of time spent together 10. Making major decisions 11. Household tasks 12. Leisure time interests and activities 13. Your career decisions APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH (CRPBI-108) Schludermann Revision As children grow up to be teenagers and young adults, they learn more and more and more about their parents and how their parents brought up their sons and daughters. Even grown-up sons and daughters can well describe some of their past experiences in their parental families. We would like you to describe some of these experiences. Please read each statement on the following pages and circle the answer that most closely describes the way each of your parents acts toward you. BE SURE TO MARK EACH ANSWER FOR EACH PARENT. If you think that the statement describes a person who is NOT LIKE your parent, circle NE, If you think that the statement describes a person who is SOMEWHAT LIKE your parent, circle, SE. If you think that the statement describes a person who is A LOT LIKE your parent , circle L. FORM FOR MOTHER MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO..... 1) ...makes me feel better after talking over my worries with her. NL SL L 2) ...is not very patient with me. NL SL L 3) ...sees to it that I knew exactly what I may or may not do. NL SL L 4) ...wantes to know exactly where I am and what I am doing. NL SL L 5) ...soon forgets a rule she has made NL SL L 6) ...is easy with me NL SL L 7) ...doesn't talk with me very much NL SL L 8) ...will not talk with me when I displeased her. NL SL L 9) ...is very strict with me. NL SL L 10) ...feels hurt when I do not follow advice. NL SL L 127 128 NL 8 Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO ... 11) ...is always telling me how I should behave. 12) ...usually does not find out about my misbehavior l3) ...speds very little time with me. 14) ...almost always speeks to me with a warm and friendly voice. 15) ...is always thinking of things that will please me. 16) ...believes in having a lot of rules and sticking to them. 17) ...tells me how much she loves me 18) ...is always checking on what I have been doing at school or play. 19) ...punishes me for doing something one day, but ignores it the next. 20) ...allowes me to tell her if I think my ideas are better than here. 21) ...lets me off easy when I do something wrong. 22) ...sometimes when she disapproves, does not say anything, but is cold and distant for a while. 23) ...forgets to help me when I need it. 24) ...sticks to a rule instead of allowing a lot of exceptions. 25) ...tells me exactly how to do my work. 26) ...does not pay much attention to my misbehavior. 27) ...likes me to choose my own way of doing things. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 129 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO .... 28) ...if I brake a promise, does not trust me again for a long time. 29) ...does not seem to think of me very often. 30) ...does not tell me what time to be at home when I go out. 31) ...gives me a lot of care and attention. 32) ...believes that all my bad behavior should be punished in some way. 33) ...asks me to tell everything that happens when I am away from home. 34) ...does not forget very quickly the things I do wrong. 35) ...wants me to tell her about it if I do not like the way she treats me. 36) ...worries about me when I am away. 37) ...gives hard punishment. 38) ...believes in showing her love for me. 39) ...feels hurt by the things I do. 40) ...lets me help to decide to do things we are working on. 41) ...says some day I will be punished for my bad behavior. 42) ...gives me as much freedom as I want. 43) ...smiles at me very often. 44) ...is always getting after me. 45) ...keeps a careful check on me to make sure I have the right kind of friends. 46) ...depended on her mood whether a rule is enforced or not. 47) ...excuses my bad conduct. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 130 NL - Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 48) ...does not show that she loves me. 49) ...is less friendly with me if I do not see things her way. 50) ...is able to make me feel better when I am upset. 51) ...becomes very involved in my life. 52) ...almost always complaines about what I do. 53) ...always listenes to my ideas and Opinions. 54) ...would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time. 55) ... does not check up to see whether I have done what she told me. 56) ...thinks and talks about my misbehavior long after it is over. 57) ...does not share many activities with me. 58) ...lets me go any place I please without asking. 59) ...enjoys doing things with me. 60) ...makes me feel like the most important person in her life. 61) ...gets cross and angry about little things I do. 62) ...only keeps rules when it suits her. 63) ...really wants me to tell her just how I feel about things. 64) ...will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed her. 65) ...usually makes me the center of her attention at home. 66) ...Often praises me. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 131 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO .... 67) ...says, if I love her, I would do what she wants me to do. 68) ...seldom insists that I do anything. 69) ...tries to understand how I see things. 70) ...complains that I got on her nerves. 71) ...does not work with me. 72) ...insists that I must do exactly as I am told. 73) ...askes people what I do away from home. 74) ...loses her temper with me when I do not help around the house. 75) ...does not insist I obey, if I complain and protest. 76) ...cheers me up when I am sad. 77) ...sees to it that I Obey when she tells me something. 78) ...tells me of all the things she had done for me. 79) ...wants to control whatever I do. 80) ...does not bother to enforce rules. 81) ...thinks that any misbehavior is very serious and will have future consequences. 82) ...is always finding fault with me. 83) ...Often speaks of the good things I do. 84) ...makes her whole life center around her children. 85) ...does not seem to know what I need or want. 86) ...is happy to see me when I come home from school or play. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 132 NL = Not Like, SL 3 Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 87) ...gives me the choice of what to do whenever possible. 88) ...if I have hurt her feelings, stops talking to me until I please her again. 89) ...worries that I cannot take care of myself unless she is around. 90) ...hugged or kissed me goodnight when I was small. 91) ...says, if I really cared for her, I would not do things that cause her to worry. 92) ...is always trying to change me. 93) ...is easy to talk to. 94) ...wishes I were a different kind of person. 95) ...lets me go out any evening I want. 96) ...seems proud of the things I do. 97) ...spends almost all of her free time with her children. 98) ...when I have certain jobs to do, does not allow me to do anything else until the jobs are done. 99) ...is very interested in what I am learning at school. 100) ...does not like the way I act at home. 101) ...changes her mind to make things easier for herself. 102) ...can be talked into things easily. 103) ...wishes I would stay home where she could take care of me. 104) ...makes me feel I am not loved. 105) ...has more rules than I can remember. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 133 NL 3 Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY MOTHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 106) ...says I make her happy. NL SL 107) ...will talk to me again and again about anything bad I do. NL SL 108) ...lets me do anything I like to do. NL SL FORM FOR FATHER MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 1) ...makes me feel better after talking over my worries with him. NL SL 2) ...is not very patient with me. NL SL 3) ...sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do. NL SL 4) ...wants to know exactly where I am and what I am doing. NL SL 5) ...soon forgets a rule he has made. NL SL 6) ...is easy with me. NL SL 7) ...doesn't talk with me very much. NL SL 8) ...will not talk with me when I displease him. NL SL 9) ...is very strict with me. NL SL 10) ...feels hurt when I do not follow advice. NL SL 11) ...is always telling me how I should behave. NL SL 12) ...usually does not find out about my misbehavior. NL SL 13) ...spends very little time with me. NL SL 14) ...almost always speaks to me with a warm and friendly voice. NL SL 15) ...is always thinking of things that will please me. NL SL 134 NL I Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 16) ...believes in having a lot of rules and sticking with them. 17) ...tolls me how much he loves me. 18) ...is always checking on what I have i been doing at school or play. 19) ...punishes me for doing something one day, but ignores it the next. 20) ...allows me to tell him if I think my ideas are better than his. 21) ...lets me Off easy when I do something wrong. 22) ...sometimes when he disapproves, does not say anything, but is cold and distant for a while. 23) ...forgets to help me when I need it. 24) ...sticks to a rule instead of allowing a lot of exceptions. 25) ...tells me exactly how to do my work. 26) ...does not pay much attention to my misbehavior. 27) ...likes me to choose my own way of doing things. 28) ...if I brake a promise, does not trust me again for a long time. 29) ...does not seem to think of me very often. 30) ...does not tell me what time to be at home when I go out. 31) ...gives me a lot of care and attention. 32) ...believes that all my bad behavior should be punished in some way. 33) ...asks me to tell everything that happens when I am away from home. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 135 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 34) ...does not forget very quickly the things I do wrong. 35) ...wants me to tell him about it if I do not like the way he treats me. 36) ...worries about me when I am away. 37) ...gives hard punishment. 38) ...believes in showing his love for me. 39) ...feels hurt by the things I do. 40) ...lets me help to decide to do things we are working on. 41) ...says some day I will be punished for my bad behavior. 42) ...gives me as much freedom as I want. 43) ...smiles at me very often. 44) ...is always getting after me. 45) ...keeps a careful check on me to make sure that I have the right kind of friends. 46) ...depends on his mood whether a rule is enforced or not. 47) ...excuses my bad conduct. 48) ...does not show that he loves me. 49) ...is less friendly with me, if I do not see things his way. 50) ...was able to make me feel better when I was upset. 51) ...becomes very involved in my life. 52) ...almost always complains about what I do. 53) ...always listens to my ideas and opinions. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 136 NL 3 Not Like, SL 3 Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 54) ...would like to be able to tell me what to do all the time. 55) ...does not check up to see whether I have done what he told me. 56) ...thinks and talks about my misbehavior long after it is over. 57) ...does not share many activities with me. 58) ...lets me go any place I please without asking. 59) ...enjoys doing things with me. 60) ...makes me feel like the most important person in his life. 61) ...gets cross and angry about little things I do. 62) ...only keeps rules when it suits him. 63) ...really wants me to tell him just how I feel about things. 64) ...will avoid looking at me when I have disappointed him. 65) ...usually makes me the center of his attention at home. 66) ...Often praises me. 67) ...said, if I love him, I would do what he wants me to do. 68) ...seldom insisted that I do anything. 69) ...tries to understand how I see things. 70) ...complains that I get on his nerves. 71) ...does not work with me. 72) ...insists that I must do exactly as I am told. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 137 NL 3 Not Like, SL 3 Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO .... 73) ...asks peOple what I do away from home. 74) ...loses his temper with me when I do not help around the house. 75) ...does not insist I obey, if I complain and protest. 76) ...cheers me up when I am sad. 77) ...sees to it that I obey when he tells me something. 78) ...tells me of all the things he had done for me. 79) ...wants to control whatever I do. 80) ...does not bother to enforce rules. 81) ...thinks that any misbehavior is very serious and will have future consequences. 82) ...is always finding fault with me. 83) ...Often speaks of the good things I do. 84) ...makes his whole life center around his children. 85) ...does not seem to know what I need or want. 86) ...is happy to see me when I come home from school or play. 87) ...gives me the choice of what to do whenever possible. 88) ...if I have hurt his feelings, stops talking to me until I please him again. 89) ...worries that I cannot take care of myself unless he is around. 90) ...hugged or kissed me goodnight when I was small. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 138 NL 3 Not Like, SL 3 Somewhat Like, L 3 A Lot Like MY FATHER IS A PERSON WHO ..... 91) ...says, if I really cared for him, I would not do things that cause him to worry. 92) ...is always trying to change me. 93) ...is easy to talk to. 94) ...wishes I were a different kind of person. 95) ...lets me go out any evening I want. 96) ...seems proud of the things I do. 97) ...spends almost all of his free time with his Children. 98) ...when I have certain jobs to do, does not allow me to do anything else until the jobs are done. 99) ...is very interested in what I am learning at school. 100) ...does not like the way I act at home. 101) ...changes his mind to make things easier for himself. 102) ...can be talked into things easily. 103) ...wishes I would stayed at home where he could take care of me. 104) ...makes me feel I am not loved. 105) ...has more rules than I can remember. 106) ...says I make him happy. 107) ...will talk to me again and again about anything bad I do. 108) ...lets me do anything I like to do. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL APPENDIX B DAS Marital Relations at age 11 Most parents have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate degree or frequency of disagreement between your parents for each item as you remember it when you were ll-years-old. (Write the number that best describes your parents' disagreements for each item.) 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always or or or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately Quite a bit Very much not at all 1. Handling Family finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Friends 5. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 6. Philosophy of life 7. Ways of dealing with your grandparents or other relatives 8. Aims, goals, and things believed important 9. Amount of time spent together 10. Making major decisions 11. Household tasks 139 140 1 2 3 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately not at all 12. Leisure time interests and activities 13. Career decisions 4 Frequently or Quite a bit 5 Almost always or Very much 141 DAS Relationship with Father at age 11 Most children had disagreements in their relationships with their fathers when they were younger. Please indicate below the approximate degree or frequency of disaggeement between you and your father for each item as you remember it when you were ll-years-old. (Write the number that best describes your disagreement with your mother for each item.) 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always or or or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately Quite a bit Very much not at all 1. Handling your finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Friends 5. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 6. Philosophy of life 7. Ways of dealing with your grandparents or other relatives 8. Aims, goals, and things believed important 9. Amount of time spent together 10. Making major decisions 11. Household tasks 12. Leisure time interests and activities 13. Your career decisions DAS 142 Relationship with Mother at age 11 Most children had disagreements in their relationships with their mothers when they were younger. Please indicate below the approximate degree or frequency of disagreement between you and your mother for each item as you remember it when you were ll-years-old. (Write the number that best describes your disagreement with your mother for each item.) 1 2 3 4 5 Almost never Once in a while Sometimes Frequently Almost always or or or or or Very slightly or A little Moderately Quite a bit Very much not at all 1. Handling your finances 2. Matters of recreation 3. Religious matters 4. Friends 5. Conventionality (correct or prOper behavior) 6. Philosophy of life 7. Ways of dealing with your grandparents or other relatives 8. Aims, goals, and things believed important 9. Amount of time spent together 10. Making major decisions 11. Household tasks 12. Leisure time interests and activities 13. Your career decisions APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH (CRPBI-108) AGE ll-YEARS-OLD As children grow up to be teenagers and young adults, they learn more and more and more about their parents and how their parents brought up their sons and daughters. Even grown-up sons and daughters can well describe some of their past experiences in their parental families. We would like you to describe some of these experiences as you remember them to be when you were 11-years-old. Please read each statement on the following pages and circle the answer that most closely describes the way each of your parents acted toward you. BE SURE TO MARK EACH ANSWER FOR EACH PARENT. If you think that the statement describes a person who is NOT LIKE your parent, circle EL. If you think that the statement describes a person who is SOMEWHAT LIKE your parent, circle, SE. If you think that the statement describes a person who is A LOT LIKE your parent , circle L. FORM FOR MOTHER WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO..... 1) ...made me feel better after talking over my worries with her. NL SL L 2) ...was not very patient with me. NL SL L 3) ...saw to it that I knew exactly what I could or could not do. NL SL L 4) ...wanted to know exactly where I was and what I was doing. NL SL L 5) ...quickly forgot a rule she made NL SL L 6) ...was easy with me NL SL L 7) ...didn't talk with me very much NL SL L 8) ...wouldn't talk with me when I displeased her. NL SL L 9) ...was very strict with me. NL SL L 143 144 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO ... 10) ...felt hurt when I did not follow advice. NL 11) ...was always telling me how I should behave. NL 12) ...usually did not find out about my misbehavior NL 13) ...spent very little time with me. NL 14) ...almost always spoke to me with a warm and friendly voice. NL 15) ...was always thinking of things that would please me. NL 16) ...believed in having a lot of rules and sticking to them. NL 17) ...told me how much she loved me NL 18) ...was always checking on what I had been doing at school or play. NL 19) ...punished me for doing something one day, but ignored it the next. NL 20) ...allowed me to tell her if I thought my ideas were better than hers. NL 21) ...let me off easy when I did something wrong. NL 22) ...sometimes when she disapproved, did not say anything, but was cold and distant for a while. NL 23) ...forgot to help me when I needed it. NL 24) ...stuck to a rule instead of allowing a lot of exceptions. NL 25) ...told me exactly how to do my work. NL 26) ...did not pay much attention to my misbehavior. NL 27) ...liked me to choose my own way of doing things. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 145 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO .... 28) ...if I broke a promise, did not trust me again for a long time. NL 29) ...did not seem to think of me very often. NL 30) ...did not tell me what time to be at home when I went out. NL 31) ...gave me a lot of care and attention. NL 32) ...believed that all my bad behavior should be punished in some way. NL 33) ...asked me to tell everything that happened when I was away from home. NL 34) ...did not forget very quickly the things I did wrong. NL 35) ...wanted me to tell her about it if I did not like the way she treated me. NL 36) ...worried about me when I was away. NL 37) ...gave hard punishment. NL 38) ...believed in showing her love for me. NL 39) ...felt hurt by the things I did. NL 40) ...let me help to decide to do things we were working on. NL 41) ...said some day I would be punished for my bad behavior. NL 42) ...gave me as much freedom as I wanted. NL 43) ...smiled at me very often. NL 44) ...was always getting after me. NL 45) ...kept a careful check on me to make sure I had the right kind of friends. NL 46) ...depended on her mood whether a rule was enforced or not. NL 47) ...excused my bad conduct. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 146 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 48) ...did not show that she loved me. NL SL 49) ...was less friendly with me if I did not see things her way. NL SL 50) ...was able to make me feel better when I was upset. NL SL 51) ...became very involved in my life. NL SL 52) ...almost always complained about what I did. NL SL 53) ...always listened to my ideas and opinions. NL SL 54) ...would have liked to have been able to tell me what to do all the time. NL SL 55) ... did not check up to see whether I had done what she told me. NL SL 56) ...thought and talked about my misbehavior long after it was over. NL SL 57) ...did not share many activities with me. NL SL 58) ...let me go any place I pleased without asking. NL SL 59) ...enjoyed doing things with me. NL SL 60) ...made me feel like the most important person in her life. NL SL 61) ...got cross and angry about little things I did. NL SL 62) ...only kept rules when it suited her. NL SL 63) ...really wanted me to tell her just how I felt about things. NL SL 64) ...would avoid looking at me when I had disappointed her. NL SL 65) ...usually made me the center of her attention at home. NL SL 66) ...often praised me. NL SL 147 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO .... 67) ...said, if I loved her, I would do what she wanted me to do. NL 68) ...seldom insisted that I do anything. NL 69) ...tried to understand how I saw things. NL 70) ...complained that I got on her nerves. NL 71) ...did not work with me. NL 72) ...insisted that I must do exactly as I was told. NL 73) ...asked peOple what I did away from home. NL 74) ...lost her temper with me when I did not help around the house. NL 75) ...did not insist I obey, if I complained and protested. NL 76) ...cheered me up when I was sad. NL 77) ...saw to it that I obeyed when she told me something. NL 78) ...told me of all the things she had done for me. NL 79) ...wanted to control whatever I did. NL 80) ...did not bother to enforce rules. NL 81) ...thought that any misbehavior was very serious and would have future consequences. NL 82) ...was always finding fault with me. NL 83) ...Often spoke of the good things I did. NL 84) ...made her whole life center around her children. NL 85) ...did not seem to know what I needed or wanted. NL 86) ...was happy to see me when I came home from school or play. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 148 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 87) ...gave me the choice of what to do whenever possible. NL 88) ...if I had hurt her feelings, stopped talking to me until I pleased her again. NL 89) ...worried that I could not take care of myself unless she was around. NL 90) ...hugged or kissed me goodnight when I was small. NL 91) ...said, if I really cared for her, I would not do things that caused her to worry. NL 92) ...was always trying to change me. NL 93) ...was easy to talk to. NL 94) ...wished I were a different kind of person. NL 95) ...let me go out any evening I wanted. NL 96) ...seemed proud of the things I did. NL 97) ...spent almost all of her free time with her children. NL 98) ...when I had certain jobs to do, did not allow me to do anything else until the jobs were done. NL 99) ...was very interested in what I was learning at school. NL 100) ...did not like the way I acted at home. NL 101) ...changed her mind to make things easier for herself. NL 102) ...could be talked into things easily. NL 103) ...wished I would have stayed home where she could take care of me. NL 104) ...made me feel I was not loved. NL 105) ...had more rules than I could remember. NL 106) ...said I made her happy. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 149 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY MOTHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 107) ...would talk to me again and again about anything bad I did. 108) ...let me do anything I liked to do. NL NL SL SL FORM FOR FATHER WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 1) ...made me feel better after talking over my worries with him. 2) ...was not very patient with me. 3) ...saw to it that I knew exactly what I could and could not do. 4) ...wanted to know exactly where I was and what I was doing. 5) ...quickly forgot a rule he had made. 6) ...was easy with me. 7) ...didn't talk with me very much. 8) ...would not talk with me when I displeased him. 9) ...was very strict with me. 10) ...felt hurt when I did not follow advice. 11) ...was always telling me how I should behave. 12) ...usually did not find out about my misbehavior. 13) ...spent very little time with me. 14) ...almost always spoke to me with a warm and friendly voice. 15) ...was always thinking of things that would please me. 16) ...believed in having a lot of rules and sticking with them. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 150 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 17) ...told me how much he loved me. NL SL 18) ...was always checking on what I had been doing at school or play. NL SL 19) ...punished me for doing something one day, but ignored it the next. NL SL 20) ...allowed me to tell him if I thought my ideas were better than his. NL SL 21) ...let me off easy when I did something wrong. NL SL 22) ...sometimes when he disapproved, did not say anything, but was cold and distant for a while. NL SL 23) ...forgot to help me when I needed it. 4 NL SL 24) ...stuck to a rule instead of allowing a lot of exceptions. NL SL 25) ...told me exactly how to do my work. NL SL 26) ...did not pay much attention to my misbehavior. NL SL 27) ...liked me to choose my own way of doing things. NL SL 28) ...if I broke a promise, did not trust me again for a long time. NL SL 29) ...did not seem to think of me very often. NL SL 30) ...did not tell me what time to be at home when I went out. NL SL 31) ...gave me a lot of care and attention. NL SL 32) ...believed that all my bad behavior should be punished in some way. NL SL 33) ...asked me to tell everything that happened when I was away from home. NL SL 34) ...did not forget very quickly the things I did wrong. NL SL 151 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 35) ...wanted me to tell him about it if I did not like the way he treated me. NL 36) ...worried about me when I was away. NL 37) ...gave hard punishment. NL 38) ...believed in showing his love for me. NL 39) ...felt hurt by the things I did. NL 40) ...let me help to decide to do things we were working on. NL 41) ...said some day I would be punished for my bad behavior. NL 42) ...gave me as much freedom as I wanted. NL 43) ...smiled at me very often. NL 44) ...was always getting after me. NL 45) ...kept a careful check on me to make sure that I had the right kind of friends. NL 46) ...depended on his mood whether a rule was enforced or not. NL 47) ...excused my bad conduct. NL 48) ...did not show that he loved me. NL 49) ...was less friendly with me, if I did not see things his way. NL 50) ...was able to make me feel better when I was upset. NL 51) ...became very involved in my life. NL 52) ...almost always complained about what I did. NL 53) ...always listened to my ideas and opinions. NL 54) ...would have liked to have been able to tell me what to do all the time. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 152 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 55) ...did not check up to see whether I had done what he told me. 56) ...thought and talked about my misbehavior long after it was over. 57) ...did not share many activities with me. 58) ...let me go any place I pleased without asking. 59) ...enjoyed doing things with me. 60) ...made me feel like the most important person in his life. 61) ...got cross and angry about little things I did. 62) ...only kept rules when it suited him. 63) ...really wanted me to tell him just how I felt about things. 64) ...would avoid looking at me when I had disappointed him. 65) ...usually made me the center of his attention at home. 66) ...often praised me. 67) ...said, if I loved him, I would do what he wanted me to do. 68) ...seldom insisted that I do anything. 69) ...tried to understand how I saw things. 70) ...complained that I got on his nerves. 71) ...did not work with me. 72) ...insisted that I must do exactly as I was told. 73) ...asked people what I did away from home. 74) ...lost his temper with me when I did not help around the house. NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 153 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO .... 75) ...did not insist I obey, if I complained and protested. NL 76) ...cheered me up when I was sad. NL 77) ...saw to it that I obeyed when he told me something. NL 78) ...told me of all the things he had done for me. NL 79) ...wanted to control whatever I did. NL 80) ...did not bother to enforce rules. NL 81) ...thought that any misbehavior was very serious and would have future consequences. NL 82) ...was always finding fault with me. NL 83) ...often spoke of the good things I did. NL 84) ...made his whole life center around his children. NL 85) ...did not seem to know what I needed or wanted. NL 86) ...was happy to see me when I came home from school or play. NL 87) ...gave me the choice of what to do whenever possible. NL 88) ...if I had hurt his feelings, stopped talking to me until I pleased him again. NL 89) ...worried that I could not take care of myself unless he was around. NL 90) ...hugged or kissed me goodnight when I was small. NL 91) ...said, if I really cared for him, I would not do things that caused him to worry. NL 92) ...was always trying to change me. NL 93) ...was easy to talk to. NL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL SL 154 NL = Not Like, SL = Somewhat Like, L = A Lot Like WHEN I WAS ll-YEARS-OLD, MY FATHER WAS A PERSON WHO ..... 94) ...wished I were a different kind of person. NL SL 95) ...let me go out any evening I wanted. NL SL 96) ...seemed proud of the things I did. NL SL 97) ...spent almost all of his free time with his children. NL SL 98) ...when I had certain jobs to do, did not allow me to do anything else until the jobs were done. NL SL 99) ...was very interested in what I was learning at school. NL SL 100) ...did not like the way I acted at home. NL SL 101) ...changed his mind to make things easier for himself. NL SL 102) ...could be talked into things easily. NL SL 103) ...wished I would have stayed at home where he could take care of me. NL SL 104) ...made me feel I was not loved. NL SL 105) ...had more rules than I could remember. NL SL 106) ...said I made him happy. NL - SL 107) ...would talk to me again and again about anything bad I did. NL SL 108) ...let me do anything I liked to do. NL SL INTRODUCTION TO THE OFFER SELF - IMAGE QUESTIONNAIRE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS USED FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS. AFTER CAREFULLY READING EACH OF THE STATEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES, PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER ON THE ANSWER SHEET THAT INDICATES HOW WELL THE ITEM DESCRIBES YOU: THE NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH CATEGORIES THAT RANGE FROM ”DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL" (I) TO "DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL” (6). PLEASE CIRCLE ONLY ONE CHOICE FOR EACH STATEMENT. EXAMPLE STATEMENT: I AM AN ADOLESCENT. CHOICE OF ANSWERS: l—DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 3—DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL S—DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME Z—DESCRIBES ME WELL 4—DOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME 6—DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL RESPONSE: Q) 2 3 4 S 6 PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL ITEMS. THANK YOU COPYRIGHT: I977 © DANIEL OFFER. M. D. 155 156 I’e-DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 3--OESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL S—DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME Z-DESCRIBES ME WELL 4-OOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME 6~DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL —-----—-—--~———--————-_p——-——-—---—-—--—————---——a—I—I—--—----————_—-_ 1, I CARRY MANY GRUOGES. 2, WHEN I AM WITH PEOPLE I AM AFRAIO THAT SOMEONE WILL MAKE FUN OF ME. 7__ 3. MOST OF THE TIME I THINK THAT THE WORLD IS AN EXCITING PLACE To LIVE IN. 4. I THINK THAT I WILL BE A SOURCE OF PRIOE To MY PARENTS IN THE FUTURE. 4 5. I WOULD NOT HURT SOMEONE JUST FOR THE “HECK OF IT." 5. THE RECENT CHANGES IN MY BODY HAVE GIVEN ME SOME SATISFACTION. 7. IAM GOING TO DEVOTE MY LIFE TO HELPING OTHERS. 7___. 8. I “LOSE MY HEAD" EASILY. 8— 9. MY PARENTS ARE ALMOST ALWAYS ON THE SIDE OF SOMEONE ELSE, c.g. MY BROTHER 9..— 1 OR SISTER. 10. THE OPPOSITE SEX FINDS ME A BORE. IO— 11. IF I WOULD BE SEPARATED FROM ALL THE PEOPLE I KNOW. I FEEL THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE To MAKE A GO OF IT. ' 12. I FEEL TENSE MOST OF THE TIME. 12— 13. I USUALLY FEEL OUT OF PLACE AT PICNICS ANO PARTIES. I3— 14. I FEEL THAT WORKING Is TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY FOR ME. I4 15. MY PARENTS WILL BE OISAPPOINTEO IN ME IN THE FUTURE. Is_ 16 . IT IS VERY HARo FoR A TEENAGER TO KNow HOW To HANOLE sex IN A RIGHT wAY. I6— 17, AT TIMES I HAVE FITS OF CRYING ANO/OR LAUGHING THAT I SEEM UNABLE TO 17____ 18, $2322?th To OEVOTE MY LIFE To MAKING As MUCH MONEY As I CAN. Is__ 19. IF I PUT MY MIND TO IT, I CAN LEARN ALMOST ANYTHING. I9— 20. ONLY STUPIO PEOPLE WORK. 20— 21. VERY OFTEN I FEEL THAT MY FATHER IS NO GOOO. 2I ___ 22. I AM CONFUSED MOST OF THE TIME. 22— _ T~DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 2-DESCRIBES ME WELL 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 3|. 157 3-DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL 4—DOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME I FEEL INFERIOR To MOST PEOPLE I KNOW. UNDERSTANDING MY PARENTS IS BEYOND ME. I DO NOT LIKE To PUT THINGS IN ORDER AND MAKE SENSE OF THEM. I CAN COUNT ON MY PARENTS MOST OF THE TIME. IN THE PAST YEAR I HAVE BEEN VERY WORRIED ABOUT MY HEALTH. DIRTY IOKES ARE FUN AT TIMES. I OFTEN BLAME MYSELF EVEN WHEN I AM NOT AT 'FAULT. I WOULD NOT STOP AT ANYTHING IF I FELT I WAS DONE WRONG. MY SEX ORGANS ARE NORMAL. MOST OF THE TIME I AM HAPPY. I AM GOING TO DEVOTE MYSELF TO MAKING THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE IN I CAN TAKE CRITICISM WITHOUT RESENTMENT. MY WORK, IN GENERAL, IS AT LEAST AS 6000 AS THE WORK OF THE GIRL NEXT TO ME. SOMETIMES I FEEL SO ASHAMED OF MYSELF THAT I IUST WANT To HIDE IN A CORNER IA'AJSI SIRE THAT I WILL BE PROUD ABOUT MY FUTURE PROFESSION. MY FEELINGS ARE EASILY HURT. ‘ WHEN A TRAGEDY OCCURS TO ONE OF MY FRIENDS, I FEEL SAD Too. I BLAME OTHERS EVEN WHEN I KNOW THAT I AM AT FAULT T00. WHEN I WANT SOMETHING. I IUST SIT AROUND WISHING I COULD HAVE IT. THE PICTURE I HAVE OF MYSELF IN THE FUTURE SATISFIES ME. I AM A SUPERIOR STUDENT IN SCHOOL. I FEEL RELAXEO UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. S~DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME 6~DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL 41— 42.— 43— 44— 48. ' 49. 50. SI. 52. 53. 54. SS. 56. 57. 58. 59. 6I . 62. 63. 64. 158 ~I-DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 3~DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL S--DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME ' 2—DESCRIBES ME WELL 4-DOES NOT OUITE DESCRIBE ME 6--DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL I FEEL EMPTY EMOTIONALLY MOST OF THE TIME. 45_ I WOULD RATHER SIT AROUND AND LOAF THAN WORK. 45— EVEN IF IT wERE DANGEROUS, I WOULD HELP SOMEONE WHO IS IN TROUBLE. 47_ TELLING THE TRUTH MEANS NOTHING TO ME. 43_ OUR SOCIETY IS A COMPETITIVE ONE AND I AM NOT AFRAID OF IT. 49— IGET VIOLENT IF I DON'T GET MY WAY. 50— MOST OF THE TIME MY PARENTS GET ALONG WELL WITH EACH OTHER. SI _ I THINK THAT OTHER PEOPLE IUST DO NOT LIKE ME. 52— I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH NEW FRIENDSHIPS. 53— I AM so VERY ANXIOUS. 54— WHEN MY PARENTS ARE STRICT, I FEEL THAT THEY ARE RIGHT, EVEN IF I GET ANGRY. SS— WORKING CLOSELY WITH ANOTHER GIRL NEVER GIVES ME PLEASURE. 55.._ I AM PROUD OF MY BODY. 57— AT TIMES I THINK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF WORK I WILL DO IN THE FUTURE. ss_ EVEN UNDER PRESSURE I MANAGE TO REMAIN CALM. S9_ WHEN I GROW UP AND HAVE A FAMILY, IT WILL BE IN AT LEAST A FEW WAYS SIMILAR To 60— rchT‘EINFEEL THAT I WOULD RATHER DIE. THAN Go ON LIVING. 6| _ I FIND IT EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE FRIENDS. 62.— I WOULD RATHER BE SUPPORTED FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE THAN WORK. 63— I FEEL THAT I HAVE A PART IN MAKING FAMILY DECISIONS. 64... I Do NOT MIND BEING CORRECTED. SINCE I CAN LEARN FROM IT. 65— 65. FOR COMPUTER USE ONLY 6669.... 70.. 7I-72__ 73L 74_ 751 76—80____ I-DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 2-DESCRIBES ME WELL 159 3—DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL 4~DOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME S-DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME G—DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL --_-----_---————_—--—-—-—-——--_------——-~————-—---———-----_ I FEEL SO VERY LONELY. I DO NOT CARE HOW MY ACTIONS AFFECT OTHERS AS LONG AS I GAIN SOMETHING. I ENJOY LIFE. I KEEP AN EVEN TEMPER MOST OF THE TIME. A 108 WELL DONE GIVES ME PLEASURE. MY PARENTS ARE USUALLY PATIENT WITH ME. I SEEM TO BE FORCED TO IMITATE THE PEOPLE I LIKE. VERY OFTEN PARENTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND A PERSON BECAUSE THEY HAD AN UNHAPPY CHILDHOOD. - FOR ME GOOD SPORTSMANSHIP IN SCHOOL IS AS IMPORTANT AS WINNING A GAME. I PREFER BEING ALONE THAN WITH KIDS MY AGE. WHEN I DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING, I DO IT. I THINK THAT BOYS FIND ME ATTRACTIVE. OTHER PEOPLE ARE NOT AFTER ME TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ME. I FEEL THAT THERE IS PLENTY I CAN LEARN FROM OTHERS. I DO NOT ATTEND SEXY SHOWS. I FEAR SOMETHING CONSTANTLY. VERY OFTEN I THINK THAT I AM NOT AT ALL THE PERSON I WOULD LIKE TO BE. I LIKE TO HELPA FRIEND WHENEVER I CAN. IF I KNOW THAT I WILL HAVE TO FACE A NEW SITUATION, I WILL TRY IN ADVANCE TO FIND OUT AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE ABOUT IT. USUALLY I FEEL THAT I AM A BOTHER AT HOME. IF OTHERS DISAPPROVE OF ME I GET TERRIBLY UPSET. I LIKE ONE OF MY PARENTS MUCH BETTER THAN THE OTHER. 66— 67___ 68__ 69— 70— 71— 72— 73— 74— 75_.. 76— 77..— 78.— 79— 80— 8 I___ 82— 83— 84..— 85— 86— 87_'_ 160 fi . I-DESCRIBES ME VERY WELL 3--DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL S--DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME ' 2~DESCRIBES ME WELL 4—OOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME 6--DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL 89. 90. 9I. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. I00. IOI . 102. I03. 104. IDS. 106. I07. I08. 109. BEING TOGETHER WITH OTHER PEOPLE GIVES ME A GOOD FEELING. WHENEVER I FAIL IN SOMETHING, I TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT I CAN DO IN ORDER TO AVOID ANOTHER FAILURE. ' I FREQUENTLY FEEL UGLY AND UNATTRACTIVE. SEXUALLY I AM WAY BEHIND. IF YOU CONFIDE IN OTHERS YOU ASK FOR TROUBLE. EVEN THOUGH I AM CONTINUOUSLY ON THE G0, I SEEM UNABLE TO GET THINGS DONE. WHEN OTHERS LOOK AT ME THEY MUST THINK THAT I AM POORLY DEVELOPED. MY PARENTS ARE ASHAMED OF ME. I BELIEVE I CAN TELL THE REAL FROM THE FANTASTIC. THINKING OR TALKING ABOUT SEx FRIGHTENS ME. I AM AGAINST GIVING SO MUCH MONEY TO THE POOR. I FEEL STRONG AND HEALTHY. EVEN WHEN I AM SAD I CAN ENIOY A GOOD JOKE. THERE Is NOTHING wRONG wITH PUTTING ONESELF BEFORE OTHERS. I TRY TO STAY AWAY FROM HOME MOST OF THE TIME. I FIND LIFE AN ENDLESS SERIES OF PROBLEMS—WITHOUT SOLUTION IN SIGHT. AT TIMES I FEEL LIKE A LEADER AND FEEL THAT OTHER KIDS CAN LEARN SOMETHING rgggLNIEIAT I AM ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS. I HAVE BEEN CARRYING A GRUDGE AGAINST MY PARENTS FOR YEARS. I AM CERTAIN THAT I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MYSELF IN THE FUTURE. WHEN I ENTER A NEW ROOM I HAVE A STRANGE AND FUNNY FEELING. I FEEL THAT I HAVE NO TALENT WHATSOEVER. I ~DESCPIBES ME VERY WELL Z-DESCRIBES ME WELL 161 3-DESCRIBES ME FAIRLY WELL 4—DOES NOT QUITE DESCRIBE ME S-DOES NOT REALLY DESCRIBE ME 6-DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME AT ALL I DO NOT REHEARSE HOW I MIGHT DEAL WITH A REAL COMING EVENT. WHEN I AM WITH PEOPLE I AM BOTHERED BY HEARING STRANGE NOISES. MOST OF THE TIME MY PARENTS ARE SATISFIED WITH ME. I DO NOT HAVE A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TIME IN MAKING FRIENDS. I DO NOT ENJOY SOLVING DIFFICULT PROBLEMS. SCHOOL AND STUDYING MEAN VERY LITTLE TO ME. EYE FOR AN EYE AND TOOTH FOR A TOOTH DOES NOT APPLY FOR OUR SOCIETY. SEXUAL EXPERIENCES GIVE ME PLEASURE. VERY OFTEN I FEEL THAT MY MOTHER IS NO GOOD. HAVING A BOYFRIEND IS IMPORTANT TO ME. I WOULD NOT LIKE TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE KIDS WHO "HIT BELOW THE BELT." WORRYING A LITTLE ABOUT ONE'S FUTURE HELPS TO MAKE IT. WORK OUT BETTER. I OFTEN THINK ABOUT SEX. USUALLY I CONTROL MYSELF. I ENJOY MOST PARTIES I GO TO. DEALING WITH NEW INTELLECTUAL SUBJECTS IS A CHALLENGE FOR ME. I DO NOT HAVE MANY FEARS WHICH I CANNOT UNDERSTAND. NO ONE CAN HARM ME JUST BY NOT LIKING ME. I AM FEARFUL OF GROWING UP. I REPEAT THINGS CONTINUOUSLY TO BE SURE THAT I AM RIGHT. I FREQUENTLY FEEL SAD. II2 II3 II4 IIS ”6— H7 118 II9 I20 I2I I22 123 124 I25 126 I27 I28 I29 I30 ’OR COMPUTER USE ONLY 66-69____ 70- 7I-72__ 733. 74- 75.3. 7-6-BD----- APPENDIX C PROCEDURES APPENDIX C INTRODUCTION TO THE TASK 1. Prior to the subjects' arrival write the following on the blackboard. RED ANSWER SHEETS = MOTHER > 108 ITEMS EACH BLUE ANSWER SHEETS = FATHER NL = 1 SL = 2 L = 3 2. Once everyone is seated, hand out the sheet that indroduces the project and wait until everyone has finished before continuing. 3. Thank them for coming and ask if anyone in the room is 21 years-old or older. Remember who raises their hand but do not ask them to leave yet. 4. Ask if anyone's biological parents are currently married to each other. This would include parents who have separated or divorced and then re- married each other. Again, just remember who these people are but don't ask them to leave yet. 5. Ask if anyone's parents divorced before their 12th birthday. Then have all those who responded positively to any of these three questions step foreward and tell them that they are not eligible for this study. If they meet the requirements for any other study you are familiar with, you may refer them. 6. Tell the remaining subjects that this task is usually finished in about two hours but that they are allowed two and a half hours to complete it and will receive 5 half-hour credits. 7. Say: You will be given a sheet which further explains the purpose of the study once you complete all of the questionnaires, and I check them to make sure that they are completed correctly and that no items are missing. You may also remain after everyone has finished to discuss the project or write to the address on the sheet to obtain further information or the results of the study once the data are analyzed. 8. Say: "Your responses on this experiement are completely anonymous and your names should not be written on any of the questionnaires. The questionnaires have code numbers on them which are not traceable to you." 9. Say: "The first questionnaire in your packet asks about background demographic information such as your age, when your parents separated and which parent you lived with prior to coming to college. When you see the words "separated" or "divorced" I am referring to the time that your parents first separated permanently. Even if your parents are presently 162 163 separated but not yet legally divorced, refer to the time that they began this separation as the point at which they divorced. Make sure you answer all of the items and feel free to ask questions if any of the items are not clear to you." 10. Say: "Four of the remaining five questionnaires will ask about relationships between either you and your parents or just between your parents. Two of these questionnaires will ask about these relationships when you were ll-years-old. You will have to remember what things were like back then. You were probably in 6th grade and your parents were married. Allow yourself a few minutes to think back to that time and what your family was like then. Two similar questionnaires will be asking about these relationships as they are currently. If you don't live near your parents or see them seldomly, think about what it is like when you visit with them, either over vacation or for a weekend. Some of you will find the questionnaires asking about when you were ll-years-old following immediately after the demographic questionnaire and some will find them toward the end of the packet. Make sure that you fill them out in the order that they appear in the packet. In between these four questionnaires, you will find a questionnaire asking about how you see yourself currently, at this age". 11. Say: "Some of the questionnaires have computer scantron sheets in them. Make sure that you answer on these sheets and not on the questionnaire itself. Two of the measures have two scantron sheets each inside them. One between the first and second page and another one in the middle of the questionnaire. Keep the scantron sheets with the questionnaires so that they are handed back in together and not mixed up." 12. Say: "Take your time and be careful not to miss any items. Feel free to come up and ask, if you have any questions." 13. Call them up to get their folders and pencils by groups. The male foulders have the numbers written in black and the female folders are written in red. APPENDIX C INTRODUCTION TO THE FAMILY INTERACTIONS AND YOUNG ADULT DEVELOPMENT STUDY The purpose of this study is to examine the ways in which your parents' relationships with each other, and with yourself, may be related to your own development. Your participation in this study would require that you attend only one 2.5 hour session. In exchange for your participation, you will receive 5 half hours of credit for your Introductory Psychology course. During this session you will be asked to complete several questionnaires. These questionnaires inquire about: 1) your personal background (e.g., gender, age, GPA, religion, etc.) and family situation (e.g., whether your parents live together, are separated or divorced); 2) your relationship with each of your parents at different points in time; 3) the degree of conflict in your parents' relationship at various points in time; and 4) how you may view yourself and your social relationships at different points in time. You will receive a complete set of questionnaires in a few minutes to be completed in the order in which you will receive them. Your answer to these questions will be completely anonymous. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. However, you will only receive credit upon completion of all the questionnaires. You do of course have the right not to answer any item on any questionnaire that you do not wish to answer. However, all of your answers are valuable to this study, and in some instances failure to complete one or more items may make it impossible for me to use the information that you do provide in the data analysis. For this reason, I strongly encourage you to complete all of the questionnaire items and respond to them as honestly as you can. Although some of the questions are very personal, you should remember that your answers are completely anonymous. Some of the questionnaires will require that you try to remember things about your past. I hope that you will try hard to remember the way you saw and felt about things at that particular time. Your participation will help me to better understand how parental, and parent- child relationships affect younger children and young adults. It is important that you do not discuss your answers with anyone until the questionnaires are all completed and handed in. At the end of the session, a short discussion will be held for those who would like more information about what is currently known regarding the areas covered in this study. In addition, you will receive a brief written form which will elaborate on this study and how it pertains to previous research in this area. If you would like to discuss the study further or learn about the results you can write to: Ron Lapporte, M.A. Department of Psychology, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1117 164 APPENDIX C DEBRIEFING FORM At this time, I would like to thank you for your participation in the study and explain some of the related literature which motivated my undertaking this research project. Many studies have demonstrated relationships between parental divorce and childhood adjustment problems at different ages. Many of these studies have compared groups of children or young adults, following their parents divorce to matched control subjects from intact families and concluded that group differences were due to the marital breakup. However, some recent prospective research suggests that male children of parents who would later divorce evidenced problems with impulse control, emotional lability, and relationships with peers and adults as early as three-years-old. These researchers also found that both the parents' marital relationship and the parents' relationships with their children were more distressed many years before the actual divorce. Such findings implicate possible factors in the predivorce family as affecting the child's development. Although the evidence for girls is less clear and consistent, and the negative affects of the predivorce family relationships on boys' personality develOpment is clearer, evidence does suggest the existence of more subtle negative affects on personality develOpment for girls. Some research suggests that the emphasis on the divorce as a causative agent may be misleading and that growing up in a conflicted but intact home may be more detrimental to children than being raised in a divorced home. The purpose of this study is to investigate your perceptions of your parents' marital relationships and your relationships with each of your parents at two points in time, and examine the association between these perceived relationships and your own self-descriptions. Based on the results of the above mentioned studies and others, I decided to solicit students from both intact and divorced homes to study your perceptions of these important relationships. It is my belief that those who perceived these relationships as more positive will view themselves more positively. However, it is the change in these relationships over time that may provide the most important information from this study. For example, if one reports that his/her relationship with his parents has either improved since age ll-years-old, or deteriorated since that time, how does that change affect his/her current self-concept? Do our perceptions of our pre- adolescent family relationships affect our self-concept more, or less than our current perceptions of these relationships? Does knowing that an individual comes from a divorced home tell us as much about how he sees himself as knowing about some of the significant relationships in his life? These are some of the questions that I hOpe to address from the information that you have provided for me today. If you have further questions at this time, please feel free to take a few minutes do discuss them with me before you leave. As noted on the study introduction sheet, you may write to me to request the results of the study. Please include a permanent address as it may be up to a year before all the data are analyzed and ready to be presented. I have included my address again on this form as well. 165 166 Ron Lapporte, M.A. Department of Psychology, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824-1117 I thank you again for your COOperation and ask that you not discuss the research information on this sheet with others in your class who may be interested in participating in the study. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adler, A. (1927). The practice and theory of individual psychology, New York: Harcourt. Amato, P. R. (1986). Marital conflict, the parent-child relationship and child self-esteem. Family Relations, 223 403-410. Armentrout, J. A. & Burger, G. K. (1972). Factor analyses of college students' recall of parental child-rearing behaviors. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 121, 155-161. Ausubel, D. P., Balthazar, E., Rosenthal, 1., Blackman, L., Schpoong, S., Welkowitz, J. (1954). Perceived parent attitudes as determinants of children's ego structure. Child Development, 25, 173-183. Bell, C. & Ward, C. R. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between Dimensions of Self Concept (D080) and achievement in mathematics. Adolescence, 123 895-901. Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 223 83-96. Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley: Bancroft. Block, J., von der Lippe, A., & Block, J. H. (1973). Sex-role and socialization patterns: Some personality concomitants and environmental antecedents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 413 321-341. Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex-role: Some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psychologist, Z§J 512- 526. Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The California Child Q-Set. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists. Block, J. H.; Block, J. & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). The personality of children prior to divorce: A prospective study. Child Development, 51, 827-840. Block, J.; Block, J. H. & Gjerde, P. F. (1988). Parental functioning and the home environment in families of Divorce: Prospective and concurrent analyses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 21, 207-213. Block, J. H.; Block, J. & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement- disagreement on child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children. Child Development, 52, 965- 964. 167 168 Burger, G. K. & Armentrout, J. A. (1970). A factor analysis of fifth and sixth graders' reports of parental child rearingybehavior. Unpublished manuscript. Cantor, D. W. (1979). Divorce: A view from the children. Journal of Divorce, 4, 357-363. Coche, E., & Taylor, S. (1974). Correlations between the Offer Self- Image Questionnaire for Adolescents and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in a Psychiatric Hospital Population. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23 145-152. COOper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D. & Condon, S. M. (1983). Individuality and connectedness in the family as a context for adolescent identity formation and role-taking skill. In H. D. Grotevant and C. R. Cooper, (Eds.), Adolescent develOpment in the family: New directions for child development, 46-60. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. COOpersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. W. H. Freeman and Company. Crockenberg, S. (1985). Toddlers' reactions to maternal anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21) 361-373. Cross, H. J. (1969). College students' memories of their parents: A factor analysis of the CRPBI. Journal of Consulting and CLinical Psychology, 33, 275-278. Cummings, E.M., Iannotti, R.J., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1985). Influence of conflict between adults on the emotions and aggression of young children. Developmental Psychology, 313 495-507. Cummings, E.M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children's responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Child Development, 52, 1274-1281. Douvan, E. & Adelson, J. (1966). The adolescent experience. New York: Jown Wiley and Sons. Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1985). Becoming a family member: Family conflict and the development of social understanding in the second year. Child Development, 56, 489-492. Easterbrooks, M. A., & Emde, R. N. (1988). Marital and parent-child relationships: The role of affect in the family system. In R. A. Hinde, & J. S. Hinde (Eds.) Relationships within families: Mutual influences. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Easterbrooks, M. A., & Harmon, R. J. (1986). Toddler development in the family: Perinatal risk, attachment, and the transition to parenthood. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies, Los Angeles. 169 Ellison, E. S. (1983). Issues concerning perental harmony and children's psychosocial adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53) 73-80. Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conflict and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 310-330. Ewen, R. B. (1988). An introduction to theories of personality. Third edition: Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Fauber, R., Forehand, R., Thomas, A. M., Wierson, M. (1990). A mediational model of the impact of marital conflict on adolescent adjustment in intact and divorced families: The role of Disrupted parenting. Child Development, 613 1112-1123. Forgatch, M. 8., Patterson, G. R., & Skinner, M. L. (1985). :5 mediational model for the effect of divorce on antisocial behavior in boys. Paper presented to conference on The impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Stepparenting on Children, National Institute Of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD. Gardner, R. A. (1976). Psychotherapy and children of divorce. New York: Jason Aronson. Gasser, R. D. & Taylor, C. M. (1976). Role adjustment of single parent fathers with dependent children. The Family Coordinator, 229 397-401. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Goldberg, W. A. & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1984). The role of marital quality in toddler develOpment. Developmental Psychology, 29, 504-514. Gregory, 1. (1965). Anterospective data following childhood loss of a parent: II. Pathology, performance, and potential among college students. Archives of General Psychiatry, 13, 110-120. Grynch, J. H. & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children's adjustment: A cognitive-contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 276-290. Gunnar-Gnechten, M. (1978). Changing a frightening toy into a pleasant toy by allowing the infant to control its actions. Developmental Psychology, 14, 157-162. Harmon, R. J. (1980). Infant behavior and family development. In L. Sonstegard, B. Jennings, & K. Kowalski (Eds.), Primary health care of women. New York: Duxbury Press. 170 Hess, R. D. & Camara, K. A. (1979). Post-divorce family relationships as mediating factors in the consequences of divorce for children. Journal of Social Issues, 323 79-96. Hetherington, E. M. (1966). Effects of paternal absence on sex-typed behaviors in Negro and white preadolescent males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) 4) 87-91. Hetherington, E. M. (1972). Effects of father absence on personality development in adolescent daughters. Developmental Psychology,_l, 313-326. Hetherington, E. M. (1979). Divorce: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 34, 851-858 Hetherington, E. M. (1988). Parents, children, and siblings: Six years after divorce. In R.A. Hinde & J.S. Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within Families: Mutual Influences. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1976). Divorced fathers. The Family Coordinator, 229 417-428. Hetherington, E. M., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1978). The aftermath of divorce. In J. H. Stevens & M. M. Mathews (Eds.), Mother-child, father-child relations. Washington, D. C.: National Association for Education of Young Children. Hetherington, E. M.; Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1979). Play and social interaction in children following divorce. Journal of Social Issues, 323 26-49. Hetherington, E. M.; Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1985). Long-term effects of divorce and remarriage on the adjustment of children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24) 518-530. Hetherington, E. M., & Martin, B. (1986). Family factors and psychopathology. In H. C. Quay & J. S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood. (3rd ed.) (pp.332-390). New York: Wiley. Hetherington, E. M. & Parke, R. D. (1979). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hoffman, L. W. & Lippitt, R. (1970). The measurement of family life variables. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development. New York, London: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Hoffman, M. L. (1960). Power assertion by the parent and its impact on the child. Child Development, 31, 129-143. Hoffman, M. L. (1971). Father absence and conscience development. Developmental Psychology, 4, 400-406. 171 Hojorth, C. (1980). The self-concept, self-image and body Image of the physically abused adolescent, Ph.D. Dissertation, California Graduate Institute (Los Angeles), Dissertation Abstracts International. Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and humanygrowth. New York: Norton. Jouriles, E.M., Barling, J., & O'Leary, K.D. (1987). Predicting child behavior problems in maritally violent families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 513 165-173. Kalter, N. (1977). Children of divorce in an outpatient psychiatric population. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 40-51. Kalter, N. (1984). Conjoint mother-daughter treatment: A beginning phase of psychotherapy with adolescent daughters of divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24, 490-497. Kalter, N. & Rembar, J. (1981). The significance of a child's age at the time of divorce. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 24, 490-497. Kalter, N.; Riemer, B.; Brickman, A. & Chen, J. W. (1985). Implications of parental divorce for female development. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 538-544. Kawash, G. F., Kerr, E. N. & Clewes, J. L. (1985). Self-esteem in children as a function of perceived perental behavior. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 235-242. Kelly, J. B. & Wallerstein, J. S. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in early latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 20-32. Knoff, H. M. (1986). Assessing adolescent identity, self-concept, and self-esteem. In R.G. Harrington (Ed.) Testing Adolescents. Kansas City: Testing Corporation of America. Kulka, R. A. & Weingarten, H. (1979). The long-term effects of parental divorce in childhood on adult adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 50-78. Lahey, B. B., Hartdagen, S. E., Erick, P. J., McBurnett, K., Connor, R., & Hynd, G. W. (1988a). Conduct disorder: Parsing the confounded relation to parental divorce and antisocial personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 21, 334-337. Lahey, B. B., Piacentini, J. C., McBurnett, K., Stone, P. A., Hartdagen, S., 8 Hund, G. W. (1988b) psychOpathology and antisocial behavior in the parents of children with conduct disorder and hyperactivity. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 213 163-170. 172 Lamb, M. E. (1976). The role of the father: An overview. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development. New York: Wiley. Landis, J. T. (1960). The trauma of children when parents divorce. Marriage and Familnyiving,-22, 7-13. Michaels, G. Y., Messe, L. A. & Stollak, G. E. (1983). Seeing parental behavior through different eyes: Exploring the importance of person perception processes in parents and children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 107, 3-60. Miner, M. H. (1991). The self-concept of homeless adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 293 545-560. Nye, F. (1957). Child adjustment in broken and in unhappy unbroken homes. Marriage and Family Living, 19, 356-360. Offer, D. (1969). The psychological world of the teen-ager: A study of normal adolescent boyy, New York: Basic Books, Inc.. Offer, D. 8 Offer, J. B. (1975). From teenage to young manhood: A psychological study. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Offer, D., Ostrov, E., and Howard, K. I. (1977). The Offer Self-Imagg Questionnaire for Adolescents: A Manual. Chicago: Michael Reese Hospital. Offer, D., Ostrov, E., and Howard, K. I. (1981a). The adolescent: A psychological self-portrait. New York: Basic Books, Inc.. Offer, D., Ostrov, E. & Howard, K. I. (1981b). The mental health professional's concept of the normal adolescent. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 149-152. Offer, D., Ostrov, E. & Howard, K. I. (1982). Family perceptions of adolescent self-imag_. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Toronto, Canada. O'Leary, D. K., & Emery, R. E. (1984). Marital discord and child behavior problems. In M. Levine & P. Satz (Eds.), Middle childhood development and dysfunction. Baltimore: University Park Press. (pp. 345-364). Oltmanns, T. F., Broderick, J. W., and O'Leary, K. D. (1977). Marital adjustment and the efficacy of behavior therapy with children, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 724-729. Ostrov, E., Offer, D. & Howard, K. I. (1984). Sex differences in adolescent self-image: 1979-1983. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Toronto, Canada. 173 Pawl, J. H. & Petarsky, J. H. (1983). Infant-parent psychotherapy: a family in crisis. In S. Provence (Ed.), Infants and Parents (39- 84). New York: International Universities Press. Peterson, J. L. & Zill, Z. (1986). Marital Disruption, parent-child relationships and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 295-307. Raschke, H. J. & Raschke, V. J. (1979). Family conflict and children's self-concepts: A comparison of intact and single- parent families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 367-374. Reinhard, D. W. (1977). The reaction of adolescent boys and girls to the divorce of their parents. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,_6, 21-23. Renson, G. J., Schaefer, E. S. & Levy, B. I. (1968). Cross-national validity of a spherical conceptual model for parent behavior. Child Development,_39, 1229-1235. Rice, P. (1984). The Adolescent. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Robin, A. L., 8 Foster, S. L. (1981). The conflict behavior questionnaire. In M. Hersen and A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral Assessment: A practical handbook. New York: Pergamon Press. Robins, L. N., West, P. A., & Herjanic, B. L. (1975). Arrests and delinquency in two generations: A study of black urban families and their children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, _16, 125-140. Rutter, M. (1970). Sex differences in children's responses to family stress. In E. J. Anthony and C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family. New York: Wiley. Rutter, M. (1971). Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on the children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 233-260. Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation, 1972-1978: New findings, new concepts, new approaches. Child DeveloPment, 52, 283-305. Santrock, J. W. (1977). Effects of father absence on sex-typed behaviors in male children: Reason for the absence and age of onset of the absence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 130, 3- 10. Santrock, J. W. & Warshak, R.A. (1979). Father custody and social development in boys and girls. Journal of Social Issues, 35, 112- 125. Schaefer, E. S. (1965a). Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 26, 413-424. 174 Schaefer, E. S. (1965b). A configurational analysis of children's report of parental behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22, 552-557. Schludermann, E. 8 Schludermann, S. (1970). Replicability of factors in children's report of parent behavior (CRPBI). The Journal of Psychology, 16, 239-249. Schludermann, E. 8 Schludermann, S. (1971). Adolescent perception of parent behavior (CRPBI) in Hutterite communal society. The Journal of Psychology,_12, 29-39. Schludermann, S. 8 Schludermann, E. (1983). Sociocultural change and adolescents' perceptions of parent behavior. Developmental Psychology, 12, 674-685. Seashore, M. J., Leifer. A. D., Barnett, C. R. 8 Leiderman, P. H. (1973). The effects of denial of early mother-infant interaction on maternal self-confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 369-378. Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. House of Representatives. (1983). U.S. children and their families: Current conditions and recent trends. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Serot, N. M., 8 Teevan, R. C. (1961). Perception of the parent-child relationship and its relation to child adjustment. Child Development, 32, 373-378. Sessa, F. M., 8 Steinberg, L. (1991). Family structure and the develOpment of autonomy during adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 11, 38-55. Spanier, G. 8 Cole, C. (1974). Toward clarification and investigation of marital adjustment. International Journal of Sociology of the Family,_§, 121-146. Springer, C. 8 Wallerstein, J. S. (1983). Young adolescents' responses to their parents' divorces. In L. A. Kurdek (Ed.), Children and Divorce (15-27). San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Stagner, R. (1974). Psychology of personality. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Stewart, M. A., deBlois, C. S., 8 Cummings, C. (1980). Psychiatric disorder in the parents of hyperactive boys and those with conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31, 283- 292. Strathe, M. 8 Hash, V. (1979). The effect of an alternative school in adolescent self-esteem. Adolescence, 14, 185-189. 175 Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton Wadkar, A. J., Gore, 8. D. 8 Palsane, M. N. (1986). Child's perception of parental mutual relations, parent-child relations, and child's adjustment. Journal of Human Development, 22, 14-20. Wallerstein, J. S. (1985). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten-year follow-up of older children and adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 34, 545-553. Wallerstein, J. S. (1986). Child of divorce: An overview. Behavioral Science 8 the Law, 4, 105-118. Wallerstein, J. S. (1987). Children of divorce: Report of a ten-year follow-up of early latency-age children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21, 199-211. Wallerstein, J. S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a decade after divorce. New York: Ticknor 8 Fields. Wallerstein, J. S. 8 Kelly, J. B. (1974). The effects of parental divorce: The adolescent experience. In J. Anthony and C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child in His Family: Children at Psychiatric Risk (479-505), Vol. 3. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. S. 8 Kelly, J. B. (1975). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the preschool child. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 14, 600-616. Wallerstein, J. S. 8 Kelly, J. B. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 4-22. Wallerstein, J. S. 8 Kelly, J. B. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children and parents cope with divorce. New York: Basic Books. Wallerstein, J. S. 8 Kelly, J. B. (1981). Effects of divorce on the visiting father-child relationship. In Chess and Thomas (Eds.). Annual progress in child psychiatry 8 child development, 380-391. New York: Brunner/Mazel. ' Wallin and Vollmer (1953). In R. Stagner (1974). Psychology of personality. New York: McGraw Hill. Warshak, R.A. 8 Santrock, J.W. (1983). The impact of divorce in father-custody and mother-custody homes: The child's perspective. In L. A. Kurdek (Ed.), Children and divorce (29-46). San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Youniss, J. 8 Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers, and friends. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 176 Zeren, A. S. 8 Wallace, J. R. (1985). The prediction of paternal characteristics from their children's temperament. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Toronto. Zill, N. (1983). Happy, healthy, and insecure. New York: Doubleday. STATE UNIV. L IBRRR IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII II2III5 I7IIIIES