-m .5 l R... 9..
3.5m? {kahuna
. .um.,...s,.,¥s$‘

l . . ‘ . ‘

,. .m- 5.?!

3::
~ uh...

" 4)

G

5.. .v

:0 g.

.45
.. aﬁmwm:
law."

3 .. 3:3“...
.. T. .L.

.9 .. it:
u .0. 5.3.3.!
i n. I.‘ I.

r
I (’9!!! p
£3.11]; .61:
.281!

‘32:: 1):.

 

DEER.” ‘ ‘ i .
H. . 31.23%. “in.

 

‘3; 25.
E... I.

. .

(.9

THESP

VERS SIITY LIBRARIES

III II III IIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 0102

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

CorreIates of
Idealization, Deidealization, and Denigration
in Young Adults

presented by

Lisa Pirsch Sackett

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degreein Psychology

 

 

professor

Date November 2, 1993

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOXtoromavothb Mountain younocord.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; -I___I::
iI—W—l

MSU IoAn Afﬁrmative ActlmlEqml Opportunlty Institution

 

CORRELATES 0F
IDEALIZATION, DEIDEALIZATION, AND DENIGRATION
IN YOUNG ADULTS
By

Lisa Pirsch Sackett

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology
1993

ABSTRACT

CORRELATES OF
IDEALIZATION, DEIDEALIZATION, AND DENIGRATION
1N YOUNG ADULTS
By

Lisa Pirsch Sackett

Deidealization is the gradual, intrapsychic process through which adolescents replace
aggrandized, immature and simplistic parental images with multidimensional, mature, and
realistic parental images. Successful resolution of the deidealization process is one
important part of adolescent separation and individuation.

The present research offered a new way to operationalize and measure deidealization in
college students (ages 17 - 22), and sought to identify correlates that might be
systematically associated with deidealization. Speciﬁcally, three goals were pursued.
First, this research conceptualized and operationalized deidealization as a two-dimensional
construct involving Wm, and empathy. Subjects were divided
into six groups (representing degrees of parental deidealization, idealization, and
denigration) based on their ability to acknowledge parental fallibility, as well as their ability
to evaluate the parent in a psychologically sophisticated and empathic manner.

A second goal of this study was to examine whether deidealization status was
associated with systematic differences in adolescents' development of conflictual
independence (that is, freedom from fears about parental judgement, disapproval,
retribution, or disappointment, and freedom from feelings of shame, guilt, or rage in
relation to the parent). Somewhat suprisingly, the data revealed no signiﬁcant relationships
between deidealization status and the development of conﬂictual independence.

Finally, a third goal of this study was to investigate whether and to what degree family

dysfunction was systematically associated with patterns of deidealization, denigration, or

idealization. Results indicated that a high level of marital conﬂict was associated with
deidealization status in sons' and daughters' relationships with their fathers, but not their
mothers. Paternal alcoholism was not associated with deidealization status for sons' or
daughters' relationship with mothers or fathers.

The results of this study are discussed, and direction for future research is offered.

This dissertation is dedicated to my husband,
for being a harbor when the seas were rough,
and a brisk wind when the sailing was smooth.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project could not have been completed without the involvement and assistance of
many people:

First and foremost, I thank Susan Frank, for her assistance in developing the ideas in
this work. She challenged me to sharpen my thinking, writing, and analytic skills, which
ultimately led to a better dissertation. I am grateful for her many contributions to my
research and clinical training over the years.

Thanks also go to Jackie Lerner, Tom Luster, and Ellen Strommen. Their diverse
orientations, helpful comments and thoughtful suggestions made thesis committee meetings
more interesting, and made the dissertation a richer learning experience.

Special thanks go to Ginny Wright, who coordinated the research project from which
the data in this study were taken. Her dedication and good spirits halved the burden and
doubled the excitement of research for me. I am especially grateful for our years of
friendship, and look forward to the years to come.

Thanks go to my family, who believed I could complete this undertaking, and who
encouraged me when my enthusiasm waned. I am grateful to my mother, sister, and aunt
for their cheery support, and to my parents-in-law for providing me with bed, board, and
unlimited long-distance phone calls to my husband when I returned to Michigan to
complete the dissertation.

Finally, my deepest thanks go to my husband, Don. In difﬁcult times, I have relied on
his patience, humor, generosity, equanimity, and optimism. He has made many sacriﬁces
to support my completion of graduate school, the internship year, and the dissertation. I

am glad that he came into my life ﬁve years ago, and that he chose to remain there.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bag:
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM ................................... 1
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................... 7
Developmental Tasks of Adolescence ....................................... 7
The Deidealization Process ................................................... 10
Implications of Deidealization for
Adolescent Adjustment ................................................. 13
Deidealization and Conﬂictual Independence ............................... 23
Protracted Idealization and Conﬂictual Independence ..................... 24
Parental Denigration and Conflictual Independence ........................ 26
The Family Environment and Deidealization ............................... 27
Protracted Idealization .................................................. 30
Parental Denigration .................................................... 33
Deidealization ............................................................ 37
Summary ........................................................................ 39
CHAPTER 3. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ................................................ 41
CHAPTER 4. METHOD ....................................................................... 42
Subjects ......................................................................... 42
Procedures ...................................................................... 43
Measures ........................................................................ 44
Parent Alcoholism ...................................................... 44
Parent Conflict ........................................................... 45
Adolescent Deidealization Status ..................................... 46
Conﬂictual Independence .............................................. 50
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS ...................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION ................................................................. 85
APPENDICES
A. Parent Alcohol Consumption Questionnaire ............................................... 10 3
B. Positive Parent Conﬂict Resolution Scale .................................................. 106

vi

C. Emotional Autonomy Scale--Father ....................................................... 10 8

Emotional Autonomy Scale-Mother ...................................................... 1 10
D. Young Adult/Parent Relationship Interview--Father ................................... 1 12
Young Adult/Parent Relationship Interview--Mother ................................... 1 19
E. Coding Manual for the Young Adult/Parent
Relationship Interview .................................................................... 127
F. Personal Background Questionnaire ....................................................... 148
G. Informed Consent Agreements
Phase One .................................................................................. 152
Recontact Form ............................................................................ 153
Phase Two ................................................................................. 154
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 155

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Bags:

1. Descriptive statistics for variables of interest for males, females and

total samples .................................................................................. 54
2. Differences between males and females on variables of interest ........................ 55
3 . Pearson correlations among variables of interest for the total sample. ................ 56
4. Frequency distribution of "perception of fallibility" scores in the relationship

with mother and father. ..................................................................... 59
5. Group membership of male and female subjects in relationships with

mothers and fathers .......................................................................... 62
6. Analysis of variance of conﬂictual independence by group membership

in subjects' relationships with mothers .................................................... 64
7. Means and standard deviations for conﬂictual independence by group

membership in subjects' relationships with mothers. ................................... 65
8. Analysis of variance of conﬂictual independence by group membership

in relationship with fathers .................................................................. 67
9. Analysis of variance (controlling for marital conﬂict) of conﬂictual

independence by group membership in relationship with fathers ...................... 67
10. Means and standard deviations for conﬂictual independence by group

membership in subjects' relationship with fathers ....................................... 68
1 1. Analysis of variance for perceived marital conﬂict by group membership

for subjects in relation to mothers .......................................................... 7O
12. Means and standard deviations for perceived marital conﬂict by group

membership in subjects' relationship with mothers ...................................... 71
13. Analysis of variance of marital conﬂict by gender and group membership

in relationship with fathers .................................................................. 73
14. Means and standard deviations for marital conﬂict by gender and by group

membership in relationship with fathers .................................................. 74
15. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for daughters

in relation to mothers ........................................................................ 75

viii

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for daughters

in relation to fathers ......................................................................... 77
Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for sons in

relation to mothers ........................................................................... 78
Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for sons in

relation to fathers ............................................................................. 79
Relationship between COA status and deidealization group (controlling

for perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to mothers .......................... 81
Relationship between COA status and deidealization group (controlling

for perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to fathers ............................ 82
Relationship between COA status and collapsed deidealization groups

(controlling for perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to mothers ............ 84
Relationship between COA status and collapsed deidealization groups
(controlling for perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to fathers ............... 84

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Bass:
1. Four groups based on deidealization and empathy scores ................................. 49
2. Six groups based on deidealization and empathy scores ................................... 60

CHAPTER 1
Inundnctionﬂeﬂmhlem

Adolescence is a time of transition from childhood to adulthood, and usually involves
some difﬁculty as teens navigate major physical, cognitive, emotional and social changes.
Although theorists debate both the necessity and intensity of adolescent "storm and stress"
(Douvan & Adelson, 1966; Erikson, 1956; Freud, 1958; Laufer, 1966; Offer & Offer,
1975) most agree that as psychological reorganization takes place, adolescents' interests,
values and capabilities are transformed and adolescents gradually become ready to
psychologically "leave home" (Haley, 1981). The core transformations that begin in early
adolescence continue throughout the adolescent and early adult years, and are not expected
to be fully resolved until the third decade of life. By the end of the 20s, psychologically
healthy individuals are expected to have resolved several major developmental issues,
including separation and individuation from parents, the establishment of new and
meaningful relationships outside the family of origin, and identity consolidation.

Blos (1967) describes the separation/individuation process in detail, and stresses its
centrality to adolescent development. According to Blos, the adolescent's primary struggle
is to disengage from the parents and replace parental control with self-governance.
Presumably, adolescents' narcissism, arrogance, rebellion, and challenges to parental
authority speak to the intensity with which adolescents desire behavioral autonomy--that is,
freedom from parental control and freedom to determine their own actions and behavior.
However, the separation process does not merely facilitate behavioral autonomy and
independence from parental dictates. The disengagement from childhood dependencies in
adolescence takes place not only in relation to the parents, but also in relation to the

adolescent's own internal beliefs about parent infallibility and omnipotence. By the time
1

2
they reach early adulthood, most children have relinquished immature parental

representations, as well as their strongly held beliefs in parental perfection, and have begun
to question their reliance on parental evaluations of their self-worth. These phenomena are
more private and complex than the development of behavioral autonomy, and constitute the
deidealization process.

Deidealization is ﬁrst and foremost the process by which adolescents give up
aggrandized views of their parents. In childhood, idealizing one's parents facilitates
identiﬁcation with parental interests, moral demands, prohibitions, and criticisms, and as
such is necessary for superego development. However, according to classic
psychoanalytic theory, by late adolescence, individuals have internalized parental standards
and are able to apply these standards in evaluating the parents themselves. Thus,
adolescents gradually become aware of parental faults and weaknesses, and they realize that
their parents have multidimensional interests and lead lives separate from their parenting
role. Successful resolution of the deidealization process is evident in adolescents' ability to
sufﬁciently differentiate themselves from their parents so that they can assert themselves as
autonomous persons, can accept realistic views of their parents that integrate both positive
and negative characteristics, and can be free from feelings of guilt or shame in their
relationship with their parents.

The deidealization process has been the subject of a number of empirical studies. To
date, most researchers have relied on a questionnaire designed by Steinberg and Silverberg
(1986) which operationalizes deidealization as a unidimensional construct: that is, whether
and to what extent an adolescent recognizes the possibility of parental fallibility. As such,
an adolescent who earns a "low" deidealization score describes his or her parents' opinions
and values as always correct, reports that parents are perfect, and that parents' decisions
and beliefs are infallible. In contrast, an adolescent who earns a "high" score
acknowledges that his or her parent is capable of making mistakes, and that the parents'
judgments and opinions are not always superior to the adolescent's attitudes and beliefs.

However, studies that measure deidealization simply as parental fallibility provide mixed

3
(and at times confusing and contradictory) conclusions. For example, some researchers

have argued that deidealizaﬁon--operationalized as the adolescent's acknowledgment of
parental fallibility--is an important component of healthy adolescent development, one that
fosters self-reliance and emotional autonomy (Steinberg & Silverberg, I986; Lambom &
Steinberg, 1990), while others have argued that it results in primarily negative outcomes,
such as estrangement from parents, identity confusion, and a negative self—concept (Ryan
& Lynch, 1989).

One explanation for these contradictory results is that by treating deidealization and
perception of parental fallibility as equivalent constructs, researchers obtain an inadequate
measure of deidealization. Although recognition of parental fallibility is one core
component of the deidealization process, in isolation it may or may not signal
deidealization: parental fallibility is a necessary but not sufﬁcient condition for the
evaluation of deidealization. A richer and more comprehensive deﬁnition of deidealization
involves not only the ability to see one‘s parents as fallible, but also the ability to integrate a
parent's positive and negative qualities, and see the parent as a multidimensional person
with interests, goals, and motivations that are unrelated to the parenting role.

Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) attempted to integrate this component of deidealization
into their questionnaire by including a subscale that measures the adolescent's "Perception
of Parents as People". Although this subscale could potentially yield useful information
about whether and to what extent adolescents have developed parental representations that
are multidimensional and complex, the items on this subscale are worded in a pejorative
and somewhat paranoid tone (e.g., "I have wondered how my parents act when I am not
around"; "My parents probably talk about different things when I am around from what
they talk about when I'm not." ). As a result, researchers using Steinberg and Silverberg's
(1986) questionnaire measure are unable to accurately evaluate the degree to which an
adolescent has replaced unrealistic parental images with more mature, complex, and reality-
based perceptions of the parent.

4
Deidealization is better conceptualized and operationalized as a two-dimensional

construct, one that requires the traditional component of W,
as well as the added dimension of empathy. Empathy is the capacity to see another
individual (in this case, the parent) as a whole person; it refers to the adolescent's ability to
understand the parent as a complex person and to appreciate the parent's feelings and
perspective even when the parent's feelings differ from the adolescent's own feelings and
desires. By adding the empathy construct to the traditional operational deﬁnition of
deidealization, we can explore adolescent deidealization in a more precise and useful way.
A primary goal of this research was to use a two-dimensional schema to evaluate
adolescent deidealization. Using the two constructs of "perception of parental fallibility"
and "empathy", adolescents can be grouped into one of four "cells": a) high perception of
fallibility/high empathy, b) high perception of fallibility/low empathy, 0) low perception of
fallibility/low empathy, and (1) low perception of fallibility/high empathy. This grouping
procedure allows for a comparison of adolescents with similar scores on perception of
parental fallibility, but who differ on empathy scores, as well as adolescents that have
similar empathy scores but hold very different opinions about parental fallibility.
Adolescents who continue to idealize their parents will be categorized as a "low perception
of parental fallibility/low empathy" group, for they cling to a simplistic and unrealistic view
of their parents as perfect. Adolescents who have engaged in the deidealization process
will fall into the "high perception of parental fallibility/high empathy" cell, for they maintain
a balanced view of their parents' strengths and weaknesses in lieu of an immature image of
parental perfection. The "high perception of parental fallibility/low empathy" cell will be
comprised of adolescents who recognize their parents' imperfections, but who cannot
develop a realistic image of their parents' positive qualities: these adolescents hold "all-
black", or unrealistically negative parental images, and can be identiﬁed as a denigrating
group. The fourth cell, "low perception of parental fallibility/high empathy" may not

meaningfully describe a group of adolescents, since it is unlikely that an adolescent who

5
maintains a complex and multidimensional view of the parent would not also endorse some

degree of parental fallibility as well.

The major advantage to using this two-dimensional schema is that it allows us to
discriminate between the adolescents who truly deidealize their parents (that is, adolescents
who acknowledge parental fallibility, and who have developed complex, realistic views of
their parents based on the integration of the parents' positive and negative qualities) from
the adolescents who denigrate their parents (that is, those that acknowledge parental
fallibility but who continue to see their parents in a unidimensional, unempathic way).
When researchers only consider parental fallibility, these two very different groups appear
identical, and the important qualitative differences between them are lost. Therefore, one
major goal of this research is to use the constructs of perception of parental fallibility and
empathy to differentiate and group adolescents who deidealize, denigrate, or continue to
idealize their parent.

A second goal of this study was to examine whether deidealization, denigration, and/or
idealization are associated with systematic differences in adolescents' development of
"conﬂictual independence" (Hoffman, 1984). Hoffman argues that adolescents who
successfully move through the separationﬁndividuation process eventually attain conﬂictual
independence: that is, freedom from fears about parental disapproval, retribution, or
disappointment; freedom to determine their own behavior without excessive concern about
parental judgments; and freedom from feelings of shame, guilt, or rage in relation to the
parent, as well as adequate control of negative feelings when conﬂicts with parents arise.
Theoretically, "conﬂictual independence" should only be evident in adolescents who have
successfully deidealized their parents. These adolescents do not need to look to the parent
to control or evaluate their behavior and standards; rather, they determine and evaluate their
own behavior, and presumably feel relatively unconstrained by parents' disapproval. In
contrast, adolescents who denigrate their parents are likely to experience intense and
overwhelming negative feelings toward a parent. These feelings may result in an inability

to control their behavior and emotions when confronted with tensions, difﬁcult situations,

6

and conﬂicts with that parent. Moreover, denigration often masks underlying feelings of
inferiority and shame that result from an adolescent's perceived failure to live up to parental
expectations. Finally, adolescents who continue to idealize their parents are likely to be
vulnerable to excessive guilt, inhibition, and anxiety, and may feel the most constrained by
fears of parental disapproval. Therefore, by examining the implications of deidealization,
denigration, and protracted idealization for the development of conﬂictual independence,
the validity of the two-dimensional conceptual schema can be evaluated.

A third important goal of this research concerns the family environments that may be
associated with deidealization, denigration and continued idealization of the parent. Most
adolescent researchers acknowledge that the degree of health or pathology in one's family
of origin can modify the normative processes of adolescence, including
separation/individuation (Haley, 1980; Sessa & Steinberg, 1991; Stierlin, Levi & Savard,
1981), so it is reasonable to hypothesize that deviations in the deidealization process also
may result from the degree of health or pathology in the adolescent‘s family of origin.
Family dysfunction (such as the presence of marital conﬂict or parental psychopathology)
may account for at least some of the systematic differences between adolescents who
deidealize, denigrate, or continue to idealize their parents. Consequently, in addition to
developing a two-dimensional model of deidealization, this study explored whether and to
what degree family dysfunction is systematically associated with patterns of deidealization,

denigration, or idealization of parents.

CHAPTERZ
B . Ell.

WW

Adolescence is a time of transition from childhood to adulthood, and usually involves
some difﬁculty as adolescents are confronted with myriad physical, cognitive, emotional
and social changes. However, theorists disagree on how intense the "storm and stress" of
adolescence is. Psychoanalytic theorists have described "normal" adolescence as a
turbulent and conﬂicted stage of development (A. Freud, 1958), with signiﬁcant emotional
shifts, low frustration tolerance, narcissistic withdrawal, and weaknesses and irnmaturities
of ego structure. In fact, A. Freud argues that the structural upheavals of adolescence are
manifest in "symptom formation of the neurotic, psychotic or dissocial order, and merge
into borderline states or fully-ﬂedged forms of almost all the mental illnesses (p. 267)".
Others within the analytic tradition describe adolescence as a period of identity moratorium
and crisis (Erikson, 1956), or else, one of grief and depression during which adolescents
separate emotionally from the parents and mourn their childhood (Laufer, 1966).

In contrast to this traditional view, which argues for the inevitability of turmoil during
adolescence, current researchers propose that normal adolescents experience little, if any,
of the intrapsychic upheaval ascribed to them in the analytic literature (Douvan and
Adelson, 1966). Offer and Offer (1975) emphasize that parents and adolescents share a core
of stable values and that adolescent rebellion generally occurs only over minor matters (for
example, hairstyles, curfew, music, etc.). According to Offer, Ostrov and Howard (1981),
adolescents usually maintain their psychological equilibrium while struggling with
developmental tasks, demonstrate successful social and family adjustment, and evidence

only mild or transient forms of distress such as depressed mood or anxiety.
7

8
Although it seems difﬁcult to reconcile the classic description of adolescence with

newer views, most theorists agree that the adolescent struggles with a strong desire to cling
to the past and an equally compelling wish to get on with the future (Rutter, Graham,
Chadwick & Yule, 1976). As psychological reorganization gradually takes place,
adolescents and their parents gain a clearer understanding of the transformed interests,
values and capabilities of the adolescent. Theoretically, by late adolescence or early
adulthood, an individual is well on the way towards resolving several major developmental
issues, including consolidation of an identity, the establishment of new and meaningful
relationships outside the family of origin, and separation and individuation from parents.
B108 (1967) stresses that "the second individuation process" is a crucial task for normal
adolescent development. The ﬁrst individuation process, a concept articulated by Mahler
(1963), is normally completed toward the end of toddlerhood, and is characterized by the
attainment of object constancy and the child's ability to distinguish between self and other.
The ﬁrst individuation process helps children differentiate between themselves and their
parents: it allows the child independence from the parent's physical presence because the
parent ﬁgure becomes internalized. In the second individuation process, the adolescent
reexamines and separates from internalized parental images as well as from the "real"
parent. As a result of disengagement from parental control and from immature attachments
to parental love objects, the second individuation process leads toward a more reality-based
evaluation of the parents and aids in the process of self-deﬁnition and ego maturity.

Blos emphasizes that one important goal of the individuation process is separation from
parental control and the development of self- governance. Adolescents' egocentrism, their
arrogance, and their challenges to parental authority reﬂect the intensity with which teens
desire freedom from parental control and freedom to determine their own actions and
behavior. Varying degrees of alienation from parents can result as adolescents move away
from parental control. Some adolescents temporarily turn toward the peer group to provide
the kind of support that they sacriﬁce in separating from the family: personal acceptance,

behavioral advice, emotional understanding and security (Elkin & Westley, 1955; Steinberg

9
& Silverberg, 1986). Even for the modal adolescent who continues to enjoy positive

relationships with his or her parents (Grotevant & Cooper, 1986; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986;
Rutter, et al., 197 6), the peer group assists in the separation/individuation process. Peers
help adolescents resolve internal conﬂicts within themselves, provide practical and personal
guidance in social situations, and provide a source (outside of the family) for honest and
critical evaluative feedback about a group member's behavior and personal attributes.

Eventually adolescents strike a psychological balance between their familial and
extrafamilial investments, adopting peer-endorsed attitudes and behaviors that are often
congruent with family-based values. By young adulthood, healthy individuals have
resolved most of their ambivalence regarding the strong desire for adult freedom and
independence on the one hand, and the residual wish for parental protection, security and
guidance on the other hand. These individuals have successfully "shed... family
dependencies...in order to become a member of the adult world" (Blos, 1967), and have
moved forward to consolidate a new, mature, and self- governed behavioral repertoire (Hill
& Holmbeck, 1986).

There is a second aspect of the second individuation process that goes beyond
facilitating behavioral autonomy and independence from parental dictates. The
disengagement from childhood dependencies during adolescence takes place not only in
relation to external objects (i.e., parent ﬁgures), but also in relation to the internalized love
objects of childhood. Most young adults eventually relinquish immature parental
representations, beliefs in parental infallibility, and overreliance on parental evaluations in
assessing their self-worth. This intrapsychic evolution away from archaic, aggrandized
parental representations and toward reality-based parental images has been referred to as

deidealization.

10

1111.1]..2

Deidealization can be understood from a psychoanalytic perspective as the ﬁnal

reworking of the Oedipal complex. As Jacobson (1964) writes:

The child's efforts to overcome his dangerous sexual and

aggressive tendencies toward his parents ﬁnd assistance in

reactively intensiﬁed opposite strivings: his admiration and

overestimation of his parents, and his magic belief in their

omnipotence and high value. (p. 109)
Inﬂating parents' image, and believing that their only role is that of parent are key
components of idealization; these phenomena simultaneously alleviate anxiety over
frightening impulses and satisfy the child's dependency need for powerful parents. In
addition, "the weak boundaries ....between self and object in the small child tend to cast the
gloriﬁcation and idealization back from the love object to the self." (Jacobson, p. 118,
1964). Consequently, childhood identiﬁcations with the powerful parent enhance the
child's security, expand his/her self image, and raise his/her self esteem. At this
developmental stage, children resist parental devaluation because it is equated with self-
devaluation.

Children's tendency to aggrandize their parents--and hence themselves--faci1itates
identiﬁcation with parental interests, moral demands, prohibitions, and criticisms which are
necessary for superego development. Initially, a child's conscience merely echoes parents'
moral judgments and expectations for the child's behavior, and a child's idealization of the
parent facilitates adoption of important parental beliefs and values (Blos, 1967; Jacobson,
1964). Gradually, the adolescent adopts these values and standards as his or her own, and
no longer relies on the parents to provide concrete representations of the abstract beliefs
they espouse. As adolescents mature, they do not seek to idealize the parent per se, nor
even idealize the abstract values that originated with the parent, but rather identify with
values and morals that they will come to consider their own. Jacobson explains:

The child's earlier tendency to aggrandize and glorify the
parents will be modiﬁed and transformed Gradually, he

constructs moral and ethical codes and
standards...Eventually, when superego formation has set in,

1 1

this idealization begins to be extended from the idealized

persons to abstract values in general, to ideas, ideals, and

ego ideal pursuits. From then on, [the child] no longer aims

merely at likeness with external objects, but also at likeness

with internalized standards. (pp. 110-112)
According to psychodynamic theorists, these changes take place primarily on an
intrapsychic or emotional level. Although these shifts have important implications for the
parent-child relationship and are often manifested in the overt interactions between a parent
and a child, the fundamental impetus for change involves intrapsychic restructuring,
namely, the adolescent must relinquish idealized parental images and deintensify emotional
investments made in the parents.

It is important to recognize that changes in the image of the self and of parents during
adolescence involve cognitive as well as intrapsychic factors. Piaget (1969) commented on
the important cognitive changes and their impact on adolescent development. He states:

The great novelty that characterizes adolescent thought--that

starts at the age of 11 or 12 but does not reach its point of

equilibrium until the age of 14 or 15... consists in detaching

the concrete logic from the objects themselves, so that it can

function on verbal or symbolic statements without other

support...The result consists in the possibility of

manipulating ideas themselves...In a word, the adolescent is

capable of building or understanding ideal concepts or

theories. The child cannot. (p. 148)
According to Piagetian theory, as the child matures, s/he becomes able to consider and
manipulate abstract concepts, and this cognitive shift can facilitate the adolescent's move
away from idealization of the parents per se, and toward adoption of the parents' abstract
values, standards, and ideals. Furthermore, in Piaget's view, the adolescent's capacity for
formal-operational thought enables the adolescent to consider "the real" versus "the
imagined" world. The adolescent becomes progressively more able to distinguish between
what is real (or what is based on physical, objective, or external evidence) and what is
imagined (or what is based on subjective, or internal needs or biases). In addition, the
adolescent has developed the cognitive capacity for logical reasoning and perspective-

taking, and therefore becomes able to objectively evaluate the conectness of his or her own

l 2
behavior and self-worth, as well as the behavior and lovability of important others

(Kohlberg & Gilligan, 1971).

Taken together, the intrapsychic and cognitive shifts that take place in adolescence have
important implications for the adolescent's evolving perceptions of their parent. Once
adolescents have developed the cognitive and emotional capacity to grapple with their
parents' abstract values and standards, and eventually internalize these values, they not
only judge their own behavior against these standards, but become able to measure their
parents against this same yardstick. Very often, when adolescents evaluate their parents
with newly-intemalized standards and values, the "reality parent" fails to match the old,
imagined, idealized representation of the parent. Adolescents are confronted with the fact
that, in actuality, their parents are not infallible and omnipotent beings exclusively devoted
to the well-being of their children (as the child might have wished), and instead are
ordinary, ﬂawed people with their own hopes, dreams, and struggles. Adolescents must
now surrender cherished images of their parent as perfect. As they relinquish fantasies of
parental infallibility, adolescents rely Iess on their parents for behavioral guidance, and
become freer to determine and evaluate their own behavior and standards. In sum, an
adolescent's growing awareness of parental fallibility is both an impetus for as well as one
core component of deidealization.

A second core component of deidealization is in many ways an outgrowth of the
adolescent's success in grappling with and eventually accepting the parent's fallibility.
This process also has a cognitive as well as an emotional base. As they become aware of
parental faults and weaknesses, adolescents gain more realistic views of their parents.
They relinquish immature images of their parents as perfect, and gradually develop more
mature images of their parents as complex and multidimensional. They realize their
parents fulﬁll life roles unrelated to the parent-adolescent relationship (i.e., employee,
spouse, lover, friend) and have interests separate from parenting. Gradually, young adults
come to understand the personal concerns, motivations, and needs of the person who is

their parent. They can identify both the positive and negative characteristics that they

1 3
perceive in their parent, neither clinging to "all-white" nor "all-black" parental images.

Beyond simply recognizing their parents' ﬂaws, vulnerabilities, and unique strengths, they
become able to integrate the positive and negative characteristics of the parent into a rich,
comprehensive and insightful understanding of the parent. In short, the adolescent can
view the parent with a newly-developed capacity for empathy. The development of
empathy in relation to the parent is the second core component of deidealization.

It is important to emphasize that successful resolution of the deidealization process is
demonstrated only when lnth of these aspects--recognition of parental fallibility and
empathic understanding-are evident. Neither one without the other is sufﬁcient to
constitute deidealization. For example, an adolescent who recognizes parental fallibility but
fails to view the parent as a multidimensional and complex individual has not yet attained a
parental image that is entirely realistic. Similarly, although some adolescents may describe
their parents as psychologically complex individuals, they may have difﬁculty
acknowledging that their own ideas, standards, and values could be superior to those of
their parents, or that their parents make mistakes. Successful resolution of the
deidealization process is only demonstrated when the adolescent can acknowledge parental

fallibility, and when he or she demonstrates an empathic understanding of the parent as a

psychologically complex individual.

 

A number of studies report that adolescent separation/individuation is not nonnatively
completed in adolescence: research indicates that most teenagers rely heavily on their
parents for guidance, advice, and as referents for determining personal values and
standards for conduct (Frank, et al., 1990; Hill & Holmbeck, 1986), and one study even
suggests that children typically expect and rely on their parents for assistance through the
third decade of life (Frank, Avery, & Laman, 1988). However, eventual successful
completion of deidealization and the forward-moving process of separation/individuation
has important implications for young adult adjustment. According to psychoanalytic

theory, only adolescents who deintensify their idealized emotional investments in their

14

parents, and who successfully resolve the issues and conﬂicts raised by deidealization can
become sufﬁciently differentiated from the parent to overcome exaggerated feelings of
inferiority, concerns about parental approval, and resentrnents over parental constraints.
They experience opportunities for greater separateness and self-direction (Hill &
Holmbeck, 1986) and a greater ability to regulate self-esteem (Josselson, 1980) because
their self-worth no longer depends on parental judgments about their actions, beliefs and
life goals. Greater certainty about one's own personality characteristics develops, and
identity development moves forward. This, in turn, facilitates greater success in the
attainment of identiﬁcations, intimacies and loyalties outside the family of origin. In
contrast, feelings of inadequacy, shame, and dependency may continue to affect those
individuals who cannot loosen their emotional attachments to their parents, who cling to
immature parental representations of perfection and power, and who feel constrained by
parental values and standards. Failure in the process of deidealization and subsequent
emotional disengagement interferes with the future task of ﬁnding extrafamilial attachments
and impedes young adult movement toward self- governance and independence.
Psychoanalytic theory strongly emphasizes the impact that separation and individuation
has on healthy adolescent adjustment (Blos, 1979), an assertion that is supported by both
clinical and research-based literatures. Elson (1964) and Fulmer, Medalie, and Lord (1982)
provide clinical data that supports the claims of analytic theory: they report that many
students who seek college mental health services demonstrate symptomatic manifestations
of the late adolescent struggle for separation and individuation. Haley (1980) argues that
young people receiving psychological treatment often evidence fundamental tensions
between leaving home and remaining within the family system. According to Haley (1980),
failure to successfully disengage from the family is likely to result in serious maladjustment
for these young adults. In addition, Teyber (1983) suggests that psychological separation
from parents is associated with late adolescents' successful academic adjustment in college,
and that college students who experience separation difﬁculties also demonstrate poorer

grades, poorer social adjustment, and higher rates of dropping out.

l 5
These links between successful separation/Individuation as a broad construct and

adolescent adjustment are conclusions drawn largely from the clinical literature. However,
there is almost no clinical literature examining the deidealization process per se (as distinct
from other aspects of separation/individuation), or implications of the deidealization
process for adolescent adjustment. Despite a relative paucity of clinical work on
deidealization, there are a number of empirical studies that examine associations between
the deidealization process and adolescent adjustment. However, the conclusions drawn by
these studies often seem mixed, and at times, contradictory: for example, some researchers
argue that deidealization is an important catalyst for healthy adolescent development, one
that has a predominantly positive impact on adolescent adjustment (Frank & Burke, 1991;
Frank, Pirsch & Wright, 1990; Lambom & Steinberg, 1990; Steinberg and Silverberg,
1986); in contrast, others argue that deidealization is primarily associated with adjustment
difﬁculties and strained parent-child relationships (Ryan & Lynch, 1989).

One possible explanation for the confusion and contradictions in the deidealization
research--particularly with respect to the relationship between deidealization and adolescent
adjustment-- is that virtually all deidealization research relies exclusively on Steinberg and
Silverberg's (1986) W to assess adolescent deidealization,
a measure that only evaluates one facet of the complex deidealization process. Steinberg
and Silverberg (1986) developed their Emptienal Autpnpmyﬂnestipnnajre in order to
examine the relationship between emotional autonomy and early adolescents' vulnerability
to peer pressure. These researchers deﬁned "emotional autonomy" as the process by which
adolescents relinquish childish dependencies on, and conceptions of, their parents; this
deﬁnition is conceptually very similar to Douvan and Adelson's (1966) description of
emotional autonomy as "the degree to which the adolescent has managed to cast off
infantile ties to the farrrily" (p. 130). It is obvious that these definitions of emotional
autonomy also describe deidealization, and in fact, Steinberg and Silverberg treated
deidealization and the achievement of emotional autonomy as virtually synonymous

constructs. However, although they used a precise and comprehensive theoretical

l 6
conceptualization of "deidealization", the questionnaire they developed is neither precise

nor comprehensive.

The Empp'qnalAptpnpmyﬂueatjpnnahe is a 20-item self-report questionnaire that
includes a ﬁve-item Deidealization subscale. This subscale focuses on evaluating the
adolescent's awareness (or lack of awareness) of parental fallibility (e.g., "Even when my
mother and I disagree, my mother is always right (-)"; "I try to have the same opinions as
my mother (-)"; "When I become a parent, I'm going to treat my children in exactly the
same way that my mother has treated me (-)"; "My mother hardly ever makes mistakes (-)";
"There are things that I will do differently from my mother when I become a parent").
Respondents who endorse these items earn scores reﬂecting their continued belief in
parental infallibility, and consequently, continued idealization in the parent-child
relationship. However, none of the items evaluates the adolescent's capacity for empathy,
which is the second core component of deidealization. As a result, researchers who use
Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) W to evaluate deidealization
cannot discriminate between adolescents who have genuinely deidealized their parents (high
perception of parental fallibility/high empathy) from those who engage in parental
denigration (high perception of parental fallibility/low empathy). The conclusions drawn
by studies relying exclusively on Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) EmetipnaLAntpnpmy
Seale are likely to be confusing and imprecise because adolescents who deidealize their
parents, as well as those who denigrate their parents, will be grouped together.

In sum, measurement problems may be responsible for the lack of convergence in the
deidealization research. Although a number of studies have explored the relationship
between deidealization and adolescent adjustment, each study uses Steinberg and
Silverberg's (1986) EmetipnalAutpnmeQuestiennaite, and therefore cannot differentiate

between adolescents who deidealize their parents and those who denigrate their parents.

Because the EmptienalAutenemyQIestipnnaiLe does not distinguish deidealization from

parental denigration, and because it is reasonable to assume that deidealization and parental

denigration will have signiﬁcantly different implications for adolescent adjustment, the

l 7
literature is likely to yield conﬂicting and imprecise conclusions about the true relationship

between deidealization and adolescent adjustment.

A review of the deidealization research is necessary in order to examine the
inconsistencies and contradictions in the various studies using Steinberg and Silverberg's
(1986) questionnaire. In one of the earliest empirical studies of deidealization and
adolescent adjustment, Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) examined the relationship between
emotional autonomy (a construct closely identiﬁed with deidealization) and early
adolescents' vulnerability to peer pressure. In a sample of ﬁfth through ninth graders,
Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) found that emotional autonomy was associated with less
resistance to peer pressure and less self-reliance. They concluded that young adolescents
may move through a transitional period in the progression toward autonomy. Initially,
early adolescents deveIOp a sense of emotional autonomy from their parents; they
subsequently are easily inﬂuenced by peers who provide the support and feedback that
once was supplied by parents. After this transitional period, in which adolescents are most
vulnerable to peer pressure, adolescents become able to develop and defend their own
opinions and decisions without undue inﬂuence from either peers or parents. Therefore,
although emotional autonomy appears to be associated with poorer adjustment in this group
of early adolescents, Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) commented that the progression away
from parental inﬂuence, toward peer inﬂuence, and ﬁnally toward the development of self-
reliance seems to be catalyzed by the development of emotional autonomy in early
adolescence. As a catalyst, then, relinquishing childish representations of one's parents
may result in some temporary vulnerabilities, but others hypothesize that the larger process
is necessary for later positive adolescent adjustment.

Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) conceptualization of emotional autonomy as a
generally positive force was challenged by Ryan and Lynch's (1989) work. Ryan and
Lynch (1989) carried out a series of studies indicating that emotional autonomy-~at least as
indexed by Steinberg and Silverberg's measure-- is inversely related to measures of family

cohesion, parental acceptance, parental support, and the adolescent's self-perceived

l 8
lovability. Ryan and Lynch (1989) concluded that when adolescents deidealize their

parents, they simultaneously lose feelings of connectedness and security within their
families: "[t]he more "emotional autonomy" teenagers or young adults express, the less
connected or secure they feel within the family, the less they experience their parents as
conveying love and understanding, and the less they report willingness to draw upon
parental resources" (p. 353). According to Ryan and Lynch, "emotional autonomy" is
equivalent to emotional detachment from parents, and as such, it is likely to be "associated
with an experienced lack of parental support and acceptance, which not only does not
conduce to independence and autonomy but may actually interfere with the consolidation of
identity and the formation of a positive self-concept" (p. 340). Ryan and Lynch argue
strongly that their results are consistent with other studies reviewed by Hill and Holmbeck
(1986), that ﬁnd that gratifying attachments to parents should be positively related to indices
of adolescent autonomy, and that emotional estrangement from parents is likely to
compromise adolescent adjustment.

Lambom and Steinberg's (1990) work offers and tests a series of theoretical
assumptions that attempt reconciliation between Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) and
Ryan and Lynch's (1989) seemingly contradictory positions. First, Lambom and Steinberg
(1990) suggest that family context is an important variable that must be considered as
potentially inﬂuencing the degree to which emotional autonomy is achieved. For example,
they point out that Ryan and Lynch report that levels of emotional autonomy vary for
adolescents describing differing attachment relationships with parents: avoidantly attached
adolescents reported the highest levels of emotional autonomy, and secure adolescents
reported the lowest. This indicates that links between emotional autonomy and adolescent
adjustment depends at least in part on the broader emotional context of the parent—
adolescent relationship. "For adolescents with healthy, close-knit relationships with their
parents, continued reliance on them during adolescence may be appropriate and adaptive, as
the parents provide healthy models for psychosocial development and competence. In

contrast, for adolescents with a less-than-optimal relationship with parents, a more distant

l9

emotional stance during adolescence may help the young person move away from a
maladaptive relationship" (p. 5). Thus, Lambom and Steinberg argue convincingly that
one's family environment can inﬂuence the deidealization process, and that deidealization
carries different implications for adolescents raised in different family environments.

Secondly, Lambom and Steinberg (1990) hypothesize a curvilinear relationship between
emotional autonomy and adolescent adjustment. They suggest that intermediate levels of
emotional autonomy may be most closely associated with healthy adjustment: extreme
deidealization may indicate unhealthy estrangement from parents (consistent with Ryan and
Lynch's position), whereas continued idealization may reﬂect immature dependency and a
lack of distance from childish parental images (consistent with Steinberg and Silverberg's
position).

Lambom and Steinberg's data support both assumptions. The family environment and
the broad emotional climate of the parent-adolescent relationship are linked to variations in
the achievement of emotional autonomy: avoidant adolescents report the highest levels of
emotional autonomy, and secure adolescents report the lowest. Moreover, they ﬁnd that
the most positive adjustment proﬁles within the avoidant and anxious groups were
demonstrated by adolescents scoring in the moderate to high range on the emotional
autonomy measure, and the most positive proﬁles within the secure group were found
among adolescents scoring in the moderate to low range. Lambom and Steinberg
acknowledge that their ﬁndings both support and complicate Ryan and Lynch's position.
For the modal adolescents who enjoy secure and satisfactory relationships with their
parents, high emotional autonomy scores may in fact indicate detachment, and compromise
adolescent adjustment. But for the adolescents who experience conﬂicted or insecure
relationships with their parents, some disengagement may be developmentally
advantageous, as it is associated with better adjustment.

Frank, Pirsch and Wright (1990) sought to further clarify linkages between
deidealization and other aspects of the adolescent-parent relationship, and perhaps shed

further light on the conclusions drawn by Ryan and Lynch and Steinberg and Silverberg.

2 0
They constructed a theoretical model to test interrelationships among four variables:

deidealization, the adolescent's feelings of relatedness to their parents, autonomy from their
parents, and feelings of insecurity within the parent-adolescent relationship. In addition,
they examined implications of these "relationship variables" for adolescent adjustment and
ego identity status. Results of this study clearly indicate that by late adolescence,
deidealization has predominantly positive implications: this group found that it was not
deidealization per se that accounted for the apparent association between deidealization and
insecurity (as Ryan and Lynch have argued), but rather, that deidealization was associated
with decreased relatedness, which was in turn, associated with heightened feelings of
insecurity. Additionally, they found that deidealization and decreased relatedness were
linked to greater autonomy (i.e., self-directedness) in the parent-adolescent relationship,
and both deidealization and autonomy had positive implications for the adolescents'
psychological well-bein g and identity formation. These results certainly supports Steinberg
and Silverberg's (1986) notion that deidealization is an important psychological task that
sets in motion a series of transformations in the parent-adolescent relationship. Moreover,
Frank et. al.'s data support a position closely aligned with Lambom and Steinberg's
conclusions: deidealization (and the ensuing decreased relatedness, and increased
autonomy) are, in fact, associated with positive adolescent adjustment and ego identity
development.

At the same time, Frank, Pirsch and Wright's (1990) study suggested that the changes
brought about by deidealization are a "double-edged sword" in that they were also linked to
some negative implications for adolescent adjustment. Deidealization predicts, in essence,
greater adolescent disengagement (i.e., less relatedness) in relation to parents. One can
argue that Ryan and Lynch's terms of "detachment" and "estrangement" are perhaps too
strong, but adolescent disengagement from parents are, in fact, linked to feelings of anxiety
and insecurity in the parent-adolescent relationship as well as to more autonomy.
Moreover, adolescents' feelings of insecurity may compromise potential gains in

autonomy. Furthermore, adolescents experiencing greater insecurity also were more likely

2 l
to make identity commitments without exploring alternatives beyond those suggested by

their parents. In sum, Frank et. a1. (1990) demonstrate that deidealization may result in
changes in parent-child relationships that indirectly compromise adolescent adjustment even
though the direct effects are positive ones.

Frank and Burke (1992) conducted a subsequent study designed to replicate and extend
these ﬁndings in two important ways: first, Frank et a1. (1990) did not consider the
potential signiﬁcance of differences in relationships with mothers as opposed to fathers.
Second, subjects were all from intact families, which precluded the generalizability of the
ﬁndings to adolescents from divorced families. In order to address the ﬁrst issue, Frank
and Burke replicated the Frank et. a1. (1990) study but asked participants to respond to
questions about their relationships with their "mothers" and "fathers" rather than "parents".
Results replicated the relationships reported in Frank et al. for both mothers and fathers. In
addition, deidealization was related to less insecruity in relation to fathers (and unrelated to
insecurity in relation to mothers). And, while deidealization and greater autonomy were
positively linked to identity formation and psychological well-being, they also were linked
to higher levels of alcohol and drug use. This supports Frank et al.'s previous conclusion
that disengagement from one's parents can have both positive and negative implications for
adolescent adjustment.

In order to address the second issue, Frank and Burke (1992) tested their model on late
adolescents whose parents had divorced within the past ﬁve years. As Lambom and
Steinberg (1990) concluded, family environment does appear to inﬂuence the deidealization
process, and family environment also appears to alter the sequelae of deidealization for
adolescent adjustment. Frank and Burke found that adolescents from divorced families
experienced more deidealization, less relatedness and greater autonomy in relation to one or
both parents than adolescents from intact families. In terms of adolescent adjustment, they
again found that deidealization and autonomy facilitated identity formation. However,

adolescents from divorced families demonstrated some unique negative consequences of

2 2
deidealization (for men) and autonomy (for women): these men and women evidenced a

tendency to "dismiss" the importance of close attachments.

If the results of these important empirical studies are taken together, we can form
several clear conclusions about deidealization, and also identify several clear areas of
disagreement. First, we can conclude without doubt that deidealization appears to be
affected by the family context in which it takes place: it is different in divorced families
than intact families, and it is different in families where secure, avoidant, or anxious
attachment styles are reported. Second, we know that deidealization acts as a catalyst that
transforms other aspects of the parent-adolescent relationship: deidealization is associated
with less relatedness, which is in turn linked to greater insecurity; but deidealization and
decreased relatedness are also associated with greater autonomy.

The contradictions are most apparent when we examine the implications of
deidealization for adolescent adjustment. As indexed by Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986)
measure, deidealization has both positive and negative implications for adolescent
adjustment, implications that are affected by the family context in which deidealization is
taking place. It is also possible that some of these associations apply to the group of
adolescents who have genuinely deidealized their parents, while other associations apply to
the group of adolescents who denigrate their parents. For example, Frank et al. (1990)
report that greater disengagement from one's parents may predict heightened insecurity,
which compromises potential gains in autonomy and identity development, and it may also
be associated with increased drug and alcohol use. These outcomes may actually be
explained by adolescents who denigrate their parents, rather than the adolescents who
deidealize their parents. In contrast, Frank et al. (1990) also ﬁnd that greater disengagement
from one's parents can allow for greater autonomy, foster psychological well-being, and
promote identity formation. These positive outcomes are unlikely to be associated with
denigrating adolescents, but could easily describe those young adults who have confronted

and resolved the conﬂicts raised by the deidealization process. Regardless, whether or not

2 3
deidealization has predominantly positive or negative implications for adolescent adjustment

cannot be determined until deidealization can be distinguished from denigration.
11.11.. ID ET 111 1

One important aspect of adolescent adjustment--the development of what Hoffman
(1984) terms "conﬂictual independence"- is closely tied to deidealization, and is likely to be
a useful indicator of the adolescent's success or failure in the deidealization process.
Hoffman (1984) suggests that healthy personal adjustment is critically dependent on an
adolescent's ability to psychologically separate from the parents: adolescents who continue
to cling to immature images of their parents are likely to lack "functional independence" (the
ability to manage and direct one's practical and personal affairs without the help of a
parent), "attitudinal independence" (having one's own set of beliefs, values, and attitudes
that are unique from one's parents' beliefs, values, and attitudes), "emotional
independence" (freedom from an excessive need for closeness and emotional support from
the parents), and "conﬂictual independence", or freedom from excessive guilt, anxiety,
mistrust, responsibility, inhibition, resentment or anger in relation to the the parent.

Although functional independence, attitudinal independence, and emotional
independence are related more to the development of behavioral autonomy than to the
intrapsychic aspects of separation, the concept of conﬂictual independence is closely linked
to the deidealization process. In fact, Hoffman's conceptualization of conﬂictual
independence is virtually identical to what many theorists consider to be the outcome of
successful deidealization. As the deidealization process moves forward, adolescents
deintensify their idealized emotional investments in their parents, and become sufﬁciently
differentiated from the parent to be relatively unconcerned about parental approval or
disapproval. As a result, the young adult's self-esteem is more stable and self-determined
(Josselson, 1980). Moreover, because young adults can assert themselves as independent
persons and are the judges of their own self-worth, they are uninhibited by feelings of guilt
or inferiority. In contrast, failure in the process of deidealization and subsequent emotional

disengagement leaves the adolescent vulnerable to feelings of guilt, anxiety, inhibition or

2 4
anger that he or she may be unable to master. Using Hoffman's term, "conﬂictual

independence" theoretically cannot develop unless the adolescent resolves the issues and

conﬂicts raised by deidealization.

 

The theoretical link between protracted idealization and low conﬂictual independence is
equally strong and compelling. Young adults who continue to idealize their parents
theoretically remain vulnerable to feelings of insecurity, guilt and inferiority. They
continue to depend on the parent for guidance and advice, use the parents' standards and
values to govern their own behavior, and are constrained by fears of parental disapproval.
They may perceive themselves as inadequate in everyday coping, and worry about their
ability to be successful in the competitive adult world. They cling to their beliefs in parental
omnipotence and infallibility, and have not yet developed a realistic, multidimensional
image of the parent.

Adolescents who engage in protracted idealization, and who are unable to solve
problems and make decisions without parental advice and guidance may experience
compromised identity development as a result. Boume (1978) suggests that identity
formation cannot occur unless adolescents have sufﬁcient freedom from early parental
identiﬁcations to assimilate new images provided by teachers, employers, heroes, and other
role models. Adolescents who continue to experience distress when their own goals
deviate from the dictates of archaic parental images will be unable to successfully explore
and eventually commit to interpersonal and ideological choices. Boume (197 8) concludes
that adolescents must loosen their emotional ties to the parents, sever their "identiﬁcatory
dependencies", and take over self-evaluatory functions previously handled by the parents in
order for identity formation to proceed.

Essentially, Boume argues that successful resolution of the deidealization process is
one necessary precrn'sor to identity development, and that individuals who continue to cling
to idealized views of their parents may be too vulnerable to parental disapproval to attain a

self-determined sense of who they are, and what they might become. Josselson (1980)

2 5
concurs. She argues that two developmental transformations are of primary importance

during adolescence: the consolidation of autonomy through individuation, and the
formation of the identity. She argues that these two phenomenon are recursive and
interdependent: as individuation proceeds, autonomy grows, and various aspects of the self
can be integrated into a coherent whole. At the same time, successful identity formation
leads to further individuation: as the sense of self becomes more stable, the individual can
establish firm interpersonal and intrapsychic boundaries. Without the intrapsychic
boundaries that provide freedom from feelings of guilt, insecurity, and fears of parental
disapproval or retribution, identity development cannot take place. These writers agree
with Blos (1967) that "the shedding of family dependencies [and] the loosening of infantile
object ties [are necessary] to become a member of . . . the adult world".

Consequently, we can hypothesize that prolonged parental idealization results in
continued vulnerability to insecurity, guilt, and parental disapproval, which may
compromise identity development, which in turn, promotes adolescents' feelings of
insecurity about their ability to make important decisions without undue reliance on parents
for support and advice, and further intensiﬁes feelings of anxiety and helplessness. This
cycle of adolescent dependency may generate overt manifestations of psychological
distress, but it is important to remember that adolescents who continue to idealize their
parents--and who experience low conﬂictual independence --might display less of the overt
psychological distress and emotional upset commonly associated with adolescent
development. Ego syntonic identiﬁcation with one's parents could produce feelings of
validation and approval through their felt acceptance within the parent-child relationship:
because these adolescents idealize their parents, uphold their parents' standards and values,
and report strong feelings of emotional closeness toward their parents, they may experience
a subjective sense of congruence. These adolescents derive their beliefs, values and
feelings of self-esteem from their ﬁrm loyalties to their parents, which may provide a sense
of psychological well-being and conﬁdence in themselves and their decisions. However,

despite positive parent-adolescent interactions and ego—syntonic parental identiﬁcation,

2 6
adolescents who continue to idealize their parents may experience more covert forms of

psychological distress: they may be more vulnerable to shame, guilt, and feelings of
inadequacy than adolescents who do not engage in protracted idealization. Because they
have defensively circumvented the process by which differences and tensions are
acknowledged and confronted, and because they continue to be vulnerable to feelings of
shame, guilt, dependency, and inferiority, adolescents who continue to idealize their
parents are less likely to demonstrate "conﬂictual independence".
E l D . . l [2 ﬂ' 1 I l 1

Parental denigration can be expected to signiﬁcantly compromise adolescents'
development of conﬂictual independence for several reasons. Adolescents who denigrate
their parents are likely to demonstrate lower conﬂictual independence simply because they
experience their parents as "all black". Strongly negative internal representations of one's
parent probably stem from adverse family experiences--such as high levels of parental
conﬂict and/or parental alcoholism--that in and of themselves promote poorer emotional
control, and greater vulnerability to intense feelings of rage, shame, betrayal, and
disappointment (Seilhamer & Jacob, 1989; Seixas, 1982; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). An
adolescent who perceives a parent as a total failure may experience pronounced feelings of
abandonment, insecurity and anxiety within the parent-child relationship, may develop
behavioral autonomy prematurely, and may be unable or unwilling to rely on their parent
for advice, guidance, or emotional support. These intensely negative feelings about the
parent both result from and reinforce the adolescent's belief that the parent possesses only
negative traits, and virtually guarantee not only continued adolescent disappointment and
parental denigration, but also low conﬂictual independence: the adolescent remains
exceptionally vulnerable to "excessive guilt, anxiety, mistrust, responsibility, inhibition,
resentment or anger in relation to the parent" (Hoffman, 1984).

Second, a young adult who maintains an unequivocally negative view of the parent may
be unable to develop conﬂictual independence because s/he may identify with the

vulnerabilities and failures s/he sees in the parent, and ad0pt an equally denigrating and

2 7
destructive self-perception. Young adults who maintain undifferentiated negative

evaluations of parents, and who believe themselves to be an extension of their parents may
deprecate themselves, and subsequently experience unusually high levels of subjective
distress. Powerful feelings of shame, betrayal and disappointment can be exceedingly
difﬁcult to master, and therefore inﬂuence interactions between the parent and the young
adult. Adolescents' experience of intense and overwhelming negative feelings toward
themselves and their parent may result in an inability to control their behavior and emotions
when confronted with tensions, difﬁcult situations, and conﬂicts with that parent. In sum,
low conﬂictual independence may result not only from parental denigration, but also from
the adolescent's feelings of shame that result from deprecation of the self.

IlE'lE' ”1.11..

Both theory and research suggests that deidealization has important implications for
adolescent development, and that difﬁculties moving forward in the deidealization process
may be associated with poorer adolescent adjustment, and in particular, low levels of
conﬂictual independence. Therefore, it becomes important to understand factors that can
inﬂuence this developmental trajectory. Are there phenomena in a young person's life that
are likely to facilitate deidealization? Are there phenomena that are systematically
associated with protracted idealization, or parental denigration?

There is little doubt that adolescent deidealization can be dramatically affected by the
family environment in which the adolescent is raised. Sessa and Steinberg (1991) and
Lambom and Steinberg (1990) argue convincingly that the family provides a context in
which "healthy" or "unhealthy" development unfolds, and that nontraditional or
dysfunctional family environments may be associated with deviations in adolescent
development. Thus, it is reasonable to speculate that deviations in the deidealization
process may occur as a result of one's experiences within the family of origin.

Several important theoretical and research-based papers support the notion that
parental perceptions and expectations can create a family environment that powerfully

inﬂuences the trajectory of the adolescent separation/individuation process. For example,

2 8
Stierlin and his colleagues (1981) argue that experiences within one's family of origin can

be potentially "separation-inducing" or "separation-inhibiting". "Separation-inducing"
parents convey conﬁdence in the adolescent's capacity to grow and become autonomous,
expect that the adolescent will be able to successfully shift emotional investments to friends
and dating partners, and are unconcerned about abandonment as their child psychologically
leaves home. In contrast, "separation-inhibiting" parents convey distrust and disbelief in
the adolescent's capacity to be independent, expect their child to be unsuccessful in ﬁnding
friends or sexual partners, and experience their child's leave-taking as destructive and
disloyal.

The degree to which the separation/individuation process is encouraged in adolescents'
families of origin is likely to be an important predictor of their success as they disentangle
themselves from family loyalties and establish autonomy. In fact, Murphey et al. (1963)
studied expectations in parents of successfully separating college students and contrasted
these expectations with college students who had more trouble shedding family
dependencies. They found that parents who regarded the separation/individuation process
as a normal and necessary component of maturation, and who had positive expectations for
their children's healthy adjustment raised autonomous, individuated adolescents. Parents
who doubted their child's ability to successfully fulﬁll adult roles and responsibilities raised
students who were substantially less autonomous, suggesting that these young adults were
emotionally unprepared for separation.

Although Stierlin et. al. describe these two family styles as categorical variables, clinical
literature suggests that a continuum exists between "separation-inducing" and "separation-
inhibiting" family environments (Beavers, 1976; L'Abate, 1976; Olson, 1983). At one
extreme lie enmeshed families who cling to their adolescents and sabotage any attempt at
separation: these families encourage extreme parent-chﬂd closeness and loyalty at the
expense of autonomy and individuation. At the other extreme lie families who demand
excessive autonomy and individuation from their adolescents without providing a context

of family closeness and support. In the middle lie families who exhibit balanced demands

29

for relatedness and autonomy, who encourage their children to individuate within the
context of a strong and supportive family environment, and who are able to renegotiate
family relationships such that they promote continuity and allow for change. This suggests
a curvilinear relationship: theoretically, adolescents raised by parents who encourage
autonomy within the context of relatedness ought to demonstrate healthy individuation,
whereas adolescents raised within families that promote either premature separation or
prolonged closeness would demonstrate problems in the deidealization process.

The research of Stierlin and his colleagues explores the links between the young adult's
separation from his or her parents at an object-relational level, rather than an intrapsychic
level. That is, they operationalize "separation/individuation" as the process through which
emotional investments in parents are withdrawn, resulting in the adolescent taking over
adaptive capabilities previously handled by the parents. Josselson (1980) describes this

process as "separation from 'the reality parent , which, according to her, is one critically
important adolescent developmental task. However, the other major task of adolescence,
according to Josselson (1980), is individuation from the introjected parents of childhood.
Stierlin et a1. fail to explore this intrapsychic aspect of separation-individuation: they do not
consider the disengagement from archaic zepnesentatiens of the parents, internalized in early
childhood, which profoundly inﬂuence the choices and affective responses of the
adolescent.

Despite Stierlin et al.'s failure to explicitly consider the intrapsychic aspects of
adolescent separation, it seems reasonable to apply their conclusions to intrapsychic
processes, and offer some speculation about the impact of the family environment on
deidealization. In particular, it seems likely that there may be a curvilinear relationship
between family conﬂict or parental pathology and deidealization such that adolescents from
families characterized by moderate degrees of parental conﬂict or parental dysfunction
would be most likely to move successfully through the deidealization process. In contrast,

adolescents from unusually harmonious families may not feel the need to move beyond

idealized views of their parents, whereas adolescents from families characterized by serious

3 0
pathology and/or conﬂict, may be unable to temper feelings of rage, guilt and

disappointrrrent so as to adopt a more empathic view of the parent. The remainder of this
review explores marital conﬂict and parental alcoholism as two family inﬂuences that may
alter the trajectory of adolescent deidealization, and it focuses on the potentially curvilinear
relationship between the presence of these family factors and protracted idealization,
parental denigration, and healthy deidealization.

At least three different family contexts potentially can result in adolescents' continued
idealization of the parent. First, "separation-inhibiting" families provide a context for
protracted idealization: these parents actively (although perhaps unconsciously) sabotage
their adolescent's attempts at individuation by conveying distrust and suspicion regarding
their child's ability to be successful in the adult world. Second, families characterized by
the virtual absence of conﬂict may create an environment that protects the adolescent from
normative inﬂuences and conﬂicts that drive deidealization and separation/individuation.
Third, prolonged idealization may occur if the adolescent feels too guilty, anxious or
emotionally involved with a parent to deinvest in the relationship with that parent, or if the
potential loss of a parent is perceived to be too devastating to the adolescent.

As reviewed above, Stierlin et al. describe "separation-inhibiting parents as threatened
by their child's impending maturity, and as effectively undercutting their adolescent's
attempts at separation. These efforts can be overt, such as verbal criticism or derogation,
or implicit in a parent's attitudes or affective reactions to their child's decisions or behavior.
Regardless, the adolescent receives the message that he or she is fundamentally unprepared
for adult roles and responsibilities, and that individuation and the development of
competence betrays family loyalty. Adolescents who do not develop behavioral autonomy,
and who continue to rely on their parents for approval and advice, may feel too anxious and
inadequate to easily deinvest in their relationships with their parents: they may attempt to
derive security from their immature, idealized parental representations, rather than confront

the conﬂicts and tensions inherent in the individuation process.

3 l
Protracted idealization may also be encouraged in adolescents raised in unusually

harmonious families. Individuality, self-assertion, and separateness may be valued less
than connectedness and agreement. If adolescents witness very little spousal disagreement,
they may continue to view the parents as a unit, rather than differentiating their parents as
individuals with separate needs, interests, and goals. Additionally, adolescents who do not
experience normative levels of parent-adolescent conﬂict may perceive their parents as
entirely supportive, trustworthy, and reliable in their provision of advice and assistance.
Parental infallibility goes unquestioned. They are likely to report their parents to be
exceptionally positive role models: for these adolescents, idealization is congruent with
their subjective experience of the parent-child relationship. Consequently, these
adolescents may not feel compelled to rework their archaic, immature representations of
their parents, and may continue to place primary emotional investments in the parents and
idealize them.

Other factors may be at work in families characterized by the virtual absence of conﬂict
or tension. Some families described as relatively conﬂict-free might also be accurately
described as conﬂict-avoidant. Maintaining staunchly positive marital relationships and
strong family harmony may be associated with an inability to tolerate dissent among family
members. Family members may be expected to accept and internalize parental values,
beliefs and standards, rather than to develop their own values and ideas based on argument
or experimentation. These families may discourage the pursuit of autonomy and
individuation in their children, and instead, foster excessive relatedness and connection
within the parent-adolescent relationship. Again, parental fallibility is disallowed.

It is unclear whether adolescents who are raised in a virtually conﬂict-free family
environment would subjectively experience or describe this environment as limiting or
restrictive. Some adolescents may chafe against parental standards, and desire a family
environment that encouraged greater differentiation and self—discovery. However, other
young adults may perceive themselves to be exceptionally secure in the parent-child

relationship. These adolescents might be willing to sacriﬁce autonomy for continued warm

3 2
and emotionally close contacts with their parents (Haley, 1980; Stierlin, et a1, 1981). We

can speculate that in these families, young adults would describe their parents in uniformly
positive and stereotyped, one-dimensional terms (i.e., mothers as unusually empathic and
concerned, fathers as hard workers and good providers). Furthermore, they are likely to
be concerned with earning their parents' approval, may rely heavily on their parents for
guidance and support, and be unable to determine their own actions without excessive
parental validation.

In contrast, the deidealization process may be equally derailed in families where high
levels of parental conﬂict and/or parental pathology exist. For example, in families
characterized by severe marital conﬂict, a young adult often participates in a relationship
with one parent that transcends appropriate parent-child boundaries. This inappropriate
"role reversal" found in conﬂict-ridden families is also typical of alcoholic families: a
child's excessive sense of responsibility for the alcoholic parent (Wood, 1987) exempliﬁes
the seriousness of the disruption in parent-child relationships. A parent may use a child as
a conﬁdante, encouraging the adolescent to act as a surrogate spouse and helpmate. Some
adolescents may enjoy receiving a parent's conﬁdences and perceive it as continuation of
new-found equality in the parent-adolescent relationship. Parental dependence may be
gratifying to some young adults, yet in many respects it obstructs their ability to separate.
The subjective experience of the relationship is one of mutual fulﬁllment and emotional
closeness, but adolescents who perceive themselves as primarily responsible for providing
parents with emotional support are unlikely to move forward in the separation/
individuation process (Sessa & Steinberg, 1991), and equally unlikely to deidealize. A
child who believes only s/he provides critical psychological maintenance for a parent is
unlikely to separate from that parent without strong feelings of guilt and anxiety. The
burden this places on some adolescents can abort the deidealization process in favor of
maintaining an idealized relationship with a parent.

In a similar vein, protracted idealization may result from threatened (or actual) parental

loss. In alcoholic families, the drinking parent may be emotionally unavailable to the child;

33

consequently the child may rely even more heavily on his/her other parent for nurturance
and support. The deidealization of such a highly valued parent may be perceived as
psychologically too costly (Freud, 1958), resulting in a rigidly and defensively idealized
perception of the non-alcoholic parent. Adolescents who fear the loss of the emotional
involvement of an over-valued parent may cling to intensiﬁed identiﬁcations with that
parent. Laufer (1966) suggests that detachment from primary love objects may be greatly
complicated by the threatened loss of the object, and that idealization may serve to protect
the gratiﬁcations derived by the relationship with that object. Under these circumstances,
protracted idealization serves as a defensive operation to prevent the normative
deintensiﬁcation of parent-child emotional investments, thus protecting the child's primary
source of support.

E ”1 . .

Stierlin's (1981) work describes "separation-inhibiting" parents as threatened by their
child's impending maturity, and as effectively sabotaging their adolescent's attempts at
individuation. He argues that parents' derogation and verbal criticism of the child creates a
family environment in which the adolescent cannot develop competence; furthermore,
parental insistence on family loyalty may create an environment in which the adolescent
feels too guilty or anxious to easily deinvest in their relationships with their parents. He
posits that because "separation-inhibiting" parents hinder adolescents' development of
behavioral competence and independent decision-making, the adolescents rely heavily on
the perceived security provided by the parents, and are reluctant to move forward in the
separation/individuation process.

However, Stierlin does not explore the possibility that some adolescents from
"separation-inhibiting" families might also engage in parental denigration in a reactive
attempt to break away from their parents. By largely focusing his work on the links
between family functioning, adolescent competence, and adolescent
separation/individuation, Stierlin does not consider the more psychodynamic, or

intrapsychic aspects of separation/individuation. From a psychodynamic perspective,

3 4
parents who deliberately undercut their child's attempts at individuation may do so in

reaction to their own feelings of inadequacy, powerlessness, failure, and defectiveness.
Parents may project these feelings onto their children, essentially fostering the child's
dependency on the parent such that the parent will appear strong and capable by
comparison. Thus, the parents' core need to feel powerful is gratiﬁed. However, when
the child reaches adolescence, challenges parental authority and questions images of
parental omnipotence and infallibility, the parent may reactively intensify efforts to sabotage
the adolescent's separation and individuation. A child who experiences this intense
parental criticism, hostility, distrust, and expectations of failure has only two choices: s/he
can gradually internalize the negative messages and develop self-hatred, or s/he can reject
the parents and their dire predictions. Adolescents who refuse to accept the parents'
projections of weakness, vulnerability, failure and inadequacy will reject the parents. In
other words, these adolescents may eventually come to hate their parents as a way of
defending against self-hatred. In this way, Stierlin's (1981) "separation-inhibiting" families
may actually encourage parental deprecation and denigration instead of protracted
idealization.

Parental denigration can be fostered by other kinds of family dysfunction and parental
pathology as well. Wallerstein and Kelly's (1980) work with divorcing families indicates
that serious marital conﬂict or other parent pathology can complicate family relationships
and signiﬁcantly alter developmental pathways in adolescence. According to these
researchers, adolescents who are raised within a family characterized by severe parental
conﬂict may experience a "drastically foreshortened childhood in which adolescent
development is pushed forward at a greatly accelerated tempo" (1980, p. 83). Sessa and
Steinberg (1991) maintain that although parental conﬂict can enhance some aspects of
adolescent development, severe parental conﬂict can potentially disrupt adolescent
development by fostering adolescents' premature and/or intense distancing from the
parents. In families troubled by severe marital conﬂict or other forms of parent pathology,

the deidealization process is likely to be transformed into parental denigration. Bitter and

3 5
agitated interactions between parents, substandard parenting, or inappropriate allocation of

family responsibilities are commonly found in distressed families, which may provide a
context for parental denigration to develop.

The very large research literature on divorce and marital conﬂict supports the notion
that children raised in conﬂict-ridden environments suffer when a parent inadequately
fulﬁlls the parenting role. A "diminished capacity to parent" (W allerstein & Kelly, 1980)
occurs when parents are so preoccupied by their own distress that they become
overwhelmed by the normal demands of their children. Children raised in homes
characterized by severe parental discord witness parents in crisis who may not be able to
fulﬁll parenting responsibilities effectively, who provide decreased affection, less control
and less monitoring, less emotional responsiveness, and who ask their children to shoulder
more responsibility for family work (such as housework, childcare, etc.). Adolescents
may adapt to greater responsibilities by quickly developing behavioral autonomy and
competence. However, adolescents who experience their parents as inadequate,
preoccupied and overwhelmed may also perceive their parents to be pathetic, weak, and
ineffective, and they may distance themselves from their parents by emphasizing the
parents' inadequacies, failures, and negative characteristics.

Secondly, adolescents raised in families charaterized by severe marital discord may
denigrate their parents because they observe their parents mutually defame and denigrate
one another. One parent's hostile, bitter and vindictive assaults on the other parent's
character may leave adolescents confused and angry. These adolescents may believe the
accusations leveled by one parent against the other, and ﬁnd it impossible to reconcile
idealized parental images with the slander and verbal abuse they hear. As a result, the
adolescent may discard images of parental perfection and incorporate the derogation they
hear into parental representations untempered by vestiges of love and respect. They may
relinquish idealized parental images whether or not they have truly worked through the
issues associated with deidealization, and replace them with extremely negative

representations of their parents.

3 6
Although so far this discussion has been limited to severe marital conﬂict, parental

discord is not the only type of family dysfunction that could result in substandard
parenting, and therefore have deleterious effects on deidealization. Many of the difﬁculties
associated with severe family conflict are also found in alcoholic families. As described in
the clinical literature, alcoholic parents and their spouses may abdicate many of their
parenting responsibilities, and in particular, relinquish behavioral control over their children
(Woititz, 1978). As a result, some children of alcoholics experience diminished parenting,
and develop premature self—reliance and a reluctance to depend on their parents to satisfy
their practical or emotional needs. Children of alcoholics are often burdened with
responsibility for making family decisions (Bogdaniak & Piercy, 1987), and are often
precociously ready to face life's challenges with minimal parental input. The precocious
development of autonomy and accelerated emotional distancing may transform
deidealization into a process of parental denigration for children of alcoholics as it might for
children raised in homes characterized by severe marital conﬂict.

The deep anger and betrayal the adolescent feels toward the alcoholic parent may also
result in denigration of the parent. The adolescent who has experienced parental
unavailability, narcissism, and unpredictability (Woititz, 1978) may also experience deep
feelings of rage, abandonment and hatred. Adolescents who experience intense feelings of
anger, shame and disappointment when confronted with an alcoholic parent's
vulnerabilities may devalue that parent, and ﬁnd it difficult to empathize with the parent's
predicament. Almost certainly, that parent could not be seen as omnipotent and perfect:
rather, the parent's failures and weaknesses are highlighted, and reinforced by the
adolescent's repeated experiences of abandonment and disappointment as well as by the
spouse's denigration. Adolescents who predominantly experience a parent's failures and
shortcomings may contemptuously and unequivocally denigrate their internalized image of
the alcoholic parent. In fact, they may reject their alcoholic parent so completely that they
construct brittle, uniformly negative parental representations that would probably not hold

up under an objective evaluation of the devalued parent. The "all-black" image of the hated

3 7
parent disallows acknowledgment of that parent's struggles, strengths, or personal needs,

and rules out the development of a realistic, mature, and even-handed parental evaluation.

Thus, in alcoholic families as well as families troubled by severe marital conﬂict, the
deidealization process may result in parental denigration because of vindictive and agitated
interaction between parents, defamation of one parent by the other, diminished parenting,
or inappropriate allocation of family responsibilities. However, it is interesting to note that
adolescents from highly conﬂicted or alcoholic homes may establish ﬁrm loyalties with one
parent over the other (e.g.., a " good" parent versus a "bad" parent). In situations
characterized by such polarized splitting, the hated parent may be completely devalued, but
the loved parent may continue to be idealized. Young adults who ally with one parent
against the other could be expected to cling to immature, rigidly idealized, "all white" views
of the favored parent: in these cases, the gradual evolution of a mutual relationship between
parent and young adult may be arrested because the young adults feel too guilty, anxious,
or emotionally involved to deinvest in the relationship with that parent. Moreover, the
loved parent may promote this idealization as a substitute for what he or she is not getting
from their estranged spouse. In contrast, the relationship with the other parent may be
characterized by denigration: the adolescent's strong feelings of anger and betrayal may
result in denigrated "all black" perceptions of the disfavored parent. Taken together,
polarized parent-child relationships may compromise the deidealization process with respect
to both parents, because mature and realistic representations of the parents are blocked by
the adolescent's unidimensional and superﬁcial perceptions.

I have speculated that very low or very high levels of family conﬂict could result in
protracted adolescent idealization of parents, and that very high levels of family conﬂict or
serious parental pathology may result in parental denigration. What kind of family
environment is likely to result in healthy deidealization?

Deidealization is most likely to occur within a family context that encourages

"autonomous relatedness" (Murphey, et a1. 1963). Parents who have clear values,

3 8
expectations, and standards for their children, but who simultaneously tolerate exploration,

dissent and differentiation allow their adolescents freedom to separate without the loss of
parental afﬁrmation and support. Parents who tolerate conﬂict within the spousal
relationship, and who are not afraid of conﬂicts within the parent-child relationship teach
their children that disagreements are acceptable and not necessarily destructive. These
families (labeled by Stierlin and his colleagues as "separation-inducing") encourage their
children to view parents in a realistic and empathic way. They allow the increased
psychological distance between parents and children necessary for adolescent gains in
competence and independence. Yet, these parents continue to provide approval and
guidance, which may minimize adolescents' feelings of insecurity that can accompany the
loosening of familial ties. In brief, deidealization is most likely to successfully take place in
families that experience enough conﬂict or tension to promote differentiation, but not so
much that adolescents' security is jeopardized.

A moderate degree of family tension may be necessary to move past images of parental
perfection. Parental conﬂict may increase an adolescent's awareness of his/her parents'
mistakes and shortcomings. Statements made in anger, accusations, exaggerations and
impulsive actions may be witnessed by an adolescent, and tarnish an idealized parental
image. Adolescents may experience disappointment and shame in their parents' inability to
resolve conﬂict more positively. The presence of some parental discord may highlight the
occasionally immature or selﬁsh behavior of one or both parents, and make it difficult for
adolescents to retain parental images of omnipotence and perfection. Moreover,
adolescents who maintain neutrality during parental disagreements must allocate blame
fairly equally and as a result, both parents may be somewhat devalued by the adolescent.
In short, a young adult's idealized parental representations are incongruent with his or her
experience: the parents are more likely to be evaluated realistically than idealistically.

Adolescents who are raised in homes characterized by moderate parental conﬂict not
only observe disagreements, anger, and occasional unreasonable parental behavior, but

they also have an opportunity to understand the important needs and interests of their

3 9
parents, and see them as real people. These adolescents may be more likely to recognize

that each parent has personal needs, desires, and goals that are worthy of pursuit despite
the conﬂict they may create with the other parent. Adolescents who observe these kinds of
individual as well as dyadic struggles may develop more sophisticated and complex views
of their parents, rather than superﬁcial conceptualizations. Consequently, the adolescent
can relinquish the stereotyped parental images held since childhood, because he or she has
developed a more realistic understanding of parents' genuine needs, capabilities and
vulnerabilities.

Lastly, the presence of some marital conﬂict may encourage an adolescent to view his
or her parents as separate and distinct authorities rather than as one uniﬁed parental system.
The presence of a division within the parenting dyad may create mother-adolescent and
father-adolescent relationships that are unusually distinct. Thus, adolescents who were
raised within families characterized by moderate amounts of family tension may develop
substantially more differentiated internal representations of their parents, and have a clearer
understanding of the ways in which their parents differ. This too, may contribute to a less
idealized, more realistic understanding of one's parents as human beings rather than simply
as generic parent ﬁgures, and enable the adolescent to develop a greater capacity for
empathic understanding of the parent as a person.

Summary

Psychoanalytic theorists have identiﬁed deidealization as a crucial adolescent
developmental process that has important implications for successful
separation/individuation. Deidealization occurs when a young adult relinquishes childish
representations of the parent as perfect and all-powerful, can integrate a parent's strengths
and weaknesses, and is not constrained by fears of parental disapproval or retribution. In
this research, a two-dimensional schema will be used to evaluate the deidealization process
and distinguish between adolescents who deidealize, denigrate, or continue to idealize their
parents. The proposed research will also examine associations between adolescent

deidealization, parental denigration, or protracted idealization of parents and the

4 0
development of conﬂictual independence. Finally, in addition to exploring the links

between adolescent deidealization and conﬂictual independence, this research will examine
family environments associated with deidealization: the presence of family pathology (such
as parent conﬂict or paternal alcoholism) may disrupt parent-child relationships and the
normal adolescent agenda such that adolescents either denigrate their parents, or in contrast,

experience a protracted period of idealization.

CHAPTER3
WW

1) It was expected that a comprehensive and precise assessment of adolescent
deidealization can be determined by examining the interaction between the adolescents'
recognition of parental fallibility and their capacity for empathy. It was hypothesized that
the vast majority of subjects will fall into one of three groups: high perception of
fallibility/high empathy ("deidealizing"), low perception of fallibility/low empathy
("idealizing"), and high perception of fallibility/low empathy ("denigrating"). The fourth
group, low perception of fallibility/high empathy, is not a meaningful combination:
therefore, it was hypothesized that very few subjects will fall in this group.

2) It was expected that each of these three groups would be systematically associated
with differences in the adolescents' development of conﬂictual independence: Only
adolescents in the "deidealizing" group were expected to evidence high levels of conﬂictual
independence, whereas adolescents in the "idealizing" and "denigrating" groups were
expected to evidence low levels of conﬂictual independence.

3) It was expected that each of these three groups would be systematically associated
with differences in the adolescents' families of origin. Adolescents in the "deidealizing"
group were expected to be associated with families that are characterized by moderate levels
of marital conﬂict, and the absence of parental alcoholism. Adolescents in the "idealizing"
group were expected to be associated with families that are characterized by little marital
conﬂict and the absence of paternal alcoholism. Adolescents in the "denigrating" group
will be associated with family dysfunction: high levels of marital conﬂict and/or parental
alcoholism were expected to be found in the families of these adolescents.

41

CHAPTER 4

Subjects

Data for this study was collected as part of a larger study entitled "Development During
the College Years". Approximately 1300 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory
psychology classes received research credit in exchange for their participation in the larger
study, which examined many aspects of late adolescent development and parent-adolescent
relationships. Criteria for inclusion mandated that participants were between the ages of 17
and 22 and that their parents were currently married. We excluded students from non-intact
families because a child's contact with one or the other parent is often decreased following
a divorce and because we decided to control for, rather than examine, the effects of marital
status.

From this larger subject pool, a smaller number of students were selected to participate
in a second phase of the research. This subgroup of 120 students constitutes the sample
used for the proposed study. Sixty-one subjects (49% of the total sample) are male, and 63
subjects (51% of the total sample) are female. Sixty-four subjects (52% of the sample) are
non-COA adolescents, whereas 60 subjects (48% of the sample) were raised in a family
with an alcoholic father. Eighty-six percent of the sample (107 subjects) is Caucasian,
10% (12 subjects) is African American, and 4% (5 subjects) identiﬁed themselves as
Asian, Hispanic, or Native American. Subjects ranged from 17 to 22 years of age: 2% of
the subjects are 17 years old, 27% are 18 years old, 28% are 19 years old, 25% are 20
years old, 15% are 21 years old, and 4% are 22 years old.

42

43
Premium

As indicated above, the study involved two phases of data collection. Originally,
subjects in Phase I attended a two and a half hour testing session during which they
completed an extensive battery of questionnaires. These questionnaires assessed various
aspects of adolescents' relationship with their parents, family background, amount of
parent conﬂict, their own and their parents' alcohol use, and adolescent adjustment and ego
identity functioning. Eventually, procedures for Phase I were modiﬁed so that subjects
initially completed a much smaller number of questionnaires, including reports of their
parents' alcohol consumption and family socioeconomic status. Inclusion of parental
drinking and family socioeconomic information in Phase I constituted a screening
prowdure by which subjects were selected for continued participation in Phase 11. Subjects
who were then selected for participation in Phase 11 completed all of the remaining
questionnaires in the original battery during the second phase of the study.

Participants for Phase II were selected largely on the basis of their reports of their
parents' alcohol consumption. Half of the Phase 11 participants were selected from among
volunteers reporting in Phase I that their father had a serious drinking problem during their
adolescence, and the other half were selected from among those reporting the absence of a
drinking problem in either parent. Subjects in the comparison group were selected such
that their fathers' educational and occupational status (Hollingshead, 1957), are roughly
equivalent to those included in the experimental group. Trained undergraduates collected
screening data, identiﬁed potential Phase 11 subjects, and roughly matched the comparison
and experimental groups on socioeconomic status.

Graduate student interviewers who had no knowledge of any of the subjects'
questionnaire responses contacted the potential Phase II subjects by telephone. During
Phase 11, subjects completed the questionnaires not administered in the screening phase,
and were asked to participate in an extensive, semi-structured clinical interview about their
relationship with each parent. Ordering of the interviews was counter—balanced such that

approximately one half of the subjects were ﬁrst given the mother interview and half were

4 4
ﬁrst given the father interview. Interviews lasted approximately three hours; some

participants were interviewed about both parents during one three-hour meeting, and others
were interviewed on two separate occasions. Subjects received additional research credit
for participation in this second phase of the experiment.

Measms

This study focuses on four constructs: parent alcoholism, parent conﬂict, adolescent
deidealization, and adolescents' experiences of conﬂictual independence.

1. W. Subjects with an alcoholic father were identiﬁed via a student
report measure, the WWW (Appendix A), using
criteria validated by O'Malley, Carey, and Maisto (1986). These investigators validated
Schuckit's (1980) assumption that children's reports of their parents' major alcohol-related
problems (e.g., marital separation or divorce, loss of employment, two or more arrests
from drunk driving, etc.) can be used to identify a family history of alcoholism. In
particular, O'Malley et al. found that a child's report of a parent's experience of at least one
major alcohol-related problem identiﬁed true alcoholics better than reports of frequency and
quantity of alcohol consumption. Moreover, O'Malley et. al. found that they could identify
non-alcoholic parents better if they disincluded parents who, according to the child, had
experienced even minor alcohol-related problems (e.g., economic distress, family shame,
accidents, etc.). Children's reports of the quantity and frequency of their parents' drinking
were less reliable. Accordingly, in this study, children with an alcoholic parent were
identiﬁed as those who report that their father has experienced one or more major life
consequence as a result of drinking. Subjects were included in the comparison group if
they reported that neither parent has experienced either major or minor problems due to
parental drinking.

There are two exceptions to this inclusion criteria. First, O'Malley et al. considered
"harm to health" a major drinking consequence, and hence, endorsing this item alone could
place some families in our children of alcoholics (COA) group. Yet, some subjects in our

sample did not indicate levels of quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption that reﬂect

4 5
excessive drinking, although they endorsed "harm to health" as a consequence of alcohol

consumption. This may be due to a pre-existing health problem that necessitates alcohol
restrictio , such that even non-excessive amounts of alcohol consumption could constitute
a health risk. Or, some subjects may believe that alcohol consumption is, in general, an
unhealthy behavior and hence report that parent drinking harms their health regardless of
the amount actually consumed by the parent. Including these subjects as children of
alcoholics could result in a number of false positives. To address this potential problem,
subjects who reported that harm to health is the only major consequence of paternal
drinking were only included in the children of alcoholics group if, in addition, the average
frequency and quantity of drinking meets typical standards for problem drinking (see
Cahalan and Cisin, 1968). Problem drinking in these cases was deﬁned as the consumption
of ﬁve or more drinks on each of one or more occasions per week, e: three or more drinks
nearly every day. If other major consequences besides "harm to health" were endorsed by
the adolescent, this alcohol consumption criterion was not applied.

Second, subjects were included in the COA group only if they reported that their fathers
were actively drinking at least through the subjects' fourteenth year of age. Subjects whose
alcoholic fathers stopped drinking before the subject was ﬁfteen were excluded from both
the experimental and control groups. This inclusion criteria ensures that problem drinking
was present during at least part of the subject's adolescent years, and hence during a critical
period for deidealization. Based on these inclusion criteria, 64 subjects ( 52% of the total
sample) were identiﬁed as non-COA children ( 30 sons and 34 daughters), whereas 60
subjects (48% of the total sample) were identiﬁed as COA children ( 31 sons and 29
daughters).

2. EatenLCcnﬂict. A l4-itcm W (Frank.
Burke, DeVet & Tatham, in progress) assessed the late adolescent's perceptions of their
parents' marital conﬂict resolution skills ("My parents are able to discuss and resolve
disagreements"), as well as the parents' ability to resolve marital disputes without involving

the adolescent ("My father tries to get me to side with him when he ﬁghts with my mother"

4 6
(-)); alpha = .86. This measure can be found in Appendix B. A validity study on a sample

of 40 undergraduates and their mothers and fathers indicated that the correlation between
students' scores on the PPCR and scores averaged across mothers and fathers on the
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (Spanier & Cole, 1974) was .80. In the same study, the
correlation between students' reports on the PPCR and parents' scores on a General
Parenting Alliance Scale (Frank, Jacobson, and Hole, 1988) describing parents' ability to
work together as parents, was .72. In this study, items on this questionnaire were reverse
scored such that levy scores on the PPCR indicate that marital conﬂict is mild, and
disagreements are resolved easily without the involvement of the adolescent, and high
scores indicate frequent and/or intense marital conﬂicts, and that parents are unable to
resolve marital conﬂicts without triangulating their child. In this study, PPCR ranged
from 1.00 to 3.42 (mean = 1.89, SD = .56).

3. AdeleseenLDeideahzatipmStam. The degree to which subjects idealize, deidealize,
or denigrate their parents is determined by their responses on the Deidealization subscale of
Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) EmptienaLAutenmeSeaJe. as well as their responses on
the W (Frank, Avery, and Laman, 1988). The

Deidealization subscale provides an assessment of the adolescent's recognition of parental
fallibility, and the interview provides information about the young adult's ability to
empathically understand the parent.

Reepgnitipnﬁpmntaﬂaﬂibjhty. Steinberg and Silverberg's EmptipnaLAytghpmy
Seale (Appendix C) is a 20—item questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Individuation,
Perception of Parents as People, Nondependency, and Deidealization. All items from all
four subscales comprise an overall measure of emotional autonomy in the adolescent/parent
relationship. Respondents rate items on a 4-point scale, indicating whether they strongly
disagree, disagree, agree or strongly agree with each statement. This research uses only
the Deidealization subscale of the EmptienalAutpnemyjeale to assess whether and to what
degree respondents have relinquished childish perceptions of parental infallibility. Low

scores on the Deidealization Scale indicate that the adolescent continues to cling to childish

4 7
perceptions of parental infallibility (e.g., "My parents hardly ever make mistakes"(-) ;

"Even when my parents and I disagree, my parents are always right" (-)). Internal
reliability for the Deidealization Scale is .62 as measured by Cronbach's alpha.

Empathy. The second core component of deidealization--adolescent empathy in relation
to the parent--is be determined by the adolescent's responses on one of the dimensions
tapped by the XpungAdnltlEatenLRelatippshipJntmdety (Frank, Avery, and Laman,
1988). This interview (found in Appendix D) was successfully used by its authors to
differentiate young adult males' and females’ (aged 22 to 32 years) relationships with their
mothers and fathers on three relationship factors: connectedness, competence, and
emotional autonomy. Subjects are asked questions concerning decision-making, mutual
help-giving and support, frequency of contacts, conﬂicts between the subjects' and
parents' needs, emotional tension and conﬂicts, depth of communication, feelings of
closeness and concern, and the subjects' evaluations of the parents' strengths and
weaknesses. Participants' responses are then coded on a 5-point scale (1 and 5 are
indicative of low and high scores, respectively) on ten dimensions: closeness,
communication, concern, empathy, respect, self-other responsibility, personal control,
self-assertion, independence, and decision-making. Appendix E contains scoring criteria
for each of these ten dimensions.

The empathy dimension deserves further comment because it is the scale that provides
the second core construct involved in adolescent deidealization. The empathy dimension
refers to the adolescent's ability to understand the parent as a complex person and to
appreciate the parent's feelings and perspective, even when these differ from those of the
adolescent's own perspective. A low score of "1" indicates that the adolescent describes
the parent primarily in extremely bad or extremely good terms, that the adolescent is either
unable or unwilling to understand the parent's own issues and concerns, and cannot view
the parent as having a life outside of the parent-child relationship. The adolescent can only
provide simplistic, concrete and behavioral descriptions of the parent. A moderate score of

"3" suggests that the young adult attempts to take the parent's perspective, although he or

4 8
she has difﬁculty seeing the parent as a complex and diverse person. The parent may be

viewed as having both positive and negative traits, yet the adolescent is unable to integrate
the parent's strengths and weaknesses. The adolescent has a fairly stereotyped notion of
the parent outside the dyadic relationship. A high score of "5" indicates that the young
adult views the parent as a person in his or her own right, and genuinely understands a
parent in relationships outside the parent-adolescent dyad. The adolescent integrates the
parent's positive and negative characteristics into a complex psychological portrait, and can
identify the parent's motivations, conﬂicts, values and ideologies.

Whether an adolescent idealizes, deidealizes, or denigrates his or her parent is
determined by the adolescent's scores on the Deidealization subscale of the Emptipnal
Antennmyﬂuestipnnaixe and the empathy dimension from the W
Reiatipnahip W- A table using a 2 (low/high Deidealization scores) X 2 (low/high
empathy scores) design can be constructed such that all subjects can be placed into one of
four "cells" that reﬂects their beliefs about parental fallibility as well as their capacity for
empathy (see Figure 1). The ﬁrst "cell" was expected to include subjects with hm scores
on the Deidealization subscale as well as lmy scores on the empathy dimension of the
adolescent/parent relationship interview: this group could be identiﬁed as "idealizing".
This cell was expected to be comprised of adolescents who describe relationships in which
the parent is believed to be infallible; furthermore, these adolescents disallow the possibility
that their parent possesses any negative characteristics. Second, subjects with high scores
on the Deidealization subscale and high scores on the empathy dimension of the
adolescent/parent relationship interview were expected to be identiﬁed as "deidealized":
they describe relationships in which the parent is described as fallible; but in addition, the
adolescent describes the parents as possessing positive and negative characteristics. Third,
subjects with high scores on the Deidealization subscale and lpty scores on the empathy
dimension of the adolescent/parent relationship interview were expected to be identiﬁed as
"denigrating": these adolescents not only describe the parent as fallible, but in fact, the

adolescent virtually disallows the possibility that the parent may have any positive

49

Eigml. Four groups based on deidealization and empathy scores.

WW
1..er High

L91 Idealizing

Huh Denigrating Deidealizing

50

characteristics whatsoever. The fourth "cell" would include subjects with leg scores on
the Deidealization subscale and high scores on the empathy dimension of the interview:
this seems not to be a meaningful combination, because such a group would include
individuals who have complex and psychologically insightful understandings of their
parents, but who also report their parents to be perfect. The fourth cell was expected to
contain very few subjects, and if so, was to be disregarded in this research.

4. WW. Conﬂictual independence is deﬁned by Hoffman as
"freedom from excessive guilt, anxiety, mistrust, responsibility, inhibition, resentment and
anger in relation to the mother and father (Hoffman, 1984, p. 17 3). It was assessed by two
dimensions from the Wm (Frank, Avery & Laman,
1988): the Wand and semassenign dimensions.

The W dimension reﬂect adolescents' experience of intense and
overwhelming negative feelings toward the parent, as well as the adolescent's ability to
control his or her behavior and emotions when confronted with difﬁcult situations, anger,
tensions, and conﬂicts with the parent. A low score of "1" indicates that the adolescent is
unable to control intense feelings of anger or frustration with the parent, and overtly
behaves inappropriately during conﬂicts (for example, yells, ﬂees the scene, cries
uncontrollably, etc.). A moderate score of "3" indicates that although the adolescent
occasionally demonstrates mild negative feelings toward the parent, but he or she expresses
these feelings with less intensity and more control. A high score of "5" indicates that the
young adult has developed effective coping strategies for dealing with potentially tense
interactions with the parent. As a result, the young adult demonstrates mastery of these
negative feelings rather than vulnerability to them.

Scores on the semauenien dimension assess the extent to which the adolescent is
inhibited by feelings of shame or guilt, versus whether the adolescent is unconstrained by
fears of the parent's disapproval, negative judgments, or retribution. A low score of "1"
indicates that the adult is clearly inhibited by feelings of shame and guilt in the relationship

with the parent, and vigilantly monitors his or her behavior in order to avoid the parents'

5 1
disapproval, contempt, or anger. A moderate score of "3" suggests that the young adult

continues to desire parental approval in some areas, but that in other areas, he or she
evaluates his or her own self-worth irrespective of the parents' judgments. A high score of
"5" describes young adults who do not allow parental criticism or disapproval to detract
from their own evaluations of self-worth: they determine their own behavior, and
assertively expresses their own needs, values and interests to their parents.

Coding of the late adolescents' interview responses was done by four advanced clinical
psychology graduate students. In order to maximize the independence of the dimensions,
responses pertaining to each of the ten dimensions were printed on separate sheets of
paper, so that coders read responses relevant only to the dimension they were coding. In
addition, the coders were not informed of the drinking status of the subjects' parents,
although this information could sometimes be determined by the subjects' responses during
the course of the interview.

Coders were trained using interview responses from the Frank et al. (1988) study,
which were coded by raters not involved in the current study. These protocols (which
were obtained from subjects who ranged from 22 to 32 years of age) were used as the
standard for evaluating reliability of coding. After reliability for a dimension was
established on the older Frank et al. (1988) sample, reliability was established on a small
sample from the current study. Twenty interviews from the current study were coded by
one rater from the previous study and one graduate student rater. Disagreements were
resolved by discussion and consensus. When reliability reached at least .80 for a
dimension, the graduate student coder coded that dimension. Two graduate student raters
coded two dimensions each, and two additional raters coded three dimensions each.
Reliability spot checks were conducted on randomly selected protocols from each
dimension to prevent rater drift. Reliabilities for empathy, personal control, and self-

assertion were .97, .89, and .88, respectively.

Subjects? scorcs 0n the magnum and mustangs dimensions of the Young
Wm are used to assess adolescents' experience of

52

conﬂictual independence. In this study, the mean for personal control with respect to
mothers is 3.42 (SD = 1.23, range 1.00 - 5.00); with respect to fathers, the mean for
personal control is 3.14 (SD =1.33, range 1.00 - 5.00). The mean for self-assertion with
respect to mothers is 2.68 (SD = 1.14, range 1.00 - 5.00); with respect to fathers, the mean
for self-assertion is 2.58 (SD 1.13, range 1.00 - 5.00). With respect to mothers, subjects'
personal control and self-assertion scores were highly correlated (r = .54, p < .01); with
respect to fathers, subjects' personal control and self-assertion scores were also highly
correlated (r = .37, p < .01). Correlations were similar for males and female subjects.
When subjects' personal control and self assertion scores were averaged with respect to
mothers, and with respect to fathers, conﬂictual independence scores were yielded. With
respect to mothers, the mean for conﬂictual independence is 3.05, SD = 1.04; with respect
to fathers, the mean for conﬂictual independence is 2.86, SD = 1.02.

CHAPTER 5

E l' . I I

As stated in the Methods section, in order to evaluate the three research hypotheses,
four constructs are of interest: paternal alcoholism, marital conﬂict, deidealization status of
the adolescent, and the adolescent's development of conﬂictual independence. Table 1
presents descriptive statistics for the variables used to operationalize these four constructs
for males, females, and the total sample. T-tests revealed gender differences on only two
of these variables: the two variables that were signiﬁcantly different for sons versus
daughters were empathy with respect to mothers, and empathy with respect to fathers; see
Table 2 for the results of these T-tests. Table 3 presents correlations among the variables
of interest for the total sample. Of particular importance was the moderate correlation
between COA status and perceived marital conﬂict (r = .50, p < .01), which suggested the
potential for confounded effects between these two variables. Consequently, it was
decided that if subsequent analyses revealed signiﬁcant associations between COA status
and other variables of interest, it would be necessary to reexamine these associations while
controlling for perceived marital conﬂict: this would determine whether identiﬁed
relationships between COA status and other variables of interest remained signiﬁcant when
perceived marital conﬂict was controlled for.
W.

A primary goal of this research was to use a two-dimensional schema to place subjects
into groups reﬂecting idealization, deidealization, or denigration of their mothers and their
fathers. Using the two constructs of "perception of parental fallibility" and "empathy",

adolescent subjects were to be grouped into one of four "cells": a) high perception of
5 3

54

Iahlel. Descriptive statistics for variables of interest for males, females, and total sample.

 

Males FemaleL__IQtal§amnle

ll . 1D [1'

Mean 1.90 1.87 1.89

SD .56 .56 .56

Min-Max. 1.00-3.30 1.00-3.42 1.00-3.42
I} .1 l' . _“ 1

Mean 2.85 2.79 2.82

SD .42 .47 .45

Min-Max. 1.80-3.80 2.00-4.00 1.80-4.00
12 .1 l' . -E I

Mean 2.84 2.98 2.91

SD .55 .51 .54

Min-Max 1.60-4.00 1.60-4.00 1.60-4.00

Mean 2.77 3.30 3.04

SD 1.19 1.12 1.18

Min-Max 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00—5.00

Mean 2.54 3.29 2.92

SD 1.21 .97 1.15

Min-Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00
We:

Mean 3.21 3.62 3.42

SD 1.26 1.17 1.23

Min-Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00
Warner

Mean 2.97 3.30 3.14

SD 1.39 1.25 1.33

Min-Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00

Mean 2.80 2.57 2.68

SD 1.25 1.03 1.14

Min—Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00

Mean 2.71 2.46 2.58

SD 1.17 1.08 1.13

Min-Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00
ConﬂicmallndencMcther

Mean 3.01 3.10 3.05

SD 1.13 .95 1.04

Min-Max. 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00
ConﬂicmﬂlndeacEathet

Mean 2.84 2.88 2.86

SD 1.11 .93 1.02

Min-Max 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00 1.00-5.00

55

Iabiez. Differences between males and females on variables of interest.

Marital Conﬂict
Deidealization—Mother
Deidealimtion-Father
Empathy-Mother
Empathy-Father

Personal Control-Mother
Personal Control-Father
Self-Assertion-Mother
Self-Assertion-Father
Conﬂictual Indep.-Mother
Conﬂictual Indep.-Father

 

EM - df Z-mﬂedmrhahﬂint
1.02 .33 119 .74
1.25 .67 122 .50
1.15 -l.50 120 .14
1.13 -2.57 122 .01"
1.53 -3.79 122 .00***
1.17 -1.85 122 .07
1.23 -l.4l 122 .16
1.48 1.13 122 .26
1.19 1.21 122 .23
1.43 -.46 122 .64
1.41 -.24 122 .81

 

56

Tattle}. Pearson correlations among variables of interest for the total sample.

Mar. Deid.- Deid-
QQm—Mp Fa

Emp.-
ML_Ea

COA
Status .50];
Mar.

Conﬂict 1.0

Deid.-
Mother .12 1.0

Deid-
Father .4811 .3312 1.0
Emp.-

Mother .17 .09 .17 1.0

Emp.-

Father .17 .06 .19a .6211 1.0
Pers. Cont. -.29h -.15

Mother

-.07 .1 l .07

Pets. Cont. -.47h
Father

-.07 -.34h .00 .08

Self-Assert. -.19
Mother

-.03 .01 .01 .02

Self-Assert. -.09
Father

-.15 -.02 .05 .12

Conﬂ.
Indep.-
Mother

-.27h -.10 -.04 .07 .05

Conﬂ.
Indep.-
Father

-.36h -.13 -.23a .03 .12

Emp.-

P.C.-
Me

1.0

.4211

.541),

.19a

.8911

.3811

P.C.- S-A
Fa M0

1.0

.2411 l .0

.3711 .4511

.38]; .8711

.8612 .4011

S-A.
Fa

1.0

.3412

.801},

C.I.
M0

1.0

.4511

CJ.
Fa

1.0

 

can:

II It
~e-o-e
AAA
8‘38

5 7
fallibility/high empathy, b) high perception of fallibility/low empathy, c) low perception of

fallibility/high empathy, and (1) low perception of fallibility/low empathy (see Figure 1). It
was hoped that this grouping procedure would allow for a comparison of adolescents with
similar scores on perception of parental fallibility, but who had different scores on
empathy. Similarly, adolescents that have similar empathy scores, but who hold very
different opinions about parental fallibility, could be compared. It was hypothesized that
after this grouping procedure was completed, the "low perception of fallibility/high
empathy" group would contain very few subjects, because it seemed unlikely that a subject
could evidence a multifaceted, psychologically sophisticated view of the parent, yet also
represent that parent as infallible.

To accomplish the grouping procedure, subjects were divided into "low" and "high"
empathy groups based on their empathy scores on the Adeleseentlﬁatenpﬁelatienahip
Inteiyieiy (Frank, Avery & Laman, 1988). Subjects who earned empathy scores of 1, 2,
or 3 were placed in the "low empathy" group , whereas subjects who earned scores of 4 or
5 were placed in the "high empathy" group. With respect to their relationships with their
mothers, 65% of the total sample (N = 81) fell in the "low empathy" group, whereas 35%
of the total sample (N = 43) fell in the "high empathy" group. With respect to their fathers,
69% of the total sample (N = 86) were classiﬁed in the "low empathy" group, whereas
31% of the total sample (N = 38) were classiﬁed in the "high empathy" group. It is notable
that the majority of male and female subjects fell in the "low empathy" group, and only
approximately one-third of subjects fell in the "high empathy" group: this is consistent
with the age of the sample, and it could be expected that as subjects enter their late twenties
and early thirties, a greater proportion of subjects would fall in the "high empathy" group,
and fewer subjects would fall in the "low empathy" group.

Next, a mean split was considered in order to divide the subjects into "high" and "low"
groups based on their Deidealization scores. However, deidealization scores tended to
cluster around the mean (x = 2.82, S.D.=.45, range 1.60 to 4.00), and therefore, groups

created by a mean split were unlikely to differ in meaningful ways from each other. (See

5 8
Table 4 for the frequency distribution of the deidealization variable.) A similar difﬁculty

was noted if a median split were used. Consequently, subjects were divided into three
groups based on their deidealization scores: these groups represented "low", "moderate",
and "high" deidealization. With respect to their relationships with their mothers, subjects
were placed in the "low" deidealization group if their scores were less than or equal to
2.40, into the "moderate" deidealization group if their scores were greater than 2.40 and
less than or equal to 3.20, and into the "high" deidealization group if their scores were
greater than 3.20. Based on these criteria, 25% of the sample (N = 31) fell in the "low"
deidealization group, 64% of the sample (N = 79) fell in the "moderate" deidealization
group, and 11% of the sample (N = 14) fell in the "high" deidealization group. With
respect to their relationships with their fathers, subjects were divided according to the same
cut-off scores. Accordingly, 21% of the sample (N = 23) fell in the "low" deidealization
group, 54% of the sample (N = 67) fell in the "moderate" deidealization group, and 25% of
the sample (N = 31) fell in the "high" deidealization group.

A table using a 3 (low/moderate/high Deidealization scores) X 2 (low/high empathy
scores) design was constructed such that all subjects fall into one of six groups that
reﬂected their beliefs about parental fallibility as well as their capacity for empathy (see
Rm 2). The ﬁrst group included subjects with law scores on the Deidealization subscale
as well as buy scores on the empathy dimension of the adolescent/parent relationship
interview: this group could be identiﬁed as "highly idealizing". This group was comprised
of adolescents who described relationships in which the parent was believed to be perfect
and infallible; furthermore, these adolescents disallowed the possibility that their parent
possessed any negative characteristics. Second, subjects with mpdetate scores on the
Deidealization subscale and imy scores on the empathy dimension of the adult/parent
relationship interview could be identiﬁed as "moderately idealizing": they were somewhat
more willing to acknowledge their parents' imperfections, although they still found it diffi—
cult to acknowledge that their parent possessed both positive and negative characteristics.

Third, subjects with high scores on the Deidealization subscale and lmy scores on the

88808
0000050

Percent

59
Ram Bream
rm
20

22
24

.....

Iahleﬁ. Frequency distribution of "perception of fallibility" scores in the relationship with
mﬂamﬂwm.

8428
.4230

6341

000
468.
3334

Ram

U3
M5
DD

56

31.462
1

Ram 15mm

320.3
1344
1

4456
1

000
A68.
3334

60

Figure; Six groups based on deidealization and empathy scores.

Empathxﬁms
Lew High
I: .1 l' . S
LQIIL Ground Qtaulul
Highly
Idealizing
Madame Qtoaaz 53:01:12.5
Moderately Moderately
Idealizing Deidealizing
High. Cram} 91202.6
Denigrating Highly

Deidealizing

6 1
empathy dimension of the adolescent/parent relationship interview could be identiﬁed as

"denigrating": these adolescents not only described the parent as fallible, but in fact, the
adolescent virtually disallowed the possibility that the parent may have had any positive
characteristics whatsoever. The fourth group is comprised of subjects with imy scores on
the Deidealization subscale and high scores on the empathy dimension of the young
adult/parent relationship interview: this was not expected to be a meaningful category,
because such a group would be comprised of individuals who had complex and
psychologically insightful understandings of their parents, but who simultaneously
reported their parents to be perfect. Consequently, this cell was expected to contain very
few subjects, and if so, was to be disregarded in this research. Fifth, subjects with
muletate scores on the Deidealization subscale and high scores on the empathy dimension
of the adult/parent relationship interview could be identiﬁed as "moderately deidealized":
they described relationships in which the parent was described as fallible and imperfect; in
addition the adolescent described the parent as possessing positive and negative
characteristics. Subjects in the sixth group, with high scores on the Deidealization subscale
and high scores on the empathy dimension of the adolescent/parent relationship interview,
could be identiﬁed as "highly deidealized", for they clearly described their parents as
fallible, and as possessing positive and negative characteristics.

Table 5 provides information about the distribution of male and female subjects into
these six groups with regards to the subjects' relationships with their mothers and their
fathers. Chi-square analysis indicated that there were no signiﬁcant gender differences in
group distributions for subjects' relationships with their mothers (X2 (5,124) = 7.19, p =
.21, n. s.) or fathers (X2 (5,124) = 8.54, p = .13, n. s.).

In addition to using a two—dimensional model of deidealization, it was hypothesized that
very few subjects would fall into the foru'th cell, which includes those subjects who
demonstrated high empathy, yet also evidenced low perception of parental fallibility: the
likelihood that subjects could evidence sophisticated and complex views of their parents,

yet still describe them to be infallible, seemed remote. Consequently, it was anticipated that

Iahlei. Group membership of male and female subjects in relationships with mothers

and fathers.
__Mathers_
Males Eemales
(N = 61) (N = 63)
Group 1 15% 17%
Hi. Ideal. (N = 9) (N = 11)
Group 2 49% 36%
Mod. Ideal. (N = 30) (N = 23)
Group 3 10% 3%
Denigr. (N = 6) (N = 2)
Group 4 7% 11%
(N = 4) (N = 7)
Group 5 18% 24%
Mod. Deid. (N = 11) (N = 15)
Group 6 2% 8%
Hi. Deid. (N = l) (N = 5)

_Eathets___.

Males Eemales

(N = 61) (N = 63)
25% 10%

(N = 15) (N = 6)
39% 38%

(N = 24) (N = 24)
15% 10%

(N = 9) (N = 6)
3% 5%
11% 19%

(N = 7) (N = 12)
7% 16%
(N = 4) (N = 10)

 

For mothers, X2 (5,124) = 7.19, p = .21, n. s.

For fathers, X2 (5, 124) = 8.54, p = .13, n.s.

63

the fourth cell would contain very few subjects, which would support the relative
meaninglessness of the category. As expected, with respect to fathers, the fourth group
included the smallest number of sons (N = 2) and daughters (N = 3) of the six groups.
However, somewhat surprisingly, four sons and seven daughters fell into the fourth cell
with respect to mothers. While these are not large cell sizes, more daughters (11%) fell in
the fourth group than in the third (2%) or sixth (8%) group with respect to mothers; more
sons (7%) fell in the fourth group than in the sixth (2%) group with respect to mothers.
This suggests that, at least with respect to mothers, the fourth group may represent the
possibility that idealization of the parent may continue as the adolescent's capacity for
empathy increases. Because of the possibility that the fourth group could be a meaningful
one, it seemed important to include the fourth group in the remainder of the analyses, and
to determine which, if any, associations existed between this group and the other variables
of interest. Further discussion of the meaningfulness of this cell will be elaborated in the
next chapter.

Hymthesisj‘ayp. The second research hypothesis proposed that each of the six groups
would be systematically associated with differences in the adolescents' development of
conﬂictual independence. It was expected that only adolescents in the deidealizing groups
would evidence high levels of conﬂictual independence, whereas adolescents in the
idealizing and denigrating groups would evidence low levels of conﬂictual independence.
An ANOVA was performed in which group membership was the independent variable and
conﬂictual independence was the dependent variable (see Table 6). This analysis
demonstrates that there were no signiﬁcant associations among adolescents who idealize,
deidealize, or denigrate their mothers and their attainment of conﬂictual independence in
their relationships with their mothers (E = 1.18, p < .32, n. 3.). Because there were no
identiﬁed differences between sons and daughters, Table 7 presents means and standard
deviations for the total sample with respect to conﬂictual independence among the six

groups vis-a-vis the relationship with mothers.

64

Iahleﬁ. Analysis of variance of conﬂictual independence by group membership in
subjects' relationship with mothers.

ﬁnmaLSaumdfMS E Sian‘nicance

Group Membership 6.35 5 1.27 1.18 .32

 

** ‘I-
" u u
are“
AAA
0 Co.

o
§~u

Iahiel. Means and standard deviations for conﬂictual independence by group
membership in subjects' relationship with mothers.

Group 1
Hi. Ideal.

Group 2

Mod. Ideal.

Group 3
Denigr.

Group 4

Group 5

Mod. Deid.

Group 6
Hi. Deid.

65

 

Imalﬁamale
Mean SD N
3.47 .91 20
2.93 1.10 53
2.94 1.02 8
2.91 1.01 11
3.17 1.05 26
2.58 .74 6

66

Results were different when this association was examined in the adolescent-father
relationship (see Table 8). An ANOVA was again performed in which group membership
was the independent variable and conﬂictual independence was the dependent variable. A
signiﬁcant rrrain effect was revealed (E = 2.38, p < .04), indicating that in the relationship
with fathers, there were signiﬁcant differences in conﬂictual independence that were
systematically associated with whether the adolescent idealized, denigrated, or deidealized
the father. However, as demonstrated in Table 9, due to the negative correlation between
perceived marital conﬂict and conﬂictual independence from fathers (r = -.36, p < .01), this
relationship required reevaluation while controlling for perceived marital conﬂict. When
perceived marital conﬂict was controlled for, the relationship between conﬂictual
independence and group distribution was weakened substantially (E = 1.21, p < .31) and
was reduced to statistical nonsigniﬁcance. This indicated that the apparent association
between group membership and conﬂictual independence in the father-adolescent
relationship was spurious, and could be accounted for by the effects of perceived marital
conﬂict on conﬂictual independence. Because there were no identiﬁed differences between
sons and daughters, Table 10 presents means and standard deviations for the total sample
with respect to conﬂictual independence among the six groups vis-a-vis the relationship
with fathers.

The correlation between perceived marital conﬂict and conﬂictual independence vis-a-
vis the relationship with fathers deserves a ﬁnal comment. Although perceived marital
conﬂict is correlated with conﬂictual independence with respect to fathers, inspection of the
correlation matrix reveals that marital conﬂict was considerably more strongly correlated
with one of the variables comprising independence than the other. Speciﬁcally, perceived
marital conﬂict and personal control with respect to fathers yielded a -0.47 correlation
(p<0.01), whereas the correlation between perceived marital conﬂict and self-assertion with
respect to fathers was only -0.09 (p<n.s.). Therefore, it was necessary to breakdown the

aggregated variable of conﬂictual independence into its two component parts in order to

67

Iahlej, Analysis of variance of conﬂictual independence by group membership in
relationship with fathers.

Samaritans at MS E Signif.

Group Membership 11.7 5 .23 2.38 .04*

 

*
it
**

P
P
P

.05
.01
.001

<
<
* <

Iahieﬁ. Analysis of variance (controlling for marital conﬂict) of conﬂictual independence
by group membership in relationship with fathers.

mm df MS IE Signif.
Covariate: Marital
Conﬂict 17.21 1 17.21 20.18 .000***
Group Membership 5.15 5 1.03 1.21 .31

 

.-

u u u
”av-o
{\AA
gee

‘I-i

68

IahieJQ. Means and standard deviations for conﬂictual independence by group
membership in subjects' relationship with fathers.

 

Iotaljamale

Mean SD N
Group 1 2.90 .96 21
Hi. Ideal.
Group 2 2.88 1.03 48
Mod. Ideal.
Group 3 2.45 1.00 15
Denigr.
Group 4 3.90 .55 5
Group 5 3.16 .91 19
Mod. Deid.
Group 6 2.46 1.06 14

Hi. Deid.

69

determine whether or not any associations exist between group distribution and either self-
assertion or personal control.

Consequently, one ANOVA was performed in which group membership was the
independent variable and self-assertion was the dependent variable. The association
between these two variables was nonsigniﬁcant (S=0.99, p<0.43). Another ANOVA was
performed in which group membership was the independent variable and personal control
was the dependent variable. A signiﬁcant main effect was revealed (S=3.55, p<0.01);
however, when perceived marital conﬂict was controlled for, the relationship between
personal control and group distribution was reduced to statistical nonsigniﬁcance (S=1.32,
p<0.26). In sum, breaking down the aggregated variable of conﬂictual independence into
its two component parts did not shed any further light on the relationship between group
distribution and conflictual independence in the relationship with fathers.

Hypethesislhnee. The third hypothesis proposed that the distribution of subjects into
the six groups would be systematically associated with differences in the adolescents'
families of origin. Speciﬁcally, a) perceived marital conﬂict, and b) paternal alcoholism
were expected to affect group distribution.

A 2 (gender: male, female) x 6 (group membership: six groups) ANOVA was
performed to assess differences in perceived marital conﬂict among the different
deidealization groups identiﬁed for sons and daughters in relation to mother, and a second
ANOVA was performed to assess differences in perceived marital conﬂict among the
different deidealization groups identiﬁed for sons and daughters in relation to father. The
data in Table 11 indicates that no signiﬁcant main effects of gender (E = .12, p < .73, n.s. )
or group membership (E = .79, p < .56, n.s. ) were found, and the interaction between
gender and group membership was also not signiﬁcant (E = 1.64, p < .15, n. s.) for
subjects in their relationships with their mothers. For the relationship with mothers,
means and standard deviations for perceived marital conﬂict among the six deidealization

groups can be found in Table 12.

7O

Iahleu. Analysis of variance for perceived marital conﬂict by group membership for
subjects in relation to mothers.

53mm df MS E Signiﬁcance

 

Gender .04 1 .21 .12 .73
Group Membership 2.29 5 .24 .79 .56
Gender X Group
Interaction 2.49 5 .50 1.64 . 15
* = p < .05
** = p < .01
*** = p < .001

71

Iahleiz. Means and standard deviations for perceived marital conﬂict by group
membership in subjects' relationship with mothers.

 

Iataljamnle

Mean SD N
Group 1 1.67 .42 19
Hi. Ideal.
Group 2 1.91 .47 52
Mod. Ideal.
Group 3 2.09 .58 8
Denigr.
Group 4 1.98 .92 11
Group 5 1.87 .53 25
Mod. Deid.
Group 6 1.98 .79 6

Hi. Deid.

7 2
Different results were found in the ANOVA performed to evaluate the effects of

perceived marital conﬂict in subjects' relationship with fathers. A main effect for gender
could be identiﬁed as a trend (E = 3.51, p < .06), and a signiﬁcant main effect for group
membership was present (E = 7.46, p < .00); see Table 13. Moreover, the gender by
group membership interaction was signiﬁcant (E = 2.43, p < .04); consequently, data for
sons and daughters were examined separately. Separate analysis of the associations for
sons and daughters in their relationships with their fathers revealed a signiﬁcant main effect
for perceived marital conﬂict on group membership for sons (E = 7.62, p < .00) and for
daughters (E = 2.64, p < .03): this indicates that the differences in marital conﬂict were
greater for sons than they were for daughters. The means and standard deviations
presented in Table 14 indicated that for sons, perceived marital conﬂict was highest in the
moderately- and highly- deidealized groups, as well as the denigrating group. For
daughters, perceived marital conﬂict was highest in the deni grating, highly-deidealized, and
moderately-idealized groups. Oneway ANOVAs using Duncan comparison tests were
performed separately for sons and for daughters to identify which of the six cells were
signiﬁcantly different from the others in relation to perceived marital conﬂict: for sons, the
moderately-deidealized, highly deidealized, and denigrating groups were signiﬁcantly
different from the three other groups. For daughters, the highly deidealized and the
denigrating groups were signiﬁcantly different from the "nonsense" group, and the
denigrating group was signiﬁcantly different from the moderately deidealized group.

The second family factor that was expected to inﬂuence group distribution was paternal
alcoholism. A chi-square analysis was used to test the association between group status
and problem drinking in subjects' family of origin, because in this study parent alcoholism
was a categorical variable coded as "present" or "absent". Table 15 presents data
regarding differences between non-COA daughters and COA daughters with respect to their
relationships with their mothers, which indicated that there were no signiﬁcant differences
in group membership (XZ (5,63) = 3.03, p = .69, n. s.); consequently, paternal alcoholism
did not seem to affect whether adolescent daughters idealized, deidealized, or denigrated

73

mm, Analysis of variance of marital conﬂict by gender and group membership in
relationship with fathers.

Wm: :11 MS E Signif.

 

Gender .82 1 .82 3.51 .06 (t)
Group Membership 8.75 5 1.75 7.46 .00***
Gender X Group
Interaction 2.85 5 .57 2.43 .04*

(t) = p < .06

* = p<.05

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

74

IahleJA. Means and standard deviations for marital conﬂict by gender and by group
membership in relationship with fathers.

 

 

Males Eemalrs

M SD N Mean SD N
Group 1 1.6la .43 15 1.60a .51 5
Hi. Ideal.
Group 2 1.75a .45 23 1.92a .43 24
Mod. Ideal.
Group 3 2.3012 .40 9 2.2712 .76 6
Denigr.
Group 4 1.42a .27 2 1.28a .29 3
Group 5 2.2612 .57 7 1.70a .33 12
Mod. Deid.
Group 6 2.9012 .36 3 2.1512 .74 10
Hi. Deid.

 

Note: Group means with the same superscripts do not differ signiﬁcantly (p < .05).

75

Iahler. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for daughters in
relation to mothers.

Group 1
Hi. Ideal.

Group 2
Mod Ideal.

Group 3
Denigr.

Group 4

Group 5

Mod. Deid.

Group 6
Hi. Deid.

(N = 34)

21%
(N= 7)

35%
(N = 12)

3%
(N= 1)

12%
(N = 4)

26%
(N = 9)

3%
(N= 1)

(N = 29)

14%
(N = 4)

38%
(N =11)

3%
(N = 1)

10%
(N = 3)

21%
(N= 6)

14%

 

X2 (5, 63) = 3.03

p = .69, n.s.

7 6
their mothers. More surprisingly, paternal alcoholism also did not inﬂuence whether

adolescent daughters idealized, deidealized, or denigrated their fathers, either: Table 16
presents data indicating that there were no signiﬁcant differences in group membership (X2
(5,61) = 7.54, p = .18, n.s.) between non-COA daughters and COA daughters in their
relationships with their fathers.

Results were different for sons with respect to their relationships with their mothers as
well as their fathers. Table 17 presents data pertaining to differences in group membership
between non-COA and COA sons regarding their relationships with their mothers: non-
COA sons differed signiﬁcantly from COA sons in their relationships with their mothers
(X2 (5, 61) = 11.31 p < .05). Almost twice as many non-COA sons fell in the highly-
and moderately-idealizing groups than did COA sons; ﬁve times as many COA sons fell in
the denigrating group than did non-COA sons; and more than four times as many COA
sons fell in the moderately- and highly-deidealized groups than did non-COA sons.

Table 18 presents data pertaining to the signiﬁcant differences between non-COA sons
and COA sons in their relationships with their fathers (X2 (5, 61) = 11.67, p < .04). Four
times as many non-COA sons fell in the highly idealizing group than did COA sons; twice
as many COA sons fell in the moderately—deidealized group than did non-COA sons; and
four times as many COA sons fell in the highly-deidealized group than did non-COA sons.
Twice as many COA sons denigrated their fathers than did non-COA sons.

Although the associations between COA status and group distribution appeared
signiﬁcant for sons with respect to their mothers and fathers, the correlation between COA
status and perceived marital conﬂict necessitated an investigation of whether the
relationship between COA status and group distribution remained signiﬁcant when marital
conﬂict was controlled for. Therefore, chi-square analyses were performed in order to
reexamine the associations between group distribution and COA group in the mother-son
and father-son relationship, while controlling for perceived marital conﬂict. For sons in
relationship to mothers, when controlling for perceived marital conﬂict, there were no

signiﬁcant differences between COA sons and non-COA sons in group distribution when

77

Iahleiﬁ Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for daughters in
relation to fathers.

(N = 33) (N = 28)

Group 1 12% 7%
Hi. Ideal. (N = 4) (N = 2)
Group 2 33% 46%
Mod. Ideal. (N = 11) (N = 13)
Group 3 6% 14%
Denigr. (N = 2) (N = 4)
Group 4 9% ---

(N = 3)
Group 5 27% 11%
Mod. Deid. (N = 9) (N = 3)
Group 6 12% 21%
Hi. Deid. (N = 4) (N = 6)

 

X2 (5,61) = 7.54 p = .18, n. s.

78

IahieJl. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for sons in relation

 

to mothers.
(N = 30) (N = 31)

Group 1 20% 10%
Hi. Ideal. (N = 6) (N = 3)
Group 2 60% 39%
Mod. Ideal. (N = 18) (N = 12)
Group 3 3% 16%
Denigr. (N = 1) (N = 5)
Group 4 10% 3%

(N = 3) (N = 1)
Group 5 7% 29%
Mod. Deid. (N = 2) (N = 9)
Group 6 -- 3%
Hi. Deid. (N = 1)

X2(5,61)=11.31 p=.05

Cells with expected frequency < 5 = 8 out of 12 (66.7 %)

79

IahleJﬁ. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group for sons in relation

 

to fathers.
(N = 30) (N = 31)

Group 1 40% 10%
Hi. Ideal. (N = 12) (N = 3)
Group 2 40% 40%
Mod. Ideal. (N = 12) (N = 12)
Group 3 10% 19%
Denigr. (N = 3) (N = 6)
Group 4 3% 3%

(N = 1) (N = 1)
Group 5 7% 16%
Mod. Deid. (N = 2) (N = 5)
Group 6 -- 13%
Hi. Deid. (N = 4)

X2(5,61)=11.67 p=.04

Cells with expected frequency < 5 = 8 out of 12 ( 66.7%)

8 0
perceived marital conﬂict was low (X2 (5,29 ) = 9.71, p < .08, n.s.), nor when perceived

marital conﬂict was high (X2 (4,30) = 4.52, p < .34, n.s.). Similar results were found in
relation to fathers: chi-square analysis indicated that, when controlling for perceived
marital conﬂict, there were no signiﬁcant differences between COA sons and non-COA
sons in group distribution when perceived marital conﬂict was either low (X2 (4,29) =
7.31, p = .12, n. s.), or high (X2 (4,30) = 6.16, p < .19, n.s.). These data are presented
for mothers and for fathers in Table 19 and Table 20, respectively. The results indicate that
in sons' relationships with mothers and fathers, when perceived marital conﬂict is
controlled for, the apparent associations between group distribution and COA status drop
out.

These results appear to suggest that differences in group distribution are not attributable
to COA status, but rather, to perceived marital conﬂict. However, the correlation between
these two variables (r=0.50, p<0.01) indicates that COA status and perceived marital
conflict are confounded variables, and without cell sizes than this study utilizes, it becomes
exceedingly difﬁcult to separate whether the identiﬁed associations are due to the effects of
perceived marital conﬂict, or to the effects of paternal alcoholism. This study can only
conclude that there is signiﬁcant overlap in the effects of these two family variables. Future
research with larger cell sizes could further examine the separate effects of each of these
variables.

One ﬁnal set of analyses were performed in order to evaluate whether the nonsigniﬁcant
chi-square analyses reﬂected inadequate power (due to small cell size) or the absence of
effects of COA status on group distribution after controlling for perceived marital conﬂict.
Consequently, the six deidealization groups were collapsed into two groups: the ﬁrst
group was comprised of subjects in the denigrating and highly-deidealized groups, because
these subjects represent the "extremes" of deidealization; and the second group was
comprised of all other subjects. Chi-square analyses were reevaluated for sons in relation
to their mothers, and in relation to their fathers. For sons in relation to mothers, with

collapsed deidealization groups, and when controlling for perceived marital conﬂict, there

81

IahleJQ. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group (controlling for
perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to mothers.

Group 1
Hi Ideal.

Group 2

Mod. Ideal.

Group 3
Denigr.

Group 4

Group 5

Mod. Deid.

Group 6
Hi. Deid.

E . II I . I Q a. 'I
- CQA
N = 19 N = 10
32% 20%
(N = 6) (N = 2)
53% 40%
(N = 10) (N = 4)
5% 0%
(N = 1) (N = 0)
11% 0%
(N = 2) (N = 0)
0% 30%
(N = 0) (N = 3)
0% 10%
(N = 0) (N = 1)

E . 1“.”2 ﬂ'-H'l

- EDA

N = 10 N = 20

0% 5%

(N = 0) (N = 1)

70% 40%

(N = 7) (N = 3)

0% 25%

(N = 0) (N = 5)

10% 5%

(N = 1) (N = 1)

20% 25%

(N = 2) (N = 5)

0% 0%

(N = 0) (N = 0)

 

x2 (5, 29) = 9.71, p < .08, n.s.

X2 (4,30) = 4.52, p < .34, n.s.

82

IahleZQ. Relationship between COA status and deidealization group (controlling for
perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to fathers.

E . ”1.”: ﬂ'-I E . ”1.1: IT-H'l
Non-.CQA CQA Nan-.CQA CQA
N=19 N=10 N=10 N=20
Group 1 47% 10% 30% 10%
Hi Ideal. (N = 9) (N = 1) (N = 3) (N = 2)
Group 2 37% 70% 40% 25%
Mod. Ideal. (N = 7) (N = 7) (N = 4) (N = 5)
Group 3 0% 10% 30% 25%
Denigr. (N = 0) (N = 1) (N = 3) (N = 5)
Group 4 5% 10% 0% 0%
(N=1) (N=1) (N=O) (N=O)
Group 5 11% 0% 0% 25%
Mod. Deid. (N = 2) (N = 0) (N = 0) (N = 5)
Group 6 0% 0% 0% 15%
Hi. Deid. (N = 0) (N = 0) (N = 0) (N = 3)

 

X2 (4,29) = 7.31, p < .12, n.s.

X2 (4,30) = 6.16, p < .19, n.s.

8 3
were no signiﬁcant differences between COA sons and non-COA sons in group

distribution when perceived marital conﬂict was low (X2 (1, 29 ) = .23, p < .63, n.s.), nor
when perceived marital conﬂict was high (X2 (1, 30) = 3.00, p < .08, n.s.). Similar
results were found in relation to fathers: chi-square analysis indicated that, with collapsed
deidealization groups, and when controlling for perceived marital conﬂict, there were no
signiﬁcant differences between COA sons and non-COA sons in group distribution when
perceived marital conﬂict was either low (X2 (1, 29) = 1.97, p = .16, n. s.), or high (X2
(1, 30) = .29, p < .59, n.s.). These results are presented in Tables 21 and 22, for the

mother-son and father-son relationship, respectively.

84

Iah1e21. Relationship between COA status and collapsed deidealization groups
(controlling for perceived marital conﬂict) for sons in relation to mothers.

Group 1
Deng
Hi. Deid.

Group 2
Other Groups

E .111.” ﬂ'-I E 'lll'lC El'-Il'l

5%
(N= 1)

95%
(N = 18)

QQA
N=10

10%
(N = 1)

90%
(N = 9)

Nan-.QQA
N=10

0%
(N = 0)

100%
(N = 10)

(DA
N=20

5%
(N = 25)

75%
(N = 15)

 

X2 (1, 29) = .23, p < .63, n.s.

x2 (1, 30) = 3.00, p < .08, n.s.

131219.22- Relationship between COA status and collapsed deidealization groups
(controlling for perceived marital conflict) for sons in relation to fathers.

Group 1
Dening
Hi. Deid.

Group 2
Other Groups

E 'lll'lC ll-I E 'lll'lC ﬂ'-II'l

0%
(N = 0)

100%
(N = 19)

99A
N=10

10%
(N = 1)

90%
(N = 9)

30%
(N = 3)

70%
(N = 7)

CQA
N=20

40%
(N = 8)

60%
(N = 12)

 

X2 (1, 29) = 1.97, p < .16, n.s.

X2 (1, 30) = .29, p < .59, n.s.

CHAPTER 6
D. .

The deidealization process has been the subject of a number of theoretical papers and
empirical studies that focus primarily on two questions: ﬁrst, what outcomes can be
associated with healthy deidealization; and second, what kinds of environmental or family
factors might inﬂuence the deidealization process? To date, most researchers have relied on
a questionnaire designed by Steinberg and Silverberg (1986) which operationalizes
deidealization as a unidimensional construct: that is, whether and to what extent an
adolescent recognizes the possibility of parental fallibility. This study was undertaken to
explore the utility of using a two—dimensional schema to evaluate adolescent deidealization.
In this study, deidealization was operationalized as a) the adolescent's perception of their
parent' 5 fallibility, am” b) the adolescent's ability to demonstrate an empathic
understanding of their parent as a complex, multidimensional individual. It was hoped that
by creating a more complete conceptualization of deidealization, adolescents who
deidealize, denigrate, or continue to idealize their parent could be better differentiated and
grouped. In turn, with improved differentiation between deidealization, denigration, and
idealization, it was hoped that these groups would be systematically associated with
differences in adolescents' development of conﬂictual independence, as well as with
varying degrees of pathology in the family of origin (e.g., paternal alcoholism and/or
perceived marital conﬂict) .

Hyppthesiaﬂne. It was originally expected that subjects would be grouped into one of
four "cells". However, scores indicating subjects' perception of their parents' fallibility
were distributed such that a "low", "moderate", and "high" differentiation proved to be

more meaningful, and a six-"cc " model was created. The major advantage of using a

85

8 6
four—"cell" model-«allowing differentiation between adolescents who denigrate their parent

from adolescents who deidealize their parent---was preserved when the six-"cell" model
was used. Once this grouping procedure was completed, it had been hypothesized that
very few subjects would fall into the cell characterized by low perception of fallibility
scores and high empathy scores. This group had been described as a relatively
meaningless category because it seemed incongruous that an adolescent could evidence a
psychologically sophisticated, multidimensional view of the parent, and yet still describe
that parent as infallible.

Surprisingly, four sons and seven daughters fell into this category with respect to
mothers, and two sons and three daughters fell into this category with respect to fathers,
which were more than were expected. There are several possible ways to understand these
subjects' responses. One potential explanation is that perhaps these adolescents were
unusually sensitive to the social desirability of their responses, and endorsed items that
appeared to signify "good parenting", as well as a general deference to one's parents'
values and Opinions (e.g., "When my parent and I disagree, my parent is always right").
This could account for the adolescents' favorable presentation of the self (e.g., as insightful
and able to view the parent as complex and multidimensional) and an equally favorable
presentation of the parent (e.g., as immune to errors in judgment, poor decisions, etc.).
However, this explanation seems ﬂawed: social desirability may have affected subjects'
questionnaire scores, but in order to earn a high empathy score, the subjects had to have
demonstrated an advanced cognitive and emotional understanding of the parent in an
interview situation, and it seems unlikely that this could have resulted from the inﬂuences
of social desirability. An alternate explanation is that perhaps adolescents in this cell had, at
one time or another, experienced greater conﬂict with their parents' goals, ideals, and
values, but that at the time of the study, they had resolved these issues, and subsequently
adopted values and life goals that were quite similar to their parents'. This would allow
these adolescents a) to demonstrate the introspective, sophisticated thinking characteristic of

high levels of empathy, and yet b) to endorse items such as "My parents hardly ever make

8 7
mistakes". Another explanation that might account for this group is that perhaps these

adolescents were fortunate enough to be raised by exemplary parents, who, even after a
sophisticated and thoughtful evaluation, were assessed to be unusually superior in their
decisions, life-style, and parenting skill. A ﬁnal explanation might be that, particularly in
relation to mothers, adolescents continue to idealize their parent while they develop an
increased capacity for empathy. Although cross-sectional data cannot speak to the "order"
in which these capacities develop, most theorists and researchers agree that the separation-
individuation process involves a great deal of shifting and overlapping occurs when new
ways of relating with and conceptualizing one's parents are being developed, and immature
views are being relinquished. The data in the present study suggest that some adolescents
may continue to maintain idealized images of their parents, even as the parental image is
becoming more sophisticated and complex, and one could speculate that at a later point
developmentally, these young adults might have completed the transformation from the
idealized images of their parents into fully deidealized images.

Further investigation of the breakdown of subjects into cells revealed that subjects'
gender was not systematically associated with group distribution, suggesting that young
men and young women are fairly similar in their ability to resolve conﬂicts and issues
raised by deidealization. The lack of gender effects in the present study is consistent with
the results of several other investigations that report no systematic differences in adolescent
boys' and girls' development of emotional autonomy. Silverberg and Steinberg (1987)
measured emotional autonomy in adolescents between ages 10 and 15, and the authors
report identical scores for sons and daughters. In their study, Youniss and Ketterlinus
(1987) hypothesized that an adolescent's emotional autonomy could be operationalized as
"how much the adolescent cares about how the parent perceives them", a variable that
seems to be equivalent to the self-assertion subscale in the present study. Youniss and
Ketterlinus (1987) report that no gender differences were found, and that the majority of
sons and daughters (ages 13 to 17) "cared a great deal" about their parents' evaluations of

them. Ryan and Lynch (1989) report no gender differences in emotional autonomy, as

/_La

8 8
measured by Steinberg and Silverberg's (1986) questionnaire. Similarly, Frank, Pirsch,

and Wright (1990) report no gender differences in late adolescents' reports of
deidealization, as measured by the Deidealization subscale of the Steinberg and Silverberg
(1986) questionnaire. In brief, many studies ﬁnd no gender differences in the adolescent
deidealization process, and the current study is no exception.

W. The second goal of this research was to assess the associations
between deidealization, denigration and idealization, and conﬂictual independence.
"Conﬂictual independence" is a construct deﬁned by Hoffman (1984), and it is virtually
identical to what many theorists consider to by the outcome of successful deidealization. It
encompasses the adolescent's stable and self-determined self-esteem, relative lack of
concern about their parents' approval or disapproval, and a relative invulnerability to
feelings of guilt, inadequacy, or inferiority: it was hypothesized that only adolescents who
have deidealized their parents would evidence this characteristic. In contrast, it was
hypothesized that adolescents who continue to idealize their parents would remain
vulnerable to feelings of insecurity and guilt, continue to depend heavily on the parent for
guidance and advice, use parents' standards to govern their own behavior, and would be
constrained by fears of parental disapproval. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that
adolescents who denigrate their parents may fail to develop conﬂictual independence
because the overwhelmingly negative feelings about the parent would be likely to inﬂuence
parent-adolescent interactions, and result in poor behavioral and emotional control when the
adolescent engaged in conﬂicts with that parent.

The data from this study did not support these hypothesized relationships. There were
no signiﬁcant associations among adolescents who idealize, deidealize or denigrate their
mothers and their attainment of conﬂictual independence in their relationships with their
mothers; the same was true for adolescents' relationships with their fathers. The absence
of signiﬁcant relationships between deidealization status and conﬂictual independence was
puzzling: in fact, the absence of the hypothesized relationships was so counter-theoretical

that methodological reexamination is warranted. Upon review, the operational deﬁnition

8 9
of conﬂictual independence-«aggregating subjects' scores on variables measuring personal

control and self-assertion---appeared to be nonproblematic. The subjects' scores on the
personal control and self-assertion dimensions were gathered through a detailed and
comprehensive interview, and it was unlikely that salient information was omitted or
misunderstood. The interviews were coded by coders who demonstrated good reliability
on these dimensions. Consequently, it did not appear that methodological problems
obscured any ﬁndings.

The absence of linkages between adolescents' deidealization, idealization or denigration
of parents and conﬂictual independence is concerning, because if conﬂictual independence
is theoretically considered a reasonable outcome of deidealization, its presence can serve as
a validity "check" that can support the two-dimensional procedure that placed subjects in
the "deidealizing", "denigrating", and "idealizing" groups. Because of the absence of these
anticipated associations, this study cannot rule out the potential invalidity of the six-"cell"
grouping procedure.

However, an alternate explanation does exist: the absence of associations between
conﬂictual independence and group distribution could be attributed to the fact that all of the
data in this study were self-report data, and self-report data may be questionable when a
large portion of the sample consists of subjects who continue to idealize their relationships
with their parents. "Idealizers" are likely to deny interpersonal and intrapsychic conﬂict,
calling into question the accuracy of their responses vis-a-vis their parents, their
relationships with their parents, and their own attainment of conﬂictual independence.
Consequently, the lack of relationship between group distribution and conﬂictual
independence may not be attributable to an invalid grouping procedure, but rather, it may
be somewhat inherent in the independent variable itself. Futtue research that does not rely
exclusively on self-report data (i.e., studies that include observational data, or information
supplied by a person who knows both the adolescent and the parent well) could overcome

this validity problem, and help determine whether associations between group distribution

9 0
and conﬂictual independence could be identiﬁed, or whether they would continue to be

absent.

Hypeﬂieaisjhtee. The third and ﬁnal goal of this research was to examine the family
environments that might be associated with group distribution. A large body of
psychoanalytic theory, as well as clinical and developmental research suggests that the
family provides a context in which "healthy" or "unhealthy" development unfolds, and that
nontraditional or dysfunctional family environments may be associated with deviations in
adolescent development. Consequently, it was hypothesized that a) perceived marital
conﬂict, and b) paternal alcoholism would be systematically associated with various cells.
In particular, it was expected that paternal alcoholism and/or high levels of perceived
marital conﬂict would be associated with denigration, whereas the absence of these
pathologies would be associated with deidealization or protracted idealization.

Investigation of these two family pathologies presented the potential for confounded
effects, and the moderate correlation between COA status and high levels of marital conﬂict
conﬁrmed this possibility. Certainly, the correlation between paternal alcoholism and
marital conﬂict was not surprising: in fact, there was ample theoretical support for the
possibility of a confound between these two variables. The extensive literature on family
separation and divorce identiﬁes a number of sequelae to family conﬂict, including: an
adolescent's premature and intense distancing from the parents (Sessa & Steinberg, 1991);
an adolescent's experience of a "foreshortened childhood" characterized by accelerated
growth and the development of pseudomaturity (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980); an
adolescent's experience of their parents' inability to meet the normal demands of parenting
due to their preoccupation with their own distress (Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980); and the
frequent confrontation of parental weaknesses, shortcomings, and inadequacies. Many of
these family difficulties are also commonly identiﬁed in the children-of-alcoholics literature
as equally characteristic of alcoholic families: the adolescent's experience of their parents'
emotional unavailability; the adolescents' experience of their parents' inadequate parenting

(Woititz, 1978); the adolescent's development of premature self-reliance in order to cope

9 l
with the burdens of inappropriate decision-making responsibility in the family (Bogdaniak

& Piercy, 1987). The convergence of the children-of-alcoholics literature and the divorce
literature suggests that both of these family pathologies can alter the developmental
trajectory of deidealization, and that the effects may be similar for adolescents raised in
either kind of "dysfunctional" family.

In addition to the similar sequelae of high levels of marital conﬂict and paternal
alcoholism, a confound between these two family variables was likely to result from a co-
occurrence of the variables: that is, many families affected by paternal alcoholism could be
expected to also experience high levels of marital conﬂict. The data in this study indicated
that this is so: seventy-ﬁve percent of the subjects in the "low" perceived marital conﬂict
group were non-COA subjects, whereas seventy-ﬁve percent of the subjects in the "high"
perceived marital conﬂict group were COA subjects. Given the similarities between a)
conﬂict-ridden and b) alcoholic families, as well as the co-occurrence of these two variables
in the present sample, it is important to recognize that in this study, the effects of paternal
alcoholism and high perceived marital conﬂict overlap substantially. Moreover, given the
small cell sizes in this study, it was not possible to determine the individual effects of these
two variables. Therefore, it is necessary to acknowledge that the associations identiﬁed
between marital conﬂict and group distribution might, at least in part, be attributable to
paternal alcoholism, and vice versa.

With that caveat in mind, analyses that examined the relationship between perceived
marital status and group distribution revealed the following associations: with respect to
fathers, when perceived marital conﬂict was highest, sons were more likely to fall in the
"moderately deidealizing", "highly deidealizing" or "denigrating" groups; daughters were
more likely to fall in the "highly deidealizing" or "moderately idealizing" groups. With
respect to mothers, no statistically signiﬁcant associations were identiﬁed between
perceived marital conﬂict and deidealization, denigration, or idealization for sons or

daughters.

9 2
Analyses were also conducted to examine the effects of paternal alcoholism on the

deidealization process. Analyses that examined the relationship between COA status and
group distribution revealed the following associations: with respect to their relationships
with their mothers, non-COA sons were more likely to idealize their mothers than COA
sons, and more COA sons deidealized their mothers than did non-COA sons. In addition,
more COA sons denigrated their mothers than did non-COA sons. In their relationships
with their fathers, non-COA sons were more likely idealize their fathers than COA sons,
and more COA sons deidealized their fathers than did nonCOA sons. In addition, more
COA sons denigrated their fathers than did non-COA sons. For daughters, associations
between paternal alcoholism and group distribution did not reach statistical signiﬁcance for
the relationship with mothers or fathers.

Because of the confound between COA status and perceived marital conﬂict, the
statistically signiﬁcant relationships that were identiﬁed for COA sons with their mothers
and fathers were reexamined while controlling for perceived marital conﬂict. The results of
these analyses indicated that, for sons' relationships with their fathers, when perceived
marital conﬂict was controlled for, the effects of COA status on group distribution became
nonsigniﬁcant. The same was true for sons' relationships with their mothers: when
perceived marital conﬂict was controlled for, the effects of COA status on group
distribution dropped out. These results could erroneously be interpreted to suggest that the
relationships between COA status and group distribution between sons and their fathers
and mothers were actually due to the effects of perceived marital conﬂict rather than COA
status: in fact, they simply speak to the overlapping effects of these variables. Because it
was impossible to determine whether the identiﬁed patterns should be attributed to COA
status or perceived marital conﬂict, the remainder of this discussion will offer ways to
understand the effects of both paternal alcoholism and perceived marital conﬂict on
adolescent deidealization, idealization, and denigration.

The hypothesis that perceived marital conﬂict would inﬂuence the deidealization

process in adolescence was derived from the very large divorce literature suggesting that a)

9 3
ongoing marital conﬂict is a better predictor of a young adult's adjustment than structural

family variables, such as parental separation or divorce (Dancy & Handal, 1984; Emery,
1982; Enos & Handal, 1986; Slater & Haber, 1984), and that b) an inverse relationship
between young adult adjustment and perceived level of family conﬂict exists (Nelson,
Hughes, Handal, Katz, and Searight, 1993). Research in this vein suggests that a family
context characterized by high levels of interparental conﬂict impedes an adolescent's ability
to tackle and resolve developmental tasks. Sessa and Steinberg (1991) argue that marital
conﬂict and interparental acrimony are likely to complicate the separation-individuation
process for adolescents, and that deidealization may be one aspect of separation-
individuation that becomes especially complex.

The present study found that, with respect to fathers, when perceived marital conﬂict
was high, daughters and sons were more likely to fall in the "highly deidealizing" or
"denigrating" groups. These ﬁndings suggest that perceived marital conﬂict can either
facilitate or disrupt the developmental trajectory of deidealization. The present study also
found that, when perceived marital conﬂict was high, daughters were also more likely to
fall in the "moderately idealizing" group with respect to fathers. This suggests that for
some daughters, high perceived marital conﬂict is not incompatible with continued
idealization, although that idealization is unlikely to be as strong as it is in families where
perceived marital conﬂict is low. These three patterns deserve further comment.

For some, perceived marital conﬂict appears to have positive effects on deidealization in
that it can act as a catalyst that enables an adolescent to revise immature and idealized
images of their father. By witnessing some spousal disagreement, the adolescent may
come to differentiate their parents as individuals with separate (and sometimes conﬂicting)
needs, interests and goals. Adolescents who experience some conﬂict in family
relationships may feel compelled to rework their ideas regarding parental infallibility, and
may be more able to accept their parents (in this case, their fathers) as complex,
multidimensional, and imperfect people. Taken together, marital conﬂict may hasten the

relinquishing of childhood images (thus lessening the likelihood that adolescents will

9 4
continue to idealize their parents) and speed the development of more reality-based images

(thus increasing the likelihood that they will develop deidealized images of their parents).

However, perceived marital conﬂict is not always a positive inﬂuence on deidealization:
it can also have negative implications. For sons and for daughters, high levels of perceived
marital conﬂict was also associated with paternal denigration. Severe parent conﬂict may
foster a premature or intense distancing from the father. Fathers who are experiencing
marital crises may not be able to fulﬁll parenting responsibilities effectively, and may
provide decreased affection, less control and less monitoring, and less emotional
responsiveness to their children. Substandard parenting could give rise to intense feelings
of shame, rage, and abandonment, which may result in a greater propensity for adolescents
to contemptuously devalue their fathers, transforming the deidealization process into one of
paternal denigration. Bitter and agitated interactions between parents may leave an
adolescent angry and confused, and an adolescent may denigrate a parent because they
observe that parent to defame or denigrate the other. Adolescents who perceive their
fathers to be argumentative, ineffective in resolving marital differences, or verbally abusive
may discard images of parental perfection and incorporate their observations into extremely
negative representations of their fathers. Thus, although perceived marital conﬂict can have
potentially positive consequences for some adolescents, it can also have potentially negative
consequences for other adolescents by leading to paternal denigration.

A ﬁnal relationship was found with respect to daughters' relationships with their
fathers, but was not identiﬁed with respect to sons' relationships with their fathers: that is,
high perceived marital conﬂict was associated with moderate idealization. This suggests
that for some daughters, high perceived marital conﬂict is not incompatible with continued
idealization, although that idealization is unlikely to be as strong as it is in families where
perceived marital conﬂict is low.

This relationship can be understood in two different ways. First, some daughters may
continue to idealize their fathers in an attempt to preserve a psychologically gratifying

relationship with a parent in the face of family acrimony and high levels of marital conﬂict.

9 5
In their article on risk and resilience in adolescents, Hauser, Vieyra, Jacobson and Wertlieb

(1985) write that chronic and intense marital conﬂict is considered a risk factor for children
and adolescents, and that in an troubled home environment, a stable and connected
relationship with one parent could buffer the effects of a negative relationship with the other
parent. They argue that a child may seek to intrapsychically and behaviorally protect the
relationship with one parent as the relationship with the other parent deteriorates. This
contention is consistent with Rutter's (1979), Garmezy's (1981), and Block and Block's
(1980) work on risk and resilience, which also found that a lasting relationship with an
adult could buffer the child from some of the negative effects of a variety of intrafamilial
and extrafamilial risk factors. This may be the phenomenon at work for the daughters
who, despite high levels of perceived marital conﬂict in their homes, continue to report
moderate idealization of the father.

The second possible explanation is a speculative one. The daughters who report high
levels of perceived marital conﬂict as well as moderately-idealized relationships with their
fathers might be in the process of revising their previously-held, strongly-idealized views
of their fathers. That is, they might be undergoing the gradual transformation of internal
images: highly-idealized views of their parent cannot be maintained (due to the experience
of the myriad sequelae associated with high marital conﬂict), but fully deidealized images
are not yet developed. As a result, they fell into the moderately-idealized category, whereas
at a later point developmentally, they might be categorized into a moderately- or highly-
deidealized group.

Again, this explanation is speculative: the cross-sectional data in this study precludes
our ability to know which subjects would have fallen into which deidealization groups at an
earlier point in time, or which subjects would be categorized into which groups at a later
point in time. Therefore, we cannot know that these daughters fell in the strongly-idealized
group at an earlier deveIOpmental point. Yet, it seems reasonable to speculate that strongly-
held idealized images of the parent would be gradually relinquished as immature images

are transformed, and that the development of new parental images would strengthen as the

9 6
adolescent gains cognitive and emotional maturity. Although the second explanation cannot

be tested with the current cross-sectional data, it provides another possible way of
understanding the association between high perceived marital conﬂict and moderate
idealization in the father-daughter relationship.

With respect to mothers, this study found no statistically signiﬁcant associations
between perceived marital conﬂict and deidealization, denigration, or idealization for sons
or daughters. This ﬁnding was a curious one, and indicated that perceived marital conﬂict
had neither the positive nor negative implications for adolescents' relationships with their
mother that were found for adolescents' relationships with their fathers. It is somewhat
surprising that paternal alcoholism and/or high levels of marital conﬂict would not be
systematically associated with deidealization group distribution in the adolescent-mother
relationship. It may be that for this sample of adolescents, continued idealization,
deidealization, or denigration of the mother was associated with factors other than paternal
alcoholism and/or marital conﬂict. For example, perhaps spousal conﬂict is not
systematically associated with deidealization group distribution for adolescents'
relationships with their mothers, but conﬂict between the adolescent and the mother might
be. Or, perhaps paternal alcoholism and/or high levels of marital conﬂict do affect
adolescent deidealization of the mother, but extrafamilial relationships buffer those effects:
in that case, the quality and extensiveness of the adolescent's peer network, and the
availability of other adult role models (e.g., a teacher, minister, or other adult who serves
as a mentor for the adolescent) would be important variables to consider. Finally, perhaps
adolescents' deidealization of the mother is not affected as much by family variables as by
life events: for example, perhaps deidealization of the mother is furthered by life
transitions, such as moving away from home, getting married, or having children. The
impact of major life milestones may push deidealization forward in a way that family
circumstances--such as paternal alcoholism or marital conflict-- do not. These possibilities

can provide interesting areas of future work in order to better understand the correlates of

97

continued idealization, deidealization, and denigration in the adolescent-mother
relationship.

The hypothesis that paternal alcoholism might affect the deidealization process was
generated from the extensive clinical literature on adult children of alcoholics, as well as
from several empirical studies that examine parent-adolescent relationships in alcoholic
families. The consensus of the ACOA literature suggests that the renegotiation of parent-
child relationships during adolescence can be particularly difﬁcult in alcoholic families, and
that complications in the separation-individuation process are not uncommon (Woititz,
1988; Wright, 1992).

In this sample, with respect to their relationships with their mothers, nonCOA sons
were more likely to idealize their mothers than COA sons, and more COA sons deidealized
their mothers than did nonCOA sons. In addition, more COA sons denigrated their
mothers than did nonCOA sons. These patterns make intuitive sense. Sons of alcoholics
may feel pressed by their mothers to adopt a role as "man of the family", and they may
experience a "drastically foreshortened childhood in which adolescent development is
pushed forward at a greatly accelerated tempo" (Wallerstein and Kelly, 1980, p.83). As a
result, paternal alcoholism may speed the relinquishing of childhood images (thus lessening
the likelihood that sons will continue to idealize their parent) and hasten the development of
more reality-based images (thus increasing the likelihood that they will maintain deidealized
images of their parent). Moreover, adolescent sons of alcoholics regularly observe parents'
shortcomings and imperfections: witnessing a mother's choice to remain with an alcoholic
partner may call into question the mother's judgment, life choices, and the particular
personality characteristics that inﬂuence her decision. Consequently, COA sons may be
unable to maintain an idealized perception of their mothers, and be pressed by observation
and by circumstances to deidealize them.

Finding that COA sons denigrate their mothers more than nonCOA sons speaks to the
depth of anger and betrayal some COA sons may feel toward their non-drinking mothers.

Maternal denigration may result from several dynamics that may be present in alcoholic

 

9 8
homes. The non-drinking mother might be held responsible for maintaining family

stability, for protecting her children from the alcoholic father's erratic behavior, and for
exerting some inﬂuence toward a permanent reduction in the alcoholic's drinking. If she
chooses to remain with a drinking partner and his drinking continues, she may be held
responsible for "allowing" the disappointments, unhappiness, and confusion that the
alcoholic parent creates and might bear the brunt of an adolescent's anger, grief, and
betrayal which may result in maternal denigration. Alternatively, the mother may be so
preoccupied with either preventing or managing the crises and despair that surround an
alcoholic that she may be unable to provide adequate parenting for her children.
Substandard parenting can give rise to intense feelings of shame, rage, and abandonment,
which may result in a greater propensity for adolescent boys to contemptuously devalue
their mothers. Either of these phenomena, or both together, may transform the
deidealization process into one of parental denigration for COA sons. In non-alcoholic
families, adolescent sons' denigration of their mothers is exceedingly unusual: in this
sample only one nonCOA son fell in the denigrating group.

With respect to relationships with fathers, nonCOA sons were more likely to fall in the
"highly idealizing" group than COA sons and more COA sons fell in the "deidealizing"
group than did nonCOA sons. And, more COA sons fell in the "denigrating" group than
did nonCOA sons. Again, this is consistent with clinical literature that suggests that it is
likely to be more difﬁcult to maintain an immature, idealized image of an obviously
imperfect parent, and that confronting a parent's imperfections may promote deidealization.
The elements commonly found in alcoholic families---substandard parenting, the
precocious development of behavior autonomy, and the early adoption of mature roles
within the family--- may promote deidealization.

That COA sons denigrate their fathers more often than nonCOA sons is not difﬁcult to
explain. These sons confront their fathers' failures and struggles repeatedly. Almost
certainly, the father's weaknesses are highlighted, and re-enforced by the adolescent's

repeated experiences of abandonment and disappointment, as well as by the mother's

9 9
denigration of the father. It is not surprising that adolescents will predominately experience

a parent's failures may unequivocally denigrate their internalized image of the alcoholic
father. In actuality, the "all-black" image of the alcoholic parent is probably not an accurate
one: by disallowing the father's strength and positive characteristics, the development of a
realistic and even-handed parental evaluation is blocked. Some COA sons cannot integrate
the alcoholic father's positive and negative characteristics or acknowledge his humanness
and complexity: instead, they can only contemptuously devalue him, and cling to the
uniformly negative image they have created.

Similar patterns were identiﬁed for daughters' relationships with their mothers,
although surprisingly, the association fell far short of reaching statistical signiﬁcance.
Inspection of the number of females in each group indicates that, with respect to their
mothers, slightly more COA daughters fell in the "highly deidealizing" group than nonCOA
daughters, and nonCOA daughters were slightly more likely to fall in the "highly
idealizing" group than COA daughters. With respect to their fathers, slightly more COA
daughters fell in the "denigrating" group, as well as the "highly deidealizing" group and
nonCOA daughters were slightly more likely to fall in the "highly idealizing" group
although again, these associations were not statistically signiﬁcant. Although statistical
signiﬁcance is lacking, the patterns that do exist make sense: daughters who were raised by
alcoholic fathers seem to be slightly less likely to idealize their mothers and fathers, slightly
more likely to deidealize their mothers and fathers, and slightly more likely to denigrate
their fathers. These patterns are consistent with the clinical and research Iiterature on
children of alcoholics, which suggest that children of alcoholics are likely to experience
diminished parenting, repeatedly witness their parents' shortcomings and imperfections,
and develop an accelerated emotional distancing from the parents: taken together, these
factors may make idealization less likely, and transform deidealization into a process of

parental denigration.

clan

of

rel:

tea

lllll

CXE

Vel

col

Par:

1 0 0
D' . E E B I

Results of the present study suggest several areas for future research. First,
clariﬁcation of the linkages between adolescents' deidealization, idealization, or denigration
of parents and conﬂictual independence is necessary. Evidence supporting these
relationships is important because if conﬂictual independence is theoretically considered a
reasonable outcome of deidealization, its presence or absence can serve as a validity
"check", which conﬁrms or calls into question the grouping procedm'e that places subjects
in the "deidealizing", "denigrating", and "idealizing" groups. Because of the absence of
these anticipated associations, this study cannot rule out the possible invalidity of the six-
"cell" grouping procedure. If future studies could identify the relationships between
deidealization status and conﬂictual independence that were hypothesized in this study,
greater support would be lent to the validity of a two-dimensional conceptualization of
deidealization.

Secondly, a replication of this study using a larger sample size would allow a greater
number of subjects in each of the six deidealization groups, which in turn, would allow an
examination of the separate effects of perceived marital conﬂict and paternal alcoholism.
The small cell sizes in this study precluded a precise understanding of the separate as well
as the overlapping contributions of these two variables. Consequently, this study can only
offer explanations that could plausibly account for the effects of paternal alcoholism as well
as perceived marital conﬂict. Future research could address the distinct contributions (if
any) of each of these variables.

A third area of future research stems from Nelson et. al. (1993), who present some
very interesting ideas about the relationship of family conﬂict to adjustment in young adult
college students. The authors identify a linear, inverse relationship between young adult
adjustment (which they operationalized as ego identity status and psychological distress)
and perceived family conﬂict (including spousal conﬂict as well as parent-child conﬂict).
They believe that, in addition to focusing on "structural" issues such as child's gender,

parent's gender, whether the family is intact or divorced (or in the case of the present

stud

1111

neg

dau

the

fat
man
this
con
circ
ado
thei
0n 1

ado?

due

Silld.‘

1 0 1
study, whether an adolescent was raised in an alcoholic family or not), it may be more

meaningful to focus on family conﬂict. Moreover, the authors suggest that:

"As it becomes increasingly apparent that conﬂict plays a
major role in adjustment, so it becomes necessary to more
precisely deﬁne conﬂict as a construct. What exactly
constitutes conﬂict and at what point does conﬂict become
unhealthy? For example, does living in a home where high
conﬂict is expressed through physical violence have a
different long-term effect than living in a home where high
conflict is expressed through other means (e.g., silence,
verbal abuse, neglect)? ....(T)he existence of interpersonal
conﬂict is often presumed to be destructive. Perhaps we
need to distinguish "good" conﬂict (i.e., conﬂict that
promotes healthy personality development) from "bad"
conﬂict (i.e., conﬂict that promotes physical or emotional
damage). " (1993, p. 38)

 

In fact, Nelson et al.'s (1993) speculation that family conﬂict might have positive and
negative consequences for an adolescent ﬁnds some support in the present study:
perceived marital conﬂict is associated with both deidealization and denigration in sons' and
daughters' relationships with their fathers. Perhaps there are differences in the quality of
the conﬂict (for example, physical versus verbal, or chronic, moderate conﬂict versus
intermittent but more intense conﬂict) that predicts these trajectories. Or, perhaps there are
family circumstances under which conﬂict can serve as a catalyst toward adolescent
maturity and differentiation from the parents, and other family circumstances that preclude
this possibility. Future research could investigate the nature and intensity of family
conﬂict, as well as the family environment in which it exists, in order to clarify under what
circumstances marital or family conﬂict may have positive, growth-promoting effects for
adolescents, and under what circumstances conﬂict can be expected to be deleterious to
their development. This line of research could be especially useful in shedding some light
on the correlates of continued idealization, deidealization, and denigration in the mother-
adolescent relationship.

Fourthly, the generalizability of the ﬁndings in the current study is somewhat restricted
due to the sample that was used. As was noted in an earlier chapter, the data for the current

study were obtained exclusively from college students from intact families. This suggests

the

let

l 0 2
that, although half of the subjects were children of alcoholics, and many reported high

levels of marital conﬂict, the dysfunction in their families did not result in divorce, nor did
it interfere with the young adults' college strivings. Future research could attempt to
replicate the ﬁndings of the present study in a sample that included greater diversity: for
example, an investigation of deidealization in adolescents who evidenced success in
college, those who enrolled in college but were unsuccessful, and those who did not
attempt a college degree could shed some light on whether the results of the present study
are unique to a hi gher-functioning group of adolescents, or whether they are not.

Finally, future research would beneﬁt from the use of longitudinal data in order to
obtain an accurate assessment of the ways in which adolescents' views of their parents
change over time. The present study is somewhat limited by the use of cross-sectional data
to depict what most researchers and theorists agree is a series of shifts in adolescents'
relationships with their parents. This dialectical process presumably takes place over a
period of years, and is characterized by emotional distancing, temporary rapprochement,
and renewed efforts at achieving greater individuation and self-sufﬁciency (Frank et al.,
1990). Cross-sectional data is limited in its ability to accurately represent transformations
over time, and future research using longitudinal data would provide a better understand of

these long-term changes.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

104

4. Does your father presently drink a) the same amount _ or b) less than he did
when he was drinking most heavily? (Check one.) If you checked "b", what accounted
for the change?

 

 

Part 11. When I was between the ages of years and years, my mother drank
most heavily.

FOR THAT PERIOD, please respond to the following questions.

1. On the average, how often did your mother drink any kind of alcoholic beverage during
a typical month? Circle one.

rarely

. about once a month

. 2 to 3 times a month

. 1 or 2 times a week

3 or 4 times a week
nearly every day

. 2 times a day

. 3 or more times a day

:rm 2'”? 0-0 0‘93

2. When your mother drank any kind of alcoholic beverage, what was the average quantity
she consumed; that is, how many drinks did she consume nearly every time or more than
half the time she drank? A standard drink is deﬁned as a 4-oz glass of wine, a 12-oz beer,
or a 1.5 oz drink of distilled spirits. Circle one.

rarely drank
1-2

3-4

5-6

7-8

9-10

more than 10

tonne-99‘.»

3. Has yoru' mother experienced any of the following problems because of her drinking?
Circle all that apply.

a. marital separation or divorce f. treatment for alcohol-related
problems
b. loss of employment g. economic distress
c. two or more arrests for h. accidents
drunken driving 1. loss of family
d. two or more arrests for j. shame of family
public intoxication or k. belligerence, ﬁghting, or marital
drunken and disorderly discord
conduct 1. a single alcohol-related arrest

e. harm to health

105

4. Does your mother presently drink a) the same amount or b) less than she
did when she was drinking most heavily? (Check one.) If you checked "b", what
accounted for the change?

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Positive Parent Conﬂict Resolution Scale

Answer each statement in terms of your parents' current relationship. Circle the correct
response.

Never Occasionally Fairly Very

True True True
1. My parents argue with each other in 4 3 2 1
front of me.
2. I stay out of my parents' arguments. 4 3 2 1
3. I worry about my mother. 4 3 2 l
4. My parents hold grudges for a long time 4 3 2 1
when ﬁghting.
5. My mother asks me for advice. 4 3 2 1
6. My parents ﬁght verbally with each 4 3 2 1
other.
7. I take my mother's side when my 4 3 2 11
parents ﬁght.
8. I worry about my father. 4 3 2 1
9. I have a lot of responsibility in the family. 4 3 2 l
10. I enjoy being with my mother. 4 3 2 1
11. My mother tries to get me to side
with her when she ﬁghts with my 4 3 2 l
father.
12. My parents ﬁght about money and 4 3 2 1
possessions.
13. I get irritated when my parents ﬁght. 4 3 2 1
14. My parents are able to resolve 4 3 2 1
disagreements fairly quickly.
15. My parents ﬁght physically with 4 3 2 1
each other.
16. My father tries to get me to side with 4 3 2 1

him when he ﬁghts with my mother.

106

107

17. I enjoy being with my father. 4 3

18. I take my father's side when my parents 4 3
ﬁght.

19. My parents talk together about my 4 3
future.

20. My parents are able to discuss and 4 3
resolve their disagreements.

21. My father asks me for advice. 4 3

22. My parents work together as parents. 4 3

23. I am embarrassed when my parents 4 3
ﬁght.

24. My parents never ﬁght. 4 3

25. My father says negative things to me 4 3
about my mother.

26. I am upset by my parents ﬁghting. 4 3

27. Even if my parents ﬁght about 4 3

other things, they respect each
other as parents.

28. My mother says negative things to me 4 3
about my father.

29. How well do you drink your parents get along with each other?

1 2 3 4 5
very well badly

30. How often do your parents get angry with one another, or disagree?

1 2 3 4 5
never all the time

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

Emotional Autonomy Scale-Father

Please read the following statements and decide if you strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
or strongly agree. Circle the appropriate number.

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree

3 = Agree

4 = Strongly agree

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

1. My father and I agree on everything. 1 2 3 4

2. I go to my father for help before trying 1 2 3 4
to solve a problem myself.

3. I have often wondered how my father acts 1 2 3 4
when I'm not around.

4. Even when my father and I disagree, my 1 2 3 4
father is always right.

5. It's better for kids to go to their best 1 2 3 4
friend than to their father for advice
on some things.

6. When I've done something wrong, I depend l 2 3 4
on my father to straighten things out for me.

7. There are some things about me that my 1 2 3 4
father doesn't know.

8. My father acts differently when he is with 1 2 3 4
his parents from the way he does at home.

9. My father knows everything there is to know 1 2 3 4
about me.

10. I rrright be surprised to see how my father 1 2 3 4
acts at a party.

11. I try to have the same opinions as my 1 2 3 4
father.

12. When he is at work, my father acts pretty 1 2 3 4
much the same way he does when he is at
home.

108

109

13. HI was having a problem with one of my
friends, I would discuss it with my father
before deciding what to do about it.

14. My father would be surprised to know what
I'm like when I'm not with him.

15. When I become a parent, I'm going to
treat my children in exactly the same way
that my father has treated me.

16. My father probably talks about different
things when I'm around from what he talks
about when I'm not.

17. There are things that I will do differently
from my father when I become a parent.

18. My father hardly ever makes mistakes.

19. I wish my father would understand who
I really am.

20. My father acts pretty much the same
way when he is with his friends as he does
when he is at home with me.

110

Emotional Autonomy Scale-Mother

Please read the following statements and decide if you strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
or strongly agree. Circle the appropriate number.

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree

3 = Agree

4 = Strongly agree

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree

1. My mother and I agree on everything. 1 2 3 4

2. I go to my mother for help before trying 1 2 3 4
to solve a problem myself.

3. I have often wondered how my mother acts 1 2 3 4
when I'm not around.

4. Even when my mother and I disagree, my 1 2 3 4
mother is always right.

5. It's better for kids to go to their best 1 2 3 4
friend than to their mother for advice
on some things.

6. When I've done something wrong, I depend 1 2 3 4
on my mother to straighten things out for me.

7. There are some things about me that my 1 2 3 4
mother doesn't know.

8. My mother acts differently when she is with 1 2 3 4
her parents from the way she does at home.

9. My mother knows everything there is to know 1 2 3 4
about me.

10. I might be surprised to see how my mother 1 2 3 4
acts at a party.

11. I try to have the same opinions as my 1 2 3 4
mother.

12. When she is at work, my mother acts pretty 1 2 3 4

much the same way she does when she is at
home.

111

13. IfI was having a problem with one of my
friends, I would discuss it with my mother
before deciding what to do about it.

14. My mother would be surprised to know what
I'm like when I'm not with her.

15. When I become a parent, I'm going to
treat my children in exactly the same way
that my mother has treated me.

16. My mother probably talks about different
things when I'm around from what she talks
about when I'm not.

17. There are things that I will do differently
from my mother when I become a parent.

18. My mother hardly ever makes mistakes.

19. I wish my mother would understand who
I really am.

20. My mother acts pretty much the same
way when she is with his friends as she does
when she is at home with me.

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

Young Adult-Father Transition Interview

 

 

 

 

Name: Age:
Interviewer: Code:
Date: Parent Name:

 

 

Introduction: We talked a little about this on the phone....what kinds of contacts do you
have with your parents now, such as visits, writing letters, telephone calls, and such?
Let's start with your EAIHER.

1. What kinds of contacts do you have with your father? (List each below). For each one
mentioned, ask: "About how often do you do this?"

Contact Per Month Per Year

If subject is living in the parental home, ask:

About how much time do you spend with your father? (when you're living at home)?

2. What kinds of things do you do when you're together with your father?

3. What do you enjoy about your contacts with your father?

112

113

4. What does your father enjoy about these contacts?

5. Of course, there's usually something we don't enjoy about others. What might these
things be about your father?

6. What do you think might not be so enjoyable about these contacts for your father?

7. Who initiates the contacts between you and your father? Can you give me an example?

8. Do you wish you had more or less contact with your father?

IF MORE OR LESS: Why would you prefer more/less contact?

IF SAME: What makes it seem about right?

9. In general, how much does your father talk about his personal concerns with you?
What kinds of things does he discuss? How do you feel about that?

114

10. And how much do you talk about your personal concerns with him? What kinds of
things do you discuss? How do you feel about that?

11a. Are there things that you avoid talking about with your father? What kinds of things?

b. What do you think makes you avoid these topics? Can you give me one or two
examples? How do you feel about that?

12. In what ways do you feel close to your father? What kinds of things bring you
together?

And how do you and your father express closeness?

13a. Are there any feelings of tenseness when you and your father are together? Can you

give me an example?

b. How often does that occur?

c. What do you think that feeling of tenseness is about?

115

14. In what ways would you like to be closer to your father? Can you give me an
example?

15. What gets in the way of closeness between you and your father?

16a. At what point were you closest to your father? In what ways?

b. At what point were you the most distant from your father? In what ways?

c. (Take latest referent point, or age, whether close or distant and ask:) Your relationship
has changed since ...... How do you account for the difference?

17. In what ways are you like your father? What does that tell you about yourself?

18. In what ways are you different from your father? What does that tell you about
yourself?

116

19a. In what ways does your father show concern for your needs or welfare? Can you
give me a few examples? How do you feel about this?

b. Do you think he should be more or less responsive to your needs? How would that
affect your relationship?

20. In what ways do you show concern for your father's needs or welfare?

Do you think he gets the message?
IF NO: What makes you say that? Do you wish it were different?

IF YES: How do you know?

21. Can you think of a time recently when you felt conﬂicted about your father's needs
and your needs? What was that about? How did you handle it? How did you feel about
the way it was resolved?

22a. Which parent do you feel closer to? (Probe: "Lots of people feel closer to one parent
than the other". If subject says "neither", "What makes this 30?")

b. What makes you feel closer to than to (other parent)?

 

c. How do you think it came about that you're closer to ?

117

23a. To change the focus somewhat ..... Can you think of a time you talked over an
important decision with your father?

IF SAYS NEVER: Imagine what would happen if you did. What might happen?

IF SAYS CAN'T IMAGINE: What makes it impossible to imagine?

b. What other kinds of decisions do you discuss with your father...for example, your
ﬁnancial affairs, personal relationships, work or career choices?

24. Can you think of a time you and your father disagreed about something very
important? Tell me about that. How did you handle that? How did you feel about your
response? How did it get resolved? Is that how disagreements usually get resolved
between you and your father?

25a. In what ways are your values different from those of your father? Did you ever
discuss that?

b. In what ways are your values similar to those of your father?

118

c. We've talked about things that you discuss with your father. Besides advice, what
other kinds of things does he help you with? Do you ask for help, or does he always offer-
--who initiates? How do you think he feels about doing that for you? How do you feel
about it?

27. What happens when your father is not available? (If says nothing, "Imagine")

28. Are there ways in which you wish you could rely more on your father, or maybe less?
How do you expect that to come about?

29. What are some of your father's weaknesses? What do you think makes him that way?

30. In what ways would you like him to change? Do you think he ever will?

IF SAYS YES: How might that come about?

IF SAYS NO: What might prevent him from changing?

IF SAYS DON'T KNOW: What do you think you or he might do to change?

31. In what ways has he let you down?

32. What kinds of things about your father make you feel proud? What are his strengths?

119

Young Adult-Mother Transition Interview

 

 

 

 

Name: Age:
Interviewer: Code:
Date: Parent Name:

 

 

Introduction: We talked a little about this on the phone....what kinds of contacts do you
have with your parents now, such as visits, writing letters, telephone calls, and such?

Let's start with your MQIHER.

1. What kinds of contacts do you have with your mother? (List each below). For each
one mentioned, ask: "About how often do you do this?"

Contact Per Month Per Year

If subject is living in the parental home, ask:

About how much time do you spend with your mother? (when you're living at home)?

2. What kinds of things do you do when you're together with your mother?

3. What do you enjoy about your contacts with your mother?

120

4. What does your mother enjoy about these contacts?

5. Of course, there's usually something we don't enjoy about others. What might these
things be about your mother?

6. What do you think might not be so enjoyable about these contacts for your mother?

7. Who initiates the contacts between you and your mother? Can you give me an example?

8. Do you wish you had more or less contact with your mother?

IF MORE OR LESS: Why would you prefer more/less contact?

IF SAME: What makes it seem about right?

9. In general, how much does your mother talk about her personal concerns with you?
What kinds of things does she discuss? How do you feel about that?

 

121

10. And how much do you talk about your personal concerns with her? What kinds of
things do you discuss? How do you feel about that?

11a. Are there things that you avoid talking about with your mother? What kinds of
things?

b. What do you think makes you avoid these topics? Can you give me one or two
examples? How do you feel about that?

 

12. In what ways do you feel close to your mother? What kinds of things bring you
together?

And how do you and your mother express closeness?

13a. Are there any feelings of tenseness when you and your mother are together? Can you

give me an example?

b. How often does that occur?

1 2 2
c. What do you think that feeling of tenseness is about?

14. In what ways would you like to be closer to your mother? Can you give me an
example?

15. What gets in the way of closeness between you and your mother?

16a. At what point were you closest to your mother? In what ways?

b. At what point were you the most distant from your mother? In what ways?

c. (Take latest referent point, or age, whether close or distant and ask:) Your relationship
has changed since ...... How do you account for the difference?

17. In what ways are you like your mother? What does that tell you about yourself?

18. In what ways are you different from your mother? What does that tell you about
yourself?

 

123

19a. In what ways does your mother show concern for your needs or welfare? Can you
give me a few examples? How do you feel about this?

b. Do you think she should be more or less responsive to your needs? How would that
affect your relationship?

20. In what ways do you show concern for your mother's needs or welfare?

Do you think she gets the message?
IF NO: What makes you say that? Do you wish it were different?

IF YES: How do you know?

21. Can you think of a time recently when you felt conﬂicted about your mother's needs
and your needs? What was that about? How did you handle it? How did you feel about

the way it was resolved?

22a. Which parent do you feel closer to? (Probe: "Lots of people feel closer to one parent
than the other". If subject says "neither", "What makes this so?")

b. What makes you feel closer to than to (other parent)?

 

1 2 4
c. How do you think it came about that you're closer to ?

233. To change the focus somewhat ..... Can you think of a time you talked over an
important decision with your mother?

IF SAYS NEVER: Imagine what would happen if you did. What might happen?

IF SAYS CAN'T IMAGINE: What makes it impossible to imagine?

b. What other kinds of decisions do you discuss with your mother...for example, your
ﬁnancial affairs, personal relationships, work or career choices?

24. Can you think of a time you and your mother disagreed about something very
important? Tell me about that. How did you handle that? How did you feel about your
response? How did it get resolved? Is that how disagreements usually get resolved
between you and your mother?

25a. In what ways are your values different from those of your mother? Did you ever
discuss that?

b. In what ways are your values similar to those of yom' mother?

125

c. We've talked about things that you discuss with your mother. Besides advice, what
other kinds of things does she help you with? Do you ask for help, or does she always
offer-«who initiates? How do you think she feels about doing that for you? How do you
feel about it?

27. What happens when your mother is not available? (If says nothing, "Imagine")

28. Are there ways in which you wish you could rely more on your mother, or maybe
less? How do you expect that to come about?

29. What are some of your mother's weaknesses? What do you think makes her that way?

30. In what ways would you like her to change? Do you think she ever will?

IF SAYS YES: How might that come about?

IF SAYS NO: What might prevent her from changing?

IF SAYS DON'T KNOW: What do you think you or she might do to change?

31. In what ways has she let you down?

126

32. What kinds of things about your mother make you feel proud? What are her
strengths?

 

APPENDIX E

 

APPENDIX E

Rating Instructions for Coding the Young Adult / Parent Relationship Interview

This manual describes the criteria for rating protocols describing a dimension of the
young adult's relationship with his or her parent on a ﬁve-point rating scale. There are one
or more criteria listed under each of the ﬁve points on the scale (referred to in the manual as
"levels") that will guide you in determining the appropriate rating for each protocol. In
some cases, only one criterion listed under a particular level will ﬁt a particular protocol,
and will determine the rating for that protocol. More often several of the criteria listed
under a level will ﬁt the protocol you are rating. Regardless, it is only necessary to have a
clear ﬁt on one criterion to rate a protocol at a particular level. The difﬁcult decisions are
when criteria at two different levels seem to apply. To rate the protocol you will have to
make a weighted judgement as to which level best describes the protocol. If several criteria
at one level apply, but only one criterion at the other level applies the protocol is probably
best rated at the level at which it meets the largest number of criteria. This is not a hard and
fast rule: you may have to make a judgement call.

The coding manual cannot cover every case. It is important to understand the
conceptual distinctions between each level so that when a protocol is not addressed directly
by the stated criteria, it is possible to make a clinical judgement as to the best level. In a
sense, the rater should imaging adding another instance to a particular level that at a more
abstract level gets at the same issues raised by the other examples, albeit with somewhat
different content. It is also helpful to remember that a scale consists of a range from low to
high. A protocol may be "between" a lower and a higher level (e.g., it seems like a 4
because there is "more" than what is at level 3 and "less" than what is described at level 5)
even though it does not meet the speciﬁc criteria of the level in the middle. This is a valid
criterion for rating a protocol, but should only be used after considering the speciﬁc criteria

contained in the manual.

127

1 2 8
DECISION-MAKING

DEFINITION: This dimension has to do with the young adult's ability to make important
decisions and life choices without undue inﬂuence from the parent. This includes the
young adult's ability to make decisions in accordance with his or his own values and
preferences as well as the ability to make decisions as to the nature of those values and
preferences.

Note 1: Young adults who are generally able to make their own decisions may occasionally
seek advice from the parent; these young adults should be rated as high on decision-makin g
if a) the parent's input does not appear to be essential (e.g., the young adult indicates that
he or she often makes decisions without consulting the parent) and b) the parent's advice is
viewed as input for self-determined decisions rather than as the ﬁnal word as to what the
young adult out or ought not to do. These distinctions are made more explicit in the
descriptions of the criteria for rating the various points on the scale.

Note 2: If the young adult does not consult the parent because of negative feelings toward
the parent or because of a lack of respect for the parent and the young adult makes his or
her decisions without relying on the parent's standards, he or she should probably be
coded as high on decision-making. The negative feelings about the parent are coded
elsewhere and should not be confused with the decision-making dimension.

Note 3: Some young adults rely on a spouse, close friend, etc. rather than the parent in
making decisions. This should not affect the rating. Only rate how much the young adult
relies on and is inﬂuenced by the parent.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's decision making abilities in relation to the parent are coded on a ﬁve
point scale, with l referring to "low" decision-making abilities and 5 referring to "high"
decision making abilities. The criteria for rating a protocol as l, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the
Decision-Making Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult generally relies on the parent in making decisions or in deciding his
or her values; if there are any differences at all, the young adult is extremely susceptible to
the parent's pressures to conform to the parent's beliefs and/or he or she feels very
uncertain about his or her own views.

b) If and when the young adult makes decisions that are different from what the parent
wants or thinks the young adult should do, the young adult feels guilty, ashamed, afraid,
etc.

o) The young adult feels guilty, afraid, hurt, abandoned, etc. if the parent does not
agree with and/or support the young adult's decision.

Level 2:

a) There is some evidence that the young adult is at least trying to make his or her own
decisions, but he or she has relatively little success or he or she is still heavily inﬂuenced
by the parent and continues to experience self-doubts about his or her own decisions.

b) The young adult seems to feel like he or she makes his or her own decisions, but
these claims are largely unsubstantiated and there is clear evidence to the contrary.

c) The young adult is very reliant on the parent for help in making decisions in some
important areas of his or her life, but there are at least a few areas where they do not seek or
feel that they need the parent's advice.

 

129

(1) At this level there is little or only minimal evidence that the young adult's decisions
are based on self-chosen values, standards or preferences.

Level 3:

a) The young adult clearly makes his or her own decisions in some important areas of
his or her life, but is still clearly inﬂuenced by the parent in others.

b) There is clear evidence that the young adult is attempting to make his or her own
decisions, but at the same time he or she is susceptible to and at times swayed by the
parent's inﬂuence; this experience is viewed negatively by the young adult and sometimes
leads him or her to act against his or her own wishes.

c) The young adult tries to avoid discussing his or her decisions with the parent in order
not to be swayed, inﬂuenced, or coerced into taking the parent's point of view.

Level 4:

a) The young adult clearly makes his or her own decisions in life but his or her values
(or what he or she values) are less clearly differentiated from those of the parent than at
Level 5. For example, the young adult identiﬁes with (and there is little or no evidence of
having questioned) the parent's values, but he or she may implement these values in a
different way.

b) The young adult's values are clearly differentiated from those of the parent but he or
she tends to consult the parent on a wider range of issues than at Level 5.

Level 5:

a) The young adult has a clear sense of conviction about what he or she believes,
values, etc. These standards and preferences are at least in part, differentiated from those
of the parent, and he or she uses these self-determined criteria to make his or her own
decisions. At this level, the young adult has identiﬁed areas where decisions differ from
the parent and is satisﬁed with these differences. In addition, he or she is able to evaluate
and choose whether or not to accept the parent's advice.

 

130

INDEPENDENCE

DEFINITION: This dimension focuses on the young adult's experience of competence in
the relationship with the parent, and on his or her belief that he or she can cope with the
challenges and setbacks in his or her life without having to rely on the parent.

Note: If the young adult does not rely on the parent because of negative feelings towards
the parent or because of a lack of respect for the parent he or she probably should be coded
as high if it is clear that he or she is able to c0pe with his or her own life without fear of
repeating the parent's perceived failures. Those negative feelings about the parent that do
not directly affect the young adult's perception of his or her coping abilities should not be
confounded with the rating for this dimension; these feelings will be coded elsewhere.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's independence from and competence in the relationship with the
parent is coded on a 5 point scale with 1 referring to "low" independence and 5 referring to
"high" independence. The criteria for rating a protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the
Independence Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult generally relies on the parent to cope with challenges and difﬁculties
in his or her own life. Young adults at this level often experience themselves as helpless
and unable to cope without the parent's support and may feel frustrated or angry when the
parent is unable to help.

b) The young adult may realize and feel badly about his or her dependency but in spite
of desires or wishful thinking about being more self-reliant, he or she is unable to
unwilling to give up this dependency and face the world on his or her own.

c) The young adult negatively identiﬁes with the parent's major weaknesses and feels
{tifnable to avoid repeating the parent's failures or mistakes in important areas of his or her

e.

d) The young adult feels inferior to or like a failure in the parent's eyes and either
accepts or feels conﬂicted about that deﬁnition. The young adult may have difﬁculty
accepting the parent's help without feeling inferior, ashamed, angry or resentful.

Level 2:

a) The young adult provides some minimal evidence of competence, for example, he or
she at times feels able to cope with the world, but these feelings are often transitory, are
based on thin denials of insecurities, and/or are accompanied by clear examples of strong
dependencies on the parent. The young adult may vascillate between feelings of
competence and inferiority or may express serious conﬂicts and self-doubts in spite of
some minimal acknowledgement of his or her competence.

b) The young adult has some sense that he or she can be of help to the parent, but
i‘etains strong doubts about his or her ability to cope with life in the world outside the

amily.

c) The young adult indicates some competencies that are not being used because of
strong and pervasive dependencies on the parent.

d) The young adult makes some weak attempts to be more independent but is inhibited
by strong ambivalences and fears of feeling helpless or deprived if the parent's help were
not available.

131

Level 3:

a) There are clearly some important areas in the young adult's own life which he or she
feels able to cope without the parent's assistance, but there are just as clearly other areas in
which they feel insecure and unable to cope without relying on the parent for advice and

ce.

b) The young adult feels like he or she is in a student relationship with the
parent/teacher, although he or she has some abilities or expertise to offer the parent. The
young adult sees the parent as a positive role model and is working toward but has not yet
achieved that ideal.

c) The young adult describes some feelings of inferiority but these feelings are not all-
pervasive or overwhelming; there is a deﬁnite sense that the young adult is moving towards
becoming more independent, and in some areas may even feel that he or she has strengths
the parent does not have.

Level 4:

a) The young adult clearly feels he or she can cope without the parent's help but this
sense of competence is not as pronounced as in Level 5. There is greater emphasis on not
being dependent than on active goal-oriented coping.

b) There is no clear evidence that the young adult is especially proud of his or her
abilities nor direct evidence that he or she is seen by the parent as especially capable.

c) In spite of an overall sense of competence the young adult reveals some isolated but
obvious areas of concern or self-doubt that may be of relatively minimal importance to their
daily or overall functioning.

Level 5:

a) The young adult feels at least on an equal par with the parent in evaluating his or her
ability to cope in and deal effectively with challenges and difﬁculties in his or her life. The
young adult may identify with the parent's strengths and/or sees differences in a positive
light and feels able to pick and choose in emulating the parent's qualities.

b) The young adult has a strong sense of conﬁdence in his or her ability to cope, a
perception they often feel is shared by the parent (or an evaluation that clearly is unshaken
in spite of the parent's skepticism).

c) The young adult can maintain a sense of competence even when accepting help from
the parent and is able to draw on other sources when the parent is not available.

d) In addition to being able to function independently, the young adult describes areas
in which his or her expertise is helpful to the parent.

132

PERSONAL CONTROL

DEFINITION: This dimension refers to the young adult's ability to control his or her
behavior and feelings in the relationship with the parent.

Note: This dimension does not refer to and should not be confounded with how much the
young adult likes or does not like the parent (although the two may be correlated). The key
issue rated in this dimension is how the young adult handles his or her needs and feelings
(including negative feelings) in the relationship with the parent. If the young adult is
overwhelmed by or has little control over his or her needs or feelings, they would be
identiﬁed as low in personal control; however, a young adult who has some negative
feelings about a parent but who is undistressed by, has some psychological distance from,
and is able to keep those feelings from spilling into inappropriate behaviors could
conceivably be rated as high on personal control.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's degree of personal control in the relationship with the parent is coded on
a 5 point scale with 1 referring to "low" personal control and 5 referring to "high" personal
control. The criteria for rating a protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Personal Control Scale
are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult behaves in very inappropriate ways (yells, ﬂees the scene, loses his
or her temper, argues incessantly, says very hostile things to the parent that may be
regretted later, cries uncontrollably) in the relationship with the parent because he or she is
unable to control intense feelings of anger, frustration or shame.

Level 2:

a) The young adult is overwhelmed by and/or has to be constantly on guard against
intense feelings of unresolved ambivalence, hatred, rage, shame, or guilt that are often
distressful to the young adult.

b) The young adult expresses highly intense feelings of rage, dependency, shame, etc.;
although the young adult appears to be unashamed or untroubled by these feelings, their
intensity indicates a lack of control and/or constricted rage that is serious enough to be
coded at Level 2.

c) The young adult appears to have little tolerance for frustration in the relationship with
the parent. For example, the young adult acknowledges extreme dependency needs that are
inappropriate in adulthood; although the parent may be meeting these needs, the young
adult indicates that if his or her needs were not met by the parent this would result in
feelings of anger, deprivation, or extreme frustration.

Level 3:

a) The young adult is irritated by often seemingly minor conﬂicts or behaviors on the
part of the parent.

b) The young adult occasionally gets into mild arguments with, is sarcastic towards, or
feels mildly ashamed or guilty in the relationship with the parent; these negative feelings
toward the parent and the ways in which they are expressed are less intense and more
controlled than at the previous levels.

c) The young adult is disturbed or ashamed by the parent's weaknesses, relationships,
or behaviors even when these do not directly affect the young adult.

133

d) The young adult acknowledges mild ambivalence toward the parent that creates
conﬂict for the young adult, but it is (potentially) resolvable or at least sufﬁciently under
control so as not to be overly distressing.

Level 4:

a) The young adult experiences minor irritation or discomfort in the relationship with
the parent; although these feelings are mostly under control or of relatively little importance
to the young adult, they are notable because they indicate that the young adult has not
altogether resolved parent/child issues. For example, these feelings may be stimulated by
situations that would not result in conﬂicts if the other person involved were not a parent
(e.g., the young adult feels infantilized when the parent attempts to give advice that
probably would be well received from someone else).

Level 5:

a) The young adult experiences little or no tension, distress, anger, etc. in the
relationship with the parent; in some cases the relationship is described in a positive way
and may be characterized by mutual enjoyment an pleasure.

b) The young adult has developed effective coping strategies for dealing with
potentially tense interactions or negative feelings: these ways of coping allow the young
adult to master negative perceptions of the parent and to deal successfully with difﬁcult
situations that might otherwise create discomfort in the relationship.

134

SELF-ASSERTION

DEFINITION: This dimension refers to the extent to which the young adult's behavior in
the relationship with the parent is inhibited by feelings of shame or guilt. At the low end of
the scale young adults implicitly or explicitly use the parent as a superego or ego ideal;
these young adults' standards for evaluating and monitoring their behaviors vis a vis the
parent are insufﬁciently differentiated or confused with perceived parental expectations. At
the high end of the scale young adults are uninhibited by feelings of shame or guilt, are able
to rely on their own standards in relating to the parent, and are able to assert themselves in
the relationship when failure to do so would compromise these standards.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's degree of self-assertion in the relationship with the parent is coded on a
5 point scale with l referring to "low" self-assertion and 5 referring to "high" self-
assertion. The criteria for rating a protocol as l, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Self-Assertion Scale
are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult is clearly inhibited by feelings of shame and guilt in the relationship
with the parent and/or monitors his or her behavior in order to avoid the parent's negative
evaluation, disapproval, contempt, anger, or retribution. If the use of the parent as an ego
ideal or superego ﬁgure is mostly ego syntonic, the young adult's excessive self-
abnegation may be relatively untroublesome to the young adult even though it is painfully
evident from the perspective of an outsider.

b) The young adult's self-abnegation in the relationship with the parent is so glaring
that even minimal attempts at self-assertion appear futile or ineffective in view of the larger
context of the relationship.

Level 2:

a) The young adult, as in Level 1, is constrained in the relationship by feelings of
shame or guilt, perceives the parent as an appropriate evaluator of his or her behavior
and/or is inhibited by the parent's judgement or disapproval of his or her actions; however,
there is some evidence that the young adult is beginning to assert him or herself in the
relationship with the parent and is questioning or reevaluating his or her perceptions of the
parent's power or authority.

b) The young adult is able to assert him or herself in a few isolated areas in the
relationship with the parent, although overall the young adult is still inhibited by shame or
guilt and/or uses the parent to evaluate and monitor his or her behavior.

c) The young adult projects his or her own discomfort about being him or herself onto
the parent (e. g., "He can't take it when I let him know who I really am.") and/or denies or
does not acknowledge that he or she is concerned about or fears the parent's disapproval;
however, this denial is difﬁcult to believe in the face of obvious clues to the contrary. For
example, the young adult has tremendous tension or anxiety about opening up with the
parent or is still emotionally involved with and experiences guilt or shame in response to
memories of past conﬂicts. Alternatively, the young adult may be constrained in the
relationship because he or she is intensely ashamed of or embarrassed by the parent; the
parent functions as a negative ego ideal, detracting from and constraining the young adult's
ability to be him or herself in the relationship with the parent and implicitly or explicitly
diminishing the young adult's own feelings of self-worth.

 

135

Level 3:

a) In some areas the young adult appears to be uninhibited by shame or guilt in the
relationship with the parent (e.g., he or she can discuss potentially shameful experiences or
assert and maintain his or her own standards when these differ from those of the parent);
However, in other important areas the young adult appears to be constrained in the
relationship by feelings of shame and guilt (be it shame about his or her own or the parent's
characteristics) and these areas compromise the young adult's feelings of self-worth.

b) In some signiﬁcant areas the young adult implicitly or explicitly uses the parent to set
standards for his or her behavior in the relationship and/or indicates that he or she continues
to need that parent's approval; in other areas, however, he or she is more able to be a self-
evaluator.

Level 4:

a) The young adult generally is uninhibited by feelings of shame and uses his or her
own standards to monitor his or her behavior in the relationship with the parent. However,
there is a fairly isolated area in which he or she continues to be inhibited and implicitly or
explicitly seeks or desires the parent's approval.

b) Although the young adult generally is comfortable being him or herself in the
relationship with the parent he or she admits to an important but isolated area in the
relationship in which he or she is unable to be him or herself. Although the constraints are
mostly outside of the young adult's control of the tensions in some way detract from the
young adult's feelings of self-worth; implicitly if not explicitly, the young adult appears to
need the parent's acknowledgement or approval to alleviate feelings of self-doubt,
rejection, etc. Alternatively, the young adult may be ashamed of the parent and while these
feelings are relatively isolated they detract in some way from the young adult's feeling of
self-worth and from a generally high level of self-assertion in the relationship with the
parent.

c) While it is evident that the young adult has developed his or her own standards and is
not inhibited by guilt or shame in the relationship with the parent, repeated statements about
not needing the parent's approval suggest that his or her sense of being a self-evaluator is
not on as ﬁrm ground as at Level 5.

Level 5:

a) The young adult is able to assert him or herself and express his or her needs, values,
and interests in the relationship with the parent even when these needs or values clash with
those of th parent. The young adult gives no evidence that he or she views the parent as an
authority ﬁgure or as an appropriate judge of the young adult's self—worth or behavior.

b) The young adult clearly has his or her own standards for evaluating his or her
behavior and these can be clearly distinguished from those of the parent. The young adult
does not sacriﬁce these standards in the relationship with the parent although at times he or
she may avoid certain issues that might lead to unnecessary tensions. At Level 5, not
bringing up these issues does not in any way detract from the young adult's feelings of
self-worth and is rather an indication that he or she does not need that parent's approval.

c) The young adult's relationship with the parent is limited more by the parent's
conﬂicts, inhibitions, etc. than by the young adult's lack of assertiveness. Although the
young adult may openly confront the parent in an attempt to change the relationship, he or
she is able to acknowledge and accept that, given the parent's limitations, he or she will
"never" be him or herself with the parent. This knowledge does not compromise the young
adult's standards nor detract from his or her feelings of self—worth.

136

SELF-OTHER RESPONSIBILITY

DEFINITION: This dimension describes how the young adult resolves conﬂicts and pulls
between obligations and needs create by his or her own life circumstances and the needs of
and the obligations to the parents. Conﬂicts about where and with whom to spend holidays
and vacations often provide information on this dimension. Self-other responsibility is
similar to what other theorists have described as the parent's ability to allow the child to
develop relationships and interests outside of the parent-child dyad; however, here it is
coded from the young adult's perspective and describes his or her ability to make
attachments and investments outside of the relationship with the parent.

Note: Most young adults who are high on this dimension should be able to make new
investments without totally denying the needs of or breaking contact with the parent.
However, a young adult may have a very negative relationship with the parent and still
score high on self-other responsibility if he or she has developed new sources outside of
the parent-young adult relationship for ﬁnding love and affection, fulﬁllment, stimulation,
efﬁcacy, etc. A young adult who continues to rely heavily on the parent for these
psychological resources or who fails to make psychological investments outside of the
dyad because he or she continues to be embroiled in unresolved conﬂicts with the parent
would be rated as low on self-other responsibility. The quality of the parent-young adult
relationship that to a greater or lesser extent is left behind is irrelevant in coding this
dimension and will be rated elsewhere.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's degree of self-other responsibility in the relationship with the parent is
coded on a 5 point scale with 1 referring to "low" self-other responsibility and 5 referring
to "high" self-other responsibility. The criteria for rating a protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on
the Self-Other Responsibility Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult is unable to leave home in the psychological sense. The young
adult has not transferred his or her loyalties and investments to new sources of affection,
stimulation, fulﬁllment, etc.: rather he or she relies heavily on the relationship with the
parent for stimulation, affection, fulﬁllment, etc. and feels lonely or abandoned without
constant contact.

b) The parent is involved in the nrinute details of the young adult's life. The young
adult may have excessive responsibility for or involvement in the parent's life or concerns
and/or is responsible for involving the parent in his or her own life concerns.

c) The young adult is often triangulated in the parent's marital or family relationships
and/or is unable to keep the parent from interfering in his or her own relationships or
efforts to make an independent life for him or herself.

Level 2:

a) As in Level 1, there are clear indications that the parent is overinvolved in signiﬁcant
areas of the young adult's life and vice versa, but the enmeshment is not as intense,
emotionally compelling, or all-pervasive as in a Level 1 protocol. The young adult may
view the enmeshment positively, may not exert any effort to separate, or else nright make
weak but mostly ineffective attempts to deinvest in the dyad.

b) The young adult resists pressures to deinvest in the dyad or years to increase his or
her involvements at the expense of separation even though these efforts may be resisted by
the parent.

137

Level 3:

a) The young adult makes clear attempts to resist the parent's intrusiveness, but
constantly has to be on guard against inner pulls (e.g., guilt or dependency needs) and/or
parental pressures that may interfere with or encroach on involvements and relationships
outside of the dyad or family of origin.

b) The young adult's overinvolvement in the dyadic relationship with the parent and/or
inner pulls towards excessive involvement are moderated by investments in other important
areas (e. g., other close relationships, career, etc.); these other investments are relevant for
rating self-other responsibility if they serve as alternate sources of support, affection,
fulﬁllment, etc. and help to deintensify involvements with the parents.

Level 4:

a) The young adult describes minor instances of overinvolvement or minimal conﬂicts
about separating from the parent, but for the most part the young adult has made satisfying
or fulﬁlling investments outside of the parent-young adult relationship.

b) Although the parent attempts to triangulate or remain excessively involved in the
young adult's life, the young adult for the most part actively and successfully fends off
these attempts by the parent.

c) There is some evidence that the young adult has, in some ways, given in to his or her
own or to the parent's desires for triangulation, overinvolvement, etc., but these
compromises only minimally affect the young adult's generally successful attempts to make
satisfying investments outside of the dyadic relationship.

Level 5:

a) The young adult clearly has made satisfying, stable, and fulﬁlling investments
outside of the dyadic relationship with the parent and is able to regulate the relationship so
that contacts with the parent do not intrude on his or her relationships outside of the dyad.

b) The young adult is able to share in the parent's life or to share their life with the
parent (if this is viewed as desirable) without fear of triangulation, overinvolvement or
enmeshment.

c) If the young adult does not directly address the issue of self-other responsibility but
theresis no indication of overinvolvement, triangulation or enmeshment, code the protocol
as a .

138

CLOSENESS

DEFINITION: This dimension refers to the young adult's perceptions of the degree of
emotional connectedness versus estrangement and distance in his or her relationship with

the parent.

Note: Relationships with a good deal of conﬂict and negative feelings may nevertheless be
close: the major issue in rating closeness is the depth and breadth of emotional
connectedness, not the positive or negative tone of the relationship. Although it is unlikely
that a relationship with a great deal of conﬂict would have sufﬁcient closeness to be rated as
a 5, it is not unusual for such a relationship to meet the criteria for a level 4 rating.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's experience of closeness in the relationship with the parent is coded on a
5 point scale with 1 referring to "low" closeness and 5 referring to "high" closeness. The
criteria for rating a protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Closeness Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult reports feelings of being emotionally out of touch or estranged in
the relationship with the parent; the relationship may appear cold and mechanistic and if the
young adult feels any sense of closeness it is more out of obligation than affection, and/or
non-consequential given the overall level of estrangement.

b) The young adult describes closeness only in the negative, i.e., as the absence of
tension or conﬂict rather than as a sense of connectedness.

c) The young adult indicates little desire for greater connectedness and/or actively sets
up barriers against or indicates that he or she does not want a sense of closeness.

d) The young adult shies away from the parent's attempts at greater emotional
connectedness and experiences these attempts as intrusions.

Level 2:

a) The young adult describes some minimal sense of connectedness, e.g., the
relationship remains quite distant but there is at least a noticeable improvement over the
past.

b) Although the young adult clearly desires a greater sense of emotional connectedness,
this is prevented by psychological barriers and prevailing feelings of estrangement.

c) The young adult's sense of connectedness to the parent is more intellectual than
emotional although this does allow for some minimal sense of bondedness.

Level 3:

a) The young adult reports a deﬁnite sense of emotional connectedness to the parent
but this is based largely on common interests, a sense of family, grandchildren, shared
activities, etc. rather than strong and deep emotional ties.

b) The young adult's sense of closeness is based on conventional and stereotyped ways
of sharing and relating often because the young adult feels a need to avoid greater intimacy
due to conﬂicts, disagreements, etc.

Level 4:
a) The protocol combines elements of Level 3 (closeness based on more stereotyped
modes of sharing) and Level 5 (closeness based on deeper feelings of intimacy).

 

139

b) The young adult has a deep sense of emotional connectedness to the parent or
experiences a growing sense of closeness, but there are some notable areas in which the
young adult feels distant from the parent, e.g., because of some past events, lack of shared
values, or other obstacles. The young adult may report as much depth in the relationship as
at Level 5 but some limitations in breadth.

Level 5:

a) The young adult's description of deep emotional connectedness to the parent is
supported by multiple indicators, for example feelings of deep affection, understanding,
support, shared experiences, mutual enjoyment, etc.

 

140

COMMUNICATION

DEFINITION: This dimension refers to the degree of openness (i.e. both depth and
breadth) in the communication between the parent and young adult.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's communication with the parent is coded on a 5 point scale with 1
referring to "low" communication and 5 referring to "high" communication. The criteria
for rating a protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Communication Scale are described below.

Level 1:
a) The young adult indicates that the lines of communication with the parent are shutoff
and reports that he or she has no interest in communicating with the parent.

Level 2:

a) The young adult communicates with the parent around superﬁcial, non-controversial
subjects but there are clear limits on what can be talked about, e.g., there may be a sense of
discomfort or distrust in communicating about more personal or meaningful issues.

b) The young adult expresses a yearning to be able to communicate with the parent
about important issues that are somehow designated off limits.

c) The young adult's communication with the parent is very narrowly focused, often on
a single issue.

d) The young adult reports that he or she communicates with the parent only when
necessary or convenient without any evidence that he or she is interested in seeking out
greater communication. E.g., he or she indicates that there "is not a lot to talk about".

Level 3:

a) The young adult reports greater depth in his or her communication with the parent
than at Level 2 and clearly values this communication. However, the exchanges with the
parent generally revolve around stereotypical or "current" concerns, global attitudes, shared
activities, or interests, family matters, etc.

b) The young adult may indicate that the level of communication with the parent is
satisfactory or may even prefer somewhat deeper communication, but in either case he or
she avoids more controversial or intimate subjects.

Level 4:

a) The young adult describes open and deep communication with the parent much like
that found at Level 5, but the communication is qualiﬁed by some speciﬁc area that is "off-
limits"; the young adult perceives a "block" in communication that has a noticeable, and in
the young adult's eyes, a regrettable effect on the quality of an otherwise open relationship.

141

Level 5:

a) The young adult describes a great deal of open communication with the parent
characterized by an ability to express differences in views, values, and conﬂicts.

b) The young adult indicates that his or her communication with the parent is
characterized by a mutual sharing of deep and meaningful issues and personal issues,
although in some cases this may not include very private matters that are outside of the
limits of the parent/young adult relationship (e.g., ﬁghts with a spouse). Even at this level,
the young adult may hold off talking about some circumscribed issues he or she feels are

better off not shared; withholding these issues does not detract from the quality of the
relationship.

142

CONCERN

DEFINITION: This dimension has to do with the extent to which the young adult shows
evidence of concern about the parent's well-being and interest in the parent's needs and
feelings.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's concern for the parent is coded on a 5 point scale with l referring to
"low" concern and 5 referring to "high" concern. The criteria for rating a protocol as l, 2,
3, 4, or 5 on the Concern Scale are described below.

Level 1:
a) The young adult shows no interest in the parent's well-being, needs, or concerns and
denies any sense of responsibility for feeling or showing concern. The young adult is

"actively unconcerned", denies that the parent has real needs, or is simply indifferent to
those needs.

Level 2:

a) The young adult shows only minimal concern and this concern is expressed
primarily in highly concrete, behavioral ways.

b) The young adult's concerns for the parent are focused on a very limited issues.

0) The young adult does not demonstrate much effort or interest in showing concern for
the parent except out of an obligation or to get something in return; in the latter instance, the
young adult's concern for the parent revolves around his or her own needs and is often
displayed as a kind of concrete exchange.

Level 3:

a) The young adult's concerns for the parent extends over a range of different areas but
his or her concern is largely expressed by "helpful" behaviors, i.e., "doing things for the
parent" rather than deeper psychological feelings.

b) There is evidence that the young adult longs to express feelings of concern for the
parent but these desires are frustrated, qualiﬁed, or cutoff by forces largely outside of the
young adult's voluntary control (e.g., resentments, parent's inaccessibility, etc.). The
young adult may feign an "I don't care anymore" or "I've given up" attitude, but his or her
longing and caring still come through.

Level 4:

The young adult's concern for the parent at this level is more than just behavioral.
There is clear evidence that the young adult is interested in the parent's psychological well-
being and EITHER:

a) a strong sense of responsibility for being responsive to the parent's needs or to
ensure their welfare;

OR

b) evidence of concern about the parent's fate outside of the dyadic relationship or the
family setting, interest in the parent's effect on other people, or a concern about their ability
to cope with stresses, etc. The young adult's interest is in the parent's welfare rather than
in the direct or indirect effect of the parent's wellbeing on the young adult or the young
adult/parent relationship.

143

Level 5:

a) At this level the young adult must show clear evidence of criteria for both a) and b)
from Level 4, i.e., they indicate an immediate responsiveness to the parent's difﬁculties
and concerns, and clear interest in the parent's welfare in areas that are outside of the
dyadic relationship. If there is some doubt as to whether criteria from both a) and b) are
present, code the protocol as Level 4.

 

144

EMPATHY

DEFINITION: This dimension has to do with the young adult's ability to understand the
parent as a complex person and to appreciate the parent's feelings and perspectives, even
when these differ from those of the young adult.

Note: Concern or sympathy do not enter into the rating of empathy. A young adult may
have a fairly complex understanding of the parent (empathy) but also acknowledge
difﬁculties in the relationship that interfere with concern, positive feelings, etc.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's degree of understanding of the parent is coded on a 5 point scale with 1
referring to "low" empathy and 5 referring to "high" empathy. The criteria for rating a
protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Empathy Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult describes the parent primarily in concrete behavioral or black and
white (extremely bad or extremely good) terms.

b) The young adult describes the parent in terms of a single overriding issue or trait that
directly or indirectly has to do with the parent's relationship to the young adult.

c) The young adult is unable to or has little interest in understanding the parent's own
issues or concerns, or in viewing the parent as having a life outside of the dyadic
relationship. For example, the young adult often sees the parent's weaknesses as barriers
to the relationship (e.g., the parent is nosy, pries into the young adult's private business)
without any attempt to understand these weaknesses form the parent's point of view.

Level 2:

a) Although the young adult's description of the parent is mostly behavioral and
concrete and tends to portray the parent in black and white terms (as in Level 1) the young
adult makes a minimal attempt to understand the parent as a psychological being. For
example, the young adult might comment on the parent's needs, attitudes or motives, but
only in a simplistic, shallow, and mostly behavioral way (e. g., he is really concerned about
money so he is not home very much, that's how he was brought up (unelaborated)).

b) The young adult's description of the parent combines elements of Level 1 (concrete,
behavioral descriptions) and Level 3 (descriptions of the parent in terms of global,
stereotyped traits and attitudes).

Level 3:

a) The young adult describes the parent in terms of stereotypical traits and relatively
simplistic attitudes and feelings. The young adult attempts to take the parent's perspective;
however, he or she has difﬁculty seeing the parent's perspective from multiple points of
view and is unable to recognize the parent as a diverse, complex person. Although the
parent may be viewed as having both positive and negative traits, the young adult is unable
to integrate or understand the relationship between the parent's strengths and weaknesses.

b) The young adult may seek to understand the parent outside of the dyadic
relationship, in relationship to the larger social context, or in relation to the parent's past
experiences; however, the description of the parent is simplistic or stereotyped (e.g., an
elaboration of "that's the way he was raised", "he has an unhappy marriage," "he was very
close to his family", etc).

145

c) The young adult's attempts to understand the parent are colored by projection of the
young adult's own attitudes and feelings or by uncertainty or idealization.

d) The young adult yearns to understand the parent, but largely because of limitations in
the parent or other forces beyond the young adult's control, these desires are thwarted. As
a result, the young adult has only a stereotyped or minimal understanding of the parent,
even though he or she might be capable of more.

Level 4:

a) The young adult's description of the parent combines elements of Level 3
(stereotyped descriptions of the parent) and Level 5 (descriptions of the parent as a complex
person).

b) The young adult describes the parent in complex, psychological terms (e.g., how he
or she copes with difﬁculties, complex motives, psychological causation), as at Level 5,
but this description primarily focuses on the young adult's relationship with the parent
rather than on the parent's attachments or concerns outside the dyad. For example, the
young adult has a less in-depth appreciation of the parent's motives, needs, or concerns
when these are not of direct relevance to the young adult/parent relationship.

Level 5:
Both of two characteristics are essential at Level 5, including:

a) The young adult views the parent as a person in his or her own right, and
attempts to understand them in relation to the larger social context and/or relationships
outside the parent/young adult dyad.

b) The young adult describes the parent in process rather than behavioral terms and
focuses on complex motives, feelings, ways of coping with the world, ideologies, values,
beliefs, etc. For example, the young adult attempts to integrate the parent's positive and
negative attributes into a complex psychological portrait; the parent is described in terms of
contrasts and conﬂicts rather than in terms of simple stereotypical attitudes and traits. In
addition, the young adult may attempt to contrast and compare his or her own perspective
with the parent's perspective. The parent's perspective is seen as multidimensional and
overdetermined, and the young adult may recognize how his or her own behavior indirectly
(rather than directly) contributes to the parent's reaction to or views of the young adult.

 

146

RESPECT

DEFINITION: This dimension describes the young adult's evaluation of the parent and
includes his or her perception of the parent's competence and suitability as a positive role
model.

Note: Code only for the young adult's respect for the parent, not the parent's respect for
the young adult.

SPECIFIC RATING CRITERIA

The young adult's degree of respect for the parent is coded on a 5 point scale with 1
referring to "low" respect and 5 referring to "high" respect. The criteria for rating a
protocol as 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the Respect Scale are described below.

Level 1:

a) The young adult is very deprecating of and describes the parent in strong negative
language reﬂecting blame, resentment, disappointment, etc.: the young adult may express
strong feelings of shame, anger, or resentment at the parent's weaknesses or failures. At
best, the young adult admits to or recognizes that the parent has some minimal competence
or strengths that are either relatively unimportant to the young adult, are other people's
perceptions, or are so imbedded in negative perception that they are of little weight in the
overall protocol.

b) The young adult is determined to be different from the parent and/or worries about
being too much like the parent.

Level 2:

a) The young adult for the most part deprecates or devalues the parent, but there are a
few isolated areas in which he or she views the parent in a positive light; the deprecation of
the parent is typically very intense and/or distressing to the young adult, and tends to
outweigh the more positive feelings.

b) The young adult expresses intense ambivalence towards the parent and perceives the
parent in both a very idealized and a very deprecating way; the young adult's extreme
deprecation of the parent in some sense cancels out the positive attributions.

Level 3:

a) The young adult generally views the parent in a positive light but without a clear and
strong sense of pride; these views are accompanied by some recognition of the parent's
weaknesses that do not greatly detract from the overall positive picture.

b) The young adult indicates that there are clear areas in which he or she admires or
desires to be like the parent, but also notes clear areas in which he or she wants to be
different or hopes to avoid repeating the parent's failures or mistakes. In describing the
parent's weaknesses, the young adult is less intensely deprecating (e.g., has greater
psychological distance) than at previous levels.

Level 4:

a) The young adult clearly recognizes, feels proud of, and wants to emulate the parent's
strengths. However, unlike at Level 5, the young adult views the parent as having an
isolated weakness or as having failed in an area that is viewed as important by the young

147

adult; this negative perception of the parent is not too troublesome to the young adult, but it
does qualify what is otherwise a generally high regard for the parent.

Level 5:

a) The young adult clearly recognizes and acknowledges the parent's strengths and
feels pride and admiration for the parent. The parent is clearly perceived as a positive role
model, as a good source of advice, and/or as someone who has a good deal to offer in the
way of competence and expertise.

b) If the young adult notes weaknesses in the parent, this knowledge does not detract
from the young adult's positive regard and is not seen as important in evaluating the parent.

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Personal Background Questionnaire

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number: __
Demetanhiﬂnfcnnalim:
1. What is your sex? Male Female
2. Class: Freshman __ Sophomore __ Junior
Senior Fifth-Year Senior
3. What is your age?
4. What is your major?
5. What are your future career plans?
6. What is your GPA?
7. What was your high school GPA? __
8. Are you: Black __ White _ Hispanic Asian __
Native American _ Mixed racial background _ Other—

9. What is your religion?

Protestant (please specify denomination):

Roman Catholic Greek Orthodox Jewish

None Other (please specify):
10. Are you currently married? Yes_ No
11. Were you ever married? Yes_ No
12. How many children do you have? None One Two __ Three___

More than three __

148

149

Eamilxﬁmlcmte
13. Were you adopted? Yes No

 

14. Are our biological (or adoptive) parents:

 

a. married to each other? Yes No
b. separated from each other? Yes _ No __
c. divorced from each other? Yes No

If yes, how old were you?

What was the month and year they divorced? Month Year

 

15. What is your father's occupation? (Be as speciﬁc as possible. For example, what
sorts of responsibilities are included with his job?

 

 

 

16. What is your mother's occupation? (Be as speciﬁc as possible. For example, what
sorts of responsibilities are included with her job?

 

 

 

17. If your mother works, has she worked full time (35 hours per week) since you entered
elementary school?

Yes No (If yes, skip to #18).

Please indicate how old you were when your mother was working outside the home and
whether she worked part or full time for each instance she worked.

 

 

 

150

18. List your siblings (including step-siblings):
Sex Age Where they live

y—a
O

v—It—au—nt—nt—n
:51"pr

15.

19. Do you live at home? Yes No (If yes, skip to #21)

20. What is the average number of phone contacts you have with your parents each
month?

With biological mother:
With biological father:

 

What is the average number of visits you have with your parents each month?
With biological mother:
With biological father:

 

 

21. How many miles away from MSU do your parents live?

 

151

22. If there are any additional situations in your family which are pertinent, please explain
them here:

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

Development During the College Years

INFORMED CONSENT
(Phase One)

1. I understand that the purpose of this study is to better understand important experiences
during late adolescence and early adulthood, for example, perceptions of and feelings about
my mother and/or father, feelings about self adn relationships, and decisions about
ideologies, friendships and drinking behaviors.

 

2. My participation in this study will involve approximately three hours. I will attend two
one hour and a half sessions at which time I will be asked to complete a series of
questionnaires. At the end of my participation, I will be more fully debriefed about the
purpose of this study. In exchange for my participation I will receive four research credits.
I have been told that these questionnaires ask for information about my perceptions of and
relationship with one or both of my parents, about my perceptions of my relationship with
my peers, my feelings about intimate relationships, my personal philosophy and how I
view myself in a variety of different life areas.

3. Additionally, I have been told that I will be asked to disclose fairly personal
information, for example, information about my own and my parents' alcohol use and my
feelings about close relationships. However, I also understand that I will at no time be
asked to reveal my name and that my research records will be identiﬁed by code number
only in orer to protect my conﬁdentiality and anonymity.

4. I understand that my participation is completely voluntary and that I may withdraw from
the study at any time. However, I am aware that I will only receive credit if I participate in
both sessions. I also know that l have the right not to answer any item on any
questionnaire that I do not wish to answer. However, I have been informed that all of my
answers are valuable to this study and that my decision to omit various items may make it
difﬁcult or ipossible to use the information I do provide.

5. I understand that I will not receive feedback on my individual responses but that I can
obtain group results of this study, when they are available, upon request.

6. If I have any questions or concerns arising from my participation in this study, I know
that I am encouraged to contact Dr. Susan Frank at 355-1832 in the Department of
Psychology to discuss these concerns.

 

 

Signature Date

152

153

RECONTACI‘ FORM

I wish to be considered for participation in Phase Two of this research study on
development during the college years. When you contact me, please ask for the code name
indicated below. I understand that I may not be contacted, but if I am, I may decide at that
time not to participate without any penalty. I am aware that in exchange for my
participation in Phase Two, I will receive additional research credits beyond those I
received for participating in Phase One. I have read the informed consent agreement for
Phase Two and understand its content.

 

The name I wish to be identiﬁed by is

The code number from my questionnaire packet in Phase One is

 

My daytime phone number is

 

In the evenings I can be reached at

 

I'"'""Please let your roommates know that we may be calling and asking for someone with
your code name. “"I'

1 5 4
Development During the College Years

INFORMED CONSENT
(Phase Two)

1. I understand that I was chosen, based on a number of my questionnaire responses,
from a larger number of volunteers who also participated in the ﬁrst phase of this research.

2. I understand that the purpose of this phase of the study is to gain a more indepth
understanding of adolescents' and young adults' feelings about their parents and to
examine possible differences in feelings about mothers versus fathers.

3. My participation in this study will involve approximately two and a half hours and wil
include a 30 to 45 nrinute questionnaire session and an interview session that will take
approximately 90 to 120 minutes to complete. The questionnaires will ask about my
feelings about each of my parents and are similar to those I completed in the previous phase
of this research. In addition, I will be asked to discuss my feelings about and relationship
with each of my parents during the interview. At the end of my participation, I will be
more fully debriefed about the purpose of this study. In exchange for my participation, I
will receive 5 research credits (in addition to those I received for Phase One.)

4. I understand that the investigators will contact me using the code name I provided
during the ﬁrst phase of this study. I also understand that my real name will not be
associated with my responses and that my responses to both the questionnaires and
interview will remain conﬁdential. I also know that all research records will be identiﬁed
by code number only.

5. My participation is completely voluntary and I may withdraw from the study at any
time. However, I will only receive credit for this phase of the study if I complete all
questionnaires and the interview. I also know that I have the right not to answer any
question on the questionnaires or during the interview that I do not wish to answer. I
understand however, that all of my answers are valuable to this study and that my decision
to ongt particular items may make it difﬁcult or impossible to use the information I do
provr e.

6. I understand that I will not receive feedback on my individual responses but I can obtain
results of this study, when they are available, upon request.

7. If I have any questions or concerns arising from my participation in this or the previous
phase of the study, I am encouraged to discuss them with the interviewer or to contact Dr.
Susan Frank at 355-1832 in the Department of Psychology.

 

 

Signature Date

LIST OF REFERENCES

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anderson, S. A. & Sabatelli, R. M. (1990). Differentiating differetiation and

individuation: Conceptual and operational challenges. WW
Therapy, 18, 32-50.

Bartle,.S. E. (1987) '1' - ' _
WW. Unpublished master' s thesis, University

of Connecticut.

Bartle, S. E. & Anderson, S. A. (1991). Similarity between parents' and
adolescents' levels of individuation. Adeleseenee. Vol. 26, 913-924.

Bartle, S. E, & Sabatelli, R. M. (1989). Family system dynamics, identity
development and adolescent alcohol use: Implications for family treatment. Family
Relations. 38, 258- 265.

Block J. H. & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego resiliency on the origins
of behavior. In W. A. Collins (ed.)

Qn_Child Esychplegy (Vol. 13) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blos, P. (1979) Theadeleseentpassage. New York: International Universities Press.

 

Blos, P. (1967). The second individuation process of adolescence. Esyehpaaalyn’e
thheChild, Vol. 20, New York: International Universities Press, pp. 183- 198.

Bogdaniak, R. G. & Piercy, F. P. (1987). Therapeutic issues of adolescent children of
alcoholics grows Intemaﬁonallcumalcfﬁmuaﬂsxchmhm 31. (4)

Boume, E. (1978a). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal: Part 1.
WW. 1. 223-251.

Boume, E. (197 8b). The state of research on ego identity: A review and appraisal: Part
IL We. 1. 371-392.

Dancy, B. L. & Handal, P. J. (1984). Perceived family climate, psychological
adjustment and peer relationship of black adolescence: A function of parental marital

status or perceived family conﬂict? leumalpremmunimEsyehplm 12, 222- 229.

Douvan, E. and Adelson, J. (1966). Iheadeleseehtexpeijenee. New York: John
Wiley.

el-Guebaly, N. and Offord, D. R. (1977). The offspring of alcoholics: A critical review.
Americanlaumalgfﬂsxchim 134 357- 365-

Elkin, F. and Westley, W. A. (1955). The myth of adolescent culture. Ameriead
52911219312111 8mm. 20 680-684.

Elson, N. (1964) The reactive impact of adolescent and family upon each other in
SCParation WW 3. 669-708

155

156

Emery, R. E. (1982). Interparental conﬂict and the children of discord and divorce.
W11. 92 (2). 310-330

Emery. R. E. (1988). WWW Newbury Park. CA:

Sage.

Enos, D. M. & Handal. P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and
perceived family conﬂict to adjustment in white adolescents. immalprensahingand

W. 54’ 320-324

Erikson, E. (1956). The problem of ego identity. '
Asspeiatipn, 4. Reprinted in Esyehplpgieausaues. 1, New York: International
Universities Press, 1959.

 

Frank, S. J ., Avery, C., & Laman, M. (1988). Young adults' perceptions of their
relationships with their parents: Individual differences in connectedness,

competence and emotional autonomy. DeyelppmentaLEsyehplegy, 24, 729-737.

Frank, s. J., & Burke, L. (1992) ' °
° ' ' . Paper presented at the Society for
Research on Adolescence, Washington, DC.

Frank. S J., Jacobson.S.. &Hole.C B (1988) WWW
W maniaaeandmlenn'na Unpublished manuscript

Frank, S. J ., Pirsch, L. A., & Wright, V. C. (1990). Late adolescents' perceptions of
their relationships with their parents: Relationships among deidealization, autonomy,
relatedness and insecurity and implications for adolescent adjustment and ego identity

status. Ioumalef mmmdAdeleseenee. 12 (6). 571-588.

Frank, S. J., Tatham, L., DeVet, C., and Burke, L. (1990). Implications of parental
marital status and parental conﬂict for late adolescents' perception of their
relationship with their parents and their psychological adjustment. In progress.

Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. In R. S. Eissler et al. (Eds.) W
Smdy_Qf_the Child, 13, 255-275. New York: International Universities Press.

Freud, S. Agenetalmmxlnetipntppsyehpanalysis. New York: Simon and Schuster,
I924.

Fulmer, F.H., Medalie, J., & Lord, D.A. (1982). Life cycles in transition: A family
Systems pchpcctivc. Iaumalemdeleseenee. 5. 195-217.

Garmezy,N (1981). Children under stress: Perspectives on antecedents and correlates of
vulnerability and resistance to psychopathology. In A.I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. M.

Barclay. & R A Zuckcr (Eds ).Eunher_exaletatiorls_'m.netscnalitx (pp 196-270)
New York: Wiley.

Greenberg, E. F. & Nay, W. R. (1982). The intergenerational transmission of marital
instability reconsidered. laymalpLMMageandﬁeEamﬂy, 44, 335-347.

Grotevant, H. D. & Cooper, C. R. (1986). Individuation in family relationships. Human
meat. 22. 82-100.

157

Haley. J. (1980). We. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Hauser S. T., Vieyra M. A., Jacobson, A. M., & Wertlieb, D. (1985) Vulnerability and
resilience in adolescence: Views from the family. malptﬂarlyAdelemee, Vol.
5, 81-100.

Hill, J. P. & Holmbeck, G. N. (1986). Attachment and autonomy during adolescence.
Annalsdf ChildDexelcnmem. 3. 145-189.

Hoffman, J. A. (1984). Psychological separation of late adolescents from their
Parents WWW 3.1. 170-178

Hollingshead. A. B. (1957). WWW Unpublished

manuscript, Yale University, New Haven.

Jacobson, E. (1964). Iheselﬂandthedbjeetmdd. International Universities Press, Inc.,
New York.

Josselson, R. (1980). Ego development in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.) Handheek
efadeleseenr psychology. New York: Wiley.

Kandel, D & Lesser, G. S. (1972). W. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kaufrnann, K. S. (1986). Reworking the relationship: College students and their
divorcing parents. Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies, Work in
Progress. Wellesley College, MA.

Kohlberg, L., & Gilligan, C. (1971). The adolescent as a philosopher: the discovery of
the self in a postconventional world. Daedalus, 100(4): 1051-1086.

Kurdek, L. A. (1981). An 1ntegrative perspective on children's divorce adjustment.
MW 36 856-866

L'Abate, L. Undersmndinsandhelninmmdirddmlimhefamﬂx New York: Gruuc &
Stratton, 1976.

Lambom S D & Steinberg. L. Emdndnalnnmmmdnxleidsidnamanandmm
Paper presented at the Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, Georgia, 1990.

Laufer, M. (1966). Object loss and mourning during adolescence. Bayeheanalytie
Smdieufthe Child. 21

Mahler, MS. (1963) Thoughts about development and individuation. W, 8,
307-324.

Marlatt, G. A. & Gordon, J. F. (1978) Detenmnantseﬂdtiakinsalmnlieatidnsfszuhe
W. Alcoholism and Drug Institute, Technical Report No 78- 07.
University of Washington.

McCrady, B. S. (1983) Marital dysfunction: Alcoholism and marriage. In E. M.

Pattison & E Kaufman (Eds ) Enexclenedlehandmmedhdhsm (pp 673-- 685)
New York. Gardner Press.

158

McDermott, J. F., Jr. (1968). Parental divorce in early childhood. Ametieanleumalpf
Esyehiany, 124, 1424-1432.

Murphey, E. B., Silber, E., Coelho, G. V. Hamburg, D. A, & Greenberg, I. (1963).
Development of autonomy and parent-child interaction in late adolescence.
Amedemldumal Cnhdasxehiatrx. 33.. 643-652.

Nelson, W. L., Hughes, H. M., Handal, P. J., Katz, B. & Searight, H. R. (1993). The
relationship of family structure and family conﬂict to adjustment in young adult
college students. Adeleseenee. Vol. 28, 29- 40.

Offer, D., and Offer, J. (1975). Three developmental routes through normal male
adolescence. Adeleseentﬂsyehiatxy, A, 121-141.

Offer, D., Ostrov, E., and Howard, K. (1981). W531”;
permit. New York: Basic Books.

Olson, D. H. (1983). Commentary: Struggling with congruence across theoretical models
and methods. W. 24,, 203- 207.

Piaget, J. (1969). The intellectual development of the adolescent. In G. Caplan and S.
Lebovici (Eds ) W New York Basic Books

Robins, L., West, P. Ratcliff, K., & Herjanic, B. (1978). Father's alcoholism and

children's outcomes. In F. A. Seixas (Ed). Camemsmalephplism (Vol. 4, pp.
313- 327). New York: Grune and Stratton.

Rutter, M, Graham, P, Chadwick, O. F. D., and Yule, W. (1976). Adolescent
turmoil: FactorﬁctionndumaldfChlldPsxeholdaLandEsxehlm 17 35- 56

Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors 1n children's responses to stress and disadvantage.
InM W Keut&J E Rolf(Eds..)EtimaDLpLe1emion.of_psltdhom1hdldgx £91.11.
ipChildien (pp. 49-74) Hanover: University Press of New
England.

Ryan, R. M. & Lynch, J. H. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment:
Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child_l2eyelepment,
60, 340-356.

Schuckit, M. A. (1980). Self-rating of alcohol intoxication by young men with and
without family histories of alcoholism. lpumalpﬁﬁmdiespnﬂephpl, 41, 242- 249.

Seilhamer, R. A. & Jacob, T. (1989). Family factors and adjustment of children of

alcoholics. In M. Windle and J. S. Searles (Eds. )Childmnpﬁaleehpliesﬂtieﬂ
perspeetiyes. New York. Guilford Press.

Seixas, J. (1982). Children from alcoholic homes. In N. Estes and E. Heinemann

(EdS)Aleohdlism:_12exeldnment_conseduenees.andin1entenudns St Louis MO:
Mosby Press.

Sessa, F. M. & Steinberg, L. (1991). Family structure and the development of
autonomy during adolescence. JpnmalpLEatlyAdeleseenee, 11, 38—55.

159

Silverberg, S. & Steinberg, L. (1987). Adolescent autonomy, parent-adolescent
conﬂict. and Parental well-bcing- IdumalcfXdllthandAdoleseenee. 16. 293-312.

Simmons R.G., & Blyth, D.A. (1987). MW. Hawthorne, New
York: Aldine.

Slater, E. J. & Haber J. D. (1984). Adolescent adjustment following divorce as a

function of familial conﬂiCL lonmalofConsnldnundClinidalEsxeholdax 52 929
921.

Smollar, J., & Youniss, J. (1985). Parent—adolescent relations in adolescents whose

parents are divorced Wee. 5: 129-144.

Steinberg, L. & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early
adolescence. Child Deyelepment, 51, 841- 851.

Stierlin, H., Levi, L. D. & Savard, R. J. (1981). Separatingpamntsandadeleseents.

New York: Jason Aronson.
Teyber, E. (1981). Structural family relations. An overview. Eamily_'[hei:apy, 8, 39-48.

Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1976). The effects of parental divorce: the experience of the
child In later latency Amedeanloumaldfﬂnhdnsxehianx 46 256-269

Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1980). midngthehteaknp. New York: Basic Books.

Werner, E. E. (1986). Resilient offspring of alcoholics: A longitudinal study from birth to
age 18 Ionmalcfﬁmdiesonﬂmhol 41(1). 3440

White, K. M, Speisman, J. C, & Costos, D. (1983). Young adults and their
parents: Individuation to mutuality. In H. D. Groteth and C. R. Cooper (Eds.)

inthefamilltthleiltditeeddnsfotehﬂddexeloamem No.22.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Woititz, J. (1983). Adultehildmpﬂalephelies. Deerﬁeld Beach, FL: Health

Communications.

Woititz, J. (1978). Alcoholism and the family: A survey of the literature. qumalpﬂ
AlddhdLananlgEdudaﬁdn. 23, 18-23.

Wood, B. L. (1987). '
life. New York: New York University Press.

Youniss J. & Ketterlinus, R. D. (1987). Communication and connectedness in

mother- and father-adolescent relationships. lmnnalpfleuthjndAdgleseenee, 16,
265-280.

Youniss!" & Smollar,! (1985) Adolescentrelandnsmthmdthetsiathemand.
fn'ends. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

 

nrcurcnu STATE unrv. LIBRARIES
IIIII III III IIII III IIIIII III IIII III IIII IIII IIIIIIIII III IIIIII
31293010222549