a». h“
5"':?‘$;ifb
may 4

7}

 

.. 5 5.14.»
I u! on

e. 1...!- e I. .
SF fizltiha

{viz}.
estiftzz

5, .1 .1... ':.IV.O
Ir) 1‘31. who I!
I... ' «1. I)

.
.
.7... Jo .Un.

.2

.2123:

Irvilz

t anklftfis
. .II! it:
6.6.: in.

.u .: ..¢v§ln.-
I {youvl‘ull‘ivl‘
n.1’rvA.bd

(Jouri

v.4 . .|v$
ea. 1).! 1.. .3 5..
._

 

 

a'ruaufi.‘ :3. . 3L”.
15nufi...w...5. . 5%.; Its!!!
5 « v K p I -v :03' . J.Inllbl.'1:"‘[
3.4.... ..4 .1: . -
n . .22.. with!!! BLI. f: I» . . . .. kart: .37?! ,
2... 1.. iii 5.. . o . .35. DJ ; 1. . ‘ (24:14.»qu H

3' . 2.14.!!!

 

 

 

 

\llll

MICHIGAN STATE UN \ SI\T\Y‘ UBRARIES

ll \\\\\\\\\ ill ‘lllllll

3 1293 00910 3676

 

 

l

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Family, Culture, and (Independence:
A Deve10pnental Perspective

presented by

_ Nancy Jane Lorrie

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Family and .Child Ecology

 

 

@641 I 146/”

Major professor

Date March 31, 1993

 

MSU is an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

i

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

\J‘!‘

, in
Mr J 9 199a lFEB 2 7 ‘2sz

 

 

 

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

k
‘ a!

WT . ;-
W ficvéfi'} Fifi ?
9 .

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

5K

 

 

 

 

 

l:
T—l—T

 

 

 

MSU is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
email”:

FAMILY, CULTURE, AND CODEPENDENCE:
A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

BY

Nancy Jane Lorris

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology
1993

ABSTRACT

FAMILY, CULTURE, AND CODEPENDENCE:
A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

BY

Nancy Jane Lorris

Although there has been much debate among mental health
professionals about the construct of codependence, little
empirical work has been done to support or refute differing
theoretical stances. The purpose of this study was to
examine the etiology of codependence from a developmental
perspective. In particular, family of origin and other
childhood socio-cultural influences were assessed as
contributors to codependence in adulthood.

A sample of 41 adults (90% female; 85% White) responded
to a five—part questionnaire. The Friel Co-Dependency
Assessment Inventory (FCAI)(Friel, 1985) measured
codependence; the Trust Scale (Rempel et al., 1985) assessed
trust in a current adult partner. Retrospective measures of
childhood relationships included the Adult form of the
Parental Acceptance/Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ)(ROhner,
1980) and the Family-of—Origin Scale (FOS)(Hovestadt et al.,
1985). These assessed primary caregiver rejection and family
of origin mental health. The fifth part of the questionnaire
contained a demographic survey designed by the researcher.

This correlational study employed a variety of
statistical techniques in order to establish relationships

between variables and predict the development of

codependence. Specific research questions were: (a) What
are the primary childhood factors which contribute to the
development of codependence? (b) Does an adult's
relationship with a partner affect his/her present degree of
codependence? (c) What combination of childhood and adult
factors is most predictive of codependence?

Childhood factors which were found to contribute uniquely
to codependence, using the FCAI, were poor family of origin
mental health, caregiver rejection, and being the oldest or
youngest child in one's family of origin. A revised form of
the FCAI, one in which family of origin items had been
removed, demonstrated different results. In this analysis
only caregiver rejection and birth order were found to be
significant predictors of codependence. A subject's level of
trust in a current adult partner was found to be negatively
related to her degree of codependence. The most powerful
combination of childhood and adult predictors of codependence
was found to include caregiver rejection, birth order and
lack of trust in a current adult partner. This was true for

both versions of the FCAI.

Copyright by
NANCY JANE LORRIS

1993

To the memory of my paternal grandparents,
Mark and Anna Lorris,
who began their lives as Macarius Lawriwsky and Anna Wowchyuk
in another part of the world.
Their boundless love and belief in my worth have made all

things possible. Every child should be so lucky.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is a time of gratitude for me. My husband, Tom, is
at the top of the list of those whom I wish to thank for
their love and support. Throughout the degree process, Tom
generously offered hugs, counsel, and an occasional kick in
the seat of the pants when I needed one. With great
forbearance, he spent many hours providing me with technical
assistance as the resident "computer wizard". He has been my
partner and best friend, and I appreciate the sacrifices he
has made so that I might earn this degree.

The generations of family above and below me also
encouraged me to pursue this goal. My children, Betsy, Sam,
and David were gracious about my continuing role as Mom-the-
Graduate-Student, which often meant that I was preoccupied or
unavailable. My parents and Tom's, and our extended
families, offered unwavering support and the conviction that
I would eventually graduate. Their faith made the journey
less lonely.

Friends, inside the university and out, came bearing
gifts. Validation, empathy, humor and lots of chocolate
reminded me that there was an end in sight and that my
friends would be waiting to celebrate with me.

Specific thanks go to each member of my doctoral

committee. Don Melcer consistently expressed confidence in

vi

my abilities and served as a steadying presence during
difficult times. Tom Luster generously shared his research
skills and encouraged me to think of myself as a researcher.
Lillian Phenice provided helpful feedback and gently prodded
me to finish the task and reclaim a life without graduate
school. Gersh Kaufman opened my eyes to the significance of
shame in interpersonal relationships and contributed
enthusiasm and warmth to our discussions of the study.

A host of other players enabled me to complete the
dissertation. Dolores Borland-Hunt modeled goal-oriented
tenacity and encouraged me whenever the opportunity arose.
The Department of Family and Child Ecology provided me with
teaching assistantships and fellowship monies. Department
secretaries and support staff were patient, kind and helpful
beyond their job descriptions. Contact persons at data
collection sites committed precious time and energy to
helping me find subjects. And, of course, a huge thank you
goes to the subjects of the study, who volunteered to answer
very personal questions about themselves and their
relationships. Their responses generated the force which

energized this project and guaranteed its completion.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF TABLES ..................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ...... .......................... .... xii
CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ........................... 1
Background of the Study ... ........... . ......... 2
History .............................. ...... 2
Theoretical Definitions of Codependence .... 3
Disease, Disorder, Syndrome, Social Norm? ... 4
Diagnostic Criteria for Codependence ........ 7
Competing Theoretical Models of Codependence. 8

The Role of Shame ........................... 11

Need for the Study ........ ...................... 12
Creating a More Complete Model ....... ..... .. 12

A Proposed Model for Codependence . .......... 13
Purpose of the Study ........................ .... 15
Assumptions ..................................... 15

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF LITERATURE

AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS ..... ............ .......... 17
Review of Literature ..... . ........ .............. 17
Conceptual Models ......... ................... ... 23

An Ecological Perspective ............. ...... 23
Developmental Psychopathology ....... ........ 25

Summary ............. ....... ..... ....... .. ....... 40

viii

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY ....... . .......... . ........
Subjects ........................................
Research Questions ..............................
Research Hypotheses .............................

Conceptual and Operational

Definitions of Variables ....................
Research Design ............................. ....
Instrumentation .................................
Data Collection ....................... . .........
Data Analyses ................ ............ .......

CHAPTER IV-RESULTSANDDISCUSSION ooooooooooooooooo
Discussion of Measures for the Overall Sample ...

Differences Between Subsamples
for Predictor and Outcome Variables ...... ...... .

Relations Among All Predictor Variables . ........
Relations Among Childhood Variables .........

Relations Between Childhood
and Adult Variables .........................

Relations Between Childhood and
Adult Predictor Variables and Codependence ......

Multiple Regression Analyses ....................
Post Hoc Analyses ...............................
Revision of the Codependence Measure . .......
Trust as a Moderating Variable ..............
Implications for Hypotheses ............. ........
Research Findings and the Conceptual Model ......
CHAPTER V - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS,
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH,
.AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE ..............

Summary of the Study . ...........................

ix

42
42
46

46

47
49
50
61
63
64
65

66
68

70

71

73
74
80
80
84
85

88

91
91

conClUSionS 00.0 ....... 0.0.00.0 ..... 00.00.0000... 95

Limitations ....... ......... ..................... 96

Directions for Future Research .. ................ 98

Implications for Clinical Practice .............. 99
APPENDICES
A. The Human Subjects Approval Letter ............... 101
B. The Questionnaire and Demographic Survey ......... 102
C. Letter to Subjects ............... . ....... . ..... .. 112
D. Consent Form ........... ..... ..................... 114
REFERENCES ...................... . ...... ............. 115

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Sample Characteristics .......................

T-tests for Differences Between Normal and
Clinical Subsamples Predictor and Outcome
variables 0 00000 0 000000 00000000000000.00000000

Chi-square Analyses for Differences Between
Normal and Clinical Subsamples Predictor and
outcome Variables 000000.00....00000000O0000OO

Relations Among the Predictor Variables ......

Zero—order Correlations Between the Predictor
Variables and the Friel Co-Dependency Assessment
Inventory (FCAI) 0.00..00.000000000000000000..

Multiple Regression Analysis:
Childhood Predictors of FCAI Scores ..........

Regression Analysis:
Adult Predictor of FCAI Scores ............. ..

Multiple Regression Analysis:
Childhood and Adult Predictors of FCAI Scores.

Zero-order Correlations Between the Predictor
Variables and the Revised Codependence Measure
(FCAI-REV) 00000000 000000.000.000.000000.00.00

Multiple Regression Analysis:
Childhood Predictors of FCAI—REV Scores ......

Regression Analysis:
Adult Predictor of FCAI-REV Scores . ...... ....

Multiple Regression Analysis: Childhood
and Adult Predictors of FCAI—REV Scores ......

Z-tests for Differences Between Correlations
of High-Trust Subjects and Low-Trust Subjects.

Comparison of Best—fitted Childhood and

Childhood/Adult Models Predicting
FCAI and FCAI-REV ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo

xi

PAGE

45

67

67

69

73

75

77

78

81

82

83

84

85

93

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1. Path Diagram Illustrating the Best-fitted
Regression Models . ........ .......................94

xii

CHAPTER: I

INTRODUCTION

More than two million copies of Codependent N9 More have
been sold since the book was first published in 1987. The
phenomenonal sale of Beattie's book, and others on the same
subject, support the probability that issues connected with
codependence resonate through the lives of many adults. In
addition to those who read about codependence, there are
those who decide to seek professional advice. They often
enter counseling with symptoms of depression, anxiety, and
feelings of worthlessness. Sometimes they are very angry
with others in their lives. In many cases, what causes these
people to seek help is a need for relief from a painful
pattern of living. Troubled by unsatisfying relationships
with others, they are looking for answers. Why do they
always seem to be involved in difficult relationships? And

what can they do about them?

2

Background of the Study

History

In the mental health field, particularly in the area of
chemical addictions, the problems connected with codependence
have been identified for many years. What is now called
codependence was once called co-alcoholism. The label "co—
alcoholic" was originally given to spouses of alcoholics
(Cermak, 1986). Just as the drinker's life centered on the
availability of alcohol, the co-alcoholic's life revolved
around the drinker. Treatment providers noticed a surprising
pattern; the alcoholic might seek and receive help, but
family dysfunction often continued after the drinking had
ceased. Spouses and children of alcoholics continued to
exhibit behaviors and beliefs which reinforced the familiar
homeostatic system. Even after the central chemical
organizer of the family was removed, the dysfunctional
characteristics of the co-alcoholic remained.

The other perplexing outcome was that co-alcholic
behaviors sometimes manifested themselves in families in
which no one was chemically dependent. This caught the
attention of mental health professionals outside the chemical
addictions field, who recognized these symptoms in some of
their clients. This led to a new name-for co-alcoholism--
co—dependency, also known as co-dependence, codependency, or

codependence. This lack of clarity around naming has also

3
been reflected in the quest for a workable definition and
classification for the problem. Although many professionals
agree that the phenomenon exists (their clients provide
consistent data), uncertainty remains around the issues of

definition, categorization, etiology and treatment.

Theoretical Definitions of Codependence

While there is general agreement that defining
codependence is a first step toward conceptualization,
different authors offer a variety of definitions, many of
which share common characteristics. A concern shared by all
is that the definition of codependence be used in such a way
that it does not become diluted, and therefore, meaningless.
Some emergent definitions of codependence include:

1. Co-dependency is a pattern of painful dependence on
compulsive behaviors and on approval from others in an
attempt to find safety, self-worth and identity. (U.S.
Journal Training Inc.'s First National Conference on Co-
dependency, 1989)

2. A co-dependent person is one who has let another
person's behavior affect him or her, and who is obsessed with
controlling that person's behavior. (Beattie, 1987)

3. Co-dependency is an emotional, psychological, and
behavioral condition that develops as a result of an
individual's prolonged exposure to, and practice of, a set of

oppressive rules--rules which prevent the open expression of

4
feeling as well as the direct discussion of personal and
interpersonal problems. (Subby, 1984)

4. Co-dependency is a dysfunctional pattern of living
which emerges from our family of origin as well as our
culture, producing arrested identity development, and
resulting in an over-reaction to things outside of us and an
under-reaction to things inside of us. Left untreated, it
can deteriorate into an addiction. (Friel & Friel, 1988)

5. Co-dependence is a recognizable pattern of fixed
personality traits, rooted in the internalized shame
resulting from the abandonment that naturally happens to
everyone in a dysfunctional family system. (Bradshaw, 1988)

6. Codependence describes individuals who organize their
lives-~decision-making, perceptions, beliefs, values--around
someone or something else. (Brown, 1988)

7. Many clinicians and researchers simply define
codependence as being the spouse or child of a chemically
dependent person, which is simultaneously a broad and a

narrow definition. (Whitfield, 1990; Wright 8 Wright, 1984)

Disease. Disorder. Syndrome, Social Norm?

One of the many arguments which has engaged professionals
interested in codependence is how to classify the phenomenon.
Some mental health specialists say that codependence has been
described in such general terms, and could therefore apply to

so many people, that it no longer explains deviance. This

5
criticism has been offered by Edith Gomberg (1989), a
professor of psychology and social work at the University of
Michigan: She notes that the term has been expanded "without
any consideration of its meaningfulness or its contribution
to theory and practice, so that it encompasses virtually the
entire population of the United States" (p. 8). Dilution is
indeed a risk. But the enormous circulation of books and
articles related to codependence suggests that, for many
people, these "common" traits are a very real concern.

There are those who believe that codependence should
remain aligned with its origins in family substance abuse.
Brown (1991) suggests confining codependence to "the
interactional systems dynamics of alcoholism and chemical
dependence" (p.9), in the belief that a restricted population
will increase understanding. She is concerned that there is
a danger of turning systems dynamics into individual
pathology, and employs a multi-track approach to the study of
codependence solely in alcoholic families.

Critics of codependence have appeared in feminist
circles. There are concerns that the literature pathologizes
a female identity based on caretaking (Asher & Brissett,
1988; Krestan & Bepko, 1990), and that women who are labeled
codependent are seen as complicitors in family alcoholism
and/or physical abuse (Frank & Golden, 1992; Haaken, 1990;
VanWormer, 1989). Such authors worry that the tendency to
perceive codependence as a "sickness" is another version of

blaming the victim. But there are mental health advocates

6
for women who see the codependence movement as having created
a positive social environment to deal with women's problems
(webster, 1990). Writers of this school suggest that
codependence be defined for women as learned helplessness,
not as a sickness (O'Gorman, 1991). The hot arguments among
professionals in the field, combined with sustained and
widespread interest from the public, support the probability
that codependence touches many people, even if it is
sometimes confused with broader life issues and concerns.

Of course, not everyone who identifies with some of the
characteristics of codependence is clinically diagnosable.
Timmen Cermak (1986), a psychiatrist who has made a case for
creating a new diagnostic category for codependence, says:

The critical point for our purposes is that while

co-dependent traits may be widespread, the diagnosis

of Co-Dependent Personality Disorder can only be

made in the face of identifiable dysfunction

resulting from excessive rigidity or intensity

associated with these traits. (p. 10)

He continues to explain that other traits--such as
narcissism--are virtually universal in the population, but
that these traits are only diagnosable when they portray
dysfunction. (Virtually the same argument can be made for
for depression; most people are "depressed" at some point in
their lives, but they are judged to be clinically depressed
when they become dysfunctional.) Cermak suggests that
codependence,as a diagnostic category, could be included

within the framework of Mixed Personality Disorder in the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

7

Diagnostic Criteria for Codependence

The diagnostic criteria for codependence most often used
by clinicians were formulated by Cermak (1986) and reflect
his belief that codependence is a personality disorder. They
are included here in order to provide a brief description of
symptoms which identify codependence:

A. Continued investment of self-esteem in the

ability to control both oneself and others in the

face of serious adverse consequences.

B. Assumption of responsibility for meeting others'
needs to the exclusion of acknowledging one’s own.

C. Anxiety and boundary distortions around intimacy
and separation.

D. Enmeshment in relationships with personality
disordered, chemically dependent, other co-
dependent, and/or impulse disordered individuals.
E.Three or more of the following:

1. Excessive reliance on denial

2.~Constriction of emotions (with or without
dramatic outbursts)

3. Depression

4. Hypervigilance
5. Compulsions

6. Anxiety

7. Substance abuse

8. Has been (or is) the victim of recurrent physical
or sexual abuse

9. Stress-related medical illnesses
10. Has remained in a primary relationship with an

active substance abuser for at least two years
without seeking outside help.

8

Competing Theoretical Models of Codependence

As might be expected, if there is no single definition of
codependence with which everyone agrees, there is also no
generally accepted explanation for how people become
codependent. Much of the controversy surrounding the
diagnosis of codependence is that it seems to include both
intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics. This powerful
combination of self and others, while recognized as
synergistically potent, is not recognized equally in the
conceptual models created by authors in the field. Some of

the proposed models include:

Family Systems-—Rules.

Black's (1981) three rules, "Don't talk. Don't trust.
Don't feel.", explain the ways in which dysfunctional
families discount their members' rights to talk about
problems and/or feelings. If one is to be accepted as a
member of this kind of family, one cannot honestly "own"
feelings or acknowledge problems openly. Successful
accommodation to these rules eventually leads to mistrust of
self and others, inability to distinguish among feelings (if
one can claim them at all), and distortion of objective

reality.

Family Systems--Roles.

 

Wegscheider-Cruse (1981) writes about rigid roles
occupied by children growing up in dysfunctional families:
Hero, Scapegoat, Lost Child, and Mascot. Larsen (1985) also
describes adult roles which unhealthy families allow:
Caretaker, People-Pleaser, WOrkaholic, Martyr, Perfectionist
and Tap Dancer. Neither author claims that these are found
only in unhealthy families. What they suggest is that
functional families do not lock members into a role, but
allow them to move back and forth between them as needs and
circumstances change. It is the flexibility of roles which

distinguishes functional families from dysfunctional ones.

qu Psychology.

The Friels and Subby (1984) contend that identity
disturbances lie at the core of codependence. Once a person
has invested more psychological energy in maintaining an
undeveloped "self" than in developing a mature "self",
codependence is firmly in place. .At this point, a person is
codependent, whether or not they are presently living in a

dysfunctional family system.

10

Behavioral and Intrapgychic.

Wegscheider-Cruse (1985) describes codependence as a
condition that is primarily characterized by extremes of
preoccupation and dependency (emotional, social, and
sometimes physical) on a person. Eventually, this becomes a
pathological condition that affects the codependent person in

all other relationships.

Medical.

Whitfield (1984), describes codependence as "a primary
illness with a recognizable, diagnosable, and treatable range
of symptoms and a chronic and progressive prognosis--just
like chemical dependence" (p. 17). He writes about symptoms,
course, etiology and treatment, using a medical model. He
links codependence directly to living with an alcoholic, and
is careful to explain that a person becomes codependent in

response to the problems created by the drinking.

Social System.

Schaef (1986) suggests the most global perspective for
explaining codependence. She describes codependence as "a
disease that has many forms and expressions and that grows
out of a disease process that is inherent in the system in

which we live" (p. 21). She writes about an "addictive

11
process", which embraces chemical dependence, eating
disorders, codependence, character disorders, and sexism.
All of these serve as symptoms for sociological inequities

and ills.

The Role of Shame

Shame is a unifying theme in all of the theoretical
models proposed for codependence, including this research.
Codependence and shame are linked in that both are a
consequence of relating to significant others. Codependence
is a manifestation of "breaking the interpersonal bridge"
(Kaufman, 1980, p. 11) between the self and another. The
result is shame, a feeling that one has been diminished in
some fundamental sense.

Kaufman (1980; 1989) suggests that the seeds of shame, of
feeling deficient, are sown in childhood. As a child matures
within her family and larger culture, she internalizes
beliefs and attitudes about herself. These messages have
been sent by significant others in her interpersonal
environments, and they form the core of her emerging
identity. They are the blueprint of what it is to be a "Good
Girl" in her family and the larger society. The unspoken
agreement is that as long as she conforms to these
expectations, she will be accepted and loved. As an adult,
she will confront shaming situations whenever she feels she

has been deficient in following her prescribed role.

12

For those who grapple with codependence, opportunities
for shame abound. Intense needs for the control of self and
others, denial of one's own needs while assuming
responsibility for others', anxiety, and boundary distortions
are common symptoms of codependence. A person who must
always be in control, who is compelled to be selfless, and
who anxiously vacillates between over-involvement and
distancing in her relationships is shame-bound. If she
cannot control herself and her relationships she feels
deficient. If she cannot live up to her internalized image

of what she believes is a "Good Girl", she feels shame.

Need for the Study

Creatingia More Complete Model

All of the models cited show an appreciation for the
dynamics of codependence. But none of them explain how
codependence occurs, when it occurs, or the range of
contributors to the disorder. None of them have demonstrated
predictive validity. And no writer has stated decisively
whether one comes already codependent to adult relationships
or whether pathology in an adult relationship causes
codependence.

A key question is whether a psychologically healthy
person could be considered at risk for codependence. Some

clinicians have sugested the possibility of employing a

13
vulnerability model. They have speculated that the roots of
codependence develop in childhood and adolescence, but that
the tree bears bitter fruit only in a pathological adult
relationship. Clearly, such a model raises more questions
than answers, and little can be claimed for it in the absence

of systematic exploration of the phenomenon of codependence.

A Proposed Model for Codependence

Concerns with the limitations of prior models of
codependence led the researcher to construct a model which
was more inclusive. A more thorough discussion of the
ecological and developmental bases of its construction appear
in Chapter II. This model was based on the definition of
codependence suggested by Friel (1988): that codependence is
arrested identity development stemming from one's family of
origin and culture. It is arrested identity development in
that the developmental task of constructing an authentic,
autonomous identity has not been undertaken. In this model,
codependent adults remain prisoners of childhood rules,
roles, and relational experiences from their families of
origin and culture.

The model of codependence proposed here contains some
general propositions which overarch its components and
organization:

1. Codependence is a product of both intrapsychic and

interpersonal dynamics.

14
2. A person may be influenced to be codependent by
interactions at the individual, familial, cultural, and
institutional level(s).
3. Codependence is a developmental process which begins
in infancy and continues through the lifespan, mediated by

potentiating and protective factors.

Rationale for an Etiological Perspective

This study was important because so little empirical work
had been done in the area of codependence. The popular press
had written extensively about it, and there was no dearth of
self-help literature in bookstores, but very little empirical
research had been conducted. A topic which had claimed the
imagination and examination of so many interested parties
deserved the attention of research. It was hoped that some of
the controversy which surrounds the topic of codependence
might be resolved as a consequence of careful study.

Etiology, the study of causes of problems, was chosen as
a focus because of its primacy as a source of information.

In particular, etiological models are useful in that they
identify characteristics which are crucial for assessment,
classification, treatment, and epidemiology. Clinicians tend
to be responsive to information in all of these areas because
it improves the quality of service to clients. Constructing
an empirical base for the etiology of codependence would add

to the clinical impressions which presently guide the

15
therapeutic community. Ultimately, the benefits of this

research were directed toward clients who are codependent.

Purpose of the Study

Based on the model which the researcher constructed, this
study attempted to recognize the contributions of psycho-
dynamics, family systems, and sociological factors to the
development of codependence. In particular, the childhood
influences of attachment, family of origin mental health,
gender, and religious and academic training were of
interest. In an effort to recognize the possible
contributions to codependence made by current circumstances,
the study was also designed to include the degree of trust

felt by a subject toward an intimate adult partner.

Assumptions

1. It was assumed that there is a psychological construct
called codependence based on the attention given to the term
by mental health professionals and the popular press.

2. It was assumed that there would be a reliable
outcome, although there are few national norms on the Friel
Co-Dependency Assessment Inventory due to the lack of
empirical research on the instrument.

3. It was assumed that subjects would respond truthfully

to the items in the questionnaire. There was a risk that

16
subjects might tend to respond in a socially desirable manner
in order to present themselves and their relationships in a
favorable light.
4. It was assumed that retrospective information

gathered from subjects is considered valuable for research.

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

This chapter offers a review of the current research
literature related to codependence. Following the review, a
two-part section elucidates the conceptual frameworks which
guided this study. The first part addresses the application
of ecological theory to the research. In the second part,
developmental psychopathology is defined, and the childhood

predictor variables are discussed from that perspective.

Review of Literature

Wright and Wright (1990) studied the characteristics of a
clinical sample of men and women whom they classified as
codependent. As a definition for codependence, the Wrights
used "involvement in a serious heterosexual relationship with
an alcohol or drug—abusing partner." Characteristics studied
included:

1. Level of stress in the relationship due to alcohol or
drug use;

2. Level of stress in the relationship not directly

related to alcohol or drug use, e.g., economic difficulties,

17

18
long separations, chronic or severe illness or disability,
outside interference in the relationship;

3. Scores on the Friel Co-Dependency Assessment
Inventory;

4. Relationship variables measured by the Acquaintance
Description Form (ADFF); and

5. Variables hypothesized to be characteristic of
codependents' personal relationships, e.g. control, worth
dependency, and an exaggerated sense of responsibility.

The Wrights' results have implications for the present
study in supporting the use of the FCAI and in finding gender
differences. First, both codependent men and women had high
scores on the FCAI, compared with subjects not classified as
codependent. High scores were related in a negative way to
solid, rewarding, and personally involving relationships.
For codependent men, only two of the hypothesized
characteristics, Control and Responsibility, were associated
with being in a codependent relationship. For codependent
women, Control, Responsibility, Worth Dependency, Rescue
Orientation and Change Orientation were found to be
significant.

A doctoral dissertation completed in 1990 by west-
Willette was designed to assess the internal consistency of
the FCAI. West-Willette chose to define the codependent
females in her study as "subjects with a history of chemical
dependency in either their spouse, significant others, or

their parents." Using a sample of 596 Caucasian women, 274

19
of whom met her criteria for codependence and 322 of whom did
not, west-Willette used a factor analysis of the FCAI to test
her research hypotheses. She found that the dimensionality
of the FCAI was very similar within the two samples, and that
there were only subtle differences in the factor structure of
the FCAI. Her conclusions were that there were more
similarities than differences in the two samples in terms of
the number of factors, the make-up of the factors, the strong
test-retest reliability (assessed at the outset of the study
using samples of 25 women and 5 men), and the high
codependence scores of both groups of women. This supports
the probability that codependence is a common problem for
many women in this culture, regardless of their family's
history of chemical dependency.

Scher's (1991) sample included 62 subjects, 93% of whom
were female. Subjects were family members of persons
attending a drug and alcohol treatment program, and county
employees who were attending a workshop on the subject of
codependence. Scher's purposes were: (a) to investigate the
reliability of the FCAI, (b) to examine the relationship
between family substance abuse and codependence, and (c) to
compare codependence with depression and traditional sex-role
identity. She tested for internal consistency using "a
similar reliability check as that originally done by the test
designer, Friel," and found that the FCAI is reliable. She
also found that while family substance abuse was

significantly related to codependence, a subject's personal

20
use or extended family abuse were unrelated to codependence.
Subjects with high scores on the measure of codependence also
tended to have high scores on the depression measure.

In Scher's study codependence was inversely correlated
with masculine sex role stereotype, but bore no relationship
with a feminine sex role stereotype. She suggests that the
last set of findings could be explained in that sex role
identity is on a continuum and codependence (nonaggressive
stance) is at the opposite end from traditional masculinity
(aggressive stance) but different from traditional
femininity. It is also possible that the FCAI's apparent
inverse relation to a traditional masculine sex role identity
is an influence of the construction of the Personal
Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spence & Helmreich, 1978),
which was used to measure sex role identity in this research.

Scher's findings suggest that unhealthy family
interactions, characterized in her study as substance abusing
families, contribute to the development of codependence. She
points out that Beck's (1979) tripod of depression (negative
attitudes toward self, environment and future) speaks to
intrapersonal and interpersonal concerns, and that these
issues also figure in the construct of codependence.

Neary and Susarla completed three studies on codependence
in the fall of 1991. Their first study questioned whether
inpatient treatment for codependence was legitimate and
justified. Based on data gathered from the medical records

of 70 consecutive persons admitted to an inpatient

21
codependence treatment program, they found that the type and
severity of symptoms (e.g. suicidal ideation, severe
depression) offered solid substantiation of the need for
hospitalization. That the admitted patients were indeed
codependent was shown by high FCAI scores, high incidence of
substance abuse, and fulfillment (by 88% of admitted
patients) of at least four out of five of Cermak's criteria
for Codependent Personality Disorder. In addition, identified
pre-admission stressors typified problem areas for
codependents. Pre-admission stressors included: (a)
conflict or rejection within a continuing romantic
relationship (51% of admissions); (b) unwanted termination of
a romantic relationship (40%); (c) job trouble, stress, or
termination (39%); and (d) victimization by sexual or
physical abuse (31%).

In their second study (1991), Neary and Susarla compared
the levels of codependence in 51 mental health professionals
with those of 53 inpatient codependents using the FCAI. The
mean score of the mental health professionals (M = 21.94) was
considerably lower than the mean score of the inpatient
codependents (M = 43.83). In addition, the mental health
professionals obtained a mean score less than those (28.3;
29.35; and 22.37) obtained from three "normal" groups
appearing elsewhere in the literature. This result
contradicts the common belief that mental health workers are

high in codependence.

22

In their third study (1991), Neary and Susarla offered
further validation of the FCAI. First, they found
concurrence between extremely high scores on the FCAI and:
(a) the a priori identification of these persons by their
psychiatrists as codependents, (b) Friel's classification of
scores in this range as "moderate to severe", and (c)
fulfillment (by 88% of the patients) of at least four out of
five of Cermak's diagnostic criteria for Codependent
Personality Disorder. Second, they found the FCAI was able
to discriminate among "normals", outpatients, and inpatients,
in that the FCAI scores of these groups differed in the
expected direction. Third, they cross-validated the
instrument by showing that separate samples of inpatient
codependents from different hospitals yielded similarly high
average scores.

The research of Neary and Susarla indicates the severity
and scope of codependent concerns. High scores on the FCAI
reflect significant dissatisfaction and disruption in the
lives of their subjects. Their research also indicates that,
for codependent persons, relationship conflict, relationship
termination, and rejection from a partner can all be
sufficiently traumatic to contribute to a host of self-
destructive feelings and behaviors. Issues around identity,
autonomy and boundaries tend to surface as an immature self
deals with relationship loss. Such strong reactions in an
adult relationship indicate the likelihood of antecedents in

a person's developmental history, particularly with regard to

23
early experiences with primary caregivers.

O'Brien and Gaborit (1992) examined the relationships
between codependence, chemical dependence of a significant
other, and depression in a sample of 115 undergraduates. The
Significant Others' Drug Use Survey determined whether a
subject was in a relationship with someone at risk for
chemical dependency. The researchers found codependence and
chemical dependency to be independent. A significant
correlation was observed between depression and having a
chemically dependent significant other. The findings support
the probability that codependence occurs not only in families
in which substance abuse is a problem.

Fisher and Beer (1990) examined the relation between
codependence and self-esteem with 21 female and 25 male high
school students. They discovered that the girls tended to
have higher codependence scores than boys, but there was no
difference between the sexes on self—esteem. Self-esteem and
codependence scores were negatively correlated. The data
demonstrate the influence of gender, and the connections

between codependence and feelings of self-worth.

Conceptual Models

An Ecological Perspective

Bubolz and Sontag (in press) suggest the need to consider

the interaction of the natural physical-biological, social-

24
cultural and human-built environments as they influence
individuals and family systems. In this study, the natural
physical-biological environment was represented by the
variable of gender. The social-cultural environment
consisted of the perceived family health in a subject's
family of origin, as well as the perceived degree of
attachment between the subject and his/her primary childhood
caregiver. Religious training was also considered a product
of the social-cultural environment.

It is also significant to note the ways in which this
study follows the guidelines established by Bronfenbrenner's
process-person-context model, which assesses developmental
processes and outcomes as a joint function of the person and
the environment:

1) The design permits assessment not only of

developmental outcomes but also of the effectiveness

of the processes producing these outcomes. 2) The

design reveals how both developmental outcomes and

processes vary as a joint function of the
characteristics of the person and of the

environment, thus permitting the detection of

synergistic effects. Stated more succinctly, the

model identifies any differences in developmental

processes and outcomes associated with different

ecological niches. Ecological niches are particular
regions in the environment that are especially
favorable or unfavorable to the development of
individuals with particular personal

characteristics." (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 199f.)

Consonant with Bronfenbrenner's suggestion that any study

of human development include this triumvirate, the variables

of gender, age and race are considered in this research.

25

Developmental Psychopathology

This research takes a developmental approach to the
formation of codependence. Under the conceptual umbrella of
developmental psychopathology, the influences of
psychodynamic, family systems and sociological theories
provide a framework for understanding this identity
disturbance. Zigler (1986) states that developmental
psychopathology provides a perspective of "the whole person"
throughout development, including interrelationships of
intrinsic and extrinsic factors over time. He refers to
adaptive mechanisms by which individuals survive in their
environments, and suggests that persons move back and forth
between pathological and non-pathological behaviors as
situations change. Sroufe and Rutter (1984) define
developmental psychopathology as:

the study of the origins and course of individual

patterns of behavioral maladaptation, whatever the

age of onset, whatever the causes, whatever the

transformations in behavioral manifestation, and

however complex the course of the developmental

pattern may be. (p.18)

Within this "macroparadigm" of developmental
psychopathology (Achenbach, 1990), theories of identity
development, attachment, family systems, gender, and socio-

cultural influences are interrelated in this study with

respect to codependence.

26

Identity Development.

The construct of psychosocial identity is recognized as
central to personality development as one constructs a mature
self through childhood, adolescence and young adulthood. In
this study, codependence is defined as arrested identity
development. Erikson (1968) identified eight stages of
psychosocial development, suggesting that identity
consolidation should occur in adolescence or early adulthood.
During consolidation, an individual experiences the final
steps of what Erikson called an "identity crisis" (1956;
1959; 1963). Throughout adolescence, an individual
experiments with new ideas and behaviors, rejecting those
which don't match a developing sense of self. The resolution
of this quest for identity is an acceptance of one's
individuality. Erikson felt that the next stage, intimacy,
was not possible unless a person had come to both self-
knowledge and self-acceptance. He believed that in order to
risk intimacy with another person, one had to have a strong
sense of self.

Building on Erikson's work, Marcia (1980) provided an
Eriksonian definition of identity:

I would like to propose another way of construing

identity: as a self-structure--an internal self-

constructed, dynamic organization of drives,

abilities, beliefs, and individual history. The

better developed this structure is, the more aware

individuals appear to be of their own uniqueness and

similarity to others and of their own strengths and

weaknesses in making their way in the world. The
less developed this structure is, the more confused

27

individuals seem to be about their own

distinctiveness from others and the more they have

to rely on external sources to evaluate themselves.

(p.159)

Marcia (1966) had developed a classification for
different levels of progress toward consolidation. These
levels included:

Foreclosure: Individuals who have never experienced an
identity crisis, and have not struggled with ideological or
occupational choices. This is a "pseudo-identity" which is
based more on the choices made by one's parents, rather than
through autonomous self-assessment.

Identity Diffusion: Individuals who have not made
ideological commitments or decided on an occupation. If they
experienced an identity crisis, they were not able to resolve
it.

Moratorium: Individuals who are experimenting with life
choices, but have made no definite commitments. They are in
the middle of an identity crisis.

Identity Achievement: Individuals who have made their
own conscious decisions concerning ideology and occupation.
They feel these choices were made autonomously, and that they
reflect their true self.

An individual who has not had an opportunity to develop a
true self has instead constructed a "false self" throughout
childhood and adolescence (Winnicott, 1953; 1960). This is
a kind of role reversal in which the child's task is to

reconfirm the parent's values or point of view, becoming an

extension of the parent rather than a differentiated self.

28
Functioning as the predominant structure of the parent-child
bond, this defensive adaptation to parental needs on the part
of the child results in a split self, a "collection of
reactions" (Winnicott, 1975, p. 296). As a person matures,
it becomes impossible for them to identify what constitutes
the "person who is me, who is only me" (1975, p. xxix).

Many of the symptoms of codependence reflect a lack of
identity consolidation. Problems with autonomy and intimacy,
difficulty establishing functional boundaries, and poor
differentiation from one's family of origin are common
diagnostic criteria for codependence. These concerns
reinforce the likelihood that codependent individuals have
not successfully negotiated the task of identity formation
and are stuck in foreclosure (Friel, 1985). Friel's view
supports the position that codependence can be explained as

arrested identity development.

Attachment.

Human infants depend for survival upon their adult
caregivers. In these early dyadic relationships bonds are
formed and attachment systems (Bowlby, 1980;1985;1988)
develop. Attachment behaviors, which are maintained
throughout life, are described as "any form of behavior that
results in a person obtaining or maintaining proximity to
some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as

better able to cope with the world." (1988, p.27).

29
Attachment theory suggests that the origins of the self,
including identity, affective experience, and patterns of
relationship, begin with the earliest child—caregiver
relationships. In these relationships, children develop core
beliefs about themselves and about relationship patterns
which persist as templates for future relationships.

Several writers (Bowlby 1973; Bretherton 1980, 1985; Main
et al. 1985) refer to these templates of relational
expectations as internal "working models." Bowlby states
that these models, once developed, operate at an unconscious
level and resist dramatic changes (1980). Changes which do
occur are tied to cognitive development, with changing
concrete experiences altering models for children, and formal
operations serving as the vehicle for change in adolescence
and adulthood. Sophisticated thought processes and
psychotherapy have been cited as ways in which adults alter
their internal working models (Bowlby 1988a; Egeland et al.
1988; Guidano & Liotti 1983; Hunter & Kilstrom 1979; Main &
Goldwyn 1984; Main et a1. 1985).

Attachment theory has its origins with the neo—Freudians
(Fromm 1947; Horney 1937; and Sullivan 1953), and later with
the British School of Object Theorists (Fairbairn 1981;
Guntrip 1969; Winnicott 1953, 1960). Most recently, Kohut
(1971) and other self-psychologists have also emphasized the
importance of core relationships to individual development.
These theorists describe the belief systems a person develops

about self and others in response to early interactions with

30
care-giving figures. These beliefs are persistent, often
unconscious, and serve to organize one's perceptions about
relationships. Through the processes of introjection and
identification, the fundamental structure of the self is
formed. If early relationships are unhealthy, the "bad"
parts split off from the psychic core and the self is
fragmented. This "splitting" prevents further growth and
individuation, leaving an individual stuck in pathological
patterns of interactional behavior.

Sroufe and Fleeson (1986) concur that early relationships
strongly influence personality formation. They suggest that
this "organization of attitudes, feelings, expectations, and
behaviors of the individual across contexts" (p.51) is rooted
in an individual's earliest dyadic relationships. They also
posit that persons select relationships beyond childhood
which confirm their expectations and feel familiar, even when
those relationships are painful (Sroufe & Fleeson,1988).
Epstein and Erskine (1983) agree that social, emotional and
personality development are a consequence of early social
relations.

Hazan and Shaver (1987) expanded Bowlby's working models
to examine how adult love is related to attachment styles by
converting the typology of Ainsworth et a1. (1978) into adult
forms. They found that the frequencies of attachment styles
in adulthood parallel those of infancy and that a person's
adult style of love is related to their attachment style.

Collins and Read (1990) found similar results when examining

31
the relationship between adult attachment style and the
quality of adult relationships. Additionally, they
discovered three dimensions which underlie attachment styles:
comfort with closeness, seeing other people as available, and
anxiety about being unloved.

Within the context of attachment theory, it is easy to
understand why adults finds themselves attracted to some
people, but not to others. At an unconscious level, the
person is attempting to create what is familiar, what is
known, by choosing someone who will replicate early dyadic
relationships. The person's working model provides a
constellation of characteristics with which to select a
partner and construct a relationship. Consequently, persons
whose early relationships with caregivers were unhealthy may
tend to choose partners who cooperate in creating unhealthy
adult relationships. This would explain the codependent
pattern of choosing one dysfunctional partner after another.

Another common codependent issue is ambivalence
concerning intimacy, or even rejecting it altogether out of a
fear of object loss. Those who are codependent may be
anxious and/or depressed if they feel unable to control their
partner and the relationship. Control becomes a promise of
psychological safety, for in the infant-caregiver dyad it
meant physical survival. As an adult, that translates into

psychological survival, often at great cost to the self.

32

Family Systems.

Every system has both structural and functional
characteristics. In a family, the individual members make up
the structure of the system. Other structural
characteristics include boundaries and relationships among
members. Another characteristic of families is the tension
between morphostasis (structure maintenance) and
morphogenesis (structure change). Boundaries must be
flexible enough to allow for some interactions while
preventing others. Rigid boundaries tend to produce
emotional distance and detachment in families; weak
boundaries often produce a blurring of adult/child roles
(Minuchin, 1974).

Families also serve several functions. Maintenance
functions meet basic needs for food, clothing and shelter.
In healthy families maintenance functions also provide
safety, warmth and nurturance to all members. Optimal
functioning in families allows for flexibility around family
roles and rules (Satir, 1964). In constrast, rigid role
assignment (Wegscheider, 1981) and proscribed, restrictive
rules about affective expression, communication, and trust
characterize dysfunctional families (Black, 1981).
Additionally, well-functioning families provide opportunities
for autonomy and differentiation, so that individuals can
explore their own ways of constructing their lives. If

separation is disallowed, individual needs for growth are

33
smothered and development is hindered (Bowen, 1978).

Systems theory suggests that ongoing circular feedback
processes continually shape family functioning. Subtle
feedback loops reinforce the expression of certain behaviors
and decrease the expression of others within a family (Dell,
1982). These interactional patterns of relationship and
behavior encourage movement toward homeostasis, which is a
form of internal stability (Watzlawick et al., 1974). In an
unhealthy family, homeostasis results in a tightly controlled
and narrow system which disallows a range of feeling and
behavior.

It seems reasonable that people who suffer from
codependence grew up in families with a variety of problems.
All of the problems mentioned in the paragraphs above
contribute to the development of an unhealthy sense of what
families are and how their members interact. When children
from dysfunctional families grow up and attempt to create
families of their own, they find that behavior that was once
adaptive for them no longer works. They begin to exhibit the
symptoms of codependence in response to their confusion and
pain. Locked into old, dysfunctional patterns from their
families of origin, they are unable to choose a new life for

themselves.

34

Gender

The influences of gender in relationships are discussed
by several theorists. Miller (1976, 1984) raised the "self-
in-relation" to others theme and suggested that women express
more envy, vulnerability, self-directed hostility, weakness
and helplessness than do men. The differential, in her
theory, occurs because women occupy a subordinate position
which requires them to please and accommodate men and to
serve as conduits for emotions which men find ego-alien.

The idea of connectedness with others is also a theme for
Gilligan (1982), who explains moral development in women as
based on responsibility to others, as contrasted with a male
emphasis on rights. If these authors are correct, women in
our culture are socialized to be the emotional carriers of
relationships, based on caretaking, from a "one-down"
position.

According to Lewis (1983) and Chodorow (1978, 1989),
attachment differs for men and women, producing different
emotional experiences. Lewis argues that attachment is
critical, and that the threat of loss of attachment in women
results in the emotions of shame and/or guilt, in an effort
to restore the attachment. According to Chodorow's argument,
the sex of the primary caregiver determines the future
emotional orientation of the children. Because the caregiver
is usually female, girls identify with her and feel a strong

sense of connection with others. On the other hand, boys

35
must clearly separate from the female caregiver in order to
form a masculine sexual identity, producing repression of
affective and relational issues. As adults, women tend to
report discomfort with separation and individuation, while
men often acknowledge feeling smothered by intense personal
relationships.

Observational data collected on child and parent behavior
within the realm of approval-seeking was published by Allaman
et al. in 1972. This longitudinal study examined the
relationship between maternal warmth, control, and
encouragement in the early years of a child's life and the
child's need-for-approval in later years. For males,
deficits in maternal warmth show up in a higher need for
approval by age six. From ages six to twelve, males in this
group demonstrated approval dependence; after age 12 the
effect disappeared. For females, there is a "sleeper effect"
in that approval dependence tends to appear not at school
age, but somewhere between age 12 and early adulthood. At a
developmental stage when individuation is supposed to be
occurring, females whose mothers have been cold are most
vulnerable to the approval of others. One wonders how this
need for validation must effect the developing self within
the context of social relations.

A codependent female is a "Good Girl" grown up.
According to Symonds, "'Good Girl' behavior is socially
approved behavior. A good girl is conforming, compliant,

deliberately avoids confrontations and focuses on pleasing

36
other people" (Interviewed in Gornick, 1989) If one is
constantly reinforced to be a Good Girl, there is little room
for identity development outside the parameters of taking
care of others' needs. Genuine feelings, especially if they
are not "nice", e.g. anger or disappointment, are suppressed
in an attempt to maintain a smooth facade in personal
relationships. The codependent Good Girl is constantly
vigilant for signs of approval or disapproval, and has a
strong need to control her own behavior and that of others in

order to feel psychologically safe.

Religion as a Social-Cultural Influence.

Schaef (1986) is critical of religious institutions which
encourage compliance, self-sacrifice, and the suppression of
honest feelings. Those who preach that the self is evil, and
that one should not think about the self or one's needs
hinder development. The "good Christian" who is always
"sweet, caring, even-tempered, never angry, and always long-
suffering" (p.72) does not represent an ideal of mental
health, according to Schaef. She suggests that the churches
promote affective and relational dishonesty and shame those
who do not conform to their rules.

This study questions whether childhood religious training
is related to codependence, which is defined as arrested
identity development. The focus on childhood is intentional,

in the belief that religious training in the early years

37
contributes to a developing sense of self. Whether those
contributions are carried intact into adulthood, or whether
they are modified through experience and increasing cognitive
sophistication, there is little question that they influence
personality development. The following studies focus
specifically on the relationship between religion, identity
construction, and mental health.

Research conducted by McClain (1979) demonstrated a
connection between autonomy and an intrinsic religious
orientation in a sample of 174 female fourth and fifth year
university students. Those who scored significantly higher
on seven autonomy scales also had lower scores on the
Religious Orientation Inventory (ROI) (Allport & Ross, 1967).
The study concludes that women who report being less
influenced by religion are more inclined to think and act
independently, and to pursue private goals.

In 1980, Wiebe and Fleck published a study in which
personality profiles of 158 male and female university
freshmen were compared across religious orientation and
religious affiliation. In the terms of their study, an
intrinsic religious orientation reflects "a more committed
religious stance" than an extrinsic orientation. Using the
ROI (Allport, 1967) and the Sixteen Personality Factor
Questionnaire (Cattell, 1970), the investigators found that
nonreligious subjects "indicated the least trend towards
neurosis (r = -.77)" (p. 185). Intrinsically religious

Protestants tended to be moderately neurotic (.50), and

38
intrinsically religious Catholics tended to be strongly
neurotic (.93). Extrinsically oriented Protestants
demonstrated low neurotic tendencies (-.34), and
extrinsically oriented Catholics demonstrated somewhat higher
levels of neurosis (.23). These correlations suggest that a
religious orientation contributes to neurotic tendencies, and
that one's religious affiliation affects the level of
neurosis.

In 1991, Richards conducted research with 268
undergraduate student subjects. His objective was to
examine the relation between religious orientation and mental
health. Richards found no significant differences between
intrinsically oriented subjects, extrinsically oriented
subjects, and a group he called "nontraditionally religious"
subjects (those uncommitted to traditional religion) with
regard to depression, shame and existential well-being.
However, intrinsic subjects did tend to score higher on guilt
proneness and lower on functional, attitudinal, and emotional
separation from parents. If guilt proneness becomes too
extreme, it could contribute to depression and other
emotional problems (Lewis, 1971; Prosen, Clark, Harrow &
Fawcett, 1983). Dependency and a lack of differentiation
could also lead to emotional disturbances as a person
attempts to construct an autonomous identity (Hoffman, 1984).

Steketee et a1. (1991) examined the relationships among
the type and severity of obsessive-compulsive symptoms, types

of religious practice and upbringing, degree of religiosity,

39
and guilt. Subjects were 33 outpatients with obsessive-
compulsive disorder (OCD) and 24 patients with other anxiety
disorders. The investigators found that the severity of OCD
pathology was positively correlated with both religiosity and
guilt, but not religious denomination or type. Greater
religious devotion was also positively correlated with guilt
in OCD subjects but not in subjects with other anxiety
disorders.

The research summarized in the preceding paragraphs
supports the possibility that religion is linked with
codependence. Women who described themselves as more
religious were less autonomous in their behaviors and goal
orientation. Young adults of both sexes were found to be
more neurotic if they described themselves as intrinsically
religious, compared with those who were nonreligious. This
was especially true if they were raised in the Catholic
faith. A religious orientation was linked with guilt and
difficulty with differentiation from one's family of origin,
and religiosity positively correlated with guilt in people
with compulsive disorders. Since codependence is defined in
this study as arrested identity development, evidence that
religion hinders differentiation and the development of an
autonomous stance seems noteworthy. The association between
religiosity, denomination and neuroticism further supports
the exploration of religion, especially Catholicism, as a
contributor to codependence. Guilt, religion, and

compulsivity are also potentially linked with codependence.

40
Those who suffer from codependence frequently engage in
compulsive behaviors and are prone to feelings of guilt and

shame.

Summary

The research conducted prior to this study suggests that
codependence is related to gender (Fisher & Beer, 1991; west-
Willette, 1990; Wright & Wright, 1989;). There is also
support for the influences of family of origin experiences
(Scher, 1991). Attachment, as it was manifested in adult
intimate relationships, is seen as important by Neary and
Susarla (1991). Religion, although not directly related to
codependence in previous studies, has demonstrated
significance as an influence on mental health and identity
formation (McClain, 1979; Richards, 1991; Steketee, 1991;
Wiebe & Fleck, 1980).

This study is unique in that it attempts to measure
family of origin relationships and processes retrospectively
and link them to codependence. It also differs from previous
studies in that it includes the variable of religion as a
possible predictor of codependence. The use of adults over
the age of 25 as subjects distinguishes this study of
codependence from those which relied on adolescents or
undergraduates. And the inclusion of normal subjects
separates this study from those which used only clinical

samples without comparison groups.

41
Identity formation, attachment, family systems, gender,
and religious training have been examined by scholars from
different disciplines and perspectives. In this study,
elements from each of these areas are woven into a possible
explanation for the development of codependence. In doing
so, the hope was that the data would create a model for

clinicians to consider when treating codependent clients.

CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods used to address the
questions posed by the study. The chapter is divided into
the following sections: subjects; research questions;
hypotheses; design; instrumentation; data collection; and

data analysis.

Subjects

The subjects of this study included 41 residents of
Michigan and Illinois who were at least 25 years of age.
WOmen made up 90% of the total sample. Approximately half of
the sample (54%) was drawn from employees of a public utility
company. The company was chosen as a data collection site
for two reasons. First, the employees seemed to represent a
broad cross-section of the adult population in terms of
demographic characteristics. Second, many of the employees
were male, creating the possibility that males might be well-
represented in the sample.

The other half (46%) were patients who were being treated

for codependence in hospital-based programs or by private

42

43
clinicians. One hospital provided subjects from its
inpatient and outpatient programs; three private therapists
provided clients who were willing to be subjects. The
primary diagnosis for all of the clinical subjects was
codependence, although comorbidity with other disorders was
also a possibility for some subjects.

Table 1 summarizes some of the demographic and background
characteristics of the total sample, as well as the clinical
and normal subsamples. The next section is devoted to a
discussion of the general characteristics of the overall
sample.

The mean age of the 41 subjects sampled was 38.7 years.
The range spanned 38 years, with the youngest subject at 25
years and the oldest at 63 years. The racial/ethnic
distribution was 85% White, 10% African-American and 5%
Hispanic. Approximately half of the subjects (51%) reported
Protestant childhood religious training. Of the remaining
half, 34% were Catholic, 2% were Jewish, 2% were
Fundamentalist Christian, 2% were Other (Greek Orthodox was
specified by a subject), and 9% reported no childhood
religious training.

In terms of education, 5% indicated that they had
completed less than 12 years of school, 20% had completed
high school, 41% had some college or trade school experience,
24% had an undergraduate degree, 2% had done graduate work at
the college level, and 8% had earned Master's or other

graduate degrees. Public schools were a source of education

44
for 63% of subjects; parochial schools were attended by 37%
of subjects.

Almost half of the sample was married (44%). Of the
remaining subjects, 22% were single, 27% had divorced, and 7%
said they were cohabiting. None had been widowed. Subjects
reported being moderately satisfied with their current
partner (3.6), friendships (3.8), and work situation (3.5)
using a 5-point Likert scale.

In their families of origin, a significant number of
subjects had been either the oldest or youngest child (73%),
or the oldest or only of child of their sex (66%). Many had
experienced family substance abuse (49% immediate family; 58%
extended family) as a child.

The notable differences between subsamples were in the
areas of childhood religion, educational source, marital
status, and family history of substance abuse. Most subjects
from the normal subsample were raised as Protestants (73%),
while most from the clinical subsample reported a Catholic
rearing (63%). As might be expected, 86% of normal subjects
attended public schools as children and adolescents; 63% of
clinical subjects attended parochial schools for at least
part of their education. A majority of normal subjects were
married (68%), and a total of 27% were either single or
divorced. This contrasted with clinical subjects, only 16%
of whom were married, and 73% of whom were single or
divorced. In the area of family substance abuse, a moderate

number of normal subjects reported immediate (32%) or

45
Table 1

Sample Characteristics

 

 

Demographic Overall Normal Clinical
Variables Sample Subsample Subsample
(n = 41) (n = 22) (n = 19)
Age Mean 38.7 39.4 37.8
SD 8.7 8.4 9.3
Racial/Ethnic:
% African-American 10 18 0
% Hispanic 5 5 5
% White 85 77 95

Childhood religion

% Protestant 51 73 26

% Fundamentalist 2 5 0

% Catholic 34 9 63

% Jewish 2 0 5

% Other/None 11 13 6
Educational level

% Less than 12 yrs 5 0 11

% High school grad 20 32 5

% Some higher 41 37 41

% Received B.A. 24 y 14 37

% Some grad study 2 5 0

% Advanced degree 8 12 6
Educational source

% Public schools 63 86 37

% Some parochial 37 14 63
Marital Status

% Married 44 68 16

% Single 22 9 37

% Cohabiting 7 5 11

% Divorced 27 18 36
Satisfied (1-5 scale)

with partner 3.6 3.9 3.3

with friendships 3.8 4.0 3.5

with work 3.5 3.9 3.2
%Oldest/Youngest Child 73 64 84
%Oldest Girl or Boy 66 64 68

%Positive history of

alcoholism in
immediate family 49 32 68
extended family 58 43 74

46
extended (43%) family substance abuse. Clinical subjects
indicated that 68% had experienced immediate family substance
abuse, and 74% had experienced extended family substance
abuse. Smaller differences between the subsamples existed in

other background characteristics.

Research Questions

Because of the developmental approach taken toward
codependence in this study, two research questions were
asked:

1. What are the primary childhood factors which
contribute to the development of codependence in a person?

2. Does an adult's relationship with a partner affect his

or her present degree of codependence?

Hypotheses

From the stated research questions eight related
hypotheses were generated:

H1. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of codependence and perceived caregiver rejection in the
family of origin.

H2. There is a negative relationship between the degree
of codependence and perceived family of origin mental health.

H3. There is a positive relationship between the degree

of codependence and childhood religious training as a

47
Catholic or Fundamentalist Christian.

H4. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of codependence and being female.

H5. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of codependence and family of origin birth order (first or
last born child in a family).

H6. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of codependence and an immediate family history of substance
abuse.

H7. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of codependence and an extended family history of substance
abuse.

H8. There is a negative relationship between the degree

of codependence and the degree of trust in an adult partner.

Conceptual and Operational Definitions of Variables

The following section provides definitions of the major
variables used in this study. Operational definitions follow
the conceptual definitions.

CODEPENDENCE: Conceptually this was defined as arrested
identity development. It results in an over-focus on others
and an under-focus on the self. Operationally, a subject's
level of codependence was measured by their score on the
Friel Co-Dependency Assessment Inventory (Friel, 1985).
Certain post hoc analyses used an abbreviated version of the

FCAI, referred to as the FCAI-REV. (See Appendix B; FCAI is

48
listed as "Part 1: Current Life" of the questionnaire given
to subjects.)

ATTACHMENT: This was defined as the relationship,
beginning in infancy, between a child and its care-giving or
parental figures. The purposes of the attachment system are
to provide protection and a sense of "felt security" for the
child. In this study, attachment and caregiver acceptance or
rejection were conceptually linked. Operationally, the level
of rejection between a subject and her childhood primary
attachment figure was measured retrospectively using the
Adult form of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire
(Rohner, 1980). The composite score was used. (See Appendix
B; PARQ is listed as "Part 4: Mother/Caregiver" of the
questionnaire.)

PERCEIVED FAMILY HEALTH: Conceptually, this was defined
as perceived levels of autonomy and intimacy within the
subject's family of origin. Operationally, the level of
perceived family health was measured retrospectively using
the Family of Origin Scale (Hovestadt et al., 1985). In this
study, Gavin and Wamboldt's (1992) condensed version of the
F08 was given to subjects. (See Appendix B; FOS is listed as
”Part 3: Family of Origin" of the questionnaire.)

GENDER: Whether the subject was male or female was
coded from the demographic data gathered on the survey. (See
Appendix B.)

RELIGIOUS TRAINING: Conceptually, this was defined as

formal, organized religious instruction which begins in

49
childhood before age 10. Operationally, this information was
gathered from the demographic survey. Subjects were asked to
identify childhood religious affiliation and attendance at
parochial schools using discrete categories. (See Appendix
B.)

TRUST: Conceptually, this was defined as a subject's
feelings of trust toward her current, or most recent,
intimate partner. Operationally, this variable was
represented by a Trust Scale (Rempel et al. 1985, listed as
"Part 2: Feelings About Partner" of the questionnaire given
to subjects. (See Appendix B.)

BIRTH ORDER: Conceptually, this was defined as whether a
subject was the first or last born child in her family of
origin. Operationally, this variable was represented by a
question contained within the demographic survey. (See
Appendix B.)

FAMILY HISTORY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE: Conceptually, this
was explained as being related to immediate or extended
family members who have had problems with alcohol/chemical
dependency or abuse. Operationally, these variables were
represented by two questions in the demographic survey. (See

Appendix B.)

Research Design

This exploratory study employed a non—experimental survey

research design. It was cross-sectional and identified the

50
individual adult as the unit of analysis. Self-administered
questionnaires were completed by volunteer subjects who
returned them by mail to the researcher. Questionnaires were
received during a two month period from November, 1992 to

January, 1993.

Instrumentation

A five-part questionnaire was given to the subjects in
this study. The first four parts included the Friel Co-
Dependency Assessment Inventory, the Trust Scale, the brief
form of the Family-of—Origin Scale, and the Adult form of the
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire. In addition, to
elicit background information about participants, a
demographic survey was designed by the researcher. (See
Appendix B for the full questionnaire.)

The dependent variable, a subject's degree of
codependence, was measured using the Friel Co—Dependency
Assessment Inventory (Friel, 1985). The FCAI is a 60-item
True-False inventory which covers several areas of
codependent concerns: 1) self-care, 2) self-criticism, 3)
secrets, 4) "stuckness", 5) boundary issues, 6) family of
origin, 7) feelings identification, 8) intimacy, 9) physical
health, 10) autonomy, 11) over-responsibility/burnout, and
12) identity. Sample items include: "When someone I love is
bothering me, I have no problem telling them so," and "I am

very comfortable letting others into my life and revealing

51
'the real me' to them."

According to Friel,"the inventory was designed as a
research tool and clinical instrument for measuring co—
dependency as we have conceptualized it. Initial reliability
figures for the total scale using KR-20 were in the range of
0.83 to 0.85 on fairly homogeneous samples with somewhat
restricted range." The average scores found for "significant
others who are in family programs in chemical dependency
treatment are in the neighborhood of 30-35." Higher scores
indicate greater problems with codependent concerns. (Direct
quotations are from a personal communication, September,
1992.)

Support for the reliability of the FCAI comes from west-
Willette (1990) and Scher (1991), both of whom have conducted
research on codependence using the FCAI. Wright and Wright's
(1989) research demonstrated that the FCAI clearly
distinguishes between control and experimental samples in
their clinical study. Further validation of the FCAI was
presented by Neary (1991). Neary found that the FCAI
differentiated levels of codependence, distinguishing among
”normals", outpatient codependents and inpatient
codependents. Studying inpatient admissions (1991), Neary
also found evidence of concurrent validity for the FCAI.

This was indicated by the concurrence between the extremely
high scores on this assessment instrument (M = 43.22) and:
(a) the a priori identification of these persons by their

psychiatrists as codependents needing intense, inpatient

52
treatment; (b) Friel's representation of these patients'
average score as "moderate to severe;" (c) fulfillment by 88%
of the patients of at least four out of five of Cermak's
(1986) criteria for Codependent Personality Disorder. (The
percentage of 88 is used from an overall sample of 70
patients because the 36 patients who took the FCAI were
dispersed throughout the overall sample of 70.) Cross-
validation of the instrument was obtained through comparison
of samples of inpatient codependents taken from two different
hospitals. The two samples yielded similarly high average
scores (M1 = 43.22 and M2 = 45.12).

The FCAI was selected for two reasons. First, of the two
instruments available to measure codependence, it has been
more widely used by researchers and clinicians. Its
psychometric characteristics have been more carefully
examined and compared with the other instrument. Second, the
FCAI is conceptually closer to the definition of codependence
used in this study.

The independent variable of attachment was measured with
the Adult form of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection
Questionnaire (Rohner, 1980). The PARQ is a 60-item self-
report instrument constructed to measure individuals'
perceptions of parental acceptance and rejection (i.e., the
warmth dimension). The instrument assesses adult subjects
perceptions of how their primary caregiver treated them
between the ages of seven through twelve years of age. Most

of the items refer to caregiver behavior, rather than

53
attitudes, since attitudes are more difficult to measure
accurately. The PARQ is comprised of four scales which
measure parental acceptance/rejection: (a) Warmth/Affection
(20 items), (b) Aggression/Hostility (15 items), (c) Neglect
or Indifference (15 items), and (d) Rejection
(Undifferentiated) (10 items). Questionnaire items include
statements such as "talked to me in a warm and affectionate
way," "got angry at me easily," and "made me feel wanted and
needed." A 4-point Likert format is employed with possible
scores ranging from 60-240 for the composite total. Higher
scores on the total scale indicate more rejection from the
caregiver.

Reliability data were gathered from a sample of 147 male
and female undergraduates. Cronbach's alpha for the four
scales ranged from .86 to .95. A second sample of students
demonstrated a range from .83 to .96. Interscale
correlations are high and statistically significant (range is
from -.43 to .89), which indicates that the scales are
assessing the same construct of parental acceptance-
rejection. The Warmth/Affection scale is negatively
correlated with the Rejection (-.43), Neglect/Indifference
(-.71), and Aggression/Hostility (-.45) scales, as one would
expect.

A significant amount of validity data is available. Some
of the studies will be cited here.

Concurrent and convergent: Significant correlations are

reported between the PARQ-Adult Warmth/Affection scale,

54
Neglect/Indifference scale, and Rejection scale and the Child
Report of Parent Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) (Schaefer, 1964)
scales of Acceptance (r=.90), Hostile Detachment (r=.86), and
Rejection (r=.81). The PARQ Aggression/Hostility scale was
positively correlated (r=.81) with the Physical Punishment
Scale of the Bronfenbrenner Parent Behavior Questionnaire
(Siegelman, 1965).

Discriminant: The Neglect/Indifference and Warmth/
Affection scales correlate more significantly with the scales
cited above than with other PARQ scales. Correlations
between the Aggression/Hostility and Rejection scales and
their validation scales are the same as the interscale
correlations and noncriterion scales. Factor analysis of PARQ
items showed two factors which relate to parental-acceptance.
The first factor consisted of items from the Aggression/
Hostility, Neglect/Indifference, and Rejection scales, and
denoted rejection. The second factor consisted of items from
the Warmth/Affection scale and demonstrated acceptance.

The instrument was selected because of its sound research
record, and because it offers a retrospective look at a
subject's child-rearing. Although the PARQ was not created
as a measure of attachment, it does provide information about
a person's developmental history. Considering the conceptual
framework employed by the current study, it seemed useful to
examine subjects' earliest, significant, dyadic
relationships.

Belsky and Isabella (1988) used the PARQ-Adult as a

55
measure of maternal characteristics, and addressed the
concern of perceptions versus objective reality with regard
to memories of one's childhood. They suggest that "it is
also worth noting that from a functional standpoint, the
absolute accuracy of these retrospective reports may be less
important than their perceived accuracy because a mother's
sense of how she was treated while growing up may be
developmentally more influential than how she actually was
reared by her parents" (p. 61). Since the approach of this
study is developmental, the internalized perceptions captured
by the PARQ seem to be particularly valuable.

A second independent variable, a subject's perception of
her family of origin mental health, was measured by the
Family-of—Origin Scale. The FOS is a 40-item self-report
questionnaire developed by Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy,
Cochran, and Fine (1985). The FOS measures perceived family
health, defined as perceived levels of autonomy and intimacy
(combined), within one's family of origin. Twenty items
provide a measure of autonomy (four items addressing each of
five constructs). The other twenty items provide a measure
of intimacy (four items addressing each of five constructs).
A 5-point Likert format is employed with possible scores
ranging from 40-200. According to the authors, scores are
broken down as follows: scores of 40-134, 135-159, 160-200
indicate low, medium, and high levels of family health,
respectively.

The perceived level of autonomy has five constructs:

56
(a) clear expression of thoughts and feelings, (b) individual
members' acceptance of responsibility for their own behavior,
(c) respect for family members' right to self-expression, (d)
openness and receptivity among family members, and (e)
acceptance of separation and loss issues. The perceived
level of intimacy also has five constructs: (a) open
expression of a wide range of feelings, (b) maintenance of a
warm, positive atmosphere, (c) resolution of conflict with
minimal accompanying stress, (d) sensitivity to others' needs
and feelings, and (e) seeing the essential goodness in human
nature.

In a study of 63 premarital couples conducted by Gavin
and Wamboldt (1992), an abbreviated 12-item form of the F05
was used as an overall measure of family of origin health. A
sample of items from the scale included "the atmosphere in my
family usually was unpleasant,""in my family, I felt that I
could talk things out and settle conflicts," and "the members
of my family were not very receptive to one another's views."
The abbreviated FOS is derived from factor analytic and
correlational analyses which showed that "the F08 contains
one robust construct that can be measured easily with a
subset of items from the larger questionnaire" (pg. 183).
Hovestadt (personal communication, September 10, 1992)
concurs with Gavin and Wamboldt's conclusion that the short
form of the F08 is as useful as the original, longer version.
He also recommends using only the combined score as a measure

of family health, ignoring the individual measures and

57
constructs.

Use of the brief form would create a range of scores from
12-60, with higher scores indicating better family of origin
mental health. Per Gavin and Wamboldt the brief scale
possesses acceptable demonstrated internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha =.94). This short form of the F08 also
demonstrated good validity, according to their research.

Convergent validity: Comparisons of the brief FOS with
the Family Relationships Index from the Family Environment
Scale (Holahan and Moos, 1983) showed a correlation of .72,
p<.001. When correlated with Bengston and Schrader's (1982)
multiple measures of Affectional and Associational Solidarity
between parents and their adult children, the results ranged
from .41 to .68, p<.001.

Discriminant validity: The FOS was related to instruments
that measure related but conceptually distinct constructs in
order to establish discriminant validity. The brief FOS was
compared with the Organizational and Control subscales of the
Family Environment Scale (Moos and Moos, 1986) and the Dyadic
Adjustment Scale (Spanier, 1976), which reports each
subject's satisfaction with his/her current premarital
relationship. The Organizational subscale was found to be
unrelated to the F08 (.15), as was the Control subscale
(-.18). There was also no significant relationship between
scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the F08 (.19).

This means that subjects' perceptions of their families of

origin were not significantly related to their level of

58
satisfaction with their current premarital partners.

Criticism of the complete F08, and rebuttals, have
surfaced in the Journal of Marital and Family TherapY. Lee,
Gordon, and O'Dell (1989) state that the F08 is not useful
because it has only one good subscale and "delivers little
information." They concluded that the F08 "has little value
as a research instrument" (pg. 19). Mazer et al. (1990)
responded with the critique that Lee et al. had worked from
an inadequate sample, and conducted their own factor analysis
with much larger samples. Their conclusion was that the F08
is a useful scale. They claim that "since the F08 has been
shown to differentiate among clinical populations such as
addicts, children of alcoholics, the mentally ill, and the
incarcerated, implications for the utility of the F08 in
applied research are apparent" (pg.426). Their opinion is
shared by Gavin and Wamboldt, although they suggest that the
F05 be used to measure "an intrapsychic construct . . .
rather than a systemic construct" (pg.187).

As in the case of the PARQ-Adult Scale, the Family-of-
Origin Scale was chosen because of its retrospective look at
one's family of origin. There are those who would argue that
observational data collected by a disinterested third party
would be more likely to represent actual family process.
While acknowledging that an "outsider's" view of a family may
be different than an "insider's" (Olson, 1977), one can be
argue that both perspectives are valid. Whether subjects'

perceptions of their families of origin reflect an objective

59
reality is not the issue in this study. What matters are the
intrapsychic constructs which subjects have formulated about
relationships as a consequence of their family of origin
experiences. These constructs are the subjects' reference
points for future interactions with others.

As a measure of the independent variable, a subject's
level of trust in a current partner, the Trust Scale was used
in this research. This refined version of the Trust Scale is
a l7-item self-report questionnaire developed by Rempel,
Holmes, and Zanna (1985). It was designed to measure levels
of trust within close interpersonal relationships. Items are
divided into three components of trust: predictability,
dependability, and faith. Predictability is one's perceived
ability to predict a partner's behavior. Dependability is
the extent to which one feels a partner can be relied on when
needed. Faith measures the belief that a partner will
continue to be responsive to one's needs and caring, overall.
Questionnaire statements include "though times may change and
the future is uncertain, I know my partner will always be
ready and willing to offer me strength and support," and
"when I share my problems with a partner, I know he/she will
respond in a loving way even before I say anything." A
5-point Likert format is used with possible scores ranging
from 17-85. Scores have been found to correlate
significantly with the Rubin Love Scale (Rubin, 1973), which
is a measure of love and happiness in a romantic

relationship. Faith, as a subscale, was most strongly

60
correlated with love (r = .46, p < .001) in the Rempel et al.
study.

The overall Cronbach alpha for the trust scale was .81,
with subscale reliabilities of .80, .72, and .70 for the
faith, dependability, and predictability subscales,
respectively. The three subscales were moderately
correlated, with "r's" ranging from .27 to .46.

Collins and Read (1990) used the Trust Scale to examine
the relationships between adult attachment working models and
relationship quality, and found a relation between trust and
current satisfaction in relationships. WOmen who were rated
as Anxious trusted their partners less; they had much less
faith in their partner (-.50, p < .001) and thought he was
less dependable (-.31, p < .01). Men rated as Anxious also
had less faith in their partner (-.19, p < .10) and thought
she was less dependable (-.22, p < .10). The responses of
anxious individuals were very different from those given by
women and men who were categorized as being comfortable with
closeness (Close) and those who felt that it was safe to
depend on others (Depend).

A subject's level of codependence might be a response to
a combination of childhood experiences and contemporary
relationships. The role of trust could be viewed from two
perspectives with respect to codependence. There is the
possibility that those who experienced problems with
relationships in childhood come to adulthood already at risk

for problematic relationships. In this case, trust would

WE

CC

61
serve as a mediating variable, one that displays isomorphism
between childhood and adult relational experiences.
Codependence would be an anticipated outcome of poor
childhood and adult relationships.

The competing hypothesis for the role of trust as it
relates to codependence focuses on the significance of
current adult relationships. If a person with a poor
childhood relational history entered a healthy, trusting
relationship as an adult, she might be less inclined to
manifest codependence. In this case, trust would be a
moderating variable, since it moderated the effects of her
childhood experiences. Moderating variables tend to alter

projected developmental trajectories.

Data Collection

The data were collected through self-administered
questionnaires. They were completed by the participants and
returned by mail to the researcher, along with a consent
form. A cover letter was enclosed explaining the study.
(See Appendix C.) Pre-addressed, postage paid envelopes were
used for the return of the questionnaires and consent form.
Also, a pre-addressed postage paid postcard was enclosed if
the respondent wanted a copy of the results of the study. It
was to be returned separately from the instruments to assure
confidentiality.

Subjects were solicited from the public utility by

62

posting signs advertising the study on bulletin boards in all
departments. In addition, department heads agreed to
publicize the study at departmental meetings. An
administrator in the human resources department acted as a
liaison during the process of soliciting volunteers. Copies
of the research packets were available through department
heads and the administrator. Potential participants were also
encouraged to call the researcher if they had questions or
wanted packets. After six weeks time, reminders were posted
urging those who had picked up packets to complete and return
the questionnaire. Of the 60 packets which were requested by
employees, 22 were completed and returned to the researcher.

Requests to gather data from patients were made to the
clinical directors of hospital-based programs for
codependence and private therapists through telephone calls
from the researcher. In the case of the hospitals, a
thorough review process was required before permission was
granted to solicit subjects. Current patients who were being
treated for codependence were asked by their therapists
whether they would like to participate in the study. If
their answer was affirmative, they were given a research
packet and asked to complete and return the questionnaire
according to the written instructions. Of the 21 patients
who requested packets, 19 completed and returned them to the
researcher.

Before data collection could begin at any site,

permission for the present study was granted by the Michigan

63
State University Human Subjects Review Committee (UCRIHS).

(See Appendix A.)

Data Analyses

Data analyses were conducted separately for childhood
predictor variables, the adult predictor variable, and the
combination of childhood and adult variables. Descriptive
statistics were computed for each of the dependent and
independent variables in order to examine distributions.
Independent t-tests and chi-square analyses were conducted to
examine the differences in means between subsamples. Zero-
order correlations were calculated to establish the extent of
associations among the predictor variables. Correlations
were also computed to examine the relation between the degree
of codependence and measures of the predictor variables.

Simple and multiple regression analyses were performed in
order to identify the best fitted model in the following
categories: childhood predictor variables; adult predictor
variable; and a combination of childhood and adult variables.
A chance probability level of less than .05 was set to reject

the null hypotheses. All tests were two-tailed.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the data analyses.
First, the means and standard deviations for the measures
used in the study are reported. This is followed by a
subsample analysis, with a table listing the results of
t-tests and chi-square analyses for each of the variables in
the two subsamples.

The next two sections discuss the relations among groups
of variables. Again, there are tables. The first shows the
relations among all of the predictor variables. The second
table demonstrates the relations between all of the predictor
variables and the dependent variable, codependence.

Discussions of these tables are followed by a
presentation of simple and multiple regression analyses in
tabular form. Models which include childhood predictor
variables, the adult predictor variable, and a combination of
the two are shown. The fit of the data in the various models
is discussed. Post hoc analyses and their results follow.
Implications for the hypotheses are presented. Finally, the
contributions made by childhood and adult variables to the

development of codependence, based on the data collected, are

64

65

discussed in relation to the conceptual model proposed by the

researcher.

Discussion of Measures for the Overall Sample

Means and standard deviations were computed for each of
the measures used in the study. For the overall sample, the
Family of Origin Scale, which measured family of origin
mental health, had a mean of 32.6 and a standard deviation of
11.9. As a retrospective measure of caregiver rejection, the
Parental Acceptance-Rejection Questionnaire mean was 128.5,
and it had a standard deviation of 39.6. The Trust Scale,
which measured subjects' current levels of trust in their
adult partner, had a mean of 58.4 and a standard deviation of
17.2. The mean of the original measure of codependence, the
Friel Co-Dependency Assessment Inventory, was 33.0, and its
standard deviation was 12.6. A revised form of the FCAI, the
FCAI-REV, was used in post hoc analyses and had a mean of
29.8 and a standard deviation of 11.6.

In relation to the median scores published by the
developers for each of the predictor measures, the overall
sample was characterized by poorer than average family of
origin mental health, less than average caregiver rejection,
and greater trust in their current partner. The mean scores
of both the FCAI and FCAI-REV were within the range of scores
that Friel calls "moderate concerns" (1985, p. 21) about

codependence.

66

Differences Between Subsamples

for Predictor and Outcome Variables

Examination of the differences between subsamples using
independent t-tests and chi-square analyses yielded
information about the measures used in the study (see Tables
2 and 3). As anticipated, subjects from the clinical
subsample tended to come from families with relatively poor
mental health, had caregivers who were more rejecting, and
had higher scores for codependence. Subjects from the normal
subsample had family mental health backgrounds which were
better, suffered less rejection from their caregivers, and
had lower scores for codependence. However, both groups had
similar means for trust.

The differences between subsamples on the independent
variables support the likelihood that these childhood
variables are useful predictors of codependence. Family of
origin mental health, in particular, was highly significant
in discriminating between the subsample subjects. Caregiver
rejection, although not as significant, still separated
normal subjects from clinical subjects. Higher average
scores for codependence could be predicted from lower average
scores for family of origin mental health and higher average
scores for caregiver rejection.

The validity of the measures of codependence was also
supported by the difference in means between the subsamples.

Whether using the FCAI or the FCAI-REV, clinical subjects'

67
Table 2

T—Tests for Differences Between Normal and Clinical
Subsamples Predictor and Outcome Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean (SD)
Normal Clinical
Variable Subsample Subsample t-value df Prob.
(n = 22) (n = 19)
FOS 38.8 25.5 4.24 39 .00***
(10.7) (9.1)
PARQ 115.8 143.1 -2.32 39 .03*
36.5 38.7
(16.9) (17.9)
FCAI 29.4 37.6 -2.06 39 .05*
(12.3) (11.8)
FCAI-REV 26.4 33.7 -2.19 39 .04*
(10.9) (11.4)
Note. One Trust Instrument was incomplete and dropped from the study.
* p < .05 *** p < .001
Table 3
Chi-square Analyses for Differences Between Normal and
Clinical Subsamples Predictor and Outcome Variables
Normal Clinical
Variable Subsample Subsample x2 Prob.
(n s 22) (n = 19)
CATH 34.6% 65.9% 64.289 .00***
PAROSCH 36.6% 63.4% 44.637 .00***
OLD/YNG 63.6% 84.2% 25.612 .00***
FHA 31.6% 68.2% 34.198 .00***
EFHA 42.9% 73.7% 17.017 .00***

 

*** p < .001

68

scores, on average, were higher than normal subjects' scores.
This was an expected result since clinical subjects were
being treated for codependence.

Chi-square analyses of the remaining predictor variables
demonstrated similar results. The subsamples differed in the
areas of religion, parochial school attendance, birth order,
and family history of substance abuse. Clinical subjects
were more likely to be Catholic, and had attended parochial
schools in greater numbers. They were also more likely to be
first or last born children in their families of origin.
Clinical subjects were also more likely to have come from

families in which substance abuse was an issue.

Relations Among Predictor Variables

When constructing the table of predictor variables,
gender was eliminated because there were not enough male
subjects to conclude anything meaningful about the influence
of gender on codependence. Since only one subject reported
religious training as a Fundamentalist Christian, the
variable of religion was represented by Catholicism and
parochial school attendance. The hypothesized childhood
variables of caregiver acceptance/rejection (PARQ), family of
origin mental health (FOS), childhood religious training
(CATH and PAROSCH), birth order (OLD/YNG), immediate family
of origin history of substance abuse (FHA), and extended

family of origin history of substance abuse (EFHA) were

69

included. The adult predictor variable of trust (TRUST) was

also featured in the correlation table. Family substance
abuse histories were included because they were found to be
significant in other research on codependence (Friel, 1985;
Birth order was included

Scher, 1991; West-Willette,

1990).
because of the researcher's clinical experience with
codependent clients, most of whom were first or last born
children in their families of origin. Correlational analyses
were performed to determine the extent of associations among
the predictor variables. Table 4 presents the zero-order

correlations for all of the predictor variables.

Table 4

Relations Among the Predictor Variables

 

 

 

FOS PARQ CATH PAROSCH OLD/YNG FHA EFHA TRUST
FOS 1.00
PARQ -0.72*** 1.00
CATH -0.43** 0.17 1.00
PAROSCH -0.40** 0.17 0.74*** 1.00
OLD/YNG —0.17 -0.05 0.20 0.23 1.00
FHA —0.65*** 0.40** 0.33* 0.17 0.40 1.00
EFHA -0.56*** 0.45** 0.17 0.14 -0.08 0.62*** 1.00
TRUST 0.39* -0.39** 0.10 0.17 0.09 -0.23 -O.33* 1.00
Mppe. CATH was coded 1 if childhood religion was Roman Catholic, 0 if other.

PAROSCH was coded 1 if any parochial school attendance was reported and coded 0 if
OLD/YNG was coded 1 if subject reorted being an oldest or youngest

none was reported.
FHA and EFHA.were coded 1 if subject reported either an immediate or extended

child.

family history of alcoholism and/or chemical dependency.
**
p < .01

* p < .05

*** p < .001

70
Relations Among Childhood Predictor Variables

A number of significant correlations were found among
among the childhood variables. All of the correlations were
in the expected directions, and were moderate to large in
magnitude. Subjects who reported relatively poor family of
origin mental health also tended to have rejecting childhood
caregivers, were raised as Catholics and had attended
parochial schools, and came from substance-abusing families,
both immediate and extended. Caregiver rejection was also
significantly related to immediate and extended family
substance abuse. Immediate family of origin substance abuse
was associated with being raised as a Catholic. Not
surprisingly, immediate and extended family substance abuse
were highly correlated.

It is noteworthy that these data support the literature
on family substance abuse which indicates that dysfunction at
the dyadic and systemic levels is common (Brown, 1988). If
the abuse of alcohol or other drugs, and the resulting
consequences of abuse, command most of the attention of
adults in a family, their children's physical and emotional
needs will not be fully met. A mother who spends her time
and energy trying to cope with her husband's alcoholism is
probably not accessible to her children in ways that would
benefit them. If she is alcoholic, even more powerful
deficits are likely in the caregiver-child relatioship. In

terms of systemic family interactions, alcoholic families are

71

typified as being rigid around family rules and roles (Black,
1981; Wegscheider, 1981) . These characteristics do not
support family mental health, and tend to promote coping
strategies in children which do not serve them well as
adults. As a consequence, children from alcoholic families
often have trouble constructing and maintaining healthy
relationships and families of their own in adulthood.

The association between being Catholic and attending
parochial schools is an obvious one. That Catholicism and
immediate family substance abuse are linked may be a function
of the composition of this sample, since a disproportionate
share of Catholic subjects reported family substance abuse.
Of the 20 subjects, overall, who reported family substance
abuse, 10 were Catholic, although Catholic subjects made up
only 34% of the sample. It is unlikely that half of the
family substance abuse in the Midwest is found in Catholic
families. This was an unexpected finding, and the reasons

for the association are unclear.

Relations Between Childhood and Adult Variables

In addition to the significant correlations already
discovered among the childhood variables, interesting and
significant correlations were found between trust and several
of the childhood variables. The signs of the coefficients
were in the anticipated directions. Subjects whose family of

origin mental health was not very good were less trusting of

72

their adult partner. The subjects who perceived their
mothers as rejecting in childhood were less likely to trust
their adult partners. They were also likely to be less
trusting if they grew up in an extended family where
substance abuse was a problem.

These correlations demonstrate the connections between
childhood relational experiences and adult relationships. If
a person spends her formative years with a primary caregiver
whom she remember as rejecting, and/or her family was
significantly dysfunctional, she will be less inclined to
find her adult partner trustworthy. Learning as a child that
others are not to be trusted discounts one's inclination to
trust others as an adult. This is true, irrespective of the
actual trustworthiness of others. The other side of the
argument is that a person may select adult partners who will
allow the duplication of childhood relationships in an
attempt to find familiarity, even when the results are
painful. Non-trustworthy partners close the circle of a
relationship whose parameters are known.

The association between trust and extended family of
origin substance abuse can be explained as an
intergenerational problem. Feelings about trust and safety
are woven into the family patterns which pass from one
generation to the next. Even when the chemical catalyst for
dysfunction is removed between generations, there is no
guarantee that family members will learn new ways of relating

to each other. One generation teaches the next what it has

73

learned about the fundamentals of relationships, even when

some of the context may have changed.

Relations Between Childhood and Adult

Predictor Variables and Codependence

This section discusses the associations between all of
the predictor variables and codependence, assessed with the
FCAI. Table 5 presents zero-order correlations, listing
childhood variables first. Most of the childhood variables,
and the adult variable of trust, were significantly related
to FCAI scores. The signs of the correlation coefficients

were in the expected directions.

Table 5

Zero—order Correlations Between
the Predictor Variables
and the Friel Co—dependency Assessment Inventory (FCAI)

 

 

Predictor Variable FCAI Predictor Variable FCAI
PARQ 0.64** FHA 0.43**
CATH 0.05 EFHA 0.39**
PAROSCH 0.04 TRUST -0.53***

 

** p < .01 *** p < .001

74

As was anticipated, poor family of origin mental health
and caregiver rejection were related to the development of
codependence. Higher scores for codependence were linked
with immediate and extended family of origin substance abuse.
Subjects who reported higher FCAI scores were also less
trusting of their adult partner.

Based on the relative strength of the correlations, it is
clear that a person's family of origin has a profound
influence on their predisposition toward codependence. In
particular, poor family of origin mental health and caregiver
rejection seem to set the stage for later relational
difficulties. The data suggest that a troubled childhood
relational history eventually leads to a problem with
codependence. It also appears from the data that trust and
codependence are interrelated; those who find it difficult to
trust their current adult partner are also more likely to be

troubled by codependence.

Multiple Regression Analyses

Childhood Predictors of Codependence.

Multiple regression analysis of all the childhood
predictor variables was used in order to discover which
variables contribute uniquely to codependence. Simultaneous
entry was the form of regression used to test the postulated

model. The variables included were: family of origin mental

75
health (FOS); attachment (PARQ); religious training (CATH and

PAROSCH); birth order (OLD/YNG); immediate family substance
abuse (FHA); and extended family substance abuse (EFHA).
Separate analyses using CATH and PAROSCH, and FHA and EFHA,
were computed in order to avoid collinearity. The best
fitted model of all childhood variables and codependence is
found in Table 6. Family of origin mental health,
attachment, parochial school attendance and birth order

explained 58% of the variance in the scores for codependence.

Table 6

Multiple Regression Analysis: Childhood Predictors
of FCAI Scores

 

 

Predictor Variable fl t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant 0.00 0.01 .99
FOS -0.34 —1.99 .05
PARQ 0.49 2.79 .00
PAROSCH -0.24 -2.02 .05
OLD/YNG 0.32 2.76 .00

R2 0.58

F-Ratio 12.57 .000

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.

The addition of other childhood variables provided a more
complete explanation of the ways in which childhood

experiences contribute to the development of codependence.

76

Parochial school attendance and birth order emerged as
important influences, as well as family of origin mental
health and attachment. This may seem surprising since
neither variable demonstrated statistical significance when
correlated with codependence. The presence of birth order in
this regression model might be explained by the fact that its
"p" value when correlated with codependence was .059.

Parochial school attendance, on the other hand, might be
explained as a suppressor variable. Attending parochial
school was viewed as a protective factor in this model, one
that made it less likely that a subject would report high
scores for codependence. According to Glass and Hopkins
(1984), a suppressor variable is a predictor that does "not
correlate with the criterion . . . (and) can increase the
multiple correlation by 'suppressing' irrelevant variance in
other independent variables." If this is the case, parochial
school attendance increased the explanatory power of this
regression model by suppressing irrelevant variance in FOS
scores, PARQ scores and birth order. It served in this
capacity, even though its correlation with codependence was
low (.04).

It is interesting to note that this model does not
contain either of the variables connected with family
substance abuse. The zero order correlations suggest that
the effect of substance abuse may be indirect and mediated by
family of origin mental health and caregiver rejection, which

are more proximal processes.

77

Adult Predictor of Codependence.

A simple regression analysis of the adult predictor
variable of trust was performed in order to assess the
contribution of a subject's current level of trust in a
partner to their degree of codependence. The model is shown
in Table 7. Trust was found to predict codependence,
explaining 25% of the variance in the scores for
codependence. This demonstrates the importance of trust, a

variable with childhood antecedents, as a predictor of

 

 

codependence.
Table 7
Regression Analysis: Adult Predictor
of FCAI Scores

Predictor Variable fi t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant —0.03 -0.25 .81
TRUST -0.50 -3.59 .00

R2 0.25

F-Ratio 12.81 .000

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.

78
Multiple Childhood and Adult Predictors of Codependence.

Multiple regression analysis using a combination of
childhood and adult predictor variables was computed as a way
of assessing the best overall model for predicting
codependence. Although this was not part of the original
study, its inclusion seemed a natural outgrowth of the
preceding analyses. To construct this hierarchical model,
trust was added to the relevant childhood predictors from the

previous regression analysis. The model is shown in Table 8.

Table 8

Multiple Regression Analysis: Childhood and Adult
Predictors of FCAI Scores

 

 

Predictor Variable fl t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant 0.02 0.01 .81
PARQ 0.52 -1.99 .00***
OLD/YNG 0.35 2.78 .00**
TRUST —0.39 -2.02 .00**
R2 0.61 2.76
F-Ratio 18.81 .00***

 

vi

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.
** p < .01 *** p < .001

This model is interesting for several reasons. The first

is that this distillation of_all predictor variables portrays

79

the profound importance of early dyadic relationships.
Attachment, trust and birth order, inextricably linked
throughout a person's developmental history, provide the best
explanation for the manifestation of codependence in
adulthood. This triadic set of childhood relational
experiences is so powerful that variables like family of
origin mental health, religious training and substance abuse
become less relevant as predictors.

The second reason this model invites interest is because
of its explanatory power relative to the childhood model.
This model, using all childhood and adult predictor
variables, explains 61% of the variance in scores for
codependence as compared with 58% for the childhood model.
Remembering that trust might be described as an adult
extension of one's family of origin experiences, one might
view the two models as being remarkably similar. The
elimination of parochial school attendance in this inclusive
model accentuates the predominant influence of family over
other institutional factors. It could be argued that one
could predict with some accuracy the formation of
codependence in a person before they reach adulthood, based

on their childhood family experiences.

80

Post Hoc Analyses

Revision of the Codependence Measure

Post hoc analyses involving a revised form of the FCAI
were also conducted by the researcher. In order to construct
the revised FCAI (FCAI-REV), five items from the original
instrument which pertained to childhood (Numbers 7, 11, 17,
30, and 59) were removed. This was done in order to assess
whether different results might be obtained from the analyses
when there was no possibility of overlapping items from the

childhood instruments and the FCAI.

Predictor Variables Relations to the Revised Measure.

The relations among the predictor variables reported
earlier in this chapter remained the same. Table 9 shows the
new set of correlations obtained between the predictor
variables and the FCAI-REV. There were many similarities
between this set of correlations and the ones computed with
the original FCAI. The coefficients ranged from small to
moderate in size and were in the expected directions. Most
of the coefficients were slightly weaker when compared with
those computed with the original FCAI. The exceptions were

parochial school attendance,which remained the same, and

81

family history of substance abuse, which became slightly
stronger. Of the childhood variables, caregiver rejection
and immediate and extended family histories of substance
abuse were significantly related to codependence. Family of
origin mental health was highly significant in its
relationship to codependence. The adult predictor variable
of trust was also highly significant in its relationship to
codependence.

This set of correlations also suggested that childhood
family of origin experiences continue to be influential into
adulthood when codependence is manifested. Of particular
interest are the ways in which early dyadic relationships and
family rules and roles seem to set the stage for adult
experiences with others. Trust, whether cast as a mediating
or moderating variable, also continues to be important when

examining codependence.

Table 9

Zero-order Correlations Between
the Predictor Variables
and the Revised Codependence Measure (FCAI-REV)

 

 

Predictor Variable FCAI-REV Predictor Variable FCAI-REV
FOS -0.54*** OLD/YNG 0.27
PARQ 0.61** FHA 0.44**
CATH 0.02 EFHA 0.37**
PAROSCH 0.04 TRUST —0.50***

 

** p < .01 *** p < .001

82

Single and Multiple Regression Analyses Against the

Revised Codependence Measure.

Simultaneous entry of the childhood predictor variables
which comprised the best fitted model for the original
regression analysis revealed somewhat different results with
the FCAI-REV. (See Table 10.) Like the model tested with the
FCAI, this model also contained caregiver rejection and birth
order. But family of origin mental health and parochial
school attendance dropped out of the model. The two remaining
variables predicted 46% of the variance in scores for

codependence.

Table 10

Multiple Regression Analysis: Childhood Predictors
of FCAI-REV Scores

 

 

Predictor Variable fi t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant 0.00 0.00 .98
PARQ 0.62 5.17 .00***
OLD/YNG 0.32 2.27 .01

R2 0.46

F-Ratio 16.29 .00***

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.
*** p < .001

83

With the elimination of family of origin items from the
original FCAI, scores on the PARQ became more powerful. Thus
the role of family of origin mental health was overshadowed
by caregiver rejection. Parochial school attendance, which
had served to suppress irrelevant variance in the F05, was
eliminated from the model with family of origin mental
health.

A simple regression using the adult variable of trust and
the FCAI-REV revealed that trust remained significant as a
predictor of codependence (see Table 11). In this model it

explained 25% of the variance in scores for codependence.

Table 11

Regression Analysis: Adult Predictor
of FCAI-REV Scores

 

 

Predictor Variable fl t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant -0.03 -0.25 .80
TRUST -0.49 -3.55 .00**
R2 0.25
F-Ratio 12.59 .00***

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.
** p < .01 *** p < .001

Using hierarchical entry, the adult variable of trust was
added to the childhood variables of caregiver rejection and
birth order in a multiple regression analysis. These

variables constituted the best fitted model (Table 12) for

84
predicting codependence using the FCAI-REV, and they

explained 56% of the variance in scores.

Table 12

Multiple Regression Analysis: Childhood and Adult
Predictors of FCAI-REV Scores

 

 

Predictor Variable fl t-Statistic Prob. > t
Constant 0.03 -0.23 .82
PARQ 0.47 4.04 .00***
OLD/YNG 0.34 3.13 .00**
TRUST -0.35 -2.94 .00**
R2 0.56
F-Ratio 15.31 .00***

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.
** p < .01 *** p < .001

Trust as a Moderating Variable

In order to assess whether trust served as a moderating
variable in this study, the following analysis was conducted.
Trust scores for the overall sample were divided at the
median into High Trust and Low Trust groups. For each group,
the correlations between childhood measures and the measure
for codependence were then transformed into z-scores. The

resulting, standardized correlations were compared for the

85

two groups. Table 13 shows the comparison between the High
and Low Trust groups. Due to the small size of the samples,
achieving statistical significance was not possible at the
.05 level. However, the trend was that trust served as a
moderating variable between caregiver rejection and
codependence, since the correlation of the High Trust group

is lower than that of the Low Trust Group.

Table 13

z-Tests for Differences Between Correlations of
High-Trust Subjects and Low—Trust Subjects

 

 

High Low

Correlation TRUST TRUST z-ratio Prob.
(n = 20) (n = 20)

FCAI-PARQ 0.52* 0.95*** -1.26 .10

 

Note. Correlations presented are standardized correlations.
* p < .05 *** p < .001

Implications for Hypotheses

H1. There is a positive relationship between degrees

of codependence and degrees of perceived caregiver

rejection.

The hypothesis was supported by the results from both
sets of analyses, those computed with the original FCAI and

the FCAI-REV. Caregiver rejection was found to be a

predictor of codependence in the regressions using only

86
childhood variables and in the regressions using a
combination of childhood and adult variables.

H2. There is a negative relationship between degrees

of codependence and degrees of perceived family of

origin mental health.

The hypothesis was supported by the results of one of the
analyses using the FCAI. The model which included the
childhood predictors of codependence found that family of
origin mental health contributed uniquely. This was not true
of the model which included the childhood and adult
predictors, together. When similar analyses were computed

using the FCAI-REV, family of origin mental health was no

longer a predictor of codependence in either model.

H3. There is a positive relationship between degrees

of codependence and childhood religious training as

a Catholic or Fundamentalist Christian.

When using the original version of the FCAI, the
hypothesis (for Catholic only) was not supported by the
childhood model of predictor variables, using attendance at
parochial schools as the variable. Parochial school
attendance was shown to protect against the development of
codependence. The model which included childhood and adult
predictor variables did not include parochial school
attendance. In the models which were tested using the FCAI-
REV, different results were found. Parochial school
attendance was not part of either the model of childhood

predictors or the combination model of childhood and adult

predictors.

87

H4. There is a positive relationship between degrees
of codependence and being female.

There were not enough male subjects to test this

hypothesis.

H5. There is a positive relationship between family

of origin birth order (first or last born child in a

family) and degrees of codependence.

When using the original FCAI, the hypothesis was
supported by the model of childhood predictor variables and
by the model which included childhood and adult predictors.
Use of the FCAI-REV revealed similar results. Birth order
emerged as a predictor of codependence in both the childhood
model and the combination model of childhood and adult

predictors.

H6. There is a positive relationship between an

immediate family history of substance abuse and

codependence.

The hypothesis was not supported by the analyses in any
of the models. Whether using the original FCAI or the FCAI-

REV, immediate family history of substance abuse was not

found to be a predictor of codependence.

H7. There is a positive relationship between an
extended family history of substance abuse and
codependence.

The hypothesis was not supported by the analyses in any

of the models. Whether using the original FCAI or the FCAI-

88

REV, extended family history of substance abuse was not found

to be a predictor of codependence.

H8. There is a negative relationship between degrees

of codependence and degrees of trust in an adult

partner.

When using the original FCAI, the hypothesis was
supported by the model which included trust only, and by the
model which included all childhood and adult predictors,
together. Similar results were found when using the FCAI-
REV. Trust was found to be a predictor of codependence in

both the adult predictor model and in the combination model

of childhood and adult predictors.

Research Findings and the Conceptual Model

In Chapter I a model for codependence was proposed by the
researcher. It was derived from the assumptions of
developmental psychopathology. An ecological perspective was
also employed in an attempt to recognize the influences of
multiple environments on a person's development. The data
from this study speak to the researcher's model for

codependence in the following ways:

1. Codependence is a product of both intrapsychic
and interpersonal dynamics.

Internalized perceptions regarding one's family of origin

interactions, and one's perceptions about childhood

89

caregiver acceptance or rejection, influence the development
of codependence. What was said and done in childhood become
memories, beliefs and feelings which form a template for

behaviors in adult relationships.

2. A person may be influenced to be codependent by

interactions at the individual, familial, cultural,

and institutional levels.

Responses to the PARQ, F08, and Trust Scale indicate the
significance of interactions between individuals and within
families. At the cultural and institutional level, religious
training appears to be associated with family of origin
mental health. Although not significantly related to
codependence directly, parochial school attendance seems to

influence other variables which are predictors of

codependence.

3. Codependence is a developmental process which

begins in infancy and continues through the

lifespan, mediated by potentiating and protective

factors.

The links between attachment, family of origin mental
health, birth order and trust suggest a developmental
approach to the study of codependence. There were also
significant associations between childhood variables and
trust, which appeared to moderate the effects of childhood
experiences in some cases. Further, trust was found to

predict codependence by itself and appeared as a predictor in

both combination models. It is also possible that trust is

90

an outcome variable, that codependence predicts trust. In
this case, a person's degree of codependence might influence
how trusting they are of a current partner.

It seems that healthy families and accepting caregivers
innoculate their children against the formation of
codependence. Children who are fortunate enough to have been
given a solid foundation for identity and relationship
construction appear to be less at risk for manifesting
codependence as adults. But the data also show that
childhood experiences can be moderated by current adult
relationships. This injects a note of hope for those who
suffered from unhappy childhoods at home. Those whose family
of origin experiences were less than good may find that
experiencing a trusting relationship with an adult partner
places them less at risk for codependence. These data
indicate that unfortunate developmental trajectories may be

altered by positive choices in adulthood.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARI, CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

CLINICAL PRACTICE

This chapter summarizes the findings of the study, offers
conclusions and limitations of the research, and concludes
with suggestions for future research as well as implications

for clinical practice.

Summary of the Study

The original purposes of this study were twofold: to
discover the primary childhood factors which influence the
development of codependence; and to identify the effects of
current partner relationships on degrees of codependence.
During the course of the research, additional analyses were
conducted in order to offer a more complete explanation of
the etiology of codependence. These lead to a third purpose:
to identify the most important contributors to codependence,
whether their origins were in childhood or adulthood.

(Additional post hoc analyses using a revised form of the

91

92
Friel Co-Dependency Assessment Inventory (FCAI—REV) were
included as further tests of the hypotheses. This summary
includes all of the variables which were used in the analyses
of data, and offers a comparison of models which include the
three purposes of the study.

Table 14 shows the two best fitted regression models for
codependence using the original FCAI. The first model was
computed from a combination of all the childhood predictor
variables including: family of origin mental health;
attachment; childhood religious training as a Catholic;
parochial school attendance; birth order; immediate family of
origin substance abuse; and extended family of origin
substance abuse. After regression, family of origin mental
health, attachment, parochial school attendance and birth
order remained as predictors of codependence. The second
model includes all of the childhood and adult predictor
variables as part of the regression. After analysis, the
variables which emerged as most predictive of codependence
were trust, attachment, and birth order.

Table 14 also displays the best fitted regression models
for codependence using the FCAI-REV, which are nearly
parallel to the FCAI models. The first was derived from a
combination of childhood predictor variables; the second
includes a combination of childhood and adult predictor
variables. The similarities and differences between the two
childhood models and the two combination models are of

particular interest.

93

Table 14

Comparison of Best-fitted Childhood and Childhood/Adult Models
Predicting FCAI and FCAI-REV

 

Model 8 F—ratio R2

 

I: FCAI

Childhood Model

Constant 0.00 12.57*** .58
FOS -0.34*

PARQ 0.49**

PAROSCH -0.24*

OLD/YNG 0.32**

Childhood/Adult Model

Constant 0.02 18.81*** .61
PARQ 0.52***
OLD/YNG 0.35**
TRUST -0.39**

II: FCAI-REV

 

Childhood Model

Constant 0.00 l6.29*** .46
PARQ 0.62***
OLD/YNG 0.32*

Childhood/Adult Model

Constant 0.03 15.31*** .56
PARQ 0.47***
OLD/YNG 0.34**
TRUST -0.35**

 

Note. Betas presented are standardized betas.
* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

In both versions of the first model, birth order and
caregiver rejection were present. Family of origin mental
health and parochial school attendance appeared in the model
computed using the original FCAI, but they were absent from
the model which used the FCAI-REV. It appears that the

elimination of family of origin items from the original FCAI

94
served to increase the relative strength of caregiver
rejection, compared to other measures. When this occurred,
family of origin mental health and parochial school
attendance became less important as predictors of
codependence and disappeared from the model. In the same
way, caregiver rejection overshadowed family of origin mental
health and parochial school attendance as predictors when
comparing the combined childhood/adult models.

A graphic display of the relationship of the best fitted
models for predicting codependence is found in Figure 1.
Since the predictor variables are the same whether the
original FCAI or the FCAI-REV is used, both sets of

standardized betas are included in one figure.

Figure 1

Path Diagram Illustrating the Best-Fitted Regression Models

 

 

Oldest or
Youngest 35** 341“
Child ' (' )

 

 

 

Caregiver .52*** (.47***)
Rdeflbn 1»

-.38\‘l 3:11;? I -.39** (-.35**)

Note. Numbers in diagram are standardized betas. Numbers in
parentheses refer to the FCAI-REV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

95

Conclusions

Childhood matters. One of the subjects wrote on the back
of her consent form: "When a child is hurt, adults said,
'They are children and will get over it.‘ THIS IS NOT SO.
we lock ourself up and there is no key to let us out." With
painful eloquence, she explained that a person's childhood
experiences carry weight, not only at the time but for all of
her life. This study makes the same point as it provides in
aggregate form the lives of the persons who volunteered to be
subjects. What happened to a person in childhood as a family
member matters. What is learned about relationships as a
child is carried into adult life. If one was fortunate
enough to come from a loving, healthy family where children
were valued and nurtured, what was learned was that it is
safe and good to reach out to others. If one was given
permission to be imperfect, to express a range of feelings,
and to differentiate when it was time for that task, it was
easier to construct an identity that was authentic. But if
childhood family experiences were not as positive, a con-
sequence might be the symptoms of codependence as an adult.

The results of this study suggested that the model which
included a combination of childhood and adult variables was
best for predicting codependence. This was true whether one
relied on the results of analyses using the original FCAI or
the FCAI-REV. The two versions of the combination model

produced higher r2 and equivalent or higher F-ratios compared

96
with the childhood models. What emerged as a model for
predicting codependence was a related set of factors from
past and current experiences. Dyadic and family systems
dynamics were related to trust in current adult
relationships, as well as to the outcome of codependence. It
appeared that trusting adult relationships could moderate the
effects of childhood family of origin experiences. Trust and
codependence were also mutually influential, although the
direction of their relationship was less clear. Based on the
data collected for this study, it seems reasonable to
conclude that childhood relational experiences are predictive

of the development of codependence.

Limitations

Some limitations are inherent in any research design.
Sampling posed several difficulties in this research. One
limitation of this study is that generalizability to other
populations will be difficult because of nonprobability
sampling. Also, the size of the sample, while adequate, is
small enough to raise the possibility of Type 2 errors.
Because a social desirability scale was not included as part
of the study, there is the possibility that subjects might
have responded to the questionnaire in ways that would cast
them and their relationships in the most favorable light.

The sample, virtually all-female and all—White, does not

accurately represent a cross-section of adults, and the

97
scarcity of male subjects made it impossible to say anything
about hypothesized gender effects. Of interest, however, is
a comment by a male public utility employeee who called this
researcher about becoming a subject for the study. When he
learned that he would be answering questions about current
and past personal relationships, he emphatically explained
that he and his male colleagues would be unlikely to
participate because, "Guys don't care about relationships!"
Although the public utility company was chosen, in part,
because of the large number of male employees, it appears
that not all males are equally interested in research about
relationships. It is also the case that women are
overrepresented in therapy, which explains the small number
of men in the clinical subsample.

Another concern is that the FCAI is a relatively new
instrument and has not been thoroughly validated. There is
also the problem that questionnaires do not yield as good
data as a structured interview, in part because of an
inability to clarify points of confusion or ask follow-up
questions. There is a concern that because so little
empirical work has been done in the area of codependence, it
is difficult to know whether significant variables were

neglected.

98

Directions for Future Research

Replication of this research with a large, representative
sample would serve to confirm or disconfirm the results of
this study. It would be especially interesting to include,
as part of the sample, males who scored in the upper ranges
of the FCAI. Other researchers (Wright & Wright, 1990) have
pointed out that codependent males are difficult to locate,
so their presence in a replication of this research would be
very helpful.

Future research on the etiology of codependence might
look at variables other than the ones selected for this
study. A different set of childhood and adult predictor
variables could either support this study's results or offer
a different perspective on the origins of codependence.
Another variation would be to select the same variables used
in this research, but to choose different instruments with
which to measure them. Of course, the FCAI would benefit
from further validation, but beyond the question of the
usefulness of specific instruments, research is needed on the
general issue of the assessment of codependence, since co—
morbidity with other disorders may be a problem.

While the topic of codependence does not suffer from a
surfeit of qualitative or quantitative research, it is
important to remember that the subject is not just of
academic interest. Specifying codependence and determining

its causes are important tasks for future researchers.

99
Finding effective therapeutic approaches is perhaps even more
important. Codependence needs to be studied in the clinic.
Studies of both treatment methods and treatment outcomes

would be very useful.

Implications for Clinical Practice

Based on the results of this study, it is clear that the
etiologies of codependence are found in a person's childhood.
This is both good news and bad news for clinicians. The good
news is that etiology and treatment are linked in the process
of effective therapy, and these data provide clinicians with
some guidance for choosing therapeutic interventions. The
bad news is that the origins of codependence reach so far
back into a client's developmental history, and are so
persistent and pervasive, that they will resist easy undoing.
To communicate to a client that she is currently suffering
the sequelae of unfortunate birth order and maternal
(usually) rejection which began when she was a young child
is, in effect, to tell her that the work ahead is not going
to be easy or proceed quickly. This is not the stuff of
brief therapy.

Still, a client may benefit from the awareness that her
tendency to choose bad partners, or her inability to risk
intimacy with potentially good partners, originated in the
crucible of early childhood relationships. With the help of

a therapist, she can reconstruct the childhood influences

 

100
which have troubled her adult relationships. With guided
exploration and education come awareness, and with awareness
comes the possibility of change. But both the client and her
therapist must remember the primitive origins of her feelings
about safety, trust, and intimacy. These feelings are
extraordinarily powerful because they were learned when she
was young and vulnerable. Stressful experiences in adult
relationships are likely to activate old defenses. Fear-
driven responses to perceived assaults on the ego will be

hard to overcome.

APPENDICES

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 4.0244046
AND DEAN Of THE GRADUATE SCHOOl

November 5. 1992

TO: Nancy J. Lorris
951 Sunset Lane
East Lansing. MI 48823

RE: IRE 3: 92-533
TITLE: FAMILY. CULTURE AND CODEPENDENCE: A DEVELOPMENTAL
PERSPECTIVE

CATEGORY: l-C
REVISION REQUESTED: N/A
APPROVAL DATE: November 3. 1992

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this project is couplete.
Iampleasedtoadvisethstthedghuandwelfanofthehumannrbjectsappearmheadeqmtelyprotectedand
methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project including any
revision listed above.

UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators
pluningtooonunmapmjectbeyondoneyearnautuekupdatedoatification. Requestforrenewedapproval must
beaceonmmied byallfourofthefollwingmndatoryamranoea.

l. ‘I'hehunnnsuhjectsprotocolisthesameasinprevioussmdies.

2. Mbwbeenmfllefleeumfiuedbythembjmmmmeirparficipafiminthesmdy.

3 Thushvebemmoomplmnnhymemhjeeumthdrnpmufivurdandmmdrpuficipafiminme
study.

4. MMmbmachnphmethmrmmformfimwhichwfldmde
fiskmhumnhjecuthnmstaumedwhnmepruooolwinifiauymviwedmdapmoved.

Itereisamaxinaimoffornsucheapeditedrenewalspoasihla. Investigatorswishingtooontinueaprojectheyond
thattimeneedtonrbnu’titagainforeonpletereview.
UCRIHS mismiewuychugumproearhmsinvdvinghumnflhjeeu.pdmwinidaumofmechnp.

Investigatorsrmstnotify UCRIHS pronptly ofanyproblemhmeapectedsideeffeets, eonmlaints, etc.) involving
hummbjectsduringtheoourseofthework.

lfwe can be of any {unrre help, please do not hesitate to contact us at (517) 355.2180 or FAX (517) 336-1171.

 

MSU b a w Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

101

 

APPENDIX B

SUBJECT QUESTIONNAI RE

Note. The text of the subject questionnaire follows. The material has
been reduced to 9 point type so it could appear essentially as it did to
subjects, yet stay within the margin specification of dissertation
manuscripts. All apparatus for indicating responses (e.g., Likert
foils) has been removed.

Part 1: Current Life

Below are a number of questions dealing with how you feel about
yourself, your life, and those around you. As you answer each question,
be sure to answer honestly, but do not spend too much time dwelling on
any one question. There are no right or wrong answers. Take each
question as it comes, and answer as you usually feel. Circle "True" if

that is how you feel most of the time; circle "False" if that is how you
feel most of the time.

1. I make enough time to do things just for myself each week.

2. I spend lots of time criticizing myself after an interaction with
someone.

3. I would not be embarrassed if people knew certain things about me.

4. Sometimes I feel like I just waste a lot of time and don't get
anywhere.

5. I take good enough care of myself.

6. It is usually best not to tell someone they bother you; it only
causes fights and gets everyone upset.

7. I am happy about the way my family communicated when I was growing
up.

8. Sometimes I don't know how I really feel.
9. I am very satisfied with my intimate love life.
10. I've been feeling tired lately.

11. When I was growing up, my family liked to talk openly about
problems.

102

103

12. I often look happy when I am sad or angry.

13. I am satisfied with the number and kind of relationships I have in
my life.

14. Even if I had the time and money to do it, I would feel
uncomfortable taking a vacation by myself.

15. I have enough help with everything that I must do each day.
16. I wish that I could accomplish a lot more than I do now.

17. My family taught me to express feelings and affection openly when I
was growing up.

18. It is hard for me to talk to someone in authority (boss, teachers,
etc.).

19. When I am in a relationship that becomes too confusing and
complicated, I have no trouble getting out of it.

20. I sometimes feel pretty confused about who I am and where I want to
go with my life.

21. I am satisfied with the way that I take care of my own needs.
22. I am not satisfied with my career.
23. I usually handle my problems calmly and directly.

24. I hold back my feelings much of the time because I don't want to
hurt other people or have them think less of me.

25. I don't feel like I'm ”in a rut” very often.
26. I am not satisfied with my friendships.

27. When someone hurts my feelings or does something that I don't like,
I have little difficulty telling them about it.

28. When a close friend or relative asks for my help more than I'd like,
I usually say "yes" anyway.

29. I love to face new problems and am good at finding solutions to
them.

30. I do not feel good about my childhood.

31. I am not concerned about my health a lot.
32. I often feel like no one really knows me.
33. I feel calm and peaceful most of the time.
«34. I find it difficult to ask for what I want.

535. I don't let people take advantage of me more than I'd like.

104
36. I am dissatisfied with at least one of my close relationships.
37. I make major decisions quite easily.
38. I don't trust myself in new situations as much as I'd like.

39. I am very good at knowing when to speak up, and when to go along
with others' wishes.

40. I wish I had more time away from my work.
41. I am as spontaneous as I'd like to be.
42. Being alone is a problem for me.

43. When someone I love is bothering me, I have no problem telling them
so.

44. I often have so many things going on at once that I’m really not
doing justice to any one of them.

45. I am very comfortable letting others into my life and revealing "the
real me" to them.

46. I apologize to others too much for what I do or say.
47. I have no problem telling people when I am angry with them.

48. There's so much to do and not enough time. Sometimes I'd like to
leave it all behind me.

49. I have few regrets about what I have done with my life.
50. I tend to think of others more than I do of myself.
51. More often than not, my life has gone the way that I wanted it to.

52. People admire me because I'm so understanding of others, even when
they do something that annoys me.

53. I am comfortable with my own sexuality.
54. I sometimes feel embarrassed by behaviors of those close to me.

55. The important people in my life know "the real me," and I am okay
with them knowing.

56. I do my share of work, and often do quite a bit more.

57. I do not feel that everything would fall apart without my efforts
and attention.

58. I do too much for other people and then later wonder why I did so.

59. I am happy about the way my family coped with problems when I was
growing up. '

60. I wish that I had more people to do things with.

105

Part 2: Feelings about Partner

This part of the questionnaire is concerned with your current
relationship with a partner. Partner is defined as a spouse or other
adult with whom you have a committed relationship. If you are not
currently involved with someone, please think about your most recent
important relationship and answer the questions from the perspective of
that relationship. Using the following scale, circle the appropriate
number. Please respond to each statement.

Key : = Strongly agree that it describes my feelings about my partner.
Agree that it describes my feelings about my partner.

Neutral.

Disagree that it describes my feelings about my partner.
Strongly disagree that it describes my feelings about my
partner.

5
4
3
2
1

1. My partner has proven to be trustworthy and I am willing to let
him/her engage in activities which other partners find too threatening.

2. Even when I don't know how my partner will react, I feel comfortable
telling him/her anything about myself; even those things of which I am
ashamed.

3. Though times may change and the future is uncertain, I know my
partner will always be ready and willing to offer me strength and
support.

4. I am never certain that my partner won't do something that I dislike
or will embarrass me.

5. My partner is very unpredictable. I never know how he/she is going
to act from one day to the next.

6. I feel very uncomfortable when my partner has to make decisions
which will affect me personally.

7. I have found that my partner is unusually dependable, especially
when it comes to things which are important to me.

8. My partner behaves in a very consistent manner.
9. Whenever we have to make an important decision in a situation we
have never encountered before, I know my partner will be concerned about

my welfare.

10. Even if I have no reason to expect my partner to share things with
me, I still feel certain that he/she will.

11. I can rely on my partner to react in a positive way when I expose my
weaknesses to him/her.

12. When I share my problems with my partner, I know he/she will respond
in a loving way even before I say anything.

13. I am certain that my partner would not cheat on me, even if the
opportunity arose and there was no chance that he/she would get caught.

 

106

14. I sometimes avoid my partner because he/she is unpredictable and I
fear saying or doing something which might create conflict.

15. I can rely on my partner to keep the promises he/she makes to me.

16. When I am with my partner I feel secure in facing unknown new
situations.

17. Even when my partner makes excuses which sound rather unlikely, I am
confident that he/she is telling the truth.

Part 3: Family of Origin

The family of origin is the family with which you spent most or all of
your childhood years. This scale is designed to help you recall how
your family of origin functioned. Each family is unique and has its own
ways of doing things. Thus, there are no right or wrong choices in this
scale. What is important is that you respond as honestly as you can.

In reading the following statements, apply them to your family of
origin, as you remember it. Using the following scale, circle the
appropriate number. Please respond to each statement.

Key:5 (SA) Strongly agree that it describes my family of origin

4 (A) = Agree that it describes my family of origin

3 (N) = Neutral

2 (D) = Disagree that it describes my family of origin

1 (SD) = Strongly disagree that it describes my family of origin

1. Mealtimes in my home usually were friendly and pleasant.
2. The atmosphere in my home was cold and negative.

3. The atmosphere in my family usually was unpleasant.

4. I remember my family as being warm and supportive.

5. We usually were able to work out conflicts in my family.

6. In my family, I felt that I could talk things out and settle
conflicts.

7. Sometimes in my family, I did not have to say anything, but I felt
understood.

8. In my family, no one cared about the feelings of other family
members.

9. The members of my family were not very receptive to one another's
views.

10. Conflicts in my family never got resolved.
11. My family members usually were sensitive to one another's feelings.

12. My parents encouraged family members to listen to one another.

107

Part 4: Mother/Caregiver

The following pages contain a number of statements describing the way
different mothers act toward their children. Read each statement
carefully and think how well it describes the way your mother treated
you while you were growing up. Especially think about the time when you
were about 7-12 years old. Work quickly; give your first impression and
move on to the next item. Do not dwell on any item. Using the
following scale, circle the appropriate number. Remember, there is no
right or wrong answer to any statement so be as frank as you can.
Respond to each statement the way you feel your mother really was rather
than the way you might have liked her to be. If a person other than
your mother took care of you most of the time when you were a child
(infancy to age 12), please think of that person as your mother for the
purposes of these statements.

Almost always true of my mother
Sometimes true of my mother
Rarely true of my mother

Almost never true of my mother

Key :

HMO-’05

1. Said nice things about me

2. Nagged or scolded me when I was bad

3. Totally ignored me

4. Did not really love me

5. Talked to me about our plans and listened to what I had to say
6. Complained about me to others when I did not listen to her

7. Took an active interest in me

8. Encouraged me to bring my friends home, and tried to make things
pleasant for them

9. Ridiculed and made fun of me

10. Ignored me as long as I did not do anything to bother her
11. Yelled at me when she was angry

12. Made it easy for me to tell her things that were important
13. Treated me harshly

14. Enjoyed having me around her

15. Made me feel proud when I did well

16. Hit me, even when I did not deserve it

17. Forgot things she was supposed to do for me

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

250

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

380

39.

40.

41.

42.

430

44.

45.

46.

108

Saw me as a bother

Praised me to others

Punished me severely when she was angry

Made sure I had the right kind of food to eat

Talked to me in a warm and loving way

Got angry at me easily

Was too busy to answer my questions

Seemed to dislike me

Said nice things to me when I deserved them

Got mad quickly and picked on me

Was concerned who my friends were

Was really interested in what I did

Said many unkind things to me

Ignored me when I asked for help

Thought it was my own fault when I was having trouble
Made me feel wanted and needed

Told me that I got on her nerves

Paid a lot of attention to me

Told me how proud she was of me when I was good

Went out of her way to hurt my feelings

Forgot important things I thought she should remember
Made me feel I was not loved anymore if I misbehaved
Made me feel what I did was important

Frightened or threatened me when I did something wrong
Liked to spend time with me

Tried to help me when I was scared or upset

Shamed me in front of my playmates when I misbehaved
Tried to stay away from me

Complained about me

109

47. Cared about what I thought and liked me to talk about it
48. Felt other children were better than I was no matter what I did
49. Cared about what I would like when she made plans

50. Let me do things I thought were important, even if it was
inconvenient for her

51. Thought other children behaved better than I did

52. Made other people take care of me (for example a neighbor or
relative)

53. Let me know I was not wanted

54. Was interested in the things I did

55. Tried to make me feel better when I was hurt or sick
56. Told me how ashamed she was when I misbehaved

57. Let me know she loved me

58. Treated me gently and with kindness

59. Made me feel ashamed or guilty when I misbehaved

60. Tried to make me happy

110

DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY

Please do not put your name on this sheet. All information is for
research purposes only and will be kept strictly confidential.

 

Date of birth Sex: Male Female
Race/Ethnicity: African American/Black Asian Hispanic
White/Caucasian Native American Other(Specify)
CHILDHOOD religious Protestant Catholic Jewish
background: Fundamentalist Christian Muslim
Buddhist Other (Specify) None
Educational Level: Less than 12 yrs. High School Graduate
Some college or trade school
Bachelor's degree Graduate work

Master's/other Graduate degree
Source(s) of education before 12th grade: Public schools
Parochial schools
Both

IF you attended parochial schools, indicate number of years in:

Elementary Junior High High School
Marital Status: Married No. of previous marriages
Single Cohabiting
Widowed Divorced

Have you experienced a divorce, death of a partner, or termination of a
romantic relationship within the last year?

Yes NO

Number of Children:

Have you ever been in counseling/therapy? Yes No

If "Yes", how many months of counseling/therapy have you experienced?

 

Are you currently in a relationship with someone who has problems with
alcohol/chemical dependency or abuse?

Yes NO

111

How satisfied are you with your relationship with your mate, partner or
spouse (5=very much to 1=not at all)?

5 4 3 2 1
How satisfied are you with the number and quality of your friendships
(5=very much to 1= not at all)?

5 4 3 2 1
How satisfied are you with your work and career life (5=very much to
1=not at all)?

5 4 3 2 1

The remaining questions concern the family in which you were raised :

How many brothers and sisters did you have?

Were you an oldest or youngest child? Yes No

Were you an oldest (or only) of your sex (oldest, or only, girl or boy)?

Ye 3 NO

Has anyone in your immediate family ever had problems with
alcohol/chemical dependency or abuse (father, mother, brother, sister)?

Ye 8 NO

Has anyone in your extended family ever had problems with
alcohol/chemical dependency or abuse (aunt, uncle, cousin, grandparent)?

Ye 3 NO

APPENDIX C

LETTER TO SUBJECTS

November 10, 1992

Dear Participant,

Thank you for your interest in participating in this study
about human relationships. When adults find themselves in
satisfying or unsatisfying relationships, they often wonder
why and how this happened. Some of the answers may lie in
the ways they grew up as children. This research looks at
the way a person currently feels about their life and their
relationships, as well as memories about their childhood.
Perhaps connections will be found between past and present
experiences.

This packet contains a four-part questionnaire, a factual
survey, and a consent form for you to complete and return.
Parts 1 and 2 of the questionnaire deal with current
circumstances; Parts 3 and 4 pertain to childhood. Although
all of your responses are valuable, you have the right to
refuse to answer certain questions if you choose. Once you
have completed the forms, please mail them back to me in the
self-addressed, stamped envelope. Once I receive your
packet, your consent form will be separated from your
responses and will be stored in a safe deposit box. Your
responses will be given an identification number. Only
identification numbers will be used to collect information.
Your name will not appear on any of the forms. In order to
protect your privacy and guarantee confidentiality, your name
will never be used in any report of research findings. You
indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this questionnaire.

The questionnaire and survey will probably take less than
half an hour of your time to complete, but are vital to this
research. Please return them as quickly as possible. Once
the study is completed, a summary of the results will be
mailed to you if you would like. If you would like a
summary, please print your name and address on the enclosed
postcard, and return it separately from the questionnaire and
survey.

112

113

By agreeing to share some of your life experiences, you are
providing family life educators and counselors with
information which will enable them to help people in their
communities. Since a limited number of people are being
asked to participate in this research, your responses are
especially important. If you have any questions or concerns,
please write to me at the address below, or call (517) 337-
7371. Thank you for taking the time to help others by
completing these forms. I look forward to hearing from you as
soon as possible!

Sincerely, .

Nancy J. Lorris, M.A.

Department of Family & Child Ecology - Michigan State
University

951 Sunset Lane

East Lansing, Michigan 48823 '

 

APPENDI X D

CONSENT FORM

December 15, 1992

Dear Participant:

You have been invited to participate in a study of human relationships.
A letter which explains the research, its purposes and its procedures
has been given to you. This explanatory letter also outlines how your
privacy will be protected under all circumstances. You have been
informed that your participation is voluntary, and that you may choose
not to answer certain questions contained within the questionnaire and
survey. You know whom to contact if you have questions or concerns
about your participation in the study. You understand that only the
researcher will have access to this consent form.

Thank you for your participation in this study.

I have read and understood the conditions of this study.

 

please print name

 

signed (respondent)

 

address

 

date

114

REFERENCES

 

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M. (1990). What is "developmental" about
developmental psychopathology? In Rolf, J., Masten, A.,
Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K., & Weintraub, S. (Eds.),
Risk andlprotective factors in the development of
peychopathology (pp. 29-48). New York: Cambridge
University Press.

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

Allaman, J.D., Joyce, C.S., & Crandall, V.C. (1972). The
antecedents of social desirability response tendencies of
children and young adults. Child Development, 43, 1135-
1160.

Allport, G.W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious
orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 5 (4), 432-443.

Asher, R., & Brissett, D. (1988). Codependency: A view
from women married to alcoholics. International Journal
of the Addictions, 23(4), 331-350.

Beattie, M. (1987). Codependent nogppre. Hazelden
Foundation.

Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford
Press.

Belsky, J., & Isabella, R.A. (1988). Maternal, Infant, and
Social-Contextual Determinants of Attachment Security.
In J. Belsky and T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical
implications of attachment (pp. 41-94). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Bengston, V.L., & Schrader, 8.8. (1982). Parent-child
relations. In D.J. Mangen and W.A. Peterson (Eds.),
Beeearch instruments in social qerontologyL g , Social
roles and social participation (pp.155). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.

115

116

Black, C. (1981). It will never happen to me. Denver: MAC.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New
York: Jason Aronsen.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and lose, _: SeparationL
anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and lose, 3: Loss, sadness
and depreesion. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1985). The role of childhood experience in
cognitive disturbance. In M. Mahoney and A. Freeman
(Eds.), Cognition and psychotherapy. New York: Plenum

Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Bradshaw, J. (1988). Bradshaw on: The family. Pompano
Beach, FL: Health Communications.

Bretherton, I. (1980). Young children in stressful _
situations: The supporting role of attachment figures
and unfamiliar caregivers. In G.V. Coelho and P. Ahmed
(Eds.), Uprooting and deyelopment (pp. 179-210). New
York: Plenum.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and
prospect. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.), Growing
points of attachment theory and research. Monographs of
the society for research in child development, 50 (1-2,
Serial No. 209), 3-35.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory.
Annals of Child Development, 6, 187-249.

Brown, S. (1988). Treating adult children of alcoholics: A
developmental perepective. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

Inc.

Brown, S. (1991, November). Codependence and ACAe;
Theoretical Egpansion frgm an Interpersonal Perepective.
Paper presented at the National Conference on
Codependence, Washington, D.C.

Bubolz, M.M., & Sontag, M.S. (1993). An ecological theory
for study of the family. In Boss, P., Dougherty, W.,
LaRossa, R., & Schumm, W. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp.417-
446). New York: Plenum.

117

Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. (1970).
Handbook for the sixteen personality factor
questionnaire. Champaign, I1: Institute for Personality
and Ability Testing.

Cermak, T. (1986). Diagnosing and treating codependence.
Minneapolis: Johnson Institute.

Chodorow, N.J. (1978). The reproduction of mothering:

psychoanalysis and the sociology of gendeg. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Chodorow, N.J. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic thepry.
New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Collins, N., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working
models, and relationship quality in dating couples.
Journal of Personality end Social Peychology, §§, No. 4,

644-663.

Dell, P. (1982). Beyond homeostasis: Toward a concept of
coherence. Family Process, 2;, 21-41.

Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L.A. (1988). Breaking
the cycle of abuse. Child Development, 59, 1080-1088.

Epstein, S., & Erskine, N. (1983). The development of
personal theories of reality. In D. Magnusson and V.L.
Allen (Eds.), Human development: An interactional

perspective (pp. 133—147). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal
of American Ps choanal tic Association, 3, 56-121.

Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle.
Psychological Issuee, l , 1-171.

Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York:
Norton.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York:
Norton.

Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1981). Psychoanalytic studies of the
personality. 7th ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Fisher, D., & Beer, J. (1990). Codependency and self-esteem
among high school students. geycholoqical Reports, 66(3,
Ptol), 1001-1002.

118

Frank, P., & Golden, G.K. (1992). Blaming by naming:
Battered women and the epidemic of codependence. Social
Work, 3711), 5-6.

Friel, J. (1985). Co-dependency assessment inventory: A
preliminary research tool. Focus on Family and Chemical
Dependency, 8(31.

Friel, J., & Friel, L. (1988). Adult children: The eecrete
of dysfunctional families. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health
Communications, Inc.

Friel, J., Subby, R., & Friel, L. (1984). Co-dependency and
the search for identity. Pompano Beach, FL: Health
Communications, Inc.

Fromm, E. (1947). Escape from freedom. New York and
Toronto: Farrar and Rinehart.

Gavin, L.A., & Wamboldt, F.S. (1992). A reconsideration of
the family-of—origin scale. Journal of Marital and
gemily Therapy, me, No. 2., 179—188.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MS:
Harvard University Press.

Glass, G.V., & Hopkins, K.D. (1984). Statistical methods in

education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gomberg, E. (1989). On terms used and abused: The concept
of codependency. Drugs and Society, 3, Nos. 3/4, 113-
132.

Gornick, J. (1979, July). Perky, polite, perfectly nice.
Self, pp. 33-37.

Guidano, V.F., & Liotti, G. (1983). Cognitiveyprocesses and
emotional disorders. New York: Guilford Press.

Guntrip, H. (1969). Schizoid phenomena. object relations
and the self. New York: International Universities
Press.

Haaken, J. (1990). A critical analysis of the co—dependence
construct. Psychiatry, 53(4), 396-406.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love
conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Pereonality and Social Peychology, 52, No. 3, 511—524.

119

Hoffman, J. (1984). Psychological separation of late
adolescents from their parents. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, £1, 170-178.

Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1983). The quality of social
support: Measures of family and work relationships.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2g, 157-162.

Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time.
New York: W.W. Norton.

Hovestadt, A.J., Piercy, F.P., Anderson W.T., Cochran, S.W.,
& Fine, M. (1985). A family-of-origin scale. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, ll, 287-297.

Hunter, R.S., & Kilstrom, N. (1979). Breaking the cycle in
abusive families. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136,
1320-1322.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analyeis of the self. New York:
International Universities Press.

Kaufman, G. (1983). The dynamics of ppmer: Building a
competent self. Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books, Inc.

Kaufman, G. (1989). The psychology of shame: Theogy and
treatment of shame-basedyeyndromes. New York: Springer

Publishing Company, Inc.

Krestan, J., & Bepko, C. (1990). Codependency: The social
reconstruction of female experience. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 60(3), 216-232.

Larsen, E. (1985). Stage II recovery: Lifegbeyond
addiction. Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press.

Lee, R.B., Gordon, N.G., & O'Dell, J.W. (1989). The
validity and use of the family—of—origin scale. Journal

of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 287-297.

Lewis, H.B. (1971). Shame and guilt in neurosis. New York:
International Universities Press.

Lewis, H.B. (1983). Freud and modern psychology. New York:
Plenum Press.

Main, M., & Goldwyn R. (1984). Predicting rejection of her
infant from mother's representation of her own
experience: A preliminary report. International Journal
of Child Abuse and Neglect, g, 203—217.

120

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in
infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of
representation. In I. Bretherton and E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing pointe of attachment theory and research.
Monographeyof the eociety for research in child
developent, £2 (1-2, Serial No. 209), 66-104.

Marcia, J.E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-
identity status. Journal of Personality for Social

Psychology, 35, 551-558.

Marcia, J.E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J.
Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp.159-
187). New York: Wiley.

Mazer, G.E., Mangrum, O.L., Hovestadt, A.J., & Brashear, R.L.
(1990). Further validation of the family-of—origin
scale: A factor analysis. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, lg, 423-426.

McClain, E.W. (1979). Religious orientation the key to
psychodynamic differences between feminists and
nonfeminists. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, me (1), 40-45.

Miller, J.B. (1984). The development of women's sense of
self. The Stone Center, Wellesley, MS: Wellesley
College.

Miller, J.B. (1976). Toward a new psychology of women.
Boston: Beacon Press.

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

Moos, R., & Moos, B. (1986). Family environment scale
manual, 2nd Ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.

Neary, T., & Susarla, V. (1991, November). A comparison of
codependency levels between inpatient codependents and
mental health professionals. Presented at the Illinois
Psychological Association Convention.

Neary, T., & Susarla, V. (1991, November). Further
validation of the Friel Codependency Inventomy.

Presented at the Illinois Psychological Association
Convention.

121

Neary, T., & Susarla, V. (1991, November). Is inpatient
treatment for codependency legitimape and justified?
Presented at the Illinois Psychological Association
Convention.

O'Brien, P.O., & Gaborit, M. (1992). Codependency: A
disorder separate from chemical dependency. Journal of
Clinical Peychology, 48(1), 129-136.

O'Gorman, P. (1991). Codependency and women: Unraveling
the power behind learned helplessness. In Nan
VanDenBergh (Ed.), Eeminist perepectives on addiction.
New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Olson, D.H. (1977). Insiders' and outsiders' views of
relationships: Research studies. In G. Levinger and H.
Rausch (Eds.), Cloee relationships. Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.

Prosen, M., Clark, D.C., Harrow, M., & Fawcett, J. (1983).
Guilt and conscience in major depressive disorders.
American Journal of Peychiatry, 140, 839-844.

Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in
close relatioships. Journal of Pereonality and Social

Richards, P.S. (1991). Religious devoutness in college
students: relations with emotional adjustment and
psychological separation from parents. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, eg, No. 2, 189-196.

Rohner, R. (1980). Handbook for the_§tudy of parental
acceptance and rejection. Storrs, CT: Center for the
study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection, University of
Connecticut.

Rubin, z. (1973). Liking and loving: An invitation to
social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Satir, V. (1964). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto:
Science and Behavior Books.

Schaef, A.W. (1986). Co-dependenge: Mieunderstood--
mistreated. Minneapolis: Winston Press.

Schaefer, E.S. (1964). Child'e report of parent behavior
inventory. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Health.

Scher, M. (1991). Co—dependency. Focus on the Family and
Chemical Dependency, April-May, 35-39.

122

Siegelman, M. (1965). Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner's
questionnaire for children concerning parental problems.
Child Development, e9, 163-174.

Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New
scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar
dyads. Journal of Marria e and the Famil , ;§, 15-28.

Spence, J.T., & Helmreich, R.L. (1978). Masculinity and
femininity: Their psychological dimensioney correlates,
and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Sroufe, L.A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the
construction of relationships. In W. Hartrup and Z.
Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development (pp. 51—71).
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1988). The coherence of
family relationships. In R. Hinde and J. Stevenson-Hinde
(Eds.), Relationships within families: mutual influencee
(pp. 27-47). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sroufe, L.A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of
developmental psychopathology. Child Development, fie,
1184-1199.

Steketee, G., Quay, S., & White, K. (1991). Religion and
guilt in OCD patients. Journal of Anmmety Dieordere, §

(4), 359-367.

Subby, R. (1984). Inside the chemically dependent marriage:
Denial and manipulation. In Co-dependepcy: An emerging
issue. Hollywood, FL: Health Communications.

Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The intempersonal theory of
psychiatry. New York: Norton.

U.S. Journal Training Inc.'s First National Conference on
Codependency. (1989). Scottsdale, AZ.

VanWormer, K. (1989). Co-dependency: Implications for
women and therapy. Women and Therapy, §(4), 51-63.

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change.
Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books.

Webster, D. (1990). Women and depression (alias
codependency). Femily and Community Health, ;;(3), 58-
66.

123

Wegscheider, S. (1981). Another chance: Hope and health
for the alcoholic family. Palo Alto: Science and

Behavior Books.

Wegscheider-Cruse, S. (1985). Choicemakinq. Pompano Beach,
FL: Health Communications Inc.

West-Willette, C. (1990). Study of the internal consistency
of the Friel Co-Dependency Assessment Inventory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Whitfield, C. (1984). Co-alcoholism: Recognizing a
treatable disease. Family and Community Health, 1, 16-
250

Wiebe, K.F., & Fleck, J.R. (1980). Personality correlates
of intrinsic, extrinsic, and nonreligious orientations.
The Journal of Psychology, 105, 181-187.

Winnicott, D.W. (1953). Transitional objects and
transitional phenomena. International Journal of

Psychoanalysie, 33, 89-97.

Winnicott, D.W. (1960). The theory of the parent-infant
relationship. International Journal of Peychoanalysiey

.4_];, 585-5950

Winnicott, D.W. (1975). Through paediatrics to
peychoanalysis. New York: Basic Books.

Wright, P., & Wright, K. (1990). Measuring codependents'
close relationships: A preliminary study. Journal of

Substance Abuse: 2(3), 335-344.

Zigler, E., & Glick, M. (1986). A developmental approach
to adult peychopathology. New York: Wiley.

“lllilllllhr