WHE-hfl H-‘h-v‘v: V‘MVI :8:

«H, n

 

 

In“. I'- ‘I N

 

 

v

‘
u
.. :-

 

.1
I
u
u
;
a

‘_

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

 

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

 

    
     
     
     

 

     
 

’ g ; '-;{ 7. “1355 {of the Degreg 0va A»;

:.-_.

 

        
   
 
 
 

..
A ”w“;—
J -~ —-v x

u. (L...
'lw'ba. A.“

    
      
  
  
  

.1
'9!‘ w...

. .....::~.

 

a 4 a. 1:.
-ru',7.,n H...
”A .

’7

7.».

   

p ..
. u-» If

n o _
”:5."
miw“. '-

 

   

”3:35:34.

    
 

 

PLACE IN REFURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
' TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

JAN 2 1 7007
100801

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo mmpfis-p.“

 

ABSTRACT
SEPARATION AND INDIVIDUATION

IN ADOLESCENT WOMEN

By

Abby Loren Golomb

Fortybeight first year college women participated in this

study of homeleaving and adjustment to college. There were selected
on the basis of their Cohesion scores on Olson's FACES: subjects
were either very high (enmeshed), very low (disengaged) or moderate
on this dimension. Groups were then compared on several measures of
adjustment in the global sense and with specific reference to ad-
justment to college. A curvilinear relationship was predicted bet-
ween these measures and family cohesion, wherein young women from
moderately cohesive families would be better adjusted than those
from enmeshed or disengaged families. Results indicate, however, a
linear relationship between these variables. High family cohesion
levels seem to facilitate personal development and individuation.
Students from less cohesive families reported more personal prob-
lems, their interpersonal relationships were less close, and they
appeared less well adjusted to unbiased raters. However, their pro-

files suggest that they are psychologically healthier than Olson's

term "enmeshed” implies.

SEPARATION AND INDIVIDUATION

IN ADOLESCENT WOMEN

by

Abby Loren Golomb

A MASTERS THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1982

 

gusoz1
Patiex
I the
for as
80 to
who 81‘
ties.

enCOura

endeav

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my chairperson, Gary Stollak, for
his guidance, support and enthusiasm about this research. He has
proven it possible to be both a researcher and a human being. I
also thank my committee members, Robert Zucker and Linda Jackson,
for their valuable guidance. I would also like to thank Lucy Fer-
guson for her help in designing this project and Necia Black for her
patience and kindness in introducing me to the world of computers.
I thank Wes Novak for sharing his enthusiasm about this tapic, and
for asserting his confidence in me as a researcher. Special thanks

go to Bill Bukowski, Fred Rogosch, Jane Pearson and Sarah Vhitcher,
who always made themselves available to help with computer difficul-
ties. Host importantly, I thank my friends and my family, whose
encouragement and patience were essential to the completion of this

endeavor.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Separation and Individuation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Personality Development in the College Years. . . . . . 6
PAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Goals of the Present Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

IV. METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Subject selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

III e RESIILTS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26
Iv 0 DISCUSS ION o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o 46

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 57

RMEENC ES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 85

iii

 

 

DENIES; 1?.

.Jho

J. ,1 4 1‘...

illlll

 

III.' E'Illl

TABLE

mam

1O

11

12

13

14

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of cohesion scores of the original screening
sample with norms published by Olson (1979) . . . . . .

Cohesion and global measures of adjustment. . . . . . .
ANOVA of cohesion and global measures of adjustment . .
Cohesion group and number of significant others . . . .

Cohesion group and percent of contact points with
family members, peers, and other adults . . . . . . . .

ANOVAs of cohesion group and percent of contact
points with family members, peers, and other adults . .

Cohesion group and intensity of relationships . . . . .

HANOVA of cohesion group and intensity of
relationShipa O C O O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Cohesion group and number of positive and negative
feelings reported about leaving home for college. . . .

HANOVA of cohesion group and positive and negative
feelings reported about leaving home. . . . . . . . . .

Cohesion groups and interviewer's ratings on
adjustment. . O O O O O O O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O

HANOVA of cohesion and interviewer's ratings on
adjustment. 0 O C O O O O O O C O O O O O I I O O O O O

Cohesion group and scores on cohesion, cohesion
subscales, adaptability and social desirability . . . .

MANOVA of cohesion group and scores on cohesion,

cohesion subscales, adaptability and social
desirability. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0

iv

27
29
3O

32

32

33
35

35

36

37

'39

4O

42

43

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE

Sixteen possible types of’marital and family systems

derived from the circumplex model. . . . . . . . . . . 16

Comparison of ranges of cohesion scores of project

participants and Olson's standardization sample. . . . 27

 

{JUL-III I l

 

APPENDIX

LIST OF APPENDICES

Research consent form. . . . . . . . . . . . .

FACES questionnaire, Scoring sheet, Directions
for hand scoring FACES, and Cohesion subscales

Social activity interview and interviewer's
81mm Sheet. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Mooney Problem Checklist - Abridged form,
Interpersonal Gridform and checklist subscales

Demographic Questionnaire and BDI-Short form .

Positive and negative adjectives describing
homel eavmg. O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O

Dmogmphic Data 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0

vi

57

58

66

7O
75

81

Introduction

The goal of the present study was to examine the processes of
separation and individuation during the college years, studying
female students both in relation to their families and to the new
environment of school. It was predicted that adjustment to college
life would be easiest for students whose families are moderately
bound together; for these students, family cohesion should be bal-
anced by individual autonomy. Such a combination should facilitate
movement away from the family nucleus during late adolescence, unr
accompanied by feelings of isolation. The student who considers her
family to be moderate in cohesion has a model of how to bond with
others based upon experiences at home. During periods of difficulty
in adjustment, she is able to turn to the family for support and
encouragement. In contrast, the adjustment process was eXpected to
be more turbulent for the student enmeshed in the family network.
Because the primary attachments have been in the home, leaving the
family and reestablishing oneself in a new environment was expected
to be more difficult. Students who view their families as disen-
gaged were also expected to face more difficulties during the separb
ation process.' While they may be more eager to leave home for
college, it was predicted that their lack of experience with close-
ness to others would impact upon their ability to enter into new
relationships; when frustrated and lonely, they would be less like-

ly to seek support from members of their family.

Separation and Individuation

The adolescent phase of development is frequently described as
turbulent and stressful; it is defined in terms of the dramatic
physiological and psychological changes which differentiate children
from adults. On the physiological level, the development of secon-
dary sex characteristics can be considered as qualitatively dif-
ferent from any prior growth processes, but the concurrent psycho-
logical processes of separation and individuation are hardly new to
the individual. According to Mahler (1975), the first three years
of life can be described as subphases in the closely intertwined,
but not identical, processes of separation and individuation. Sep-
aration is defined as the child's emergence from symbiotic fusion
with the mother; individuation is the child's assumption of his or
her own individual characteristics. These processes are repeated
once more with the onset of adolescence. Comparing the two individ-
uation processes, 3103 (1967, p.163) writes that

both periods have in common a heightened vulnerability

of the personality organization. Both periods have in

common the urgency for changes in psychic structure in

consonance with the maturational forward surge. Last

but not least, both periods - should they miscarry - are

followed by a specific deviant development (psychopathology)

that embodies the respective failures of individuation.

According to Blos, the process of adolescent individuation is
characterized by structural changes accompanying the emotional dis-
engagement from internalized infantile objects. Hence it follows
that adolescents typically struggle with intense dependency con-

flicts, coincident with the search for autonomy and personal

identity (Abrams and Goldman, 1976).

In a general sense, the process of individuation denotes
"increasing differentiation from a past or present relational con-
text” (Karpel, 1976,p.66). Karpel defines fusion as a person's
state of embeddedness in or undifferentiation within the relational
context; personal identity is defined in tenms of significant re-
lationships. For the early adolescent, the concept of "self" is
meaningful only in terms of the family. Individuation from fusion
can hence be understood as a universal struggle and a fundamental
organizing principle of human growth. During infancy, this process
is demonstrated by attaining object constancy. In adolescence,
individuation implies the shedding of dependencies and the develop-
ment of a firm sense of self (Smith and Smith, 1976).

Development of self-confidence and a secure sense of personal
identity is predicated upon the apparently paradoxical combination
of secure attachments to the parents and separation from them.
While lessened dependence on parents is necessary to achieve self-
confidence, the child cannot achieve this without attachment to par-
ents (Smith and Smith, 1976).

The separation from home is, like much adolescent behavior,

two-headed. It is progressive, oriented towards the assump-

tion of mature independence; it is beset at the same time

by anxieties engendered by the giving up of comforts of

earlier security and dependence. (Katz, 1975, p.46)

The fact that separation and individuation are bidirectional
for the child or adolescent leads to another important point; these
processes directly involve parents as well. As the child is re-

defining the relationship with his or her parents, the parents must

adjust apprOpriately. Alternatively, the child may be unable to

renegotiate his or her role in the family, because interpersonal
rules already established preclude flexibility or change. It is
essential, hence, to consider the role of the parents in this trans-
action. Stierlin (1972) describes the separation process as a
gradually expanding spiral of mutual individuation and differen-
tiation which, increasingly, leads to both parties' relative inde-
pendence.

On the basis of his studies of adolescent runaways and their
families, Stierlin describes extreme intergenerational interaction
patterns, characterized by centripetal and/or centrifugal forces.
Parents of centripetal families often bind their children in their
commitment to the family, masking layers of anger and hostility with
pseudomutuality. Binding can take place on the affective or cog-
nitive levels, or it can occur through the exploitation of loyalty;
the outcome of such binding is that the child's peer relations
recede under the scepter of his or her parents' importance. Con-
flicts intensify because the child has no objects other than par-
ents; at the same time, parent-child conflicts tend to blur. Fame
ily members communicate on elusive primary process levels, because
there is no articulate separation of positions and boundaries.
Ultimately, the bound child either acquiesces to the submissive and
infantilized role, tries to numb out any awareness of inner strain,
or retreats into a fantasy world.

In some families, strong centripetal forces are accompanied by
conflicting but equally powerful centrifugal forces. Because of

parental ambivalence about the family, the child is sent out of the

 

l1 lirlrri

family while remaining closely tied to its nucleus. Such delegates
are better integrated into their peer group than are those children
who have been bound by their families, but delegates experience
great conflict when their missions and loyalties are contradictory.

Finally Stierlin describes families whose relations are charb
acterized by strong centrifugal forces. The child is rebuffed, ne-
glected, and finally expelled. Because no loyalties were ever felt
towards parents, expelled children are unlikely to feel them in
later relationships; rather, they tend to view life as a power
struggle. Their experience of subtle feelings or empathy is
limited, they demand immediate gratification, and they value cog-
nitive growth only as a means of becoming more cunning.

Each of these modes is important and legitimate during partic-
ular stages of the parent-child relationship: binding is necessary
during infancy, and delegating becomes important during later stages
of childhood. To a degree, expelling seems appropriate for adol-
escents, provided they are no longer totally dependent upon parental
nurturance and care. However, legitimate parental modes of inter-
action "become exploitative and damaging to the child when they are
inapprOpriately timed, mixed, or excessively intense" (Stierlin,
1972, p.124). In such instances, the negotiation of a mutual indi-
viduation and separation between parent and child is impeded.
Stierlin's theoretical discussion is based upon a clinical papu-
lation, in which these parental modes are dramatic and often des-
tructive. Parallels in normal families must be drawn with caution,

as little data is available on the frequency of such pathological

. modes of interaction.

Personality Deve10pment During the College Years

While the processes of separation and individuation have their
roots in early adolescence, they take on critical importance during
the later teens. The progression from high school to college fre-
quently symbolizes the transition "from the status of the dependent
child to that of the presumably independent adult" (Roy, 1967,p.18),
although there is great variation across individuals in when this
process is recognized and when it is completed. Some adolescents
seem to become autonomous with great speed and ease, while others
never actually leave home, in either the physical or the emotional
sense.

Katz (1975) argues that leaving home to go to college is an
important catalyst for the development of personality and the growth
of autonomy. Away from home, the student will necessarily be in-
fluenced by the experience of new activities and roles. Sanford
(1962, p.267) concurs on this point:

The student is almost bound to encounter and take seriously

values and roles that are different from some he has taken

for granted; he is thus forced to make conscious choices

and to take the first steps toward building a value system

of his own. Again, when he is free of the expectations of

family and community he is able to try new modes of behavior,

stimulate new kinds of perceptions of himself by other people,
and thus to expand his personality by trial and error along
lines that in the long run will be in keeping with his funda-
mental inclinations.

Sanford is careful to note, however, that physical separation does

not necessarily imply psychological disengagement. Through corres-

pondence or visitation, parents may retain their importance in the

student's life. Furthermore, attendence at a particular college

may have the essential meaning of remaining in the gravi-

tational field of the family: it may have been the father's

of mother's college, there may be relatives or friends of

the family or acquaintances from the home community there

now, and they may effectively remind the freshman of his

origins and of what is expected of him back home. Such cir-

cumstances may not only 'cushion the shock' of leaving home;
they may actually bar the student, throughout his college
career, from ever having the experience of standing in prin-

cipled Opposition to his parents. (p.267)

In essence, Sanford argues that physical separation is not a
sufficient prerequisite for the process of individuation. According
to Boszormenyi-Nagy (1972), it is not even a necessary condition.
He argues against the overevaluation of physical separation as a
means of individuation. While it may be valuable or even necessary
in certain cases of marital separations, divorce, or of the adoles-
cent's moving out when ready, separation should not be confused with
differentiation as a means of maturation.

Often the student's differentiation of himself or herself from
the family identity results from the unbalancing of his or her
equilibrium in some way. Sanford (1969) cautions, though, that too
much strain can evoke defensive reactions, thereby inhibiting indi-
vidual development. Clearly, the amount of challenge that stimue
lates one student may prove threatening or frightening to another.
Brewer (1973) has identified some of the personality factors which
may account for individual differences in adjustment to and develop-
ment in college. She studied 1876 freshmen at urban, suburban and

rural community colleges, using the Omnibus Personality Inventory

and a holistic measure of "functional potential," which is defined

 

 

 

 

as "the degree to which a student incorporates various characterb
istics, offering a picture of the functioning individual in terms of
the personal dynamics basic to his behavior and life style” (p.12).
Briefly, the six dimensions contributing to functional potential
are: 1) Relatedness/ Aloofness - involvement with others versus
alienation, 2) Identity/ Amorphism - wholeness, sameness, directed-
ness, versus diffusiveness or uncertainty of direction, 3)
Flexibility/Rigidity - Open versus closed systems of beliefs, 4)
Independence/Dependence - autonomy and readiness to act on one's own
versus inability to exist satisfactorily without the aid of others,
5) Progression/Regression - activity and fluidity versus passivity,
immobilization and fixedness, and 6) Delay of Gratification/Impulse
Expression — ability to use secondary control when necessary versus
access to archaic impulses.

Assessment of a student's position on each of these continuous
dimensions should predict how well he or she will adjust to college
and its concomitant changes in lifestyle. In Brewer's study, a sig-
nificant statistical relation was found between functional potential
and persistence in college. Dropouts during the first year were
more common among students in the low functional potential group
than for those in the high or medium groups.

Ofcourse, there are far more subtle measures of success in col-
lege than dropout rates. Chickering (1969) suggests that growth
during college can be measured in seven distinct areas: developing
competence, managing emotions, becoming autonomous, establishing

identity, freeing interpersonal relations, clarifying purposes and

 

fl

 

 

 

develOping integrity. Using the Omnibus Personality Inventory, a
battery of questionnaires, and a series of essays written by stu-
dents at various points during their careers at Goddard College,
Chickering was able to chronicle the types of changes in personal
and interpersonal style typical of this period. His results were
further supported by Chickering, McDowell and Campagna's (1969)
study of students at 13 small American colleges. On the basis of
repeated administrations of the O.P.I. at the beginning and end of
the freshman year they found trends towards

increased autonomy, increased awareness of emotions and

readiness to express impulses in thought and action, and

increased aesthetic sensitivities. These changes are
accompanied by decreasing concern for practical achieve-

ment and material success. Relatively little change

occurs in intellectual interests, in social relationships,

or in concern for the welfare of others. (p.321)

Men and women changed in essentially the same directions, and
change occured without regard to the student's level at entrance to
college. Finally, the direction of changes on all of Chickering's
seven scales was highly consistent across colleges.

Chickering's primary focus in these studies is the development
of autonomy, which involves three major dimensions of change: the
deve10pment of emotional independence, the development of instrumenr
tal independence and the recognition of interdependence.

Emotional independence implies freedom

from continual and pressing needs for reassurance, affection

or approval. The first step toward emotional independence is

disengagement from the parents, a step taken with the support

of peers, nonparental adults and certain institutional forms
and practices. This step is followed by similarly reduced

dependence upon those peers, adults and institutions which
supported the primary disengagement. (Chickering, 1967, p.203)

1O

Satisfying relationships with peers are hence prerequisites to
achieving emotional independence. These friendships are char~
acterized by mutual trust, permitting a fairly free expression
of emotion, and allowing the shedding of privacies (although not
inappropriately). They can absorb some conflict between the pair,
and they allow for discussion of personally crucial themes; they
facilitate self-enrichment through the encounter of differences
(Douvan and Adelson, 1966). During the period of rebellious in-
dependence, such relationships replace the support of parents and
'authority. Later,
. as more firm independence from parents is established, as it
becomes possible to appreciate the good about one's parents
as well as the bad, then relationships with intimates become
less symbiotic. Mutual support becomes more simple and strong,
» more implicit, more taken for granted. (Chickering, 1969, p.61)
Instrumental independence has two separate components: self-

sufficiency, or the ability to carry out activities on one's own,

and mobility, the ability to leave one place and get to another when
such movement is either wished for or necessary.

Recognition and acceptance of interdependence is the capstone
of autonomy. One realizes that

parents cannot be dispensed with except at the price of
continuing pain for all; that one cannot comfortably
continually be supported without working for it; that
loving and being loved are necessarily complimentary.

Only with clarification and resolution of the ranges within
which one can give and receive do problems of de endence,
independence, and autonomy become more settled. Chickering,
1967, p.204)

Karpel (1976) considers a second dimension which must be inte-

grated with the development of autonomy or independence from

 

 

$5,941.11 .1. .L . a... .. 1:14

 

11

parents, namely, the adolescent's relatedness to them. Both dis-
tance and relation can be evaluated as immature, transitional or
mature. Hence on the relatedness dimension, relationships can be
described as pure fusion, ambivalent fusion or mature dialogue.
Stations along the distance dimension are unrelatedness, ambivalent
isolation, and individuation.

Attaining a mature position on both of these dimensions is
clearly a (difficult task: adolescents must find ways to develop
their own autonomy without jeOpardizing parental relationships. In
order to better understand how the adolescent balances these seem-
ingly contradictory drives, Murphey et al. (1962) interviewed 20
students and their parents from the Washington, D.C. area during the
spring and summer prior to college attendance and throughout
the freshman year. Students were sorted into four groups depending
on whether they were judged high or low on autonomy and on related-
ness. The experiences of each group were then studied to deter-
mine whether the parent-child interactions showed any consistant
patterns within each group. Autonomy was defined as

the ability to make separate, responsible choices, as demons

strated by the feeling of being a separate person rather than

an extension of others, an awareness of freedom to make choices
in selecting or rejecting outside influences, and assuming

responsibility for one's own decisions. (p.645)

Relatedness was defined as satisfaction for the student in a predom-
inantly positive relationship with his or her parents; criteria
used to determine degree of relatedness included expression of

feelings of growing equality with parents in which there was mutual

pleasure, interest in their welfare, desire to communicate with them

12

and permission for emotional closeness.

Interview data from the students and parents involved, in this
study clearly differentiated the subjects in each of Hurphey's four
cells. Students rated high on both dimensions (nF9) quickly began
to perform functions for themselves that were formerly carried out
by parents or other adults. Taking on new responsibilities helped
these students to appreciate their parents more, and to enjoy their
company on a more equal basis when they returned home for visits.
The parents of these students felt that they had made some mistakes,
but that now it was time fer their children to take more responsi-
bility for themselves, experimenting within the framework of family
standards. The children of these families were invited to share
their problems with their parents; parental emphasis on autonomy
and independence did not preclude support or respect for family mem-
bers facing personal difficulties.

In contrast, students rated low in autonomy and in relatedness
(DP3) had less of a feeling of their own selfhood, sometimes acting
as extensions of their parents. They took little responsibility for
their actions, and often found themselves unable to budget their
time, or lacking in "will-power”. They turned to others in the
decision-making process, rarely aware of any personal freedom to
make choices. Being away from home did not lead to new closeness
with parents for students in this group. They visited home in-
frequently, and would not allow their parents to get close to them.
In order to establish themselves as seperate from their parents,

these students often turned to extreme forms of negativism. They

~' .4 NIH]

LC“ "11'

 

1n" '7‘ 1}

 

 

13

were not able to make full use of their assets, as part of the re-
taliatory struggle with the parents. The parents, in turn, were
less able to define who they were or what they stood for. Commun-
ication gaps emerged from difficulties in expressing personal
wishes; neither parents nor children recognized or not each other's
needs. Finally, parents of this group were characterized by their
marked lack of confidence in their children.

Students in the high autonomy - low relatedness group (DP5)
became more independent during their first year of college, but at
the cost of increased distance from their parents. They felt less
comfbrtable at home than at college, as they had broken away from
their assigned family roles. Whey they returned home to visit,
their failure to revert to old ways typically led to clashes with
their parents. Hence while the parents of these students had pro-
vided many of the necessary conditions for the development of auton-
omy, the rigidity of roles assigned to family members led to in-
creased conflict rather than independence.

Because Hurphey et a1. interviewed only one family classified
as low in autonomy and high in relatedness, no clear statement can
be made concerning adjustment to college and separation from home in
such families. In fact, the small sample sizes in all of their
groups lead one to question the validity of their findings. On the
whole, though, several types of prior positive experiences seemed to
contribute to easy adaptation to college for subjects, regardless of
family constellation. These included summer camp, extended indepen-

dent travel and summer jobs away from home. During high school,

14

many of the high autonomy-high relatedness students
had already moved toward an investment in peer relationships
in place of parents, thus establishing themselves a basis
for confidence in their ability to live in the world of adults.
For these students, then, these was little discontinuity
between high school and college in terms of separation from
parents.(p.645) '

They valued their increasing independence, viewing it as a birth-
right rather than as deprivation or abandonment.

Several points merit highlighting here. First, not all fresh-
men fOllow the same pathways to increased autonomy and self-
actualization. While there may be growth in any -or all of the
dimensions studied by Chickering, or changes of the nature described
by Sanford, such development is in large part a function of the
student's relationship to his or her family. Secondly, the small
sample upon which these results are based and the judging process
used to interpret interview data preclude statistical analysis.
Since only one of Murphey et al.'s subjects fell into the quadrant
labeled low autonomy-high relatedness, it is impossible to even sur-
mise the course of adjustment to college for such adolescents. The
representation of both sexes in this small sample creates further
interpretive problems. There is little empirical evidence sup-
porting the assumption that autonomy and relatedness are orthogonal,
and the criteria used here to determine a student's position on

these dimensions appear more intuitive than empirical.

FACES
A more empirically sound measure of family cohesion has been

deve10ped by Olson, Sprenkle and Russell (1979, 1980). Their

15

instrument, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales
(FACES), is a 111-item inventory designed to assess the individual's
perceptions of cohesion and adaptability in his or her family. The
orthogonal relationship between these factors has been demonstrated
using factor analytic techniques (Russell, 1979); these dimensions
can be considered together in a circumplex model of family inter-
action (Figure 1). Several studies of clinic and non-clinic fam-
ilies (Russell, Spenkle and Olson, 1978) indicate that high func-’
tioning families are moderate on both dimensions; extremely high or
low scores on either cohesion or adaptability are considered patho-
logical. Cohesion, as defined here, reflects "the emotional bonding
members have with one another and the degree of individual autonomy
a person experiences in the family system" (Olson et al, 1979, p-5).
In extremely cohesive families, members are enmeshed and over-
identified with the family, at the expense of individual autonomy.
At the other end of the spectrum, disengaged families are characterb
ized by low bonding and high autonomy. Olson et a1. define adapt-
ability as "the ability of a marital/family system to change its
power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in

response to situational and developmental stress" (1979, p-12)o

Goals of the Present Study

'The aim of the present investigation was to examine more empir-
ically the effects of varied levels of family cohesion, or related-
ness, upon adjustment to college. Only female students were studied

here, in order to supplement the preponderance of investigations in

16

FIGURE 11 SIXTEEN POSSIBLE TYPES OF

DERIVED FROM THE CIRCUMPL

MARITAL AND FAMILY SYSTEMS
EX MODEL

SEMIED
«KW
. \\ \f \\\\\. \\1
p \ . . \.

W0

. .'\

'x~ ‘
. » r \
., \\ \ \\_
\

”(a raunchy.” \

 
  
 

  

.‘A

 

 

T CHAD".

  

   
 

’ '1 MWMLY \ ‘
\‘sewe \ \

NOTED E NME SHED

NV? .
e \\._\_ \s‘ p \

\ . ‘ ~ V \~. ‘
\\~<_§..\T§;\'>\é~\

 
 
   
    
 

 

   

 

high

A F LEXBLY FLEXQY
R FLEXIBLE semweo comecreo
p

T

A

B

I

L

I smru-ui

 

&\\V RANDOM

 

 

 

17

this area which have focused upon young men. The findings . of
Hurphey et al. and Olson et a1. lead to the expectation that stu-
dents viewing their families as either extremely high or low on
measures of cohesion face greater difficulties during their first
year away from home than those whose ratings were moderate on this
dimension. A balance between cohesion and autonomy, which are
clearly interrelated dimensions, should allow the student to leave
home and establish new relationships, while still maintaining family
bonds. Students enmeshed in their family networks were expected to
face considerably more difficuty in homeleaving, as they presumably
have had little experience forming relationships with non-family
members. At the other end of the spectrum, students who describe
their families as disengaged have probably had little experience in
any kind of relationship. While they are likely to be quite eager
to leave home, it was expected that they would also face greater
adjustment difficulties than those rating their families moderate in
cohesion.

More specifically, the goal of this study was to test five
hypotheses concerning the relationship between family cohesion and
various measures of adjustment in young women; these measures ad-
dress both situation-specific adjustment to college, and personal
adjustment in one's life, in the larger sense.

’ Hypothesis 1

Students who perceive their families as moderate in cohesive-

ness will be personally better adjusted than students from enmeshed

(high cohesion) or disengaged (low cohesion) families. This broad

18

application of "adjustment" is Operationalized by the number of
problems reported on the Mooney Problem Checklist (MPG), and by
scores on the short form of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).
Hypothesis 2

Students who perceive their families as moderate in cohesive-
ness will be better able to form interpersonal relationships than
students from extremely high or low cohesion families. This is
measured by the number of significant others that students list when
asked with whom they share their problems, and by analysis of the
relationships of these confidante to the subject. Hence distinc-
tions are made among family members, peers, and other adults un-
related to the subject.
Hypothesis 3

The interpersonal relationships of students who perceive their
families as moderate in cohesiveness will be richer and more Open
than the relationships of students from enmeshed or disengaged fam-
ilies. Intensity, or depth of rapport, will be measured for family
members, peers, and other adults.
Hypothesis 4

Leaving home for college will be viewed more positively by stu-
dents and their parents when the family unit is perceived as mod-
erate in cohesiveness. Students from enmeshed and disengaged fam-
ilies will report more negative feelings about home-leaving, both on

the part of themselves and their parents.

19

Hypothesis 5
Students who perceive their families as moderate in cohesive-
ness should appear better adjusted to college to unbiased raters

than students from enmeshed or disengaged families.

1. a nil halfli Hg: u w.“
.._.-, ..a
.... 1.. .\

_ a. . r I! II .

 

Method

Subjects

Female students at a large midwestern university were screened
for this study at the beginning of their first year of college. All
were enrolled in introductory psychology classes, receiving extra
credit towards their course grade commensurate with the amount of
their participation in the study. Based on the screening procedure,
48 women out of 273 were selected for participation; all were
between the ages of 17 and 19 years. Their race, religion, social
and economic backgrounds were varied, although most were raised in

Michigan.

Subject selection

Prior to the administration of test materials, all students
were informed of their rights to confidentiality and anonymity, and
their right to discontinue partiCipation in the project at any
point; written consent was obtained far all subjects (Appendix A).
Students agreeing to participate in this study were administered the
Olson Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) in
groups of approximately twenty. The FACES consists of 111 questions
about family and home-life, which the subject must rate as true all
the time, most of the time, some of the time, or none of the time

(see Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire and scoring pro-

cedure). All students were clearly instructed in advance that
participation might further entail two sets of questionnaires and a

personal interview, and that not all of the volunteers would be

20

21

recontacted.

Subjects were then selected according to their scores on the
cohesion scale of the FACES. Three groups of 16 students each were
selected for further study: the 16 highest and 16 lowest scorers on
this dimension formed the high and low cohesion groups, respec-
tively. Sixteen students with intermediate cohesion scores 'formed
the moderate cohesion group.

In those instances where subjects declined further participa-
tion, they were replaced by the next most apprOpriate subject from
the pool of the original sample. The nonparticipation rate for each

group was carefully monitored.

Procedure

Each subject then participated in a 30-minute, semi-structured
interview concerning social adjustment to college. Interviewers,
blind to group membership of subjects, asked each student a series
of questions about her friends and social life, and the ways in
which these might be more satisfying. Oral responses to these
Likert-type items were recorded by the interviewer, and supplemented

with direct quotes from audiotape recordings. Finally, interviewers

rated subjects on five scales, globally evaluating their social
involvements, adjustment to college, mood and energy level during
the interview (Appendix C). For the three pairings of raters,
interrater reliability correlations were .40, .37, and .18.
Following the personal interview, each participant was adminis-

tered an abridged farm of the Mooney Problem Checklist, with the

22

following instructions:

This is not a test. It is a list of problems which often face stu-
dents in college - problems of health, money, social life, relations
with peOple, religion, studying, selecting courses and the like.
You are to go through the list, and pick out particular problems

which are of concern to you. Circle the number of each item that
you find troublesome.

Upon completion of the checklist, subjects were instructed as

follows:

Turn to the graph paper, or gridfbrm you have been given. In the
(left-hand margin, c0py the number of each problem you circled on the
checklist, and repeat the label given or summarize the problem in
the space provided, to remind yourself of the tOpic.

Along the tap of the gridform, write down the names of important
peOple in your life, with whom you feel comfortable discussing per-
sonal matters. This might include your mother, father, brothers,
sisters, best friends from high school or college, boyfriend, coun-
selor, minister, teacher or anyone else. In the space provided,
list each of these people. Be sure to write their relation to you,
and not just their names.

Now, consider each of the problems you have listed on the left-hand
margin. With whom would you feel comfortable discussing each issue,
if it were really bothering you? Place a checkmark below the name
of each person for each problem that you would talk about with them.
The problem checklist and gridform are included in Appendix D.
Finally, each participant was administered a demographic question-
naire, focusing on prior experiences of separation from home and
attitudes towards leaving home for college, and the short form of
the Beck Depression Inventory (Appendix E).

At the close of the session, all subjects were thoroughly de-
briefed as to the purpose of this study. Students were invited to

discuss with the interviewer and/or investigator their personal

reactions to participation, and were offered summaries of research

23

findings. Although the need did not arise, interviewers were pre-
pared to make referrals to the university counseling center in the
case that subjects proved uncomfortable with the personal material
that emerged as a result of participation.

All data was collected within two months of students' entrance

into college.

Analyses
The data collected were combined prior to analysis to provide
several summary scores for each subject.
1. Mooney Problem Checklist: This checklist is composed of 11 dif-
ferent 10-item subscales, each addressing major areas of student
functioning. The number of problems reported in each area was added
to form 11 subscores; the sum across problem areas was considered
as well. (See Appendix D for subscales).
2. Gridfbrms:
a. The total number of significant others listed was counted
for each subject.
b."Contact point" was defined as the subject's reported
willingness to discuss one problem with one person, as
indicated by a checkmark on the gridform. Three percentages were
used to evaluate the relative number of- family members, peers,
and other adults considered by the student to be significant

others, or confidante.

%CPramily - Contact points with family members x 100

 

TotEl cofitact points

24

$CPpeers - Contact points with peers X 100

 

Total contact points

%CPother . Contact points with other adults x 100

 

Total contact points

c. The "intensity" of subjects' relationships was evaluated by
forming a ratio between the reported number of contact points
and the total number of contact points possible for each subject.
Three calculations of intensity, or Openness of relationships

were made:

INTfamily - Contact points with family members

 

# family members listed X total # problems

INTpeers 8 Contact points with peers

 

# peers listed I total # problems

INTothers = Contact points with other adults

 

# other adults listed X total # problems

3. Adjective checklist: The adjective checklists addressing
feelings about leaving home for college (personal feelings and
those of the subject's mother and father) were each analyzed in
terms of the total number of positive and negative sentiments
expressed. Six scores emerge here: PSELF, NSELF, PMOM, NMOM,
PDAD, and NDAD (See Appendix F for breakdown).

All data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance,

 

,. . . . '1
qt: 5u1.eH..'I,.hlurfl9.\ 4. naunw
.,

25

with cohesion group as the independent variable. Prior to planned
comparisons, omnibus F-tests were computed; for each hypothesis,
two planned comparisons were performed. The moderate cohesion group
was compared with the average of the high and low groups; high and

low cohesion groups were also compared to each other.

Results

Before turning to the results of this study, it seems relevant
to examine the cohesion scores of the original screening sample, and
the scores of those subjects selected for further investigation. As
shown in Table 1, there is a close parallel between the cohesion
scores of the initial screening group and the norms established by
Olson (1979), which were derived from data on 402 adults and 201
adolescents, members of either clinic or nonclinic families. The
three groups of subjects selected for further study were entirely
distinct on this independent variable: the high and low cohesion
groups clearly met Olson's criteria for the labels "enmeshed" and
"disengaged" respectively. The 16 subjects whose cohesion scores
centered at the median of the screening sample would likewise be
classified as moderate in cohesion according to Olson's norms;
their scores lie at the low end of the "connected range" (Figure 2).

Of the 48 young women selected for further study, 9 declined
to participate. There is little reason to suspect that these
refusals reflected specific characteristics of the cohesion groups,
as the nonparticipation rate was roughly equal across groups (Low-2,
Moderate-4 , High-3 ).

Results are presented in five parts, addressing the findings
for each hypothesis separately.

1
Hypothesis 1

The hypothesis that students from moderately cohesive families

are better adjusted in the global sense, as compared to those from

26

 

mini/t {.2fi1fluelkqla1343

27

Table 1

Comparison of cohesion scores of the original
screening sample with norms published by Olson (1979).

Screening Sample

Standardization
Sample

Project
Participants

Standardization
Sample

 

E. Mean SD Range

273 251.49 20.31 172-301

603 251 19 162-303
Low Moderate High

A --1 ------ v- 9” -v- -- o

 

Separ- Connect-
__Di§eng§ged ated ed Enmeshed

---T--.....-—--......0...

16C 190 220 250 260 310

Figure 2

Comparison of ranges of cohesion scores of project
participants and Olson's standardization sample.

28

low and high cohesive families, was not supported by analyses of
scores on the Mooney Problem Checklist or the Beck Depression Inven-
tory (BDI)(See Tables 2 and 3). No differences were found across
cohesion groups when scores on the BDI were analyzed, although a'
significant difference emerged in the total number of problems
reported by subjects (F(2,45)-4.59,p<.05)- Planned comparisons
revealed a significant difference between the extreme cohesion
groups (F(1,45)'5.47,p<.05); however, these two groups considered
together were not significantly different from the moderate cohesion
group.

On the univariate level, differences emerged in four problem
areas: Health and Physical Development (F(2,45)'4.0,p<.05),
Finances, Living Conditions and Employment (F(2,45)'3.28,p<.05).
Social and Recreational Activities (F(2,45)'3.20,p<.05), and

Home and Family (r(2,45)-5.33,p<.o1). These findings reflect dif-

ferences between high and low cohesion groups in all cases but
Finances, Living Conditions and Employment, where planned com-
parisons revealed differences between moderate cohesion sub-
jects and high and low cohesion subjects combined.

In summary, these data indicate that there is no significant
relationship between family cohesion and depression as measured by
the BDI. When individual problem areas are considered seperately,
statistically significant differences across groups emerged only in
certain areas. Only when one considers the total number of problems

faced by these young women do clear group differences emerge.

29

Table 2

Cohesion and Global Measures of Adjustment

 

Variable Cohesion Group
Low Moderate High
1mm 1114mm). 11222.52

BDI 15 6.66 7.93 16 4.63 4.01 16 3.88 8.45
HPD 16 3.25 1.69 16 1.88 1.02 16 2.13 1.59
FLE 16 2.81 2.14 16 1.31 1.20 16 2.00 1.51
SRA 16 3.00 1.67 16 1.69 1.40 16 1.81 1.76
SPR 16 1.81 1.33 16 0.81 1.05 16 1.62 1.89
PPR 16 3.00 2.22 16 1.94 1.18 16 2.00 1.83
CSM 16 1.88 1.54 16 1.19 0.98 16 1.06 1.53
HF 16 2.50 2.19 16 0.94 0.77 16 0.94 1.39
MR 16 2.31 1.74 - 16 1.31 1.08 16 1.56 0.96
ACW 16 4.00 2.73 16 3.69 1.79 16 3.19 2.34
FVE 16 2.69 1.62 16 1.56 1.71 16 1.56 1.46
CT? 16 2.44 1.59 16 2.00 1.46 16 2.44 2.40
TOTAL

MPG 16 29.69 11.61 16 18.31 7.61 16 20.31 13.89

.Nnie: BDI-Beck Depression Inventory, HPD-Health and Physical Devel-
Opment, FLE'Finances, Living Conditions and Employment, SBA-Social
and Recreational Actvities, SPR-Social Psychological Relations,
PPR'Personal Psychological Relations, CSM'Courtship, Sex and Mare
riage, HF-Home and Family, MR-Morals and Religion, ACW' Adjustment
to College Work, FVE-The Future: Vocational and Educational, CTP'
Curriculum and Teaching Procedure, MPC'Total score on Mooney Problem
Checklist.

Table 3

30

ANOVA of Cohesion and Global Measures of Adjustment

Source g E _F_ p
BDI 2,44 32.07 0.64 .531
MPC - Total 2,45 590.08 4.59 .015 *
Low vs High 1,45 703.13 5.47 .024 *
Low & High vs Mod 1,45 477.04 3.71 .060
HPD 2,45 8.58 4.00 .025 '
Low vs High 1,45 10.13 4.72 .035 *
Low & High vs Mod 1,45 7.04 3.28 .077
FLE 2,45 9.02 3.28 .047 '
Low vs High 1,45 5.28 1.92 .173
Low a High vs Mod 1,45 12.76 4.64 .037 *
SRA 2,45 8.40 3.20 .050 '
Low vs High 1,45 11.28 4.31 .044 *
Low & High vs Mod 1,45 5.51 2.10 .154
SPR 2,45 4.52 2.11 .134
PPR 2,45 5.69 1.77 .183
CSM 2,45 3.06 1.62 .209
HF 2,45 13.02 5.33 .008 ‘*
Low vs High 1,45 19.53 8.00 .007 '*
Low & High vs Mod 1,45 6.51 2.67 .109
MR 2,45 4.33 2.54 .090
ACW 2,45 2.69 .50 .610
FVE 2,45 6.75 2.63 .083
CT? 2,45 1.02 .29 .746

Rain: BDI-Beck Depression Inventory, HPD=Health and Physical Devel-
opment, FLE-Finances, Living Conditions and Employment, SBA-Social
and Recreational Activities, SPR'Social-Psychological Relations,
PPR-Personal Psychological Relations, CSM-Courtship, Sex and Mar-
riage, HF-Home and Family, MR-Morals and Religion, ACW=Adjustment to
College Work, FVE'The Future: Vocational and Educational, CTP-
Curriculum and Teaching Procedure, MPC=Total Score on Mooney Problem
Checklist.

*p<.05. "p<.01.

31

Hypothesis 2

It was predicted that subjects who perceived their families as
moderate in cohesiveness would be better able to formrelationships,
as measured by the number of people whom they consider confidante,
compared to subjects from very high or low cohesion families. As
shown in Table 4, the three cohesion groups were virtually identical
in terms of the number of significant others they reported on the
gridform. Statistically, groups did not differ on this dimension.

In contrast, significant differences did emerge when compar-
isons were made among relationships with family members, peers, and
other adults. As shown in Tables 5 and 6, comparisons among all
three groups yielded significant differences on percentage of prob-
lems discussed with peers (F(2,45)'3.38,p<.05); low .cohesion sub-
jects reported discussing a larger percentage of personal concerns
with friends than did subjects in the high cohesion group. The mod-
erate and high cohesion groups did not differ from each other on
this measure.

Although the omnibus F-test did 'not reveal significant 1dif—
ferences among groups on the percentage of problems discussed with
family members (F(2,45)=2.94,p<.10), the planned comparison between
the low cohesion subjects and the moderate and high cohesion sub-
jects indicates that low cohesion subjects tend to confide less in
members of their families (F(1,45)-5.55,p<.05). No differences
emerged Comparing moderate and high cohesion subjects on this

dimension.

32

Table 4

Cohesion group and number of significant others

Cohesion—Group E H_ean §2

Low 16 8.56 3.67

Moderate 16 8.19 2.97

High 16 8.13 3.74
Table 5

Cohesion group and percent of contact points with
family members, peers, and other adults

Family Peers Other Adults
Cohesion Group E. M339 SD Mean SD Mean SD
Low 16 33.38 15.44 63.81 15.63 1.31 3.46
Moderate 16 42.94 14.14 52.50 .12.87 4.25 6.63

High 16 46.06 16.57 50.75 17.44 1.94 5.54

f”?
‘.
3

.1 uP~ 1‘
l ‘e

11‘
'0

 

 

 

33

Table 6

ANOVAs of cohesion group and percent of contact
points with family members, peers, and other adults.

Source
Family'Members

Low vs Moderate
and High Cohesion

Moderate vs High

Peers

Low vs Moderate
and High Cohesion
Moderate vs High

Other Adults

*p<.05.

.df
2.45

35
699.15

1320.17

78.13

804.44

1584.38
24.50

38.31

2.94

5.55
0033

3.38

6.66

0.10

1.33

.2
.063

.023 *

o 569
.042 *

.013 *
.750

.275

34

No differences were found across 'groups on the percent of
problems discussed with other adults outside of the family.
Hypothesis 3

This hypothesis, which predicted a curvilinear relationship
between family cohesion and intensity of interpersonal bonds, was
not supported by the data. However, clear differences among groups
suggest a linear relationship wherein intensity, or amount of share
ing with significant others, increases with perceived family cohe-
sion (See Tables 7 and 8).

Overall analysis of intensity of relationships was significant
at the .05 level (F(6,88)-2.29); further analysis showed that this
effect is primarily due to differences in the intensity of relation-
ships with family members, comparing subjects in the high and low
cohesion groups (F(1,45)-6.45,p<.05). No significant differences
were found comparing these extreme cohesion groups with the moderate
cohesion group; likewise, univariate analyses showed no differences
in the intensity of bonds with peers or other with unrelated adults.
Hypothesis 4

Examining the data on feelings reported about leaving home for
college, there is no support for the original curvilinear hypothesis
that young women from moderate cohesion families are more positive
or less negative than those from either of the extreme cohesion
groups. As shown in Tables 9 and 10, no significant differences
were found across groups on the number of positive or negative feel-
ings attributed to oneself, one's mother, or one's father. However,

planned comparisons revealed a near-significant trend when the low

35

Table 7

Cohesion group and intensity of relationships

FAMINT PEERINT OTHERINT
Wrought Esau §2 risen 3.13 111—men 3.13
Low 16 .413 .190 .560 .289 .025 .058
Moderate 16 .516 .236 .536 .217 .146 .226
High 16 .608 .224 .667 .265 .078 .195
Note: Famint - intensity of family relations, Peerint ' intensity

of peer relations, Otherint - intensity of relations with other
adults.

Table 8

MANOVA of Cohesion group and intensity of relationships

Source

Overall F-test
FAMINT

Low vs High

Low & High vs
Moderate

PEERINT

OTHERINT

Rats:

Of

5.88

2,45

1,45

MS

0 271

.153
.306

.000
.077
.056

E

2.29
3.24
6.47

0.01

1.15

1.84

2

o 042

o 049

.015

.934
.326

.171

Famint - intensity of family relations, Peerint - intensity

of peer relations, Otherint - intensity of relations with other

adults.
*p<.05

PSELF
PMOM
PDAD
NSELF
mm

NDAD

36

Table 9

Cohesion group and number of positive and negative
feelings reported about leaving home for college.

.3
16

16
16
16
16

16

Low

:52
3.28
2.43
2.39
2.61
2.36

1.61

Cohesion Group

11
16
16
16
16
16

16

Moderate

112%
5.63
3.56
4.50
3.69
2.69

2.13

SD

3.05
2.31

2.80

g
16
16
16
16
16
16

High
Mggn
8.31
4.88
5.25
3.44
3.31

1.81

3.34
2.80
2.91

2.99
2.18

1.60

Note: PSELF - one's own positive feelings about homeleaving, PMOM -
.mother's positive feelings about her daughter's homeleaving, PDAD -

father's positive feelings about his daughter's homeleaving.

In

parallel, NSELF, RMOM, and RDAD refer to neative feelings about the
daughter's homeleaving.

37

Table 10

MANOVA of cohesion group and positive and negative
feelings reported about leaving home for college

Source 9.: MS I 2
Positive Adjectives 6,88 0.21 1.73 .123

Low vs High Cohesion

Overall F-test 3.43 0.16 2.71 .056

PSELF 1,45 75.03 7.21 .010 *
PMOM 1.45 30.03 4.71 .035 1*
PDAD 1,45 30.03 4.09 .049 *

Low & High vs Moderate
Overall F-test 3.43 0.06 0.88 .461

Negative Adjectives 6,88 0.09 0.72 .636

£213: PSELF - one's own positive feelings about homeleaving, PMOM -
mother's positive feelings about her daughter's homeleaving, PDAD -
father's positive feelings about his daughter's homeleaving. In
parallel, NSELF, NMOM, and NDAD refer to negative feelings about the
daughter's homeleaving.

*p< .05

38

and high cohesion groups were compared on positive attributions
(F(3.43)-2.71,p<.06). Univariate analyses of positive adjectives
attributed to oneself, one's mother and one's father were all sig-
nificantly different at the .05 level when low and high cohesion
groups were compared to each other. The data are equivocal but sug-
gest a tendency for family members to be more positive about separa-
tion as a function of increasing cohesiveness.
Hypothesis 5

Finally, it was hypothesized that unbiased raters would view
students who perceive their families as moderate in cohesiveness as
better adjusted to college than students from enmeshed or disengaged
families. The data do not support this hypothesis, but they lend
further weight to the trend that has already emerged. Young women
from low cohesion families not only describe themselves as less
well adjusted than do students from more cohesive families; they
appear less well adjusted as well. Subjects’from the high cohesion
group consistantly received more positive ratings on each of four
scales than did subjects from less cohesive families; F(8,72) -
2.08,p<.05 for the omnibus F-test, and F(4.35)'3.55,p<.05 for the
comparison of the low and high cohesion groups. No significant dif-
ferences emerged in the comparison of the moderate with the extreme
cohesion groups, there was no effect of interviewer, and no group by
interviewer interactions were significant (see Tables 11 and 12).
Other analyses

Two other analyses of these data were performed in order to

gain additional information about subjects in this sample, aside

39

moan >um>um .nMHn huo>u~ .Ho>od hmuocm

hams huo>nm .uaso«uuao huo>u~ .ucosumsnu<

condemn“ .vomuounec hue>n~ .coos

usoaaoououn .hoooua .vcoso>ao>s« Asaoom

.moason wadsoaaou one son: semen ohm mmcuusm .ovoz

 

 

 

 

so. o~.~ n on." o~.s n no. os.s m cm. o~.s n o
no.a ae.~ e we. a~.s o no." on.n a so." on.n e m
mm." oo.n n em. os.n n so. os.n n mm. os.s n a gem:
mm. on.~ o us.~ nm.n e an.“ mo.n m on.” ae.n w o
mo.~ om.~ n 8.0 oo.n m sn.s os.n m em. o~.s n m
so. o~.~ n as.s oo.n m cm. oo.n m on.s om.n n < eveneeos
sn.~ os.n n as." oe.~ n on. os.~ n as.” om.~ n 0
so.” os.n n om. oe.~ n as.” oo.n n on." om.~ n m
as. 66.: n no. os.m n ma. oe.~ m an." os.n n < sea
aw some 2 mm some a mm some a mm 1mmmmc1M1
H0> GA 5thcm 3 PCOMMM—WW“ 6002 e OOMHWMEMW M “WWW mummy” COMM—“MM”

passpmsneo co mmcfipsn m.umsofi>mopcfi use mnsosm sofimocoo
«a canoe

MANOVA of cohesion and interviewer's
ratings on adjustment

Source

Interactions
Group X interviewer

Main Effects
Interviewer

Group

Low vs High Cohesion
Overall F-test
Soc.Involvements
Mood

Adjustment to
college

Energy Level

Low & High vs Moderate Cohesion

Overall F-test

*p<.05, **p<.o1

40

Table 12

d_f

16.152

8,72

8,72

4.35
1,38
1,38

1,38

1,38

4,35

MB

0.33

0.08

0.38

0.29
7.74
9.09
8.88

7.36

0.10

[W

0.82

0038

2.08

3.55
5.14
8.21

8.17

5.63

0.98

.617

.926
.049

.012

.029

.007

.023

.430

41

from that pertaining to the major hypotheses. First, demographic
information and responses regarding prior separations from home were
analyzed. Of 54 separate analyses, only on three items were signif-
icant diferences found. Low cohesion subjects reported that they
were more self-sufficient financially than subjects from moderate or
high cohesion families (Xf;15.16,df'6,p<.05)3 likewise subjects who
perceived their families as low in cohesiveness were more likely to
report that they needed jobs (ll-7.37,df-2,p<.05). Finally, low
cohesion subjects felt that they played a more active, agentic role
in the decision to leave home for college relative to their fathers,
than did subjects in the other cohesion groups (F(2,45)'10-55.
p<.001). Since these findings could be due to chance, they will not
be discussed further here. The results are presented in Appendix G.

Secondly, differences across cohesion groups were examined on
the Adaptability and Social Desirability scales, and on the Cohe-
sion subscales of the FACES (see Appendix B). Several important
findings emerged here, as shown in Tables 13 and 14. The signifi-
cant differences across groups on cohesion scores validates the
distinction of subjects into three seperate groups (F(2,45)'476.62,
p<.00001). These differences emerge in most of the nine subscales
that contribute to the total cohesion score. Significant differ~
ences across groups are also found on the Adaptability dimension
(F(2.45)'3.84,p<.05) and on Social Desirability (F(2,45)'50.02,

p<.00001).

Table 13

42

Cohesion group and scores on cohesion, cohesion
subscales, adaptability and social desirability

Cohesion 16

score
EB
FB

T

F

IR
IND
COAL

DM
ADAP

SD

Note:

Adaptability, SD - Social Desirability.

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Low

Mean

 

206.50

21.19
28.25
19.06
23.81
19.94
22.75
25.75
22.25

23.50

176.81

26.13

5.12.

9.99

3.92
3.71
2.05
3.82
2.74
3.32
4.76
3.53
3.92
16.63
5.60

E.

16

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Moderate

Mean

254.31

32.13
31.38
23.69
27.63
25.75
32.56
29.53
25.50

26.06

41.75

Cohesion Group

an

0.70

2.91

2.80
3.20
3.12
3.66
2.28
3.56
3.27
3.91

187.88 16.10

5.03

l

16

16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

High

Mean

284.75

35.69
32.38
26.69
30.19
30.88
37.31
34.63
26.75
30.25

194.19

44.88

EB - Emotional bonding, FB - Family boundaries,
T = Time, IR - Interests and recreation, IND - Independence,
COAL - Coalitions, S - Space, DM - Decision making, ADAP '

3.12.

7.51

2.94
3.01
3.72
2.48
4.98
4.24
3.48
3.82
3.45

20.75

6.34

43

Table 14

MANOVA of cohesion group and scores on cohesion
cohesion subscales, adaptability and social desirability

Source 31;
Cohesion 2,45
Low vs High 1,45
Low & High
vs Moderate 1,45

Cohesion Subscales 18,76

Low vs High 9,37
Low & High
vs Moderate 9,37
EB 2,45
Low vs High 1,45
Low & High
vs Moderate 1,45
PB 2.45
Low vs High 1,45
Low & High
vs Moderate 1,45
T 2,45
Low vs High 1,45
Low 8 High
vs Moderate 1,45

lfii

24894.77
48984.50

805.41

1.16

0.96

0.47

913.52

1682.00

145.04

74.08

136.13

12.04

236.08

465.13

7.04

164.65

476.62
937.83

15.41

5.91

102.2

3.61

84.30

155.22

13.39

7.24
13.30

1.18

25.07

49.39

0.75

16.25

.00001

.00001

.0003

.00001
.00001

.00001

.00001

.00007

.00188

D 00068

.28

.00001

.00001

.39

.00001

H

Table 14 (cont'd)

Low vs High

Low & High

vs Moderate
IR

Low vs High

Low & High

vs Moderate
IND

Low vs High

Low & High

vs Moderate
COAL

Low vs High

Low 8 High
vs Moderate

Low vs High

Low & High

vs Moderate
DM

Low vs High

Low 8 High
vs Moderate

2,45
1,45

1,45

2,45
1,45

44

325.13

4.17

479.15
957.03

1.26

882.44

1696.53

68.34

316.75
630.13

3.38

86.58

162.00

10.67

185.77
364.50

7.04

32.04

0041

31.45

62.81

0.08

77.50
149.00

6.00

20.41

40.60

0.22

6.86

12.88

0.85

14.17
25.71

0.50

.00001
.52

.00001

.00001
.77
.00001
.00001
.02

.00001

.00001

.64

.00250

.00082

.36

.00003
.00001

.48

Table 14 (cont' d)

Adaptability 2,45
Low vs High 1,45
Low & High
vs Moderate 1,45

Social Desirability 2,45

Low vs High 1,45
Low & High
vs Moderate 1,45

45

1237.65
2415.13

60.17

1614.58

2812.50

416.67

3.84
7.49

0.19

50.02

87.13

12.91

.029

.009

.67

.00001

.00001

.00008

1.

Note: EB - Emotional Bonding, FB - Family Boundaries, T - Time,

_

F - Friends, IR - Interests and Recreation, IND - Independence,

COAL - Coalitions, S - Space, DM = Decision Making.

*p<.05, “p<.01 .

Discussion

The original hypothesis that young women from moderately cohe-
sive families would be better adjusted, both in a global sense and
in terms of adjustment to college than those from either enmeshed or
disengaged families, was not supported by these data. While several
of the measures employed here failed to detect any statistically
significant differences across groups, where results were found, the
evidence pointed to a linear relationship between adjustment and
family cohesiveness. Subjects who consider their families to be
tightly bound in the emotional sense reported fewer personal prob-
lems than did their peers from less cohesive families. Likewise
their interpersonal relationships emerged as closer and more inti-
mate, and they were rated by unbiased interviewers as better ad-
justed to college than subjects from less cohesive families.

The data on overall adjustment are mixed, but in general in-
dicate a positive linear relationship between cohesion and global
adjustment. Examing first the data from the Mooney Problem Check-
list, students who describe their families as highly cohesive report
fewer problems than those who view their families as disengaged.
Individuals whose families are not closely bonded consider their
lives to be more troubled than their peers from more cohesive fam-
ilies. That this trend was not dramatic enough to emerge in all
eleven of the univariate analyses of the subscales comprising this
checklist points to the generally high level of functioning of all

young women in this study; differences do not emerge as clearly on

L16

47

all of the 10—point scales. However, the statistical differ-
ences that were found on individual subscales indicate that young
women who perceive their families as low in cohesiveness also
feel more troubled about their home life, families, and social ac-
tivites. Perhaps as a result of these difficulties, these stu-
dents also report greater concern about their health and physical
development. That students from disengaged families reported
more problems than those from moderate or high cohesion families
suggests that either they have less well developed abilities
to cape with life problems, that their lives are, in fact, more dif-
ficult, or that they are more selfhdisclosing. Further discussion
of these interpretations will be postponed, though, until the find-
ings of this study can be interpreted as a whole.

In contrast to the findings from the problem checklist, no sig-
nificant differences emerged across groups on the Beck Depression
Inventory. The critical difference between these measures seems to
be the narrowness of focus and the severity of disturbance measured
by the BDI. While there are certainly many adolescents who would
receive high scores on the BDI, wide variation on this measure of
pathology would not be expected for a sample of 48 first year col-
lege students. Those individuals who are severely depressed may be
less likely to participate in a study such as this; it seems
reasonable to conjecture that others may have been less likely to
leave home for colege. As selfbselection may already have inter-
fered with the findings on the BDI, they are inconclusive; they lend

support neither to the hypothesized curvilinear relationship between

48

mental health and cohesion, nor to the linear relationship that
emerged from the problem checklist. The BDI seems to Cover too wide
a spectrum of maladjustment to detect those differences that do
exist across subjects in this sample. Because the problem checklist
was designed specifically to assess common student concerns, it
proved more sensitive to differences across groups in the present
study.

Data quantifying the relationships of these subjects indicate
that adolescents from low cohesion families are not crippled by lack
of experience in close relationships, nor are those individuals
reared in closely knit families limited just to relationships within
their families. Regardless of how cohesive their families were,
subjects in all three groups generated lists of roughly the same
number of significant others. However, when ”significant others"
were distinguished according to their relationships to subjects,
differences did' emerge. As family cohesion increases, female
adolescents tend to share a larger proportion of their concerns
with other family members. Individuals from less cohesive families
tend to discuss more of their personal concerns with peers.

When subjects' relationships are evaluated qualitatively, it
seems that those who view their families as cohesive are more open
and honest with their significant others. In other words, while
subjects reported roughly the same number of close, personal rela-

tionships regardless of degree of family cohesion, the amount of

personal sharing that defined these ”close' relationships varied

greatly. Selfrdisclosure with peers does not vary with cohesion

49

group, but there are dramatic differences in the amount of discus-
sion of personal matters with family members. The higher overall
intensity of relationships of high cohesion subjects is attributable
solely to their relationships with other members of their families.
That no differences were found across groups in the number or inten-
sity of close relationships with adults outside the family is prob-
ably attributable to the small number of such bonds reported by sub-
jects. The friendships they have established outside of their fam-
ilies are almost exclusively with peers.

Summarizing these findings on interpersonal relationships, sup-
port is lent to the hypothesis that closeness among family members
increases with cohesiveness. However, young women from less 00-
hesive families seem able to supplement their weaker familiar bonds
with friendships outside of the family. They are not socially iso-
lated, or limited in their ability to enter relationships. Intra-
familiar bonds are closer and more open among members of more co-
hesive families, but for the subjects in this study, the experience
of such relationships does not seem to correlate with the formation
of equally close relationships outside the family.

In his description of the development of emotional indepen-
dence, Chickering (1967) discusses the gradual process of disen-
gagement from parents and increased reliance upon peers, which is
later followed by decreased dependence upon members of both groups.
Clearly the subjects in the extreme cohesion groups are at different
stations in this process, but it is not clear which group has

reached the more mature or age-appropriate level. Guidelines are

50

not available to quantitatively measure the optimal degree of close-
ness between adolescents and their families and friends at age 18,
and these data alone leave unanswered several crucial questions:
Did subjects from low cohesion families experience adequate rela-
tionships with their families before they began to invest in outside
friendships? Conversely, will adolescents from highly cohesive
families be free enough to invest in friendships with peers and
thereby reduce the intensity of intrafamiliar bonds? Or, have these
individuals already moved to a more mature station, where they feel
freer of the need to be intimate with peers and are more able to be
close with family members on their own adult terms? The answers to
these questions are not easy ones; hopefully they will be eluci-
dated with the discussion of the other findings of this study.

Data from the adjective checklists administered to subjects
suggest that more positive attitudes towards homeleaving are asso-
ciated with increasing levels of family cohesion. These data are
equivocal and hence will not be further discussed, although they do
lend support to the trend emerging from other measures.

Taken as a group, the data from self-report questionnnaires
point to several possible conclusions. The first challenges the
negative connotations of Olson's term "enmeshment"; the warmth,
caring and suport experienced in cohesive family environments seem
to aid female adolescents in personal development, and in their
negotiation of the separation process. While their involvements
with family members are closer and more intimate than those of fe-

males reared in less cohesive families, this level of emotional

 

51

bonding does not seem to reduce availability to or ability to join
in relationships with peers. These students do not seem bound to
or smothered by their family bonds; rather, the data suggest that
they have developed positive selfhimages, selfbconfidence, and the
ability to cope as difficulties arise in their lives. While
they may have been more sheltered from life problems than ado-
lescents reared in less cohesive families, they seem capable
- and eager to face the new challenges of adulthood. Conversely, the
subjects in this study who described their families as low in cohe-
siveness clearly experience their lives as more troubled and dif-
ficult. However, their ability to form meaningful relationships
outside the family suggests that these individuals are less dis-
tressed than the terms "disengaged" and "centrifugal family” might
imply. This less pathological view of adolescents from low cohesion
families is further supported by the absence of differences across
groups on depression or on attitudes towards leaving home for
college.

An alternative interpretation, following the lines of Stier-
lin's work, suggests that adolescents raised in highly cohesive fam-
ilies operate under the laws of pseudomutuality. If this were the
case, they would naturally report more positive feelings about
leaving home on both their own and their parent's behalves, and few
personal problems. From this perspective the finding that low cohe-
sion subjects report more personal problems is easily explained:
they have been raised in hostile and rejecting homes, and have never

felt good about their lives. The centrifugal force pushing their

52

families apart left little opportunity for the growing child to
develop c0ping abilities or a positive sense of self. However, this
theory is contradicted by the present findings on the intensity, or
closeness of relationships. For individuals reared in cohesive fam-
ilies, mutuality seems not to be superficial or feigned, but quite
genuine. The lack of clear findings on attitudes towards home-
leaving further weakens this interpretation.

A third possibility reduces these results to "Social Desira-
bility." The finding that scores on Olson's Social Desirability
Scale increased with scores on cohesion suggests that the subjects
who qualified for the high cohesion group may have been trying to
"appear good,” by describing their families as close and warm. For
the same reason they may have reported fewer problems on the check-
list and overrated the closeness of their relationships. Converse-
ly, those subjects who were less invested in making a good impres-
sion may have been freer to report the interpersonal distance in
their families and extrafamiliar relationships, and the problems in
their lives. Implied here is the interpretation that these data
were biased by differences in level of self-disclosure which varied
as a function of cohesion group.

These explanations of the data are all based upon responses by
subjects on self-report quesionnaires, which yield information about
how the individual views herself. Applying Leary's (1957) three-
level analysis of personality, such data tap into the second level
of personality; the conscious selfhconcept. Consideration of sub-

jects' public communication (Level 1), however, leads to the

 

53

rejection of pseudomutuality, social desirability, or self—
disclosure theories as adequate interpretations of the data. While
low interrater reliability mitigates the strength of this argument,
information about this level of personality can be derived from
interviewer's ratings of subjects. A linear relationship was found
wherein increasing family cohesion was associated with more favorb
able ratings on mood, energy level, quality of social involvements
and adjustment to college. The fact that students' selfhevaluations
on problem checklists were closely paralleled by the ratings of
trained interviewers indicates that the self-reports were probably
not biased by pseudomutuality or social desirability . Were either
of these potent influences on subject's self-descriptions, a larger
discrepancy between Level 1 and Level 2 data should have emerged.
One additional factor should be considered before accepting the
observed linear relationship between family‘ cohesion and personal
adjustment: family adaptability. This dimension, which is also
measured by the FACES, was empirically was found to be orthogonally
related to cohesion (Russell, 1979). In contrast, the data from
subjects in the present study suggest a positive linear relation-
ship between cohesion and adaptability. In this sample, highly co-
hesive families tended to be more flexible than low cohesion fam-
ilies, although the adaptability scores of all subjects fell within
bounds considered normal by Olson (1979). Unfortunately this
dimension was not controlled for in the present investigation, and
it may well have confounded findings attributed to family cohe-

sion. Further research is called for to clarify the statistical

54

relationship between these variables, and to explore the effect of
their interaction with measures of adjustment.

This consideration aside, several clear conclusions can be
drawn from this investigation. Most significantly, for subjects in
this study, high levels of family cohesion appear to be related to
personal development and adjustment, in the general sense and with
specific reference to separation from home. While children reared
in more cohesive families may have been more sheltered from life
problems, they seem well prepared and eager to separate from their
families and to begin leading independent, adult lives. They do not
appear overly-involved or enmeshed with their families; their
experience in close interpersonal relationships should facilitate
the formation of new extrafamiliar bonds. These young women and
their families are enthusiastic about entry into this new stage of
life, probably because they have felt satisfied with the "holding
environment" that preceded it.

Female adolescents from less cohesive families do not seem as
well developed, or as eager to separate from their families, compar-
atively. Their family lives appear to have been more difficult and
less satisfying; in response, they learned to meet interpersonal
needs outside the family system. Reflected in their personal prob-
lems and greater difficulty adjusting to college is probably a
deficit in the earlier experience of closeness. Because these indi-
viduals have not felt as satisfied with family relationships, they
are not yet ready to let go of these bonds and enter into adulthood.

These findings concur with those reported by Murphey et a1.

55

(1969), who found a positive relationship between family relatedness
and adjustment to college. It seems that for college-bound females,
close emotional bonds with family members facilitate later deve10p-
ment. Perhaps at more extreme levels, family cohesion may limit the
young person's ability or desire to individuate, as demonstrated in
Stierlin's (1972) case studies. However, the results of this in-
vestigation suggest that Olson's criteria for pathological enmesh-
ment may be too lax. For females entering college, high levels of
family cohesiveness seem conducive to healthy development and indi-
viduation. Likewise the subjects studied here whose families were
classified as "disengaged” were not as severely disturbed as had
been predicted. In part this may be attributed to the self-
selection process which preceded this investigation; severely dis-
tressed adolescents are less likely to appear in samples of first-
year college students. Ofcourse, the generalizability of these
findings is severely limited, as all subjects were females in their
late teens. In fact, the discrepant findings of this study relative
to other reports of adolescent separation may be a reflection of
sex differences in sampling. To date, most research in this area
has focused exclusively on males, or has combined data on young men
and women t0gether. Hence these findings cannot be directly com—
pared to those already reported in the literature.

Future research with the FACES or other measures of family
cohesion, using subjects representing other populations, would help
broaden our understanding of the impact of family cohesion. More

careful investigation is needed to clarify the relationship between

56

this dimension and family adaptability; clearly these are important
factors impacting not only upon the processes of separation and
individuation during adolescence, but upon all stages of personal
development. Finally, the results of this study point to the
absence of quantitative data in the literature on relationships in
adolescence. Either longitudinal or cross-sectional studies of the
changing number and strength of relationships during these years
would aid in the interpretation of the present findings, and would

deepen our understanding of the process of adolescent separation.

Appendices

Appendix A

Research Consent Form

 

1.

5.

6.

Appendix A

Research Consent Form

MICHIGAN STAT! UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FOR“

I hava frsaly consented to take part in a scientific study
baing conductsd by:

 

undsr the supervision of:

 

Academic Iitls:

 

Tho study has been explained to as and I understand the ex-

planation that has been given and what my participation will
involve.

I understand that I as frss to discontinue ay participation
in tho study at any time without penalty.

I understand that tha results of tho study will be trsatsd in
strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. within

these restrictions, results of the study will be sods available
to as at my request.

I understand that my participation in tho study does not guar-
antas any beneficial results to as.

I undsrstand that, at my raqusst, I can rscsiva additional
ssplanstion of tho study altar ay participation is completed.

Signad:

 

.Data:

 

TITLE OF RESEARCH PWECT:

 

 

57

Appendix B

FACES Questionnaire, Scoring Sheet,

Directions for Hand Scoring FACES

and Cohesion Subscales

Appendin B

FACES Questionnaire

FACES
4 - true all the time 2 - true some of the time
3 a true most of the time l - true none of the time

Family members are concerned with each other's welfare.

Family members feel free to say what's on their mind.

He don't have spur of the moment guests at mealtime.

It is hard to know who the leader is in our family.

It's difficult for family members to take time away from the family.

Family members are afraid to tell the truth because of how harsh the
punishment will be.

Most personal friends are not family friends.

Family members talk a lot but nothing ever gets done.

Family members feel guilty if they want to spend some time alone.

There are times when other family members do things that make me unhappy.
In our family we know where all family numbers are at all tines.

Family members have some say in what is required of them.

The parents in our family stick together.

I have some needs that are not being met by family members.

Family members make the rules together.

It seems like there is never any place to be alone in our house.

It is difficult to keep track of what other family members are doing.
Family members do not check with each other when making decisions.

My family completely understands and sympathizes with my every mood.

Family ties are more important to us than any friendship could possibly be.
when our family has an argument. family members just keep to themselves.
Family members often answer questions that were addressed to another person.

The parents check with the children before flaking important decisions in our
family.

58

59

 

FACES -2-
4 - true all the time 2 - true some of the time
3 a true most of the time I a true none of the time
24. Family Members like to spend some of their free time with each other.
25. Punishment is usually pretty fair in our fuily.
26. Family members are encouraged to have friends of their own as well as
family friends.
27. Family members discuss problems and usually feel good about the solutions.
28. Family members share almost all interests and hobbies with each other.
29. Our family is not a perfect success.
30. Family members are extremely independent.
31. Ho one in our family seems to be able to keep track of what their duties are.
32. Family members feel it's "everyone for themselves.“
33. Every new thing I've learned about my family has pleased me.
34. Our family has a rule for almost every possible situation.
35. He respect each other's privacy.
36. Once our family has planned to do something. it's difficult to change it.
37. in our family we are on our own when there is a problem to solve.
38. l have never regretted being with my family, not even for a moment.
29. Family members do not turn to each other when they need help.
40. It is hard to know what other family members are thinking.
«ll. Family members make visitors feel at home.
42. Parents make all of the important decisions in our family.
43. Even when everyone is home. family members spend their time separately.
44. Parents and children in our family discuss together the method of punishment.
45. Family menbers have little need for friends because the family is so close.
4b. He feel good about our ability to solve problems.
47. Although family members have individual interests. they still participate

in family activities.

6O

 

FACES -3-
4 8 true all the time 2 - true some of the time
3 a true most of the time I - true none of the time

48. My family has all the qualities I've always wanted in a family.

49. Family members are totally on their own in developing their ideas.

50. Once a task is assigned to a family member. there is no chance of changing it

5l. Family members seldom take sides against other members.

52. There are times when I do not feel a great deal of love and affection for
my family.

53. Uhen rules are broken, family members are treated fairly.

64. Family timbers don't enter each other's areas or activities.

55. Family members encourage each other's efforts to find new ways of doing
things.

56. Family members discuss important decisions with each other. but usually make
their own choices.

57. If I could be a part of any family in the world. I could not have a better
match.

58. Home is one of the lonellest places to be.

59. In our family. it's important for everyone to express their opinion.

60. Family members find it easier to discuss things with persons outside the
family.

61. There is no leadership in our family.

62. Me try to plan some things during the week so we can all be together.

63. Family members are not punished or reprimanded when they do something wrong.

64. In our family we know each other‘s close friends.

65. Our family does not discuss its problems.

66. Our family doesn't do things together.

67. If my family has any faults. I am not aware of them.

68. Family members enjoy doing things alone as well as together.

69. In our family. everyone shares responsibilities.

70. Parents agree on how to handle children.

61

 

-4-
FACES
4-true all thetime 2-true some of the time
3 . true most of the time l - true none of the time

7l. I don't think anyone could possibly be happier than my family and I when
we are together.

72. It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in our family.

73. Hhen a bedroom door is shut. family members will knock before entering.

74. If one way doesn't work in our family. we try another.

75. Family members are expected to have the approval of others before making
decisions.

76. Family meters are totally involved in each other's lives.

77. Family masters speak their mind without considering how it will affect
others.

78. Family members feel comfortable inviting their friends along on family
activities.

79. Each family member has at least some say in major family decisions.

80. Family mowers feel pressured to spend most free time together.

8l. Members of our family can get away with almost anything.

82. Family members share the same friends.

83. When trying to solve problems. family members jump from one attempted
solution to another without giving any of them time to work.

84. He have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. ,

85. Family members understand each other completely.

86. It seems as if we agree on everything.

87. It seals as if males and females never do the same chores in our family.

88. Family members know who will agree and who will disagree with them on most
family matters.

89. My family could be happier than it is.

90. There is strict punisiment for breaking rules in our family.

9l. Family melbers seem team“ contact with each other when at home.

92. For no apparent reason. family members seem to'change their minds.

62

-5-

FACES

4 . true all the time 2 - true some of the time
3 8 true most of the time l . true none of the time

 

93. He détiifi together on family matters anf separately on personal matters.

.94.
95.

96.

97.
91).

108.

l09.
110.
1]].

Our family has a balance of closeness and separateness.
Family members rarely say what they want.

It seems there are always people around home who are not members of the
family.

Certain family members order everyone else around.

It seems as if family members can never find time to be together.
Family menbers are severely punished for anything they do wrong.
lie know very little about the friends of other family meiabers.
Family members feel they have no say in solving problems.

Members of our family share many interests.

Our family is as well adjusted as any family in this world can be.
Family members are encouraged to do their own thing.
Family'members never know how others are going to act.

Certain individuals seem to cause most of our family problems.

I don‘t think any family could live together with greater harmony than
my family.

It is hard to know what the rules are in our family because they always
change.

Family members find it hard to get away from each other.
Family members feel that the family will never change.

Family members feel they have to go along with what the -,family decides
to do.

 

 

63

Scoring Sheet

”UnUwfiTU@D_UmU ..wDW.
tn. mm mu 5 an “Dun .
mm ”D .»_H_ "U”!

 

 

EEEEEEEDEDQEEDEEEE
unuunnmmmmummmmmmm
EEBBBEBBBDEBBEBBEB
fimunnnuwauuuauunuwun
mmmmmmamammaammaaaam
F unnwaaaaaaannnnnun

EEEEEEEBEDEEEQEEEED

naaaaaaaaaaauaaaaau

m
mmmaammaammawmmammmmmu
mm

unnnuuuuunnnnnuuuuwe

mmaaaammmagmamgamama :

tattatxammwauauaunn.

 

64

Directions for Hand Scoring FACES

Computation of Individual Row Scores

1.

3.

Begin by placing the transparent template on top of the
answer sheet so that the boxes on the answer sheet line
up with the boxes on the template.

Starting with the first row, multiply the individual
responses by the number that appears in the upper right-
hand corner of the corresponding box on the template.
Add these weighted scores for all six items in Row 1

and enter the total in the box marked "EB" at the far
right of the row on the answer sheet.

Continue in this manner, multiplying individual
responses by the number in the corresponding template
boxes and adding up each row, inserting the total in
the appropriate box. Omit rows beginning with items
10, 14 and 19.

For rows beginning with Items 10, 14, and 19, if the
box in the template contains the notation "5-",
subtract the individual response from 5. This becomes
the new score. Otherwise, add all the scores in the
row and insert this total in the apprOpriate box
(marked "SD" at the far right of each of these rows).

Computation of Dimension Scores

1.

The Social Desirability Score is obtained by adding
the numbers in the three SD boxes. Place in box
provided at bottom right of answer sheet.

The Adaptability Dimension Score is obtained by adding

the numbers in the second column of boxes (A, Adaptability;
Con, Conflict; D, Discipline; N, Negotiation, Ru, Rules,
SF, System Feedback). Place this number in the box marked
"Adap".

The Cohesion Dimension Score is obtained by adding the
numbers in the last column of boxes (EB, Emotional Bonding;
FB, Family Boundaries; T, Time; F, Friends; IR, Interests
and Recreation; I, Independence; Coal, Coalitions;

S, Space. DH, Decision Making). Place this number in

the box marded "Coh".

65

Cohesion Subscales

Subscales
Emotional Bonding
Independence
Family Boundaries
Coalitions

Time

Space

Friends

Decision Making

Interests and Recreation

Items

1, 20, 39. 58, 76, 94
11, 30, 49, 68, 86, 104
3, 22, 41, 60, 78, 96
13, 32, 51, 70, 88, 106
5, 24, 43, 62, 80, 98
16, 35, 54, 73, 91, 109
7, 26, 45, 64, 82, 100
18, 37, 56, 75, 93, 111
9, 28, 47, 66, 84, 102

Appendix c

Social Activity Interview and

Interviewer's Summary Sheet

Appendix C
Social Activity Interview

1. How many times have you visited your home since you
entered college?

2. How many times have you gone elsewhere besides home for
weekends or vacations since you entered college?

3. How often do you call your parents (times/week)
4. How often do your parents call you? (times/week)

5. How often do you call High School friends who are not
at HSU?

6. How many of your High School friends came to HSU? Use a
scale from one to five, where one indicates that none are
here, and five means all high school friends are here.

1 2 3 4 5
None All

7. Everything considered, how satisfied are you with your
social life? Use a scale from one to five (1-dissatisfied,
5'very happy). '

1 2 3 4 5
dissatisfied very happy

8. Everything considered, how satisfied are you with your
academic work? Use a scale from one to five (1-dissatisfied,
5'very pleased).

1 2 3 4 5
dissatisfied very pleased

9. How often do you go out socially at night?
10. Ideally, how often would you like to go out?
11. What do you do when you go out?
12. What other things would you like to do?

13. How much time a week do you devote to sports activities?

14. Ideally, how much would you like to be involved in sports?_____

66

15.
16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

67

How much time a week do you devote to campus activities?

Ideally, how much time would you like to devote to campus
activities?

Think of your closest same-sex friend:

Is this friend at home or at college?

Describe what your friendship is like.

In what ways does this friendship differ from a casual
acquaintance?

Do you find yourself acting differently with your closest
friend as compared to more casual friends? How?

Do you talk about different subjects? What?

Are your activities different?

Are there things you wish you could expres with your best
friend that you can't express now? What?

What do you thihk would bring you closer together?

How would you describe the ideal friendship?

Think of your closest male friend:

Is he a friend at USU or one from home?

Is this person your boyfriend, or just a friend?

What is your friendship like?

How intimate is it?

In what ways is it the same or different from friends

of your same sex?

How satisfied are you with the balance you have of
close friends versus acquaintances? Use a scale from
one to five. (1-dissatisfied, 5-very pleased).

1 2 3 4 5
Dissatisfied Very pleased

On a scale from one to five, would you say that you have
been happier or less happy since you came to college, as
compared to how you felt in high school? (1-much less
happy in college, S-much happier in college).

1 2 3 4 5
Much less happy Much happier

When you need money, where is it most likely to come

 

from? (e.g. parents, job, relatives etc.)

Do you have a job?
Do you think you need one?

 

(For students who work)
Describe your relationships with the people you work with
on the job.

24.

68

a. Who initiated your going away to college? Use a 5-point

scale where 1-your mother, 5'you, and 3-both of you equally.

1 2 3 4 5
Mother Both of us Me

Now evaluate who initiated your going away to college
using a five-point scale, where 1=your father, 5'you,
and 3-both of you equally.

1 2 3 4 5
Father Both of us He

Use a five-point scale to evaluate who initiated your
going away to college, where 1-your mother, 5'your father,
and 3=both of them equally.

1 2 3 4 5
Mother Both.of them Father

69

Interviewer's Summary Sheet

The quality of this student's social involvement is

1 ' 2 3 4 5
poor average excellent

Overall, the student's mood during the interview was
1 2 3 4 5

very depressed average elated

The student's primary social or interpersonal

involvements are

1 2 3 4 5
home college

Her adjustment to college has been

1 2 3 4 5
very difficult very easy
This student's energy level during the interview was

1 2 3 4 5
very high normal very slow, sedate

Appendix D

Mooney Problem Checklist - Abridged
farm, Interpersonal GridfOrm

and checklist subscales

atomqm mewN-t
O

O.

12.
13.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.

36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Appendix D
Mooney Problem Checklist

Feeling tired much of the time

Being underweight or overweight

Not getting enough sleep

Not as strong and healthy as I should be
Too tall or too short

Managing my finances poorly

Going in debt for college expenses

Too many financial problems

Disliking financial dependence on others
Lacking privacy in living quarters

Not enough time for recreation

Too little chance to get into sports
Too little time to myself

Wanting to improve myself culturally
Awkward in meeting peeple

Being ill at ease with other peeple
Having no close friends in college
Wanting to be more popular

Being left out of things

Being talked about

Taking things too seriously
Finding it difficult to relax
Moodiness, ”having the blues"
Having bad luck

Unhappy too much of the time

Too few dates

Afraid of losing the one I love

Going with someone my family won't accept
Loving someone who doesn't love me

Too inhibited in sex matters

Parents sacrificing too much for me
Worried about a member of my family

Friends not welcomed at home
Home life unhappy
Not getting along with a member of my family

Not going to church often enough
Doubting the value of worship and prayer
Science conflicting with my religion
Parents old-fashioned in their ideas
Affected by racial or religious prejudice

7O

41.
42.
430
44.
45.

46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

56.
57.
58.
'59.
60.

61.
62.
63.
64.
65.

66.
67.
68.
69.
70.

71.
72.
73.
74.
75.

76.
77.
78.
79.
80.

71

Not knowing how to study effectively

Not planning my work ahead

Having a poor background for some subjects
Forgettings things I've learned in school
Getting low grades

Restless at delay in starting life work
Doubting wisdom of my vocational choice
Purpose in going to college not clear
Wanting to change to another college
Needing to plan ahead for the future

Hard to study in living quarters

Teachers too hard to understand

College too indifferent to student needs
Dull classes

Not getting individual help from teachers

Frequent colds

Frequent headaches

Menstrual or female disorders
Trouble with digestion
Needing medical advice

Not getting satisfactory diet

Unsure of my future financial support
Needing a job during vacations
Working for all my expenses
Dissatisfied with my present job

Boring weekends

Wanting to improve my appearance

Wanting more worthwhile discussions with people
Too little social life

Nothing interesting to do in vacations

Speaking or acting without thinking

Disliking someone or being disliked by someone
Finding it hard to talk about my troubles
Hurting other people's feelings

Too easily led by other people

Losing my temper

Being careless or lazy

Not taking things seriously enough
Lacking self- confidence

Too easily led by other people

81.
82.
83.
84.
85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.

91.
92.
93.
94.
95.

96.
97.
98.
99.
100.

101.
102.
103.
104.
105.

106.
107.
108.
109.
110.

72

Wondering if I'll ever find a suitable mate
Being in love

Breaking up a love affair

Sexual needs unsatisfied

Thinking too much about sex matters

Clash of opinion between me and parents
Parents expecting too much of me

Being treated like a child at home
Getting home too seldom

Relatives interfering with family affairs

Wanting to feel close to God

Having a certain bad habit

Sometimes not being as honest as I should be
Having a troubled or guilty conscience
Giving in to temptations

Having too many outside interests
Not getting studies done on time
Unable to concentrate well
Worrying about examinations
Fearing failure in college

Not knowing where I belong in the world
Needing information about occupations

Doubting I can get a job in my chosen vocation
Wanting advice on next steps after college
Wanting to quit college

Classes too large

Too much work required in some courses
Forced to take courses I don't like
Grades unfair as measures of ability
Campus activities poorly co-ordinated

 

ad.

gal...

73

Interpersonal Gridform

the r relati

       

l’rnhlcl

F1

 

HPD:
FLE:

SRA:

PPR:

CSM:

MR:
ACW:
FVE:

CTP:

74

Mooney Problem Checklist Subscales

Health and Physical Development

Finances, Living Conditions and Employment
Social and Recreational Activities
Social-Psychological Relations
Personal-Psychological Relations
Courtship, Sex and Marriage

Home and Family

Morals and Religion

Adjustment to College Work

The Future: Vocational and Educational

Curriculum and Teaching Procedure

Item Numbers
1-5,56-6O
6-10,61-65
11-15,66-7O
16-20,71-75
21-25,76-80
26-30,81-85
31-35,86-90
36-40,91-95
41 -45 ,96-100
46-50,101-105

51-55,106-110

Appendix E

Demographic Questionnaire

and BDI-Short Form

Appendix E
Demographic Questionnaire and BDI Short-Form

Below are 32 general questions. Please answer by either
circling your response or by filling in the blank.

 

 

 

 

Age

Major

Number of brothers 4898
Number of sisters 4898

 

 

1. Are your parents living together? Yes No
2. If no, what was the cause of separation? (Death, divorce, etc)

Year

 

3. Has either of your parents remarried? Please give year, and
circle which parent you live with.

Mother (year)

 

Father (year)
4. How far away do you live from M.S.U.?

a. Less than one-half hour away

b. Between one—half hour and one hour away
c. Between one and two hours away

d. Further than two hours away

5. How many times have you moved to a new home?
6. Think of your closest relatives in your extended family.

What is their relation to you? (Grandparents, aunts, uncles,
cousins etc.)

 

How close do you live to them?

a. Less than one-half hour away

b. Between one half-hour and one hour away
c. Between one and two hours away

d. Further than two hours away

75

76

The following questions (7-13) refer to the first occasion you
can recall spending what is for you a significant amount of time
away from home:

7.

10.

11.

12.

13.

The main reason for being away from home was:

a. Major illness or death in the family; whose?
b. Divorce or separation of parents

c. School

d. Vacation or summer camp

e. Visiting relatives

f. Other

 

The period of time away from home which you feel to be
significant in this case is:

a. A day or less

b. A week or less

c. A month or less

d. More than a month

On this occasion, who initiated this home-leaving?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Parents Both of us Me

How far away from home did you go?

a. Less than a half-hour away

b. Between one half-hour and one hour away
c. Between one and two hours away

d. Further than two hours away

During this separation from home, who did you stay with?
a. Parents

b. Other close relatives, but not parents

c. A close friend

d. Other peOple, but no one with whom you felt close

e. Alone

How old were you at this time of leaving home?
a. Less than 6 years of age

b. 6 to 8 years of age

c. 9 to 11 years of age

d. 12 to 14 years of age

e. 15 or older

On the whole, how would you describe this experience away
from home?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neutral Great
Difficult

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

77

All together, how many occasions can you recall when you
spent a significant amount of time away from home?

Who initiated these homeleavings?

1 2
Parents

4 5 6 7
Both of us Me

On the whole, how would you describe these experiences

away from home?

1 2

Very
Difficult

4 5 6 7
Neutral Great

Below is a list of adjectives. Circle each one that
describes how you feel about going away to college.

Abandoned
Amusement
Anger
Anxiety
Apathy
Boredom
Ghee rfulness
Confidence
Contentment
Delight
Depression
Determination
Disgust
Dislike
Elation
Enjoyment

Excitement
Fear
Frustration
Gaiety
Greif
Guilt
Happiness
HOpe
Inspiration
Nervousness
Panic

Pride
Relief
Remorse
Resentment
Sadness

Consider the list of adjectives below. Circle each adjective
that describes how you think your mother feels about your

leaving home for college.

Abandoned
Amusement
Anger
Anxiety
Apathy
Boredom
Cheerfulness
Confidence
Contentment
Delight
Determination
Disgust

Excitement
Fear
Frustration
Gaiety
Greif
Guilt
Happiness
Hope
Inspiration
Nervousness
Pride
Relief

78

Dislike Remorse
Elation Resentment
Enjoyment Sadness

19. Consider the list of adjectives below. Circle each adjective
that describes how you think your father feels about your
leaving home for college.

Abandoned Excitement
Amusement Fear

Anger Frustration
Anxiety ' Gaiety
Apathy Greif
Boredom Guilt
Cheerfulness Happiness
Confidence HOpe
Contentment Inspiration
Delight Nervousness
Determination .Pride
Disgust Relief
Dislike Remorse
Elation Resentment
Enjoyment Sadness

On questions 20-32 you will find groups of statements. Please
read the entire group of statements of each category. Then pick
out the one statement in that group which best describes the way
you feel today, that is, right now! Circle the number beside
the statement you have chosen.‘ If several statements in the
group seem to apply equally well, circle each one.

Be sure to read all the statements in each group before making
your choice.

20. 3. Im so sad or unhappy that I can' t stand it.
2. Ian blue or sad all the time and I can't snap out of it.
1. I feel sad or blue.
0. I do not feel sad.

21. 3. I feel that the future is hapeless and that things
cannot inprove.
2. I feel I have nothing to look forward to.
1. I feel discouraged about the future.
0. I am not particularly pessimistic or discouraged
about the future.

22. 3. I feel I am a complete failure as a person (parent,
husband, wife). .
2. As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of

failure.
1. I feel I have failed more than the average person.

230

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

79

I do not feel like a failure.

am dissatisfied with everything.

don't get satisfaction out of anything anymore.
don't enjoy things the way I used to.

am not particularly dissatisfied.

HHHH

feel as though I am very bad or worthless.
feel quite guilty.

feel bad or unworthy a good part of the time.
don't feel particularly guilty.

HHHH

hate myself.

am disgusted with myself.

am disappointed in myself.

don't feel disappointed in myself.

HHHH

would kill myself if I had the chance.

have definite plans about committing suicide.
feel I would be better off dead.

don't have any thoughts of harming myself.

HHHH

have lost all of my interest in other people and
don't care about them at all.

have lost most of my interest in other people and
have little feeling for them.

an less interested in other peOple than I used to be.
have not lost interest in other peeple .

HHH

HH

can't make any decisions at all anymore.
have great difficulty in making decisions.
try to put off making decisions.

make decisions about as well as ever.

hihihdhd

I feel that I an ugly or repulsive-looking.

I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance
and they make me look unattractive.

I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.

I don't feel that I look any worse than I used to.

I can’t do any work at all.

I have to push myself very hard to do anything.

It takes extra effort to get started at doing something.
I can work about as well as before.

I get too tired to do anything.

I get tired from doing anything.

I get tired more easily than I used to.
I don't get any more tired than usual.

32.

3.
2.
1.
0.

I have no appetite at all anymore.

My appetite is much worse now.

My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
My appetite is no worse than usual.

 

‘J
p.
. .

Illa II .I

gwmi
_

Appendix F

Positive and Negative Adjectives

Describing Homeleaving

Appendix F

Positive and Negative Adjectives

Describing Homeleaving

POSITIVE
Amusement
Cheerfulness
Confidence
Contentment
Delight
Determination
Elation
Enjoyment
Excitement
Gaiety
Happiness
Hope
Inspiration
Pride

Relief

81

NEGATIVE
Abandoned
Anger
Anxiety
Apathy
Boredom
Depression
Disgust
Dislike
Fear
Grustration
Grief

Guilt
Nervousness
Panic
Remorse
Resentment

Sadness

Appendix G

Demographic Data

Appendix G

Demographic Data
Significant Findings
Source of income
Students needing jobs

Initiator of student's homeleaving for college

Nonsignificant Findings

Age

Major

Number of Brothers

Number of sisters

Total number of children in family
Subject's age rank in family
Parent's marital status

Cause of parent's separation

Year of parent's separation

Year mother remarried

Year father remarried

Parent subject lives with

Distance between college and home
Number of times subject has moved to a new home
Closest relatives in extended family
Distance to closest relatives

Reason for first homeleaving

82

83

Duration of first homeleaving

Initiator of first homeleaving

Distance from home during first homeleaving

People with subject at first homeleaving

Age at first homeleaving

Total rating of first homeleaving

Total number of homeleavings

Initiator of later homeleavings

Total rating of later homeleavings

Number of visits home since beginning college (2 mos)
Number of trips elsewhere since beginning college (2 mos)
Frequency of telephone calls to parents per week
Frequency of telephone calls from parents per week
Frequency of telephone calls to H.S. friends per week
Number of H.S. friends at college with subject
Satisfaction with social life

Satisfaction with academic life

Social Activities - number of nights per week

Social Activities - ideal number of nights per week
List of social activities '

List of ideal social activities

Sports - number of times per week

Sports - ideal number of times per week

Satisfaction with balance of close friends vs acquaintances
Happiness in college vs high school

Subject holds a job

84

Initiator of going to college, Mother vs. self
Initiator of going to college, Mother vs. Father

Interviewer's ratings on locus of social involvements

References

References

Abrams, J.C. & Goldman, J. Separation-individuation in relation to
learning inhibition in adolescence. J. Clinical Child Psychology,

76(spr), Vol §(12: 41-44.

Beck, A.T., Rial, W.Y. & K. Rickels, Short form of depression inven-

tory: cross-validation. Psychological Repgrts, 1974, .25: 1184-
1186.

Bloom, B.L. A university freshman preventitive intervention program:

Report of a pilot project. J. Con u t Ps ch lo

3108. P- The second individuation process of adolescence. The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1967, 225 162-186.

Boszormenyi—Nagy, I, Loyalty flmplications of the transference model

of psychotherapy. Azghiyga gt Gengygl ngchiatry, 1972, 21: 374-
380.

Brewer, F.B. nay Egzapggjjyga gn Egzagnality Develgpgent in Cgllege
.SIQQQnta. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1973.

Chickering, A.W. The development of autonomy. c J. O -
nazshiaizy. 1967, 215 203-204.

Chickering, A.W. Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1969.

Chickering, A.W., McDowell, J. a D. Campagna, Institutional dif-

ferences and student deve10pment. J. Educational Psychology, 1969,
60(4): 315-326.

Douvan, E.A.M. & Adelson, J. The Adolescent Experieggg. New York:
Wiley, 1966.

Karpel, M. Individuation: From fusion to dialogue. Fam Pr 9 ,
1976, 125 65-82.

Katz, J. Psychodynamics of deve10pment during the college years. In

Bloom, B.L. (ed), Psyghological Stress in the Campgs Community:
TheoyyII Regggygh and Agtigp. New York: Behavioral Publications,
1975, 43-76.

Leary, T.F., The Interpersonal Diagnosis of Personality. New York:
Ronald, 1957.

85

Mahler, M.S., Pine, F. d A. Bergman, The Psychological Birth of thg
Human Infant. London: Hutchinson, 1975-

Murphey, E., Silber, E., C.Coelho, D. Hamburg & I. Greenberg, Devel-
Opment of autonomy and parent-child interaction in late adolescence.

W. 1969.12: 643-652-

Olson, D.H., Russell, C.S. & D.H. Sprenkle, Circumplex model of'mar-
ital and family systems II: Empirical studies and clinical interb

vention. Adyances in Family Intervention, Assessment and Theogy,
Vol. 1, JAI Press, 1980, 129-179.

Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D.H. & C.S.Russell, Circumplex model of mari-
tal and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions,
family types and clinical applications. Family Process, 1979 (Apr).

Roy, 12.3. The changing adolescent. In Usdin, G.L. (ed), Adoles-
cence: Care and Counseling. London: Lippincott, 1967.

Russell, C. Circumplex model of marital and family systems II
Empirical evaluation with families. Eggily Process, 1979, 1
29-45.

I:
la:

Sanford, N. (ed.) The American College: A Psychological and Socio-
lggical Interpretation of Higher Learning. NY: Wiley, 1962.

Smith, R.M. a Smith, A.R., Attachment and educational investment of
adolescence. Adole cen , 1976(Fall), 11(43): 349-357.

Stierlin, H. Separatinngarents and Adolescents. New York: Quad-k
rangle, 1972.

   

 

lliiiiililliiillilfl '