.1 a“«
. 9.
6J4 .ni; .

 

I? 9 run
9.. 3!.

, . . a...

I: .H...

.163" , 1“ and.
.3 mwfifi

$3.?

$53.91.“. ...-...‘
'

2 1,13

0 \R r

‘y.
‘.

Q
It

 

 

 

0‘ .
a 0; Li

:0 :5 ”3’3 v

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A OBJECT RELATIONS AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN
CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS, PARENTAL CAREGIVING AND
YOUNG ADULT ADJUSTMENT

presented by
ANAT BARLEV

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Psychology
/i

r; ll/t ‘u/ll/i! /

aj- 'rofessor’s Sign ur

(TWIST)? H
U .

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CI RC/DateDue.p65-p. 1 5

 

OBJECT

 

OBJECT RELATIONS AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS,
PARENTAL CAREGIVING AND YOUNG ADULT ADJUSTMENT

By

Anat Barlev

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2004

OBJEC

 

 

ABSTRACT

OBJECT RELATIONS AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS,
PARENTAL CAREGIVING AND YOUNG ADULT ADJUSTMENT

By
Anat Barlev
This study investigated the role of object relations as a mediator between
childhood traumas and young adult adjustment as well as parental caregiving and young
adult adjustment in 320 undergraduate students in a large Midwestern state university
(217 females and 103 males). Childhood traumas and parental caregiving are
incorporated into one’s development of object relations (F airbaim, 1952; Kemberg,
1976). Childhood abuse as well as overly neglectful, rejecting or overly controlling
parenting contribute to object relations deficits. Object relations deficits were measured
by the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, 1995; Bell, Billington, & Becker,
1986). Object relations deficits mediated the relationship between childhood abuse and
young adult adjustment. PartiCipants’ lack of basic trust as well as difficulty in
relationships, fully mediated the relationship between childhood abuse and depression,
childhood abuse and anxiety, and partially mediated the relationship between childhood
abuse and dissociation in college students. As predicted, object relations mediated the
impact of parental caregiving on psychopathology in young adults. Levels of lack of
basic trust and satisfaction in relationships mediated the relationship between father care
and depression. Furthermore, struggles in interpersonal relationships as well as
oversensitivity to separations and rejections mediated the impact of encouragement of
dependence by mothers on depression, and partially mediated the impact of mother

dependence on anxiety and dissociation. Perceived social support fi'om fi'iends and family

did not in

was founr

 

did not impact young adult adjustment significantly. Perceived social support from family

was found to be a buffer against high levels of alienation and social incompetence.

I would like to dedicate this to the resilience that can be found in each of us

iv

 

 

I v
LCVEDdOSi

years. Ill.

  
 
 
  

of me. Yr

would alx

101mm-

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor and committee chairperson, Dr. Alytia
Levendosky. She has been incredibly kind, supportive, and encouraging throughout the
years. Thank you for encouraging me to pursue my own study and expecting the best out
of me. You are a very special person and I am very fortunate to have you in my life. I
would also like to thank Dr. Robert Caldwell, for stepping in as the committee chair
during my proposal defense, and for instilling confidence in me about my work. I would
like to thank Dr. Rick Deshon, for helping me with my statistical analyses. Thank you for
your patience and time. I would like to thank Dr. Joel Nigg for all his great advice and
input that makes this a much better work. I would also like to thank Dr. Norman Abeles
for participating in my defense and for his helpful comments.

I would like to thank my dissertation support group (Sally Theran, Cheryl Lynn
Podolski, and Lisa Blaskey) for their encouragement throughout this process. I would like
to thank my dear friend, Ioanna Kalogiros, who’s been part of my graduate school
journey fiom day one and who has always been able to make me laugh. I would also like
to thank Arvind Krishnaswamy for his understanding, support and love.

I would like to thank my family, who always tries to help me in any way that they

can, and whose love I truly feel every day. I have gained a lot of strength from you, and
the motivation to complete this project. I would also like to thank my dear brother, Arie

Barlev, for always being there for me, and for his wife’s, Paulina’s support.

 

LIST OF
LIST OF

INTROD

 

CHILDI‘I
C
In
P.
D
P;

PARENT

OBI ECT
O

 

p.
0
PI
SOCIAL

ii

 

HIPOTI
METHO'

Pi
‘\.

RESULT

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS ......................................................................... 4
Childhood Abuse ............................................................................ 4
Interparental Violence ..................................................................... 10
Parental Alcoholism ........................................................................ 12
Divorce/ Separation ................................ ’ ........................................ 1 5
Parental Loss ................................................................................ l7
PARENTAL CAREGIVING ..................................................................... 21
OBJECT RELATIONS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................... 26
Object Relations as a Mediator between Parental Caregiving and
Psychopathology ........................................................................... 27
Object Relations as a Mediator between Childhood Traumas and Adult
Psychopathology ........................................................................... 29
SOCIAL SUPPORT ................................................................................ 33
Models of Social Support ................................................................. 33
Friends and Family Social Support ...................................................... 35
HYPOTHESES AND RATIONALE ............................................................ 38
METHODS .......................................................................................... 41
Participants and Procedures ............................................................... 41
Measures .................................................................................... 41
Demographic Information ........................................................ 41
Parental/Caregiver Measure ...................................................... 42
Childhood Traumas ............................................................... 43
Object Relations ................................................................... 47
Young Adult Mental Health ...................................................... 48
Social Support ..................................................................... 51
RESULTS ............................................................................................ 53
Data Reduction .............................................................................. 53
Missing Variables ...................................................................................... 53
Parental Caregiving Variables ................................................... 53
Trauma Variables ................................................................. 54

vi

 

   

2,3’3’3’

m’b’bfbbyy}?

F75:
pg
E

Hypotheses Testing ........................................................................ 56

Object Relations as a Mediator .................................................. 56

Perceived Social Support as a Direct Effect ................................... 60

Perceived Social Support from Friends as a Moderator ..................... 61

Perceived Social Support from Family as a Moderator ...................... 62
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 83
Object Relations and Childhood Traumas .............................................. 83
Object Relations and Divorce/ Separation Impact ...................................... 86
Object Relations and Marital Problems ................................................. 88
Object Relations and Parental Caregiving .............................................. 89
Perceived Social Support .................................................................. 93
Conclusion .................................................................................. 95
Limitations and Research Implications ................................................. 96
Clinical Implications ..................................................................... 100
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 102
Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire ............................................ 103
Appendix B: PBI ........................................................................ 106
Appendix C: CTQ ....................................................................... 109
Appendix D: PFAD ..................................................................... 116
Appendix E: CAST ...................................................................... 120
Appendix F: CTS ........................................................................ 123
Appendix G: BORI ...................................................................... 124
Appendix H: CES-D ..................................................................... 126
Appendix I: BSI-A ...................................................................... 127
Appendix J: DES ........................................................................ 128
Appendix K: PSS ........................................................................ 132
Appendix L: Consent Form ............................................................ 136
Appendix M: Feedback Form .......................................................... 137
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 138

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Factor Loadings of Mother Parental Bonding Instrument based on a Factor

Analysis using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation .................... 64
Table 2: Factor Loadings of Father Parental Bonding Instrument based on a Factor
Analysis using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation ..................... 65
Table 3: Factor Loadings of 13 Trauma Variables based on a Factor Analysis using
Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation ........................................ 66
Table 4: ANOVA Results of Gender Effects ................................................... 67
Table 5: Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequencies of Main Variables ................ 68
Table 6: Correlations between All the Main Variables ........................................ 69

Table 7: Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Effects of Childhood Traumas and
Parental Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Alienation .......... 70

Table 8: Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Effects of Childhood Traumas and
Parental Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Insecure
Attachment ........................................................................................... 71

Table 9: Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Effects of Childhood Traumas and
Parental Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Egocentricity ........ 72

Table 10: Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Effects of Childhood Traumas and
Parental Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Social
Incompetence ........................................................................................ 73

Table 11: Mediating Effects of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas
and Parental Caregiving on Depression .......................................................... 74

Table 12: Mediating Effects of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas
and Parental Caregiving on Anxiety .............................................................. 75

Table 13: Mediating Effects of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas
and Parental Caregiving on Dissociation ......................................................... 76

Table 14: Multiple Regression Analysis of the Direct and Moderating Effects of
Perceived Social Support on Object Relations and Depression ............................... 77

viii

Table 15: Multiple Regression Analysis of the Direct and Moderating Effects of
Perceived Social Support on Object Relations and Anxiety ................................. 78

Table 16: Multiple Regression Analysis of the Direct and Moderating Effects of
Perceived Social Support on Object Relations and Dissociation ............................ 79

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Object relations as a mediator between childhood traumas and adult mental
health as well as parental caregiving and adult mental health. Also, social support as a
direct effect on adult mental health as well as a buffer between object relations and

adult mental health ................................................................................. 80
Figure 2: Social Support from Family and Alienation Interaction ........................... 81
Figure 3: Social Support from Family and Social Incompetence Interaction ............... 82

INTRODUCTION

Childhood traumas can lead to young adult adjustment difficulties (Andrews,
1995; Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen, 1993). Higher depression and anxiety in college
students have been related to childhood experiences of sexual abuse (Braver et al., 1992;
Lizardi et al., 1995; Abdulrhamn & De Luca, 2001; Brock, Mintz, & Good, 1997),
physical abuse (Briere & Runtz, 1990; Bryant & Range, 1997; Ducharrne, Koverola, &
Battle, 1997), and emotional and psychological abuse (Gauthier et al., 1996; Melchert,
2000; Sanders & Moore, 1999). In addition, depression and anxiety in college students
have also been associated with childhood experiences of witnessing interparental
violence (Brewin & Vallance, 1997; Henning et al., 1997; Silvem et al., 1995), growing
up with an alcoholic parent/s (Carpenter, 1995; Coleman & Frick, 1994; Hinz, 1990;
Jarmas & Kazak, 1992, Lewis, 2000), parental divorce and/or separation (Amato &
Booth, 1991; Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin, & Kieman, 1995; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan,
1999), as well as experiencing parental loss to death (Kaslow et al., 1998; Pfohl et al.,
1983; Roy 1981). In addition to depression and anxiety, young adult college students who
have experienced frequent and severe trauma are also at risk for dissociative symptoms
(Martinez-Taboas & Berna], 2000; Sandberg & Lynn, 1992).

In addition to childhood traumas, parental caregiving dimensions of care and
overprotection have been documented to relate to young adult depression and anxiety
(Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). In particular, several studies found that higher
depression and anxiety were linked to lower parental care and higher parental
overprotection during childhood among college students (Alnaes & Torgeresen, 1990;

Bennet & Stirling, 1998; Parker, 1979, 1981, 1986).

Some young adults who have experienced childhood traumas develop greater
levels of depression and anxiety than others who have experienced these traumas. Yet,
few studies examined the mechanisms by which experiences of abuse and parental
caregiving can lead to young adult psychopathology. One possible mechanism is a
person’s object relations. The theory of object relations concentrates on the development
of internal representations of self and object as images of the original infant-caregiver
relationship (Kemberg, 1976). Object relations development begins in infancy and
continues through adolescence (Westen, 1990). Ferenczi (1949) suggested that traumatic
experiences in childhood such as sexual abuse could lead to deficits in object relations.
For example, in one study, adolescents who experienced more severe abuse in childhood
had more impaired object relations (Baker et al., 1992). In another study, young adult
women who were sexually and physically abused as children exhibited overall more
impaired object relations than a control group (Ornduff & Kelsey, 1996). Sexual abuse,
physical abuse, emotional neglect, and psychological abuse, are all examples of
childhood traumas that can lead to impairment in object relations (Baker et al., 1992;
Elliott, 1994; Twomey et al., 2000). In addition to childhood traumas, if a child
experiences his or her primary caregiver/s as neglectful and not caring, the child may
experience the self as a “bad” object, because the perceived neglectful object has been
internalized. In addition, Fairbaim (1943) discussed another defense mechanism,
considering the parent/s as “good” objects, while the self as “bad”, to justify neglect and
abuse by primary caregivers. Neglectful caretaking as well as childhood abuse could
contribute to object relations deficits such as lack of basic trust in relationships, difficulty

with intimacy, oversensitivity to rejection and separation, viewing other’s actions only in

terms of one’s own motives and social self-consciousness. This could interfere with one’s
ability to establish satisfying relationships with others, and as a result, there is greater
vulnerability to psychopathology such as depression, anxiety, and dissociation. The
current study will investigate the role object relations plays in young adult college
students in relation to childhood traumas, parental caregiving, and young adult
psychopathology.

Current factors such as perceived social support are important in young adult
adjustment. Perceived social support has been documented as an important aspect of
college students’ lives that increases self-efficacy beliefs and self-esteem (Menees, 1997;
Torres & Solberg, 2001). In particular, perceived social support from fiiends and family
has been shown to contribute to college students’ well-being and adjustment (Burks &
Martin, 1985; Cutrona et al., 1994; Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1994). In addition,
perceived social support has been shown to negatively relate to depression (Cumsille &
Epstein, 1994; Maton, 1990). Perceived social support has been examined as a direct
effect as well as a moderator of stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). The current study
will investigate the role perceived social support from friends and family plays in young
adult psychopathology, as well as whether it buffers the impact of object relations deficits

on young adult functioning.

CHILDHOOD TRAUMAS
Childhood Abuse

Childhood abuse has been associated with a number of psychological difficulties
in adulthood, including depression, anxiety, and dissociation. Several studies found that
adult survivors of childhood abuse (physical, sexual, emotional and neglect) are more
likely to suffer fiom depression than adults who were not abused (Andrews, 1995; Braver
et al., 1992; Lizardi et al., 1995; Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen, 1993). In addition, adult
survivors of childhood abuse report higher anxiety levels than controls (Abdulrhamn &
De Luca, 2001; Brock, Mintz, & Good, 1997; Maynes & Feinauer, 1994).

Childhood abuse appears to increase the likelihood of being victimized in young
adulthood. For example, in one study, the highest rate of adult sexual and/or physical
victimization was reported by college females who self-reported experiencing both sexual
and physical abuse in childhood (Schaaf & McCanne, 1998). In addition, childhood
physical and sexual abuse was related to college women’s involvement in violent
relationships (i.e., victims of physical aggression in a dating relationship at least on one
occasion since the age of 16) (Coffey et al., 1996). Furthermore, female college students
who experienced a date rape were more likely than controls to report some amount of
childhood sexual abuse as well as significant neglect (Sanders & Moore, 1999). An
additional study demonstrated that childhood abuse (physical, sexual, and emotional) as
well as loss (parental illness, parental death and parental divorce or separation)
encountered in early childhood before the age of 5 increased experiences of sexual,
physical, and emotional abuse in adulthood for men and women (Liem & Boudewyn,

1999). In addition to victimization, one study found that male survivors of childhood

physical abuse also tend to be more violent themselves (Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen,
1993).

Childhood abuse is also associated with lower self-esteem in young adulthood.
For example, childhood maltreatment and loss experiences predicted lower self-esteem in
adulthood (Liem & Boudewyn, 1999). One study found that in particular, psychological
(emotional) abuse in childhood was uniquely associated with low self-esteem in female
college students (Briere & Runtz, 1990). In a community sample of women between the
ages of 18-45, reported psychological and physical abuse from parents, were related to
lower self-esteem reports (Down & Miller, 1988). In this study, self-esteem was lower
when the perpetrator was the father, while only severe abuse fiom the mother was related
to lower self-esteem. In another study, college students who were survivors of physical
abuse reported significantly lower self-esteem and intimacy than non-abused respondents
(Ducharrne, Koverola, & Battle, 1997).

In addition to greater likelihood of young adult victimization and lower self-
esteem, childhood abuse has also been found to impact young adult adjustment and
mental health. For example, Langhinrichsen-Rohling etal., (1998) reported that abuse
from either parent was related to increased rates of suicidal and life threatening behavior.
The severity of the abuse appears to impact the long-term consequences of the abuse.
Another study found that college participants who reported both severe sexual and
physical abuse reported more lifetime suicidality than participants who reported either
mild sexual and/or physical abuse (Bryant & Range, 1997).

Studies have found that physical abuse is linked to aggression toward others

(Briere & Runtz, 1990), and neglect is linked to aggression toward the self (Gauthier et

 

al., 1996). According to Gauthier et al., (1996) neglect was a stronger predictor of
psychological problems and insecure attachment styles than physical abuse among a
college population. In this study, it appeared that negative parental involvement is less
detrimental than a lack of parent-child interaction. In addition, another study found that
the largest amount of variance in college students’ psychological distress was explained
by parental emotional abuse and neglect (Melchert, 2000).

One of the major limitations of the studies cited above is that many examine a
female population and fewer men. It is important to note that males are sexually
victimized as well. For example, a study that examined long-term psychological
consequences of childhood sexual abuse in two samples of college men found rates of
childhood sexual abuse of 13% and 15% in each college sample (Fromuth & Burkhart,
1989). In another study, 18% of college men reported incest and 13% of college men
reported extra familial childhood sexual abuse (Melchert, 2000). College men who were
sexually abused were less well adjusted than a control group and also reported specific
sexual problems (Fromuth & Burkhart, 1989). The current study will examine trauma
experiences among college men and women.

Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998) conducted meta-analyses that examined
the impact of child sexual abuse (CSA) on college samples. The authors were interested
in a college population because it is not a clinical population and believe that this can aid
in being able to generalize results to the general population. In addition, authors
suggested that studies of college populations also provide information about the family
environment. The authors concluded that childhood sexual abuse was related to poorer

mental health adjustment for college students. Nonetheless, the impact of the abuse

appeared to be less severe than what was suggested in previous studies. In addition, they
also concluded that college students do not present fewer symptoms than other samples
and they do not appear to cope better than more clinical populations. Moreover, the
author suggested that the family environment while growing up explained greater
variance than child sexual abuse by itself in terms of adult adjustment. The proposed
study will examine a wide range of childhood experiences and traumas and will explore
young adult adjustment. More specifically, the mechanisms by which childhood traumas
impact adjustment will be examined including parental caregiving to further clarify the
relationships between childhood experiences and young adult adjustment.

Several studies demonstrated that in addition to depression, anxiety, and lower
self-esteem, young adult survivors of childhood abuse are more likely to dissociate,
(Martinez-Taboas & Bemal, 2000; Sandberg & Lynn, 1992). Dissociation is defined as a
structured separation of mental processes (Spiegel & Cardena, 1991). It can occur in all
people, but thought to be more prevalent in persons with more severe psychopathology
(Bernstein, & Putnam, 1986). Irwin (1994) stated that in dissociation, feelings are
separated from specific events, and memories can be disconnected from the flow of
thoughts. Some categorized dissociation on a continuum beginning with individuals who
use it in forms such as daydreaming and what is called “non-pathological” dissociation to
chronic “pathological” dissociation that has been associated with increased severity of
trauma (Maynes & Feinauer, 1994). A study found that adults’ experiences of
dissociation were accounted for by childhood traumas (i.e., familial loss and sexual
abuse) (Irwin, 1994). In addition, a number of researches began investigating whether

there are distinguishable types of dissociative experiences (Waller, Putnam, & Carlson,

1996). The authors in this study first wanted to see if they could distinguish between
pathological and non-pathological dissociation. Second, they wanted to see if there are
specific people who are more prone to pathological dissociation. The authors conducted a
taxometlic analysis of the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein & Putnam,
1986) using a large clinical, as well as a non-clinical population. The authors came up
with three factors for the DES: absorption, amnesia for dissociative states, and
depersonalization /derealization. The authors concluded that absorption items indicated a
measure of a dimensional construct, non-pathological dissociation. On the other hand, the
last two factors, amnesia for dissociative states as well as depersonalization/derealization
measure a construct. Another study measured the typological model of dissociation
suggested by the previous study by Waller et al., 1996 (Waller & Ross, 1997). This study
provided additional support for a pathological dissociative taxon. A recent study
examined the 2-month retest stability of the pathological dissociative taxon in a college
sample of 456 undergraduates (Watson, 2003). Contrary to the author’s expectation, the
taxon scores were not highly stable over the 2-month period, and most participants who
were identified as taxon members at one assessment, did not qualify for membership at
the second assessment. These results question the existence of a pathological dissociative
taxon, at least for a non-clinical population. According to the authors, the use of a college
population and not a clinical population could have contributed to the unstable taxon
results, since more severe dissociation exists among a clinical population (Watson, 2003).
In the current study, a college population was used and therefore dissociation was

measured by the DES and it was scored dimensionally.

A number of studies have found that dissociation can occur among college
students (Martinez-Taboas & Bemal, 2000; Sandberg & Lynn, 1992; Sanders,
McRoberts, & Tollefson, 1989). Students who reported frequent and severe traumatic
experiences were the most likely to experience depression, psychological distress and
score higher on the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein & Putnam, 1986)
(Martinez-Taboas & Bemal, 2000). Dissociation in college students was also found to
positively correlate with stressful childhood experiences (Sanders, McRoberts, &
Tollefson, 1989). Furthermore, participants who reported higher dissociation in college
also reported poorer college adjustment (Sandberg & Lynn, 1992).

Finally, according to one study, another impact of childhood abuse is higher
college drop out rates. Duncan (2000) followed 210 first year college students
throughout four years of college. The author found that 36% of the participants were
child abuse survivors. By the second semester of college, participants who experienced
more than one form of childhood abuse (physical, sexual, or emotional) and those that
experienced a sexual assault but were not abused in other ways, were significantly less
likely to be enrolled than controls. By the end of four years of college, 35% of multiple
victims, 50% of those sexually abused only, and 60% of controls were still enrolled.
Thus, it appears that childhood traumas are related to college dropout rates. In this study,
childhood abuse including sexual, physical, and emotional abuse will be examined as a
trauma, which is predicted to have a negative impact on young adult psychopathology as

mediated by object relations.

Intermrental Violence

Interparental violence (parental partner abuse) occurs in many homes in the
United States (Brewin & Vallance, 1997; Henning et al., 1997; Silvem et al., 1995). The
impact that witnessing it has on children has been well documented (Levendosky &
Graham-Bemann, 1998; Malinosky-Rummel & Hansen, 1993; Stemberg et al., 1993). In
contrast, not much research has been conducted on the long-term impact of it, for
example how it influences young adults, including college students.

A few studies examined the rates of exposure to interparental violence during
childhood among college students (Henning et al., 1997; Silvem et al., 1995). Students
reported that their exposure to parental partner abuse was as high as 41% for women and
32% for men. Witnessing interparental violence has been associated with young adult
adjustment difficulties. For example, women who were exposed to partner abuse as
children reported higher levels of depression, trauma symptoms and lower self-esteem
than a control group (Silvem et al., 1995). In addition, this study also found that among
men, exposure to partner abuse was associated with trauma symptoms. According to
Henning et al., (1997) the negative effect of witnessing interparental violence intensified
when the aggression caused the abused parent to need outside assistance such as an
emergency room, as well as when the same sex parent was victimized.

A few studies found exposure to interparental violence and verbal aggression to
be associated with elevation in depression, anxiety, interpersonal problems and trauma
symptoms for both college men and women (Blumenthal, Neemann, & Murphy, 1998;
Henning et al., 1997). Specifically, these studies found that verbal aggression predicted

all symptoms and was a

10

stronger predictor of young adult psychopathology than interparental physical violence.
In another study, 32% of the participants reported witnessing physical violence between
parents in their families, while 95% of the participants reported being exposed to verbal
aggression in their homes (Blumenthal et al., 1998). Witnessing interparental verbal
aggression appears to be related to similar psychopathology that is associated with
interparental physical violence in young adults.

Observing parental violence in childhood has also been paired with later young
adult violent behavior toward others. Mangold and Koski (1990) examined the
relationship between parental and sibling violence among college students. It seemed that
particularly for men, a perception of increased violence directed by the father toward the
mother, increased participants’ violence. In addition, Langhinrichesn—Rohling and
Rohling (2000) examined interparental violence experiences and college students’ dating
behaviors, particularly unwanted pursuit behaviors of romantic relationships. According
to the study, females’ engagement in unwanted pursuit behavior correlated with
threatening and intense parental arguments. Males’ engagement in unwanted pursuit
behaviors was correlated with those who experienced either parental divorce or
separation (Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Rohling, 2000). Furthermore, college women
were more likely to be involved in violent relationships themselves if they had witnessed
violence between their parents during childhood (Coffey et al., 1996).

One of the major limitations of the studies cited above is not taking into
consideration that young adults who were exposed to parental violence were often
exposed to other traumas that can lead to young adult adjustment difficulties. For

example, reports of parental violence were associated with reports of parental alcohol

11

abuse and divorce, as well as sexual abuse for women (Silvem, et al., 1995). The
consequences of interparental violence while growing up for college students may also be
attributed to other factors. Thus, the current study will examine a number of childhood
traumas in addition to interparental violence. Overall, witnessing interparental violence is
predicted to have a negative impact on young adult psychopathology as mediated by
object relations.
Parental Alcoholism

Parental alcoholism is an additional trauma that can have long-term
consequences for children (Jarmas & Kazak, 1992). Approximately one in four children
is exposed at some time before the age of 18 to familial alcoholism, alcohol abuse, or
both (Grant, 2000). In 1985 there were approximately 22 million persons aged 18 or more
who were children of alcoholics (Russell, Henderson, & Blume, 1985).

A number of studies have examined the long-term impact of parental alcoholism
on college students and young adults. College students who were adult children of
alcoholics (ACOAs) reported greater childhood stressors (Havey, Boswell, & Romans,
1995; Schmidt, 1995) as well as current stressors than a control group (Fischer, 1997;
Schmidt, 1995). In addition, higher levels of depression were reported by ACOAs (Bluth,
1995; Bush, Ballard, & Fremouw, 1995; Cuijpers, Langendoen, & Bijl, 1999; Cutter &
Cutter, 1987; Domenico & Windle, 1993; Gondolf & Ackerman, 1993; Lewis, 2000;
Lipman, 1990; Taliaferro, 1996) as well as college students who were ACOAs
(Carpenter, 1995; Coleman & Frick, 1994; Hinz, 1990; Kowa, 1995; Yama et al., 1992;
Zucker, 2000). Several other studies reported low self-esteem among ACOAs (Bush et

al., 1995; Domenico & Windle, 1993; Gondolf & Ackerman, 1993; Lewis 2000). In

12

another study, parental alcoholism independently predicted higher levels of suicidal
ideation among college students (Yama et al., 1996). Furthermore, ACOAs reported
higher anxiety levels than controls (Ashby, Mangine, & Slaney, 1996; Carpenter, 1996;
Hinz, 1991; Lewis, 2000; Taliaferro, 1996; Yama et al., 1992).

ACOAs are at a higher risk for substance abuse problems, possibly due to genetic
predisposition as well as environmental factors. One study found ACOAs who were
college students at greater risk for moderate and high substance use (Claydon, 1987;
Wright, 1993). For example, college students ACOAs had significantly more substance
abuse problems than non-ACOAs college students (Fischer, 1997; Martin, 1995; Rodney,
1994, 1995; Baker, 1997). Similar findings emerged also for ACOAs who were not
college students (Cuijpers et al., 1999; El-Guebaly et al., 1991).

According to Hetherington (1988), children of alcoholics grow up in a family
environment that contains anger, fear, and frustration. Several studies support this
statement through examining ACOAs’ perceptions of their families. ACOAs perceived
less cohesion and more conflict in their families (Domenico & Windle, 1993; Jar-mas &
Kazak, 1992; Yama, M. F. et al., 1992). In addition, ACOAs also perceived less
expressiveness, less organization, poorer communication than the control group (Jarmas
& Kazak, 1992) and also lower levels of intimacy within the parent-child relationship
(Protinsky & Ecker, 1990). Furthermore, young adult children of alcoholics were more
parentified (found themselves in parental roles), than young adult children of problem
drinkers and children of nonalcoholics (Chase, Deming, & Wells, 1998).

The interpersonal relationships of ACOAs have also been examined. Several

studies found ACOAs to be codependent (dependent in relationships) than controls (El-

13

Guebaly et al., 1992; Jones & Kinnick, 1995), while another study did not find a
significant relationship between ACOAs and codependency (Baker, 1997). In terms of
romantic relationships among young ACOAs, a study found that ACOAs began dating at
a younger age and dated significantly fewer people than controls. Furthermore, ACOAs
reported greater dating anxiety than controls (Larson et al., 2001) as well as anxiety in
adult relationships (Williams, 1998) and problems with intimacy (Cutter & Cutter, 1987).

In contrast to the research cited above, not all ACOAs suffer from long-term
consequences of growing up with an alcoholic parent. For example, no significant
differences were found between ACOAs and controls regarding alcohol use, depression
or feelings of failure (Gordon 1995; Mintz, Kashubeck, & Tracy, 1995). In addition, no
significant relationship was found between ACOAs and anxiety levels (Post et al., 1992).
Furthermore, no significant relationship was found between parental alcoholism and low
self-esteem (Churchill, Broida, & Nicholson, 1990; Martin, 1995). In these studies, the
authors did not find a direct relationship between parental alcoholism and young adult
adjustment difficulties. It appeared that satisfying parent and child relationships as well
as a comfortable family environment served as protective factors.

One of the major limitations of the studies cited above is not accounting for other
possible traumas that ACOAs may have experienced as children. Growing up in an
alcoholic home can expose a child to other traumas such as physical, sexual and
emotional abuse. One study found that college students who were raised in alcoholic
families were more likely to experience traumatic events than a control group (Johnson,
2001). For example, college students who sought counseling services at their school

reported an abuse history in addition to parental alcoholism (Zucker, 2000). Thus,

14

growing up in an alcoholic home will be examined as a trauma along with other traumas
in the proposed study. Parental alcoholism is predicted to have a negative impact on
young adult psychopathology as mediated by object relations.

Divorce/Selim

Divorce is an additional childhood trauma that is common for many children in
this society. It was estimated that about 40%-50% of children born in the late 1970’s and
early 1980’s experience their parents’ divorce and spend at least 5 years in a single parent
home before the parent they reside with remarries (Glick & Lin, 1986). Currently, half of
all marriages end in divorce (Cherlin, 1992; Peck & Manocherian, 1989). While research
on divorce focuses on the immediate impact of divorce on children, some studies have
documented the long-term impact of divorce. For example, children may experience
depression five and ten years after the divorce (Hetherington et al., 1989), during the
transition from adolescence to adulthood. In addition, Wallerstein and Blakeslee (1989)
conducted a ten-year longitudinal study of divorce and suggested that mental health
difficulties may emerge during the transition to adulthood.

A number of studies have examined the long-term impact of divorce on college
students whose parents divorced while they were children or young adolescents. Higher
levels of depression were found in students from divorced families (Amato & Booth,
1991; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999; Palosaari, Aro, & Laippala, 1996) as well as
anxiety and problems with social relationships (Chase-Lansdale, Cherlin, & Kieman,
1995). In addition, higher rates of seeking counseling were found in young adults from
divorced homes (Amato & Booth, 1991), which is an indication of psychological distress.

Divorce is more than a single event; it’s a part of a series of changes and transitions in the

15

lives of children (Hetherington, Stanley-Hagan, & Anderson, 1989). The home
environment before the divorce contributes to the difficulties in divorce adjustment.
Nevertheless, in one study, adjustment problems in late adolescence and young adulthood
remained high even when difficulties prior to the divorce were controlled for (Chase-
Lansdale et al., 1995). Many college students report distressing feelings about their
parents’ divorce, including parental blame, feelings of loss, as well as beliefs that their
lives had been changed by the divorce (Lumann-Billings & Emery, 2000).

The quality of relationships with parents can be a protective factor as well as a
risk factor in terms of the impact of divorce on young adults’ adjustment. One study
indicated that the risk for depression decreased when students reported a close
relationship with parents (Palosaari et al., 1996). Specifically, the study showed that a
close relationship with the father benefited daughters by reducing the risk for depression.
In contrast, a close relationship with the mother lowered sons’ susceptibility to
depression. Another study indicated that college student’s post-divorce adjustment was
related to post-divorce relationships with both parents (Hillard, 1984). According to
Amato (1999), adult children had the strongest affection for parents when their marriages
were intact, less affection when parental marriage was problematic, and the least
affection for divorced parents. It seems that college students may prefer their parents to
remain married even if the marriage is conflictual, as opposed to obtaining a divorce. In
addition, a number of studies showed that college students from divorced homes rated
their families as significantly less close than students from intact homes (Lopez,
Campbell, & Watkings, 1988; Lopez, Melendez, & Rice, 2000). These studies also found

that college students from divorced homes demonstrated greater independence and

16

differentiation from parents, especially from fathers, than students from intact homes.
Some studies have examined the impact of divorce on later romantic relationships (Black
& Sprenkle, 1991; Franklin, Janoff-Bulman, & Roberts, 1990; Gabardi & Rosen, 1991).
These studies have found that college students from divorced families reported less trust
of a future spouse and significantly more negative attitudes about marriage than students
who did not experience divorce.

It is important to add that divorce may not always have a detrimental impact on
children and young adults. For example, a study that compared college students from
divorced families with students from intact families did not find differences in signs of
depression and anxiety (Gabardi & Rosen, 1991). In addition, researchers consistently
find that children adapt better in a well-functioning single parent or stepparent family
than in a home full of conflicts (Amato, Loomis, & Booth, 1995; Hetherington et al.,
1989). Furthermore, participants’ object relations could mediate the impact of parental
divorce/separation and young adult psychopathology. Research in this area has been very
limited. Thus, parents’ divorce/separation during childhood will be examined as a trauma
in this study. It is predicated that it will have a negative impact on young adult
psychopathology as mediated by object relations.

Parental Loss

Parental death or separation while growing up is another event that can be related
to young adult psychopathology (Breier et al., 1988; Kalsow et al., 1998; Pfohl, Stangl, &
Tsuang, 1983; Roy, 1981). Breier et al., (1988) investigated the impact of early parental
loss between the ages of 2—17, as well as differences between those who developed

pathology and those who did not. Permanent separation was defined as parental death or

17

parental separation in which the child never resided with the separated parent following
the separation. The study identified several risk factors that can lead to a difficult
adjustment following parental loss. The factors include a non-supportive relationship
with the surviving parent, separation anxiety, depression and difficulty forming peer
relationships. No significant differences were found between participants who lost a
parent to death or through separation/divorce.

One study found that parental loss before the age of 17 increased the chance of
developing depression in adulthood (Roy, 1981). Another study demonstrated that higher
levels of depression were associated with a more significant history of loss, with the most
depressed participants having the highest combination of early childhood loss and recent
loss (Kaslow et al., 1998). One of the major risks for depression during childhood and
adolescence included loss of caregiver to separation or death (Wagner, 1997). In addition
to depression, college students who experienced parental loss also reported significantly
more death and suicide themes on the Thematic Apperception Test (Taylor, 1983). In a
large study of 557 college students whose parents divorced or died before they were 11
years old, females reported more severe depressive symptoms than males. Males who
experienced early parental loss were significantly at an increased risk for developing a
lifetime dysphoric episode (Roberts & Gotlib, 1997). In a clinical population, participants
with depression were 3.4 times more likely to have experienced maternal death than
participants with other disorders (Pfohl et al., 1983). Thus, there is strong support for the
risk of developing depression following parental loss.

In another study, a sample of adult females (mean age = 33) who lost their natural

mother between the ages of 8-12 years old suffered from depression around the age of 17

18

(Parker & Manicavasager, 1986). In addition, father’s social class played an important
role in participants’ adjustment following maternal death. Lower father social class was
related to women self-reporting inadequate experiences with stepmothers, and earlier
father death. The main limitation of the study is that there was no comparison control
group.

Another study investigated the history of early parental loss and suicidal ideation
and behavior (Adam et al., 1982). This study found that early loss participants
demonstrated significantly more suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts. Specifically,
suicidal ideation was significantly greater in participants whose father died and/or both
parents died versus those whose parents were divorced or separated. Overall, the study
found that 50% of participants with a history of early parental loss were significantly
preoccupied with thoughts of suicide and 18% had made one or more suicide attempts. In
contrast, a study that investigated the incidence of parental loss in 200 depressed patients
did not find that depressed patients had experienced more incidents of parental loss than
control participants (Perris et al., 1986).

One limitation of the studies cited above is that all examined loss of parent by
death combined with loss of parent by separation/divorce in order to increase sample size.
Research has shown that parental loss by death or divorce/separation leads to similar
consequences, yet adjustment difficulties were greater among college students who
experienced parental loss to death versus to divorce/separation (Adam et al., 1982).
Nonetheless, the proposed study will investigate the impact of parental death and
separation/divorce independently. One other limitation is that several of the studies used

small sample sizes. For example, one study found that parent loss in childhood did not

19

lead to self-esteem damage (Rozenda & Well, 1983). Nevertheless, the sample was small
(N =24), only one participant suffered parental death, 12 were from divorced families and
5 separated, with the rest not specifying why they had a single parent status. The
proposed study will investigate the impact of parental loss on young adult

psychopathology in a large sample of college students as mediated by object relations.

20

PARENTAL CARAEGIVING

There are several main factors that contribute to the quality of parental caregiving.
Parker, Tupling, and Brown, 1979 developed an instrument to measure parent-child
bonds, the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). The first factor, a ‘care’ dimension is
defined as affection, emotional warmth, empathy and closeness, versus emotional
coldness, indifference, rejection and neglect. The second factor, an ‘overprotection’
dimension is defined as control, overprotection, intrusion, excessive contact,
infantilization and prevention of independent behavior, versus allowance of independence
and autonomy.

Using the FBI, several studies found that higher depression and anxiety scores
were linked to lower parental care and higher parental overprotection among adults and
college students (Alnaes & Torgersen, 1990; Parker, 1979; Parker, 1986; Parker, Tupling,
& Brown, 1979; Rodriguez et al. 1993; Whisman & Kwon, 1992). In a number of studies,
anxiety disorders were linked to less parental care and greater overprotection (Bennet &
Stirling, 1998; Leon & Leon, 1990; Parker, 1981; Silove et a1. 1991). Lastly, Parker
(1982) found that low mother care was the best PBI predictor for higher anxiety scores.

The importance of mother care was explored in two samples of college students
(Ingram et al., 2001). The study found that even when depressive and anxiety symptoms
were controlled for, the level of mother care was the most related factor to positive and
negative participants’ cognitive self-statements. In addition, participants who reported
more caring mothers reported significantly more positive thoughts than did those with

less caring mothers. In a different study with college students, shame affect was

21

negatively related to both maternal and father care and affection, and positively related to
maternal overprotection (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1997).

Furthermore, patients with general anxiety disorder and panic disorder rated their
parents high in both care and overprotection, as well as low in care and high in
overprotection in comparison with a control group (Silove et al. 1991). According to
Parker (1979), the ‘overprotection’ factor may play a more important role in the
development of anxiety than the ‘care’ dimension. In contrast, a number of studies
demonstrated that lower father care was associated with anxiety disorders and depression
(Alnaes & Torgersen, 1990; Leon & Leon, 1990; Zemore & Rinholm, 1989). Thus, care
dimension is also associated with anxiety. In another study among college students,
depression vulnerability was associated with a perception of a cold rejecting father for
males, and with a perception of an intrusive controlling mother for females (Zemore &
Rinholm, 1989). In a different study, participants with lifetime major depressive disorder
(MDD) reported significantly lower ‘mother care’ scores than did those without lifetime
MDD (Sato et al. 1997). The above reviewed studies suggest that in terms of parenting
caregiving and its influences on young adult mental health, mother and father influences
are independent of each other. Thus, the proposed study will examine parental caregiving
separately for mother and father.

According to one study, parental caregiving including low care and high
overprotection lead to more detrimental outcomes for young adults than low care and low
overprotection (Canetti et al., 1997). In this study, participants who reported low care and
high overprotection from their parents scored higher on the Brief Symptom Inventory

(BSI; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982) and General Well-Being Schedule, than those that

22

reported low care and low overprotection from their parents. In a different study, college
students who perceived their parents as warm, affectionate and encouraging of their
independence were more likely to experience themselves as psychologically separated
fiom significant others and more positively adjusted (Boles, 1999). In contrast, those who
perceived their parents as lacking in warmth and encouragement of autonomy were more
likely to experience themselves as psychologically dependent on significant others as
well as report higher symptoms of depression, anxiety, and loneliness.

Satisfaction with current relationships has also been related to parental caregiving.
For example, in a group of 45 depressed manied women, those who reported the most
overprotective fathers perceived their marriage as worse than those who did not report
their fathers as overprotective (Rodriguez et a1. 1993). In another study, a group of 41
married participants who were diagnosed with a psychiatric illness showed the strongest
positive correlations between adult marital quality and mother care (Truant, 1994). The
main limitation of these two studies is not being able to determine the extent to which
psychiatric illness interferes with perception of parental caregiving as well as quality of
marriage. Nevertheless, several of the previous studies reviewed above indicated that
when depression and anxiety were controlled for, parental care and overprotection were
still found to significantly predict adult adjustment. Another study found that care and
overprotection during childhood as determined by the PBI were correlated with marital
quality in females with no psychiatric diagnoses (Truant, Herscovitch, & Lohrenz, 1987).
Furthermore, higher care and lower overprotection led to better marital quality for

females.

23

Parental care while growing up is significant for the adjustment of young adults
who experienced childhood trauma (e. g., physical, sexual, and emotional abuse)
(Lynskey & Fergusson, 1997; Schreiber & Lyddon, 1998). Lynskey and F ergusson
(1997) examined a young adult population that has been followed since the participants
were four months old. Reports of decreased father care were related to increased risk for
depression and anxiety among adults who experienced sexual abuse. In another study,
low parental care indicated greater psychological difficulties for sexual abuse survivors,
and high father care was significantly associated with better psychological functioning
(Schreiber & Lyddon, 1998). In the last few studies, father care seemed to be a significant
contributor to better adjustment among sexual abuse survivors. In contrast, a review of
empirical studies that dealt with the impact of sexual abuse on children found that a lack
of maternal support at the time of disclosure increased trauma symptoms (Kendall-
Tackett et al., 1993).

Parental care and warmth can also influence young adults’ dating relationships
(Andrew et al., 2000). This study tested a model in which family conflict, depression, and
antisocial behavior of 254 adolescents were prospectively related to functioning within a
marital or dating relationship in young adulthood. Family aversive communication in
adolescence and adolescent antisocial behavior predicted couple physical aggression. In
addition, family aversive communication predicted couple aversive cormnunication for
married women and dating men. Another study examined college students who came
from divorced families (Franklin et al., 1990). Results indicated that a negative
relationship with one’s mother and less contact with the father for college students led to

a more negative view of other people. In contrast, a longitudinal study that followed

24

participants and observed them at their homes from the time that they were in the seventh
grade until adulthood (M = 20.7 years old) demonstrated that caring and responsive
parenting in the family of origin predicted behaviors toward a romantic partner that were
warm, supportive, and low in hostility (Conger et al., 2000).

Parental caregiving dimensions of care and overprotection have been reviewed in
the above studies. The studies found that high care and low overprotection ratings of
parents have been shown to relate to positive adjustment among young adults. In contrast,
low care and high overprotection have been found to relate to higher depression and
anxiety, as well as relationship difficulties in young adults. Thus, parental caregiving will
be examined in this study. Specifically, parental caregiving of lower care and higher
overprotection, are predicted to have a negative impact on young adult psychopathology

as mediated by object relations.

25

OBJECT RELATIONS DEVELOPMENT

According to Kemberg (1976), the theory of object relations concentrates on the
development of representations of self and object as images of the original infant-
caregiver relationship that influence the development of future relationships with others.
Object relations theory focuses on the intensity and stability of internal relationships with
others. According to F airbaim (1940), the most significant object for the infant is the
mother and the second most significant object is the father. In addition, the infant is
dependent on its object for physical and psychological satisfaction. A physical or a
psychological loss of an object is a traumatic event that can be a matter of life and death
for an infant. Caregivers’ relationship with the infant is very significant to the infant’s
physical and psychological development.

According to Fairbaim (1941), normal development of object relations occurs in
phases that progress from an original obj ect-relationship based upon a primary
identification when there is no differentiation between self and other, to an obj ect-
relationship based on differentiation of the object. In the transition phase, the infant
begins to view the obj ect dichotomously; the original object is split into an accepted
(loved) and a rejected (hated) object, both which are beginning to be internalized. In the
transition phase, the infant begins to view the object more separately fiom the self and the
object begins to be internalized. In this phase, the child oscillates between strong attempts
to get close to the primary object and to separate oneself fiom it. There are two major
fears during this stage: the fear of separation and the fear of being too close. Finally, a

secondary identification is developed when there is a distinction between the self and the

26

object. The child begins to view the primary caregiver as a separate object and the self as
a separate being.

From the time children are born, the interactions that they have with their
caregivers are internalized, and later serve as templates for current functioning and
relationships. In addition, originally thought to develop in early childhood, recent
research indicates that object relations continue to develop through adolescence (Westen,
1990). Thus, all significant interpersonal experiences that occur to children throughout
adolescence can impact their object relations development.

Object Relations—as a Mediator between Parental Caregivingand Adult Psychopathology

Fairbaim (1943) stated that children need two main things: (a) to know that their
primary caregivers love them, and (b) that their caregivers accept their love. If both exist
to a reasonable degree, it helps the child to safely depend on an object and move fiom
one phase to the next, as well as develop well functioning object relations. If the two
conditions are poorly satisfied, the child will experience separation anxiety. It is difficult
for the child to separate from a primary caregiver if the child’s emotional needs are not
fulfilled. If the child’s needs are not met, the child will most likely become fixated on the
primary caregiver. This will in turn impair the child’s development of object relations
since the child is fixated on an object, and there will not be enough room for the child to
focus on the self.

According to Fairbaim (1943), if the infant experiences the primary object as
gratifying (i.e. available when the infant desires it), the infant considers it a “good”
object. However, when the infant experiences the primary object as rejecting, the infant

considers it a “bad” object. The child cannot change the primary caregivers and cannot

27

meet his or her own needs. In order for the child to survive, he or she needs to become
attached to the primary object, even if the object is experienced as rejecting (“bad”) and
internalize the object. In order for the child to feel less anxious and angry towards a
primary object that the child needs for survival, he or she splits the caretaker’s internal
and external representations into “good” and “bad”. In the process, the child also splits
the self into “good” and “bad” representations (Celani, 1999). Splitting occurs naturally
at this developmental period, nonetheless, the more severe the neglect and mistreatment,
the greater the splitting and the harder it is to learn to tolerate and incorporate the splits
into one. In addition, the greater the splitting, it becomes more natural to resort to it later
in future relationships with others.

According to Fairbaim (1952), the more severe the trauma for the child, the more
severe is the splitting. This can lead to deficits in object relations such as lack of trust in
relationships, extra sensitivity to rejections and separations, yearning for intimate
relationships, viewing others’ actions through one’s own motives, and difficulty with
romantic relationships, as well as other deficits (Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986).
Nevertheless, splitting serves as a defense for the child against the strong anxiety and
desire to destroy the bad internalized and external object. The split off frustrating object
and the loving object become separated. The split no longer threatens destruction of the
“bad” object, because the object is also viewed as “good”. The split also protects the
child’s hope for receiving love and attention in the future, there is still a belief inside that
the good part may appear and the bad part may stay repressed (Celani, 1999).

An additional defense mechanism proposed by Fairbaim (1943) is that of the

child believing that he or she deserves to be abused because of the child’s badness. This

28

is one possible consequence of rejecting or neglectful parenting. The child idealizes the
parent and views the self as bad and deserving constant punishment. As the child
matures, the neglected needs are still not fulfilled and they often shift from the parental
object to others such as a lover, spouse and close friendships. The neglect also manifests
itself in depression and anxiety.

Object Relations as a Mediator between Childhood Trauflr and Adult Psychopathology

Ferenczi (1949) suggested that traumatic experiences in childhood such as sexual
abuse could lead to deficits in object relations. In general, trauma that occurs in critical
developmental periods of early childhood is most likely to produce difficulties in the
following six need areas: (1) safety, (2) trust or dependence, (3) esteem, (4)
independence, (5) power, and (6) intimacy (Green, 1998). Difficulties in these areas
influence object relations and can lead to adult psychopathology.

A study that investigated a group of borderline adolescents found impairments in
object relations development (Baker et al., 1992). Additional results indicated that
adolescents who experienced more severe abuse in childhood had more impaired object
relations. Another study that examined the object relations in a group of professional
women who were molested as children found that more severe abuse was related to more
impaired object relations such as interpersonal difficulties (Elliott, 1994). Results
revealed that childhood sexual abuse affected women’s capacity for object relatedness,
independent of family dysfunction. Women with abuse history had greater divorce rates.
In addition, women who were abused by a family member reported greater object
relations impairment than women who were abused by a stranger. Thus, it is important to

distinguish between incest and extrafamilial abuse when assessing the impact of

29

childhood abuse on object relations. Another study that examined the object relations of
sexually and physically abused females found that victims of child abuse demonstrated
more impaired object relations than a control group, with victims of child abuse
perceiving people and relationships more malevolently and threatening than a control
group (Ornduff & Kelsey, 1996). In addition, child abuse victims indicated lower levels
of investment in and commitment to relationships, than a control group.

Growing up in an alcoholic home is an additional trauma that can impact object
relations. A study that examined the influences of growing up in an alcoholic home on
young adult college students found that children of alcoholics exhibited object relations
deficits (Jarmas & Kazak, 1992). In the study, ACOAs exhibited greater introjective
depression. According to Blatt (1974), introjective depression develops when a child
internalizes parental images that are incomplete and ambivalent, and the child is unable to
resolve the contradictions among the representations.

In the current study, object relations deficits were measured by the Bell Object
Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, 1995; Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986). The BORI is a
self-report inventory that measures a person’s level of alienation, insecure attachment,
egocentricity, and social incompetence. Deficits related to any of these factors interfere
with establishing and maintaining satisfying relationships (Strand & Wahler, 1996).
According to Bell et al., (1986) as well as Strand and Wahler (1996), alienation is defined
as a lack of basic trust in relationships and difficulty in getting close to people. Insecure
Attachment is defined as struggles and pains in interpersonal relationships, over
sensitivity to rejection and abandonment and a longing for intimacy. Egocentricity is

defined as a tendency to see others mainly in relation to the self and not trust others’

30

motives. Social incompetence is defined as social ineptness in relationships, especially in
romantic relationships and sensitivity to how one is viewed socially by others. Childhood
abuse can interfere with object relations development and lead to deficits in interpersonal
relations. For example, a child who has experienced trauma from loved ones may
internalize a caregiver who is too neglectful and hurtful, and that in turn could lead to
severe splits of good and bad figures in his or her life. There may not be enough adequate
caregiving for the child to accommodate the trauma experienced. The child may learn
that caregivers and later other people that the child cares about are expected to behave in
hurtful ways, and in that way the young adult comes to expect abuse within relationships.
The child may grow up with a lack of basic trust in relationships, a difficulty with
intimacy, and at the same time, a longing for intimate relationships (Twomey, Kaslow, &
Croft, 2000).

According to Bell et al., (1986) the four BORI subscales represent features of
personality that are related to psychopathology. For example, several studies
demonstrated that college women with higher levels of eating disorders displayed higher
insecure attachment scores on the BORI (Heesacker & Neimeyer, 1990; Steiger & Houle,
1991). Furthermore, higher social incompetence scores were related to higher eating
disorder disturbance (Heesacker & Neimeyer, 1990). Another study found more
specifically that college women diagnosed with bulimia nervosa reported higher mean on
insecure attachment as well as egocentricity subscales of the BORI (Becker, Bell, &
Billington, 1987). These studies suggest that object relations deficits are related to
psychopathology. Another study examined adolescent's object relations who experienced

childhood abuse using the BORI (Haviland et al., 1995). The study found that higher

31

insecure attachment and egocentricity scores were related to childhood trauma.
Alienation and social incompetence were related to abuse occurring at an earlier age and
to abuse by a family member. More specifically, participants exposed to childhood
sexual abuse experienced more severe object relations deficits on the BORI, then
participants exposed to childhood physical abuse. F urtherrnore, object relations deficits
correlated with childhood depression and anxiety. In another study, growing up in a
family with high conflict and less cohesion contributed to object relations deficits in
adulthood as measured by the BORI (Hadley, Holloway, & Mallinckrodt, 1993). These
studies suggest that childhood traumas are related to object relations deficits. In addition,
current psychopathology as manifested by depression, anxiety or eating disorders also
appears to be related to object relations deficits. This suggests a mediator role for object
relations between childhood trauma and adult psychopathology.

In another study, object relations using the BORI was examined as a mediator
between childhood maltreatment and suicidal behavior in a sample of predominantly low-
income Afiican-American women (Twomey et al., 2000). In this study, when each of the
four BORI subscales was controlled for, the relationship between childhood sexual abuse,
physical neglect, as well as childhood emotional abuse and suicidal behaviors were no
longer significant. This strongly suggests a mediator role for object relations. This study
had a few limitations. The sample did not include men. In addition, the study sample was
a clinical population, which makes it difficult to generalize findings to the general
population. The current study will investigate object relations as a mediator between
childhood trauma and psychopathology of young adult college students among women

and men.

32

SOCIAL SUPPORT

Social support plays a major role in life satisfaction and well-being in younger
and older populations. Positive relations between social networks, support, and
interpersonal adjustment have been consistently shown for adults (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
Social support networks and availability of support also have been identified as protective
factors in studies of risk for poor behavioral and mental health outcomes in children
(Bost, Vaughn, Washington, Cielinski & Bradbard, 1998).

Barrera (1986) divides social support into three dimensions: (1) Social
embeddedness: focusing on the size of the network, the number of connections
individuals have to other persons; (2) Perceived support: which consists of subjective
evaluation of support, satisfaction with relationships, and perceived closeness to network
members; and (3) Enacted or received support: how much help an individual receives
from his or her network. Robinson and Garber (1995) reviewed a number of studies on
social support that suggested clear differences between social embeddedness, perceived
support, and enacted support. The findings indicate that measures of enacted support and
the size of support networks were not strongly related to measures of perceived support.
Perceived support was more highly correlated with well-being than received support or
the size of social network. This finding suggests that these three dimensions play
different roles in the support process. The current study will measure perceived social
support.

Models of Social 8139th
There are two main models of social support: direct effect and stress-buffering

models. Robinson and Garber (1995) review the direct effect model. The model suggests

33

that perception of high social support contributes to well-being. Despite the level of
stress encountered, social support has a negative relation with distress and a positive
relation with adjustment. Also, deterioration in the social network (Social
Embeddedness), or the amount of support received from the social network (Enacted
Support) can result in increased distress and possible psychopathology. It can also lead to
low perception of support. Regardless of how individuals become depressed, adequate
social support or its absence can improve or exacerbate the depressive condition. The
direct-effect model supports that social support benefits individuals whether or not stress
is present. Fernandez, Mutran, and Reitzes (1998) suggest that the direct effect is more
significant in explaining the effects of social support, self-esteem, and stressors on
depression.

Cohen and Wills (1985) suggest that a general beneficial effect of social support
could occur because it “provides persons with regular positive experiences and a set of
stable, socially rewarded roles in the community” (p.311). For example, a study found
that when individuals perceived others to be available across time, social self-efficacy
beliefs were stronger (Lang, Featherman, & Nesselroade, 1997). Bandura (1986) defined
self-efficacy as one’s judgments about one’s ability to produce a desired outcome. In
other words, individuals who perceived adequate social support felt better about
themselves. Another study found that adequate social support had a positive effect for an
individual regardless of the severity of one’s life circumstances (Williams, Ware, &
Donald, 1981). Lastly, being involved in social relationships is beneficial to well-being
and contributes to one’s feeling of integration in the society (Depner & Ingersoll-Dayton,

1988).

34

The stress-buffering model suggests that social support protects individuals from
the potential harmful influences of stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). According to
this model, high perception of social support is hypothesized to buffer the impact of
stressful life events. This model suggests that social support affects how a particular
event will be perceived. For example, a person finds out that their loved one has just been
hurt in a car accident. The event is extremely stressful. According to the buffering model,
adequate social support will moderate the impact of the stressful news and will lead to a
better outcome for the person who received the difficult news. One study supporting the
buffering model examined social support in a group of 228 college students (Lepore,
1992). Conflicts with roommates were associated with increases in psychological
distress, particularly for students with low levels of perceived social support from fi'iends.
However, among individuals with high levels of perceived social support from fiiends, no
or little effect on changes in psychological distress was observed as a result of roommate
conflicts. In addition, a conflict with a fiiend produced less psychological distress in
those that perceived higher social support from their roommate than those who perceived
lower social support from a roommate. These findings suggest that high levels of
perceived social support in one social domain can buffer individuals from distressing
personal interactions in another social domain (Lepore, 1992). In addition, this study
supports the role of social support as a protective factor against stressful life events.
Friends and Family Social Smoort

A number of studies investigated the role of parental social support on college
students’ adjustment and well-being. For example, one study found that parental social

support, particularly reassurance of worth, predicted college grade point average more

35

than social support from friends or romantic partners (Cutrona et al., 1994). Another
study found that initial parent support to college freshmen was associated with
psychological adjustment two years later (Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1994). An
additional study found that perceived social support from family as measured by the
Perceived Social Support from friends and family scale (PSS; Procidano & Heller, 1983)
was significantly and positively related to self-esteem (Menees, 1997). In addition,
college students who reported higher family support availability reported stronger self-
efficacy beliefs (Torres & Solberg, 2001).

A number of studies examined both family and non-family social support in older
adolescents and college populations. Several studies found that non-family emotional
support was more effective as a stress buffer than family social support for female college
students (Burks & Martin, 1985; Martin & Burks, 1985). In another study, higher
perceived social support from friends contributed to greater well-being and less
psychological distress than family support to Latino College students (Rodriguez, Mira,
Myers, Morris, & Cardoza, 2003). In contrast, a study that examined Australian college
students found that for females, family support was more strongly related to well-being
than friend support (Leslie et al., 1999). Furthermore, an additional study demonstrated
that deficits in parental support predicted high depression and onset of major depression,
but not deficits in peer support (Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). Another study suggested
that higher perceived social support from family was related to lower perceived distress
for 247 Mexican American female college students who attended primarily White

universities (Castillo, Conoley, & Brossart, 2004).

36

In addition, perceived social support has been shown to be negatively related to
depression. A few studies found that perceived social support from family was
significantly and inversely related to depression (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Maton,
1990) and positively related to self-esteem (Maton, 1990) in older adolescent samples.
Another study found that depression was negatively correlated with family social support
scales in a sample of retuming college female students (Roehl & Okun, 1984). A few
studies found that perceived social support had a longitudinal and negative relation to
depression (Pierce et al., 2000) as well as an inverse relationship to anxiety among
college students (Hart & Hittner, 1991; Wei & Sha, 2003).

Thus far, the reviewed studies were limited in several ways. The literature
supports that there is evidence for both a direct effect as well a stress-buffer effect of
social support (Cohen et al., 1984), yet rarely do studies examine both. Several of the
studies had small samples and included mostly women. This can impact the results
tremendously since college women report higher levels of perceived and available social
support than men (Allen & Stoltenberg, 1995; Jay & D’Augelli, 1991). This study will
investigate the role of perceived social support from family and friends as a possible
direct effect on young adult psychopathology and also as a moderator between object
relations and psychopathology. It will also examine a large sample that will include both

women and men.

37

HYPOTHESES AND RATIONALE

According to Green (1998), trauma that occurs in critical developmental periods
of early childhood and young adulthood is likely to produce deficits in object relations.
Disturbances in object relations will impact individual’s ability to internally represent
others and self (Steiger & Houle, 1991). In addition, participants with experiences of
childhood trauma (i.e. sexual, physical and emotional abuse as well as death of a parent,
divorce, alcoholic home and interparental violence) have been found to be at risk for
impaired object relations (Baker et al., Elliott, 1994; Ornduff & Kelsey, 1996; Twomey et
al., 2000). Finally, young adult mental health difficulties such as depression, anxiety, and
dissociation have been found among young adults who have been exposed to trauma
(Jarmas & Kazak, 1992; Kaslow et al., 1998; Silvem et al., 1995). This suggests a
mediational model for object relations. If a child experiences trauma or multiple traumas,
it will most likely incorporate into their mental representation of the world, of the self,
and impact the development of object relations, their ability to internalize relationships
and enjoy fulfilling external relationships. More specifically, it could damage basic trust
in others (alienation), foster insecurity in relationships (insecure attachment), contribute
to greater social awkwardness (social incompetence), as well as preoccupation with the
self (egocentricity). This is an indication of object relations deficits. Object relations
deficits could impact how the world is perceived, and experienced, and with more
negative experiences with others, there could be more likelihood of depression, and
anxiety. The first hypothesis will test object relations as a mediator between childhood

traumas and young adult mental health in a college population (see Figure 1).

38

Parental caregiving throughout childhood appear to have a significant impact on
object relations development (Fairbaim, 1952; Kornberg, 1976). In the current study,
parental caregiving will be examined on two dimensions: care and overprotection. The
care and overprotection dimensions contribute to parent-child bonds while the child is
growing up (Parker, Tupling, & Brown, 1979). A number of studies found higher
depression and anxiety scores among college students who reported low parental care and
high overprotection (Alnaes & Torgersen, 1990; Rodriguez et al., 1993). Parents who are
low in care and high in overprotection may contribute to an internalization of an
unavailable and controlling caregiver. This may contribute to a child either blaming
themselves for their caregiver’s behavior or splitting their caregivers into a good and a
bad caregiver and may lead to internal splitting of the self. In more pathological
development where there is greater level of trauma for the child, especially with severe
neglect, rejection and control fi'om parents, the degree of splitting and self blaming may
be greater and individuals may be unable to consolidate the splits. As a result, future
interpersonal relationships could suffer since the individual may resort to splitting and
self-blaming with others. In addition, one’s development of basic trust in others, level of
comfort with intimacy, toleration of separation and rejection in relationships could be
hurt. As noted above, object relations deficits can contribute to adult psychopathology.
The second hypothesis will test object relations as a mediator between parental
caregiving (care and overprotection) and young adult mental health in a college
population (see Figure l).

Perceived social support from fiiends and family has been found to contribute to

young adult college students’ well-being (Cutrona et al., 1994; Holahan, Valentiner, &

39

Moos, 1994). In particular, a number of studies found that perceived social support had a
longitudinal and negative relation to depression (Pierce et al., 2000) as well as an inverse
relationship to anxiety among college students (Hart & Hittner, 1991). One of the models
of social support, the direct effect, suggests that higher perception of social support
would contribute to better well being regardless of the amount of distress experienced.
The third hypothesis predicts that higher perceived social support from friends and family
will directly contribute to better young adult mental health (see Figure 1).

The stress-buffering model suggests that social support protects individuals from
the potential harmful influences of stressful events (Cohen & Wills, 1985). One study
found that high levels of perceived social support in one social domain buffered college
students from distressing personal interactions in another social domain (Lepore, 1992).
Thus, the fourth hypothesis will test perceived social support as a potential moderator

between one’s object relations and young adult mental health (see Figure 1).

40

METHODS

P_articipapts and Procedures

Three hundred twenty one undergraduate female and male students from
Michigan State University were recruited from introductory psychology courses to
receive experimental credit for their voluntary participation. Participants signed up
through the Internet site of the psychology department for experimental credit. The
Internet site included the description of the study, slots with dates and times to sign up
for, and the location of the study. Participants picked which slot they wanted to
participate in, and were sent an email reminder the day before the experiment to show up
for the study. Participants were administered the measurements as self-reports in groups
of 10-12 people at a time. They filled out a number of measures that assessed their
current level of depression, anxiety, dissociation, social support, memories of parental
caregiving, object relations, as well as traumas that occurred to them as children.
Measures

Demogr_aphic Information

A demographic questionnaire was administered that included general questions
about students and their families (see Appendix A). The sample included 68% (N = 217)
females, and 32% (N=103) males. The average age of the sample was 19.37, with SD =
1.14. As far as the ethnic background of the participants: 79% (N = 254) were
White/Caucasian, 8% (N = 26) were Black /Afiican-American, 6% (N = 20) Asian, 5%
(N = 17) Biracial, and 1% (N = 2) Latino/Hispanic-American. College year: 49% (N =
156) of the participants were first year college students, 29% (N = 93) second, 18% (N =

58) third, 3% fourth, and 1% (N = 2) were fifth year students. Living conditions: 71%

41

(N = 228) lived in the dorm, 17% (N = 56) in an apartment off campus, 6% (N = 18) in a
house with friends, 3% (N = 9) in a sorority/fraternity house, and 3% (N = 9) at home
with their parents. More than half of the sample 56% (N = 180) were single, 42% (N =
135) were dating, and about 2% (N = 5) were living with a romantic partner. None of the
participants were married. In terms of parental death, 7% (N = 22) experienced the death
of a parent. Five participants experienced the death of their mother, 14 the death of their
father, 2 experienced the death of both parents, and 1 participant experienced the death of
a stepfather. About 23% (N = 73) of the sample came from divorced/separated homes.

P_arental/Caregiver Measure

Parental Bonds: The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI; Parker, Tupling, &
Brown, 1979) was designed to measure parent-child bonds from the perspective of the
adult child (see Appendix B). The PBI measures parental behaviors and attitudes as
perceived by the child. Respondents use a 4 point scale ranging from: (0) very like, (1)
moderately like, (2) moderately unlike, and (3) very unlike—for each statement and are
directed to make ratings on the basis of “your earliest memories until you were 16 years
old.” The PBI is arranged in two parallel forms of 25 items each, the first for ratings of
the mother and the second for ratings of the father. The instrument can also be integrated
into a single bonding scale.

The PBI was constructed on the basis of two variables that aid in developing a
bond between parent and child: caring (with the opposite extreme being indifference or
rejection), and overprotection (with the opposite extreme being encouragement of
autonomy and independence). From an initial scale of 114 items, pilot research and factor

analysis produced the current 25-item scale with two subscales, care (12 items; 1, 2, 4, 5,

42

6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 24) and overprotection (remaining 13 items). The PBI has good
to excellent internal consistency, with split half reliability coefficients of .88 for care and
.74 for overprotection. The PBI also has good stability, with three-week test-retest
correlations of .76 for care and .63 for overprotection (Parker et a1. 1979). The PBI has
good concurrent validity, correlating significantly with independent rater judgments of
parental care and overprotection (Parker & Lipscombe, 1981). For the current study, all
the items were factor analyzed to examine if the current sample fits the two factors of
care and overprotection. The results produced 3 factors. For additional information,
please see Results section including Tables 1 and 2. The 3 factors were Care,
Dependence, and Freedom. Dependence means that the parent encourages dependence on
the parent. Freedom means that the parent encourages their children to pursue
independence and self-reliance. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability of the 3-factor PBI is
strong. The Alpha coefficient for the Mother Care scale was .93, for Mother Dependence
scale .84, and for Mother Freedom scale .77. The Alpha coefficient for the Father Care
scale was .93, for Father Dependence scale .80, and for Father Freedom scale .81.

Childhood Traumas

Childhood Abuse: The Childhood Tramna Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein &
Fink, 1998) is a 70-item self-report measure that provides a brief screening of traumatic
experiences in childhood, including physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, as well as
physical and emotional neglect (see Appendix C). The measure includes a 5-point Likert-
type scale. Respondents choose ‘from: (1) never true, (2) rarely true, (3) sometimes true,
(4) often true, and (5) very often true. Sample items include: “When I was growing up,

there was someone in my family whom I could talk to about my problems” and “When I

43

was growing up, people in my family argued or fought with each other.” The CTQ
provides scores on four empirically derived factors—physical and emotional abuse,
emotional neglect, physical neglect, and sexual abuse——as well as a CTQ total score. The
total score is used to evaluate participants’ childhood abuse experiences. The factors
demonstrated high levels of internal consistency and test-rest reliability over a two to six
month interval. Cronbach’s alpha for the four factors ranged from .84 to .95, and for the
total scale cronbach’s alpha = .96. Test-retest reliability correlations ranged from .78-.86
on the four factors and .86 for the total scale. The CTQ also demonstrated good
convergent validity with measures of post-traumatic stress disorder, dissociation,
alexithymia, and depression. For this study, 68 questions were available of the total 70.
Furthermore, the CTQ sub-scales were Z scored and then summed for a total CTQ score.
The Alpha coefficient of the total CTQ score with 4 subscale scores was .81. For more
information about this process, please refer to the Results section including Table 3.

Divorce/Separation: The Painful Feelings about Divorce (PF AD; Laumann-
Billings & Emery, 2000) Scale is a 38-item measure that was designed to measure the
distress of young-adult children of divorced families (see Appendix D). The measure
includes a 5-point Likert-type scale. Respondents choose fiom: (1) strongly disagree, (2)
disagree, (3) feel neutral, (4) agree, and (5) strongly agree. Sample items include: “I still
have not forgiven my father for the pain he caused my family” and “I probably would be
a different person if my parents had not gotten divorced.” The PFAD includes 6 sub-
scales measuring: self-blame, maternal blame, paternal blame, seeing life through the
filter of divorce, feelings of loss and abandonment, and acceptance of the divorce.

Internal reliability as measured by cronbach’s alpha for the six sub-scales ranged from

44

.62 to .88. In addition, the 6 sub-scales were found to be internally consistent and stable
over time in terms of test-retest reliability, as well as valid. For the current study, the
PFAD sub-scales were Z scored and then summed. In addition, participants who did not
experience parental separation/divorce received a score of 0 on the questionnaire while
participants who filled out the questionnaire, meaning they experienced parental
separation/divorce, received a score on the questionnaire. Internal reliability for the total
PF AD score with 6 subscales scores for this study was .97. For more information, see
Results section including table 3.

Alcoholic Home: The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST; Pilat &
Jones, 1985) is a 30-item measure that was designed to identify children of alcoholics
(COA) by measuring their attitudes, perceptions, and experiences related to parents’
drinking behavior (see Appendix E). This scale includes yes/no items such as “Have you
ever lost sleep because of a parent’s drinking” and “Did a parent ever make promises to
you that he or she did not keep because of drinking?” All “yes” answers are computed
and are worth 1 point to yield a total score, which can range from O to 30, with scores of
6 or more indicative of COA status. One study that examined an adult sample that filled
out the CAST found very good reliability and validity scores (Sheridan, 1995). According
to this study, internal reliability as measured by cronbach’s alpha was .98, indicating high
reliability. Furthermore, an additional factorial validity was conducted and the analysis
suggested that the CAST measures a single uniform dimension. In addition, CAST was
found to have good discriminant validity. It was able to distinguish between COAs and

children of non-alcoholics. F urtherrnore, the CAST was found to have good construct

45

validity (Sheridan, 1995). In the current study, the internal validity of the CAST
measuring the Alpha coefficient was .96.

Interparental Conflict: The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979) is a 15-
item instrument designed to measure ways in resolving conflict between family members
(see Appendix F). For the proposed study, the Mother-Father Conflict Resolution form of
the CTS was used. The CTS items are actions the parents might take in a conflict, and
scores are the number of times the action has occurred. The instrument ranges from (0)
never, (1) once that year, (2) two or three times, (3) often, but less than once a month, (4)
about once a month, and (5) more than once a month, with a separate scale for mother
and father, for events that occurred in the last year. The scale includes items such as:
“Tried to discuss the issue relatively calmly” and “Threatened to hit or throw something
at the other.” For the current study, the verbal aggression subscale and the physical
aggression subscale were given to participants. Higher scores reflect more use of the
particular tactic. In the literature, internal reliability for the verbal aggression subscale
ranged from .62 to .88. The physical aggression subscale alpha ranged fiom .42 to .96. In
addition, the CTS scales received extensive support regarding their validity (Straus &
Gelles, 1990). The study showed that concurrent validity was evidenced by the agreement
between different family members about the conflict tactics. In addition, construct
validity was shown by demonstrating that CTS scores correlated well with risk factors of
family violence, antisocial behaviors by child victims, levels of affection between family
members, and self-esteem. For the current study, participants were asked to rate how
often the action has occurred throughout their lives as far back as they can recall, as

opposed to only the last year. The scoring was changed to: (1) Never or almost never, (2)

46

Rarely, (3) Sometimes, (4) Often, (5) Always or almost always. In addition, according to
a factor analysis, the two CTS scales for mother and father were Z scored, as well as the
items of the sum of the CAST, and the three scales were summed together. The Alpha
coefficient for the 3 items is .78. For more information regarding this, please refer to the
Results section and table 3.

Object Relations

Object Relations: The Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, 1995; Bell,
Billington, & Becker, 1986) is a 45-item self-report questionnaire that provides an
assessment of dimensions of object relations (see Appendix G). The respondent is asked
to endorse items as “true” or “false” according to his or her “most recent experience.”
The scale includes items such as: “I have at least one stable and satisfying relationship,”
and “No matter how bad a relationship may get, I will hold on to it.” Scoring yields four
object relations subscales: Alienation, Insecure Attachment, Egocentricity, and Social
Incompetence. According to Bell (1995), the Alienation (ALN) subscale measures trust
in relationships as well as the capacity for developing intimacy in relationships. Insecure
Attachment (IA) subscale measures the extent to which one experiences loneliness and an
over sensitivity to rejection or abandonment. In addition, the IA subscale is one which
higher functioning adults and students are likely to endorse. Egocentricity (EGC)
subscale measures the extent to which one perceives the world in relation to the self. The
fourth subscale, Social Incompetence (SI), measures the extent of ones’ comfort
interacting with members of the opposite sex as well as difficulty with making fi'iends. A
higher score on a scale is indicative of difficulties with relationships. A computer

program scores the BORI items. Calculating Cronbach’s alpha and Spearman split-half

47

reliability assessed internal consistency, and test-retest reliability over a period of 4
weeks. For ALN scale, coefficient Alpha = .90, split-half correlation = .90, and test-
retest = .88. For IA scale, coefficient Alpha = .82, split-half correlation = .81, and test-
retest = .73. For EGC scale, coefficient Alpha = .78, split-half correlation = .78, and test-
retest = .90. Finally, for SI scale, coefficient Alpha = .79, split-half correlation = .82, and
test-retest reliability = .58. In addition, all four subscales correlated significantly with
mood and personality measures indicating a valid instrument.

YomgAdult Mental Health

Depression: The Center for Epidemiological Studies—Depressed Mood Scale
(CES-D; Radloff, 1977) is a 20-item scale that was originally designed to measure
depression in the general population for epidemiological research (see Appendix H). The
CES-D measures current level of depressive symptoms, with emphasis on mood.
Example of items: “During the past week I was bothered by things that usually don’t
bother me,” and “During the past week I had crying spells.” The participants choose one
of the following responses: (0) rarely or none of the times (less than 1 day); (1) some or a
little of the time (1-2 days); (3) occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days);
and (3) most or all of the time (5-7 days). Research on the CES-D involved 3574
Caucasian male and female respondents from the general population plus a retest
involving 1422 of the original respondents. Furthermore, 105 psychiatric male and
female patients were involved in clinical studies.

The CES-D is easily scored by reverse-scoring items 4, 8, 12, and 16 and then
summing the scores on all items producing a range of 0-60 with higher scores indicating

greater depression. The CES-D has good internal consistency with alphas of about .85 for

48

the general population and .90 for the psychiatric population. Split-half and Spearman-
Brown reliability coefficients ranged from .77 to .92. The CES-D has fair stability with
test-retest correlations that ranged from .51 to .67 for those tested over two to eight
weeks. The CES-D appears to have very good concurrent validity, correlating
significantly with a number of other depression and mood scales. CES-D has been used
with a college population and has been found to be reliable and valid (Cohen, Sherrod, &
Clark, 1986). For the current study, Alpha coefficient = .86, which is indicative of good
internal validity.

Anxiety: The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis & Spencer, 1982;
Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983) is a brief psychological self-report inventory scale
developed from a longer instrument (see Appendix I). The BSI original factor structure
includes nine symptom areas: somatization, obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal
sensitivity, depression, anxiety, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid ideation, and
psychoticism. For the proposed study, the anxiety factor alone was administered to
participants. The B81 was normed on a sample of 1002 heterogeneous psychiatric
outpatients, 719 non-patient normal participants, and a sample of 313 psychiatric in-
patients. The reliability of the BSI-Anxiety dimension is very good. The internal
consistency equaled an alpha of 0.81, and a test-retest reliability tested at a 2-week
interval equaled 0.79. The BSI-Anxiety dimension appears to have very good concurrent
validity, correlating highly with other mood and personality measures. Respondents are
asked to rate the statements based on the degree to which they were disturbed by each of
the BSI items during the preceding months according to the following scale: (0) not at all,

(1) a little bit, (2) moderately, (3) quite a bit, and (4) extremely. An example of a few

49

items: “Nervousness or shakiness inside, and “Feeling tense or Keyed up.” For the
current study, Alpha coefficient = .80, which is indicative of good internal reliability.
Dissociation: The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein & Putnam,
1986) measures the frequency of various types of dissociative experiences (see Appendix
J). It is internally consistent, has high test-retest reliability (0.84 after 4-8 weeks), and has
been shown to discriminate between participants with dissociative disorders and normal
controls. Results showed that normal adults experienced fewer different types of
dissociative experiences and that these experiences occurred relatively infrequently in
contrast to adults with dissociative disorders. Furthermore, college students who reported
frequent and severe traumatic experiences were the most likely to score higher on the
Dissociative Experiences Scale in comparison with controls (DES; Bernstein & Putnam,
1986). During administration, the participant is asked to respond by marking a line for
each item indicating how often between 0% and 100% of the time the particular type of
event was experienced. Measuring the length of the line to the mark in millimeters for
each item and computing the mean across all 28 items scores the instrument. For the
purposes of this study, the scoring was changed to a Likert- type scale ranging from: (1)
never, (2) seldom, (3) a little of the time, (4) often, and (5) all the time. Higher scores
indicate greater dissociation symptoms. Examples of items: “Some people have the
experience of driving a car and suddenly realizing that they don’t remember what has
happened during all or part of the trip,“ and “Some people sometimes have the
experience of feeling as though they are standing next to themselves or watching

themselves do something and they actually see themselves as if they were looking at

50

another person.” Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for this study, and it was .96, which is
very good internal consistency.

Social Support

Perceived Social Support: The Perceived Social Support — Friend Scale (PSS-Fr)
and Family Scale (PSS-Fa) (PSS; Procidano & Heller, 1983) is a two 20-item instrument
designed to measure the degree participants perceive their needs for support as fulfilled
by friends and family (see Appendix K). The items were developed from a group of 84
items and were selected by relation of items to total correlations. Factor analysis
suggested that the instruments each measure a single domain. The questionnaire was
normed on a sample of 222 undergraduate psychology students. The mean and standard
deviation (SD) for the PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa were 15.15 (SD = 5.08) and 13.40 (SD =
4.83). The PSS-F r and PSS-Fa are scored “yes,” “no,” and “don’t know” (“don’t know”
is scored as 0 on both scales). On the PSS-Fr an answer of “no” is scored + 1 for times 2,
6, 7, 15, 18, and 20. For the remaining items, “yes” is scored + 1. For the PSS-Fa, answer
of “no” to items 3, 4, 16, 19, and 20 are scored +1, and for all other items a “yes” answer
is scored +1. Scale scores are the total of items scores and range from 0 to 20 for the PSS-
Fr and the PSS-F a. Higher scores reflect more perceived social support. For the proposed
study, the scoring has been transformed to a Likert-type scale ranging from: (1) strongly
disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. Example of items from PSS-F r:
“My fiiends give me the moral support I need,” and “There is a fiiend I could go to if I
were just feeling down, without feeling funny about it later.” Examples of items from
PSS-Fa: “My farmly gives me the moral support I need,” and “My family and I are very

open about what we think about things.”

51

The PSS has very good internal consistency, with an alpha of .90. The test-retest
coefficient of stability over a one-month period was .83. Alphas for the frnal PSS-Fa
ranged from .88-.91 and for PSS-Fr from .84-.90. For the current study, Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient was calculated for PSS-Fr = .94, and for PSS-F a = .96.

52

 

Pym

..III.:.VVI. 1.. . I."

Itrivt fit. I. l

 

RESULTS

Data Reduction

Missing Variables

A total of 321 men and women participated in this study. One participant left a
significant number of questions blank and her scores were dropped from the study. The
final sample size was 320 participants. For all analyses, missing data was not substituted;
instead, cases were excluded using the pairwise deletion method.

Parental Caregivipg Variables

Factor analysis was conducted using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct
Oblimin Rotation on the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI, Parker et al., 1979)
separately for mother and father. A four-factor solution accounted for 53% of the
variance for mother, and 54% for father. Nevertheless, when the Scree plot was
examined, a three-factor solution appeared the most parsimonious. The next step
involved conducting a factor analysis with a Principal Axis Factoring with Direct
Oblimin Rotation specifying three factors. The three-factor solution accounted for 51% of
the variance for mother PBI, and 52% for father PBI. The solution for mother PBI had
two overlapping items on two of the factors, while the father PBI solution had one
overlapping item. One of the overlapping items was the same for mother and father PBI.
Another factor analysis was conducted for mother and father PBI that specified three
factors without the overlapping item #3: “Let me do those things which I liked doing”.
This produced the most parsimonious three factors for the mother questionnaire (See
Table 1) and for the father questionnaire (See Table 2). The following names were given

to the 3 factors for mother and father PBI: care, dependence, and freedom. Higher mother

53

and father care scores indicate warmth, caring, affection and empathy, while lower care
scores indicate emotional coldness and rejection. Mother and father higher dependence
scores indicate the parents’ encouragement of children’s dependence on them, and
control. Lower scores indicate greater encouragement of autonomy. Higher freedom
scores indicate parental encouragement of freedom and decision making by the children,
while lower scores indicate greater restriction of freedom.

The three-factor solution of the PBI is slightly different than the authors’ two-
factor solution of the PBI (Parker, et al., 1979). The original two-factor solution consists
of a ‘Care’ and an ‘Overprotection’ factor. The care dimension is the same as mother and
father care in this study. The overprotection in the original study suggests control and
overprotection with lower scores indicating autonomy and independence. In the original
study, the authors were making a decision as to the number of factors the questionnaire
should measure. When the items were reduced to 48 (later reduced to 25), the authors
conducted a factor analysis on the items and got a three-factor solution that resembled the
one in this study. The authors chose to collapse the last two factors because they felt they
tapped a similar dimension of overprotection/autonomy. Nevertheless, in this study, the
three-factors were used. For further details, please see the methods section.

Trauma Variables

A number of questionnaires were factor analyzed with the goal of constructing
fewer trauma variables. The questionnaire Painful Feelings about Divorce (PFAD) was
scored according to its six subscales: I) seeing life through filter of divorce, 2)
acceptance of divorce, 3) self blame of divorce, 4) loss and abandonment, 5) blaming the

father, and 6) blaming the mother. Participants who did not experience parental

54

divorce/separation, did not need to fill out the PF AD questionnaire, and therefore
received a score of zero on these scales. Those participants who experienced parental
divorce/separation and filled out the questionnaire, received a score for each subscale. All
participants completed the following questionnaires: The Childhood Trauma
Questionnaire (CTQ) was scored into its four subscales: physical and emotional abuse,
emotional neglect, physical neglect, and sexual abuse. In addition to the PFAD and CTQ
subscales, father and mother Conflict Tactic Scale (CTS), as well as the Childhood
Alcohol Screening Test (CAST) consisted of the continuous trauma variables. All 13-
trauma variables were factor analyzed using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin
rotation. A three-factor solution accounted for 72% of the variance. Each item in each
factor was converted into a Z score and then summed according to its factor. The
subscales of PF AD formed the first factor, the subscales of the CTQ formed the second
factor, and then father CTS, mother CTS, and total CAST scores formed the third factor.
The following names were given to the trauma factors: painful feelings about Divorce
(PF AD), childhood abuse, and marital problems (see Table 3).

In addition to the continuous trauma variables, there was also a categorical
variable of trauma, parental death. The frequency of the variable indicated that about 7%
(N = 22) of participants lost one or two of their parents to death. A One-way AN OVA
was performed with parental death as the factor and all the other main variables, trauma
(PF AD, childhood abuse, marital problems), parental caregiving (mother and father care,
dependence, and fieedom), Object Relations (Alienation, Insecure Attachment,
Egocentricity, Social Incompetence), perceived social support (friends, family), and the

outcome variables, mental health (depression, anxiety, and dissociation) as the dependent

55

list. There were only two significant findings: those who have lost a parent reported
significantly less mother freedom, F (1, 315) = 4.9, p = .028, as well as significantly
greater PFAD scores, F (1, 294) = 18.57, p = .000. As a result of the small number of
participants who reported losing a parent, as well as only two significant results, it was
decided to not include this variable in the general analyses.

In terms of gender effects, the sample included 68% (N = 217) females, and 32%
(N=103) males. A One-way AN OVA was conducted with gender as the factor and all the
other main variables as the dependent list. The results of the AN OVA revealed a number
of significant findings (see Table 4). Females reported significantly more marital
problems between their parents, father dependence, and significantly more perceived
social support from friends and family than males. Males reported significantly more
mother dependence, dissociation, alienation, as well as significantly more egocentricity
than females. In terms of mental health, the main effect for depression approached
significance with males reporting more depression than females. The results of this
AN OVA led to the decision to include gender in all hypotheses testing.

Hypotheses Testing

Table 5 includes the sample size, means, and standard deviations of the main
variables. In addition, Table 6 includes the correlation matrix of all the main variables.
Object Relations as a Mediator

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), three things need to occur to test for
mediation: first, run a regression with the mediator as the DV; second, run a regression
with the outcomes as the DV; and third, run a regression with both the NS as well as the

mediator as IV, and the outcomes as DVs. For mediation to be established, the IV needs

56

to impact the mediator in the first equation; second, the IV needs to impact the outcomes
in the second equation; and third, the mediator needs to affect the outcomes in the third
equation. In addition, the effect of the IV on the DV in the third equation needs to be
smaller than in the second. It was hypothesized that object relations would mediate the
relation between childhood abuse and young adult mental health, and also mediate
between parental caregiving and young adult mental health. Object relations as measured
by the Bell Object Relations Inventory (BORI; Bell, 1995; Bell, Billington, & Becker,
1986) is scored according to four subscales: Alienation, Insecure Attachment,
Egocentricity, and Social Incompetence. Four different multiple regressions were
conducted, with the same IVs and each time a different BORI subscale was entered as the
DV. In the first multiple regression, the following variables were entered as TVs: gender,
childhood abuse, PFAD, marital problems, mother and father care, dependence, freedom.
Alienation was entered as the DV. Childhood abuse and father care significantly
predicted alienation (see Table 7). Furthermore, there was a trend, mother dependence
predicting alienation. Overall, higher childhood abuse, higher mother dependence, as well
as lower father care, each contributed to higher alienation scores.

A second multiple regression was conducted with Insecure Attachment as the DV.
Gender, with females reporting more insecure attachment than males, childhood abuse,
and father care predicted the DV (see Table 8). Furthermore, there was a trend for
mother dependence to predict insecure attachment. In summary, higher childhood abuse
scores, higher mother dependence scores, and lower father care each contributed to
higher insecure attachment. A third multiple regression was conducted with egocentricity

as the DV. Only gender significantly predicted egocentricity, with males receiving higher

57

egocentricity scores than females. Furthermore, there was a trend for father care (see
Table 9). Lower father care scores contributed to higher egocentricity scores. The last
multiple regression in the first step of testing mediation included social incompetence as
the DV. There were no significant variables that predicted the DV, except a trend for
mother dependence to predict social incompetence (see Table 10). Higher mother
dependence predicted higher social incompetence scores.

In the first steps of mediation, the [VS need to affect the mediator. Childhood
abuse, mother dependence, father care, and gender had an effect on object relations. For
the second step of mediation, three multiple regressions were conducted. Gender,
childhood abuse, mother dependence, and father care were entered as W5, and
depression, anxiety, and dissociation were entered as separate DVs. For the third step of
mediation, three more multiple regressions were conducted. The same variables as above
were entered as IVs, along with alienation and insecure attachment as IVs, as well as
depression, anxiety, and dissociation as three separate DVs.

The results of the multiple regression with depression as the DV demonstrated
that childhood abuse, mother dependence, and father care predicted depression (see Table
11). In other words, higher childhood trauma scores, higher mother dependence, and
lower father care predicted higher depression scores. Results of the multiple regression to
test for mediation with depression as the DV revealed the following: alienation mediated
the relation between childhood abuse and depression, as well as between father care and
depression (see Table 11). Insecure attachment mediated the relation between childhood

abuse, father care, mother dependence and depression. Results indicated that alienation

58

and insecure attachment mediated the relation between childhood abuse and depression,
as well as parental caregiving and depression.

The results of the multiple regression with anxiety as the DV showed that
childhood abuse and mother dependence significantly predicted anxiety, while father care
and gender did not predict anxiety (see Table 12). Basically, higher childhood abuse, and
higher mother dependence each predicted higher anxiety scores. Results of the multiple
regression to test for mediation with anxiety as the DV revealed the following: alienation
and insecure Attachment mediated the relation between childhood abuse and anxiety, and
insecure attachment partially mediated the relation between mother dependence and
anxiety (see Table 12). Object relations did not mediate the relationship between father
care and anxiety.

Results of the multiple regression with dissociation as the DV have demonstrated
that similarly to anxiety, childhood abuse and mother dependence significantly predicted
dissociation, while father care and gender did not predict dissociation (see Table 13). In
other words, higher childhood abuse, and higher mother dependence each predicted
higher dissociation scores. Results of the multiple regression testing for mediation with
dissociation as the DV, revealed that alienation did not mediate the relation between
childhood abuse, parental caregiving and dissociation (see Table 13). Nevertheless,
insecure attachment partially mediated the relationship between childhood abuse and
dissociation, and mother dependence and dissociation. Insecure attachment did not
mediate the relationship between father care and dissociation.

In conclusion, object relations mediated the relationship between childhood

abuse, parental caregiving, and young adult mental health. In terms of depression,

59

alienation and insecure attachment mediated the relation between childhood abuse, father
care, and depression. Furthermore, insecure attachment mediated the relation between
mother dependence and depression. In terms of anxiety, alienation and insecure
attachment mediated the relation between childhood abuse and anxiety, and insecure
attachment partially mediated the relation between mother dependence and anxiety. In
terms of dissociation, insecure attachment partially mediated the relation between
childhood abuse and dissociation and the relation between mother dependence and
dissociation. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria, egocentricity and social
incompetence did not mediate the relationship between childhood abuse, parental
caregiving, and young adult mental health.
Perceived Social Support as a Direct Effect

It was hypothesized that perceived social support fiom fiiends and family would
contribute to better young adult mental health, that it would be related to lower
depression, anxiety, and lower dissociation scores. Three multiple regressions were
conducted to test this hypothesis. Gender, perceived social support from friends (PS S-
Friends), perceived social support from family (PSS-Family), alienation, insecure
attachment, egocentricity, and social incompetence were entered as IVs. Depression,
anxiety, and dissociation were entered as separate DVs. PSS-Friends did not predict
depression, while there was a trend for PSS-Family predicting depression (see Table 14),
such that lower perceived social support from family contributed to higher depression
scores. Furthermore, alienation, insecure attachment, and egocentricity significantly
predicted depression. Higher alienation, insecure attachment, and egocentricity scores

individually contributed to higher depression scores.

60

The second multiple regression included the same IVs as above, with anxiety
entered as the DV. According to the results, PSS-Friends and PSS-Family did not
significantly contribute to anxiety (see Table 15). On the other hand, both alienation and
insecure attachment significantly contributed to anxiety. Higher alienation and higher
insecure attachment scores each contributed to higher anxiety scores. The third multiple
regression included the same IVs, with dissociation as the DV. Results revealed that PSS-
Friends and PSS-Family did not significantly contribute to dissociation (see Table 16).
Nonetheless, gender and insecure attachment significantly predicted dissociation. Higher
insecure attachment scores contributed to higher dissociation. In conclusion, Perceived
social support from friends and family did not significantly contribute to better mental
health.

Perceived SrLial Support from Friends as a Moderator

It was hypothesized that perceived social support from friends would moderate
the relation between object relations and young adult mental health. Thus, it was
predicted that PSS-Friends would moderate the relationship between object relations as
measured by the BORI and depression, anxiety, and dissociation. In the first multiple
regression, gender, PSS-Friends, alienation, insecure attachment, egocentricity, and social
incompetence were entered as IVs into block 1. The interactions between PSS-Friends
and the four object relations scales were entered as IV s into block 2. Results of the
interaction model were not significant: AR2 = .013, F (4, 305) = 1.63, p = .17. PSS-
Friends did not moderate the relationship between object relations and depression (see
Table 14). However, there was a trend for the interaction between PSS-Friends and

alienation.

61

In the second multiple regression, the same IVs were entered into block 1 and
interactions into block 2 as above, and anxiety was entered as the DV. The results of the
interaction model were not significant: AR2 = .007, F (4, 307) = .007, p = .66. Perceived
social support from fiiends did not moderate the relationship between object relations and
anxiety (see Table 15). In the third multiple regression, the same IV s were entered into
block 1, and interactions into block 2, with dissociation entered as the DV. The results of
the interaction model were not significant: AR2 = .005, F (4, 309) = .79. Perceived social
support fi'om friends did not moderate the relationship between object relations and
dissociation (see Table 16).

Perceived Socgl Support from Family as a Moderator

It was hypothesized that perceived social support from family would moderate the
relation between object relations and young adult mental health. Thus, it was predicted
that PSS-Family would moderate the relationship between object relations as measured
by the BORI and depression, anxiety, and dissociation. In the first multiple regression,
gender, PS S- Family, alienation, insecure attachment, egocentricity, and social
incompetence were entered as IVs into block 1. The interactions between PSS-Family
and the four object relations scales were entered as IV s into block 2. Depression was
entered as a DV. The results of the interaction model were not significant: AR2 = .01 , F
(4, 305) = 1.21, p = .31. Perceived social support from family did not moderate the
relationship between object relations and depression (see Table 14). Nonetheless, there
was a trend for the interaction between PSS- Family and alienation.

In the second multiple regression, the same variables were entered into block 1

and block 2, and anxiety was entered as the DV. There was a trend in the results of the

62

interaction model: AR2 = .021, F (4, 307) = 1.99, p = .096. Perceived social support from
family did not moderate the relationship between object relations and anxiety (see Table
15). In the third multiple regression, the same variables were entered into block 1 and
block 2 as above, and dissociation was entered as the DV. Results of the model were
significant: AR2 = .031, F (4, 309) = 2.94, p = .021. Perceived social support from family
moderated the relation between alienation and dissociation, as well as the relation
between social incompetence and dissociation (see Table 16). PSS-Family did not
moderate the relation between insecure attachment and dissociation, and egocentricity
and dissociation.

The significant interaction between PSS-Family and alienation was graphed,
demonstrating that higher perceived social support from family and higher alienation
level predicted lower dissociation (see Figure 2). Furthermore, lower PSS-Family with
higher levels of alienation predicted the highest dissociation. Higher PSS-Family
moderated the impact of higher alienation level on dissociation. The significant
interaction between perceived social support from family and social incompetence was
also graphed, indicating that higher level of PSS-Family with lower level of social
incompetence, predicted the lowest dissociation (see Figure 3). Perceived social support

from family moderated the impact of lower level social incompetence on dissociation.

63

Table 1

Factor loadings of Mother Parental Bonding Instrument“ based on a Factor Analysis
using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation

 

 

Factor Name Individual Items Factor Loadings

1 2 3
MOTHER CARE
Q22: Was affectionate to me .789 .0080 -.009
Q28: Frequently smiled at me .788 -.000 .0030
Q34: Did not talk with me very much .765 .0040 -.008
Q20: Seemed emotionally cold to me .758 .0030 .0000
Q21: Appeared to understand my problems and worries .735 -. 140 -.004
Q27: Enjoyed talking things over with me .733 -.001 .0030
Q17: Spoke to me with a warm and friendly voice .712 -.003 .0040
Q33: Could make me feel better when I was upset .711 -.103 -.004
Q18: Did not help me as much as I needed .699 -.000 -.003
Q30: Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted .690 -.109 .0060
Q40: Did not praise me .635 .1440 .0040
Q32: Made me feel I wasn’t wanted .613 .0090 .0020
MOTHER DEPENDENCE
Q35: Tried to make me dependent on her -.119 .659 -.003
Q36: Felt I could not look after myself unless she was around -.129 .639 -.008
Q24: Did not want me to grow up .0040 .614 .0030
Q39: Was overprotective of me .0070 .568 -.229
Q29: Tended to baby me .2820 .562 .1070
Q25: Tried to control everything I did -.292 .494 -.301
Q26: Invaded my privacy -.296 .464 -.148
Q23: Liked me to make my own decisions -.312 .321 -.288
MOTHER FREEDOM
Q37: Gave me as much freedom as I wanted -.009 .0040 .926
Q38: Let me go out as often as I wanted -.122 .0060 .834
Q31: Let me decide things for myself .2530 -.278 .410
Q41: Let me dress in any way I pleased .0080 -.009 .407

 

* Appropriate items have been reversed scored.

Table 2

Factor loadings of Father Parental Bonding Instrument" based on a Factor Analysis

using Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation

 

Factor Name Individual Items

Factor Loadings

 

1 2 3
FATHER CARE
Q45: Seemed emotionally cold to me .835 -.004 -.114
Q47: Was affectionate to me .798 .1010 .0030
Q53: Frequently smiled at me .773 .0090 .0070
Q58: Could make me feel better when I was upset .771 .0070 .1100
Q52: Enjoyed talking things over with me .754 .0070 -.003
Q43: Did not help me as much as I needed .749 -.004 -.005
Q46: Appeared to understand my problems and worries .731 -.000 .0020
Q42: Spoke to me with a warm and friendly voice .706 .0070 .0040
Q57: Made me feel I wasn’t wanted .688 -.009 -.109
Q65: Did not praise me .676 .0020 .0010
Q55: Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted .645 -.125 .0010
FATHER DEPENDENCE
Q54: Tended to baby me .1960 .657 .1690
Q49: Did not want me to grow up .1970 .651 .0030
Q60: Tried to make me dependent on her -.149 .630 -.005
Q64: Was overprotective of me .0090 .577 -.204
Q61: Felt I could not look after myself unless she was around -.165 .558 -.112
Q50: Tried to control everything I did -.283 .503 -.268
Q51: Invaded my privacy -.260 .454 -.176
FATHER FREEDOM
Q62: Gave me as much freedom as I wanted -.158 .0080 .950
Q63: Let me go out as often as I wanted -.134 .0020 .902
Q48: Liked me to make my own decisions .2920 -.183 .475
Q56: Let me decide things for myself .2700 -.104 .471
Q66: Let me dress in any way I pleased .0000 -.009 .436

 

* Appropriate items have been reversed scored.

65

Table 3

Factor loadings of 1 3 trauma variables“ based on a Factor Analysis using Principal Axis

Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation

 

 

Factors Individual Variable Labels Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
PAINFUL FEELINGS ABOUT DIVORCE
Seeing Life through Filter of Divorce .977 -.002 .0000
Acceptance of Divorce .967 .0040 -.006
Self-Blame of Divorce .959 .0000 -.005
Loss & Abandonment .915 .0020 .0070
Blaming Father .893 -.003 .0080
Blaming Mother .887 -.001 -.001
CHILDHOOD ABUSE
Physical Neglect .0070 .852 .0000
Emotional Neglect .0030 .840 -.002
Physical & Emotional Abuse -.002 .752 .2100
Sexual Abuse -.003 .372 -.002
MARITAL PROBLEMS
Mother’s Conflict Tactics Scale -.004 -.005 .836
Father’s Conflict Tactics Scale .0080 .0080 .769
Childhood Alcohol Screening Test .0010 .0030 .568

 

"' Appropriate items have been reversed scored.

66

Table 4

ANO VA results of gender eflects

 

 

VARIABLES Mean SD Mean SD F p
Male Female
Painful Feeling about Divorcea -.16 5.63 .002 5.7 .062 .803
Childhood Abuse‘I .254 3.37 -.19 3.02 1.34 .249
Marital Problemsa -.48 1.82 .23 2.76 1.34 .018*
Mother Care 29.25 5.38 29.55 7.72 .126 .723
Mother Dependence 8.87 4.78 7.26 5.21 7.06 .008"
Mother Freedom 6.67 2.97 6.86 2.64 .332 .565
Father Care 24.57 8.1 25.26 8.92 .443 .506
Father Dependence 4.58 3.74 5.65 4.67 4.14 .043*
Father Freedom 9.64 3.49 9.02 3.47 2.19 .140
Alienation 50.9 10.14 48.7 9.25 3.77 .0531'
Insecure Attachment 50.3 9.94 51.8 8.82 2.02 .156
Egocentricity 51.4 9.21 48.9 7.99 5.89 .016*
Social Incompetence 50.1 11.1 51.3 8.96 1.02 .295
Perceived Social Support
from Friends 61.7 10.5 66.1 10.5 11.98 .001 **
from Family 58.9 12.4 63.1 13.4 6.99 .009"
Depression 5.57 5.73 4.4 5.56 2.77 .097'1'
Anxiety 5.34 4.38 5.3 3.95 .018 .895
Dissociation 48.9 13.49 45.7 10.5 5.19 .023*

 

a. Mean of Z scores

67

Table 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and Frequencies of Main Variables

 

 

 

VARIABLES Na Mean SD
TRAUMA
Painful Feelings about Divorce
Seeing Life through Filter of Divorce 299 5.97 11.59
Acceptance of Divorce 297 1.87 3.75
Self-Blarne of Divorce 297 1.26 2.61
Loss & Abandonment 299 3.77 7.40
Blaming Father 299 3.86 7.78
Blaming Mother 299 2.32 4.88
Childhood Abuse
Physical & Emotional Abuse 313 35.76 12.02
Emotional Neglect 3 15 37.06 13.05
Physical Neglect 320 13.47 3.80
Sexual Abuse 318 5.54 2.06
Marital Problems
Mother’s Conflict Tactics Scale 314 15.25 5.19
Father’s Conflict Tactics Scale 316 15.97 5.85
Childhood Alcohol Screening Test 320 2.71 5.88
PARENTAL CAREGIVING
Mother Care 318 29.45 7.05
Mother Dependence 319 7.78 5.12
Mother Freedom 3 17 6.80 2.75
Father Care 316 25.04 8.64
Father Dependence 3 17 5.3 1 4.41
Father Freedom 316 9.23 3.48
OBJECT RELATIONSc
Alienation 320 49.39 9.58
Insecure Attachment 320 51.33 9.21
Egocentricity 320 49.73 8.47
Social Incompetence 320 50.91 9.71
PERCEIV ED SOCIAL SUPPORT
fiom Friends 320 64.71 10.67
from Family 320 61.73 13.25
MENTAL HEALTH
Depression 316 4.81 5.30
Anxiety 318 5.30 4.10
Dissociation 320 46.73 1 1.65
a. Total sample equals 320 participants b. T scores

68

 

 

Eva... move . 2.1:

-- - - - .- .- -- -. - -. - - -. - .- -- .- -. =o_§oomm5.w_
:2. -. -- -- .- -- -- -. .- .- .- -- -- -. .. -- -- -- 352.:
ram. :3. - -- - -- - -. - - - -- - - - -- - - commence-2
Ih-Ffi: x7975:

.m_.. t: .. :ch -- -- .. -- -- -- -- -. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- £85m Bema—
8.- 8.- .2.- 2.3. - - - - - -- - .- .- -- - - - - ESE Eek—.3
HMOmASm A<BOm OMS—momma

:2. e... _ N. :Nm. .2 .- :Nmr - - - - .- -- 1 - -- -- - .- 8=3uano£ Eoomd
:3. Ln. tom. .2: .2; .3. -- -. -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -. -- b_o_b:ooowm.-
:mm. zmm. :wv. :3... :ON.- 33. :Nm. - l l l - -- l l - - BEE—353‘ 05085.:
eeON. on _ m. 05%? aeoNr ea — Mr nix-m. newm. 545v. I I I l I I I - I u.- =o_§o=<.o—
mZOEkSMM FOE-mo

8.- 8.- 8.- .3. 8. 8.. 8.- t: .- .2 .- .- -- - - -- - - - :Eouoem 8586
:3. :2. .2. mo: no. .2. no. «2. 8. :3..- .- - - - - - - - 93qu 85mm.»
:3.- ..2.- :2.- ..N... :2. +2.- :3- :2. :3. :2. .2. -. -. .- -- -- -- .- 25 use:
3.- no: 3.. new _. 3. +2 .- No. 8.. no: 2.3.. 3m _ .- co. .- - .. .- - .8030; 3522.0
..:&N. :NN. :NN. :nNr mo: .12 . we. :ON. :2 . :VNr 30v. .: ~.- :00- - 2. - -. lucoaoQ 55026
.: _ .- Kb.- ..326 3.;- 462- .: _.- :oNr :oNr BBQ. :2. +2.. :hm. :om. «*aNr 1 l l I 030 5502.9
Ozazom q<h2mm<m

:8: co. :2. a: .- mo: +2. .2. :3. :2. 8.. .PS. ELM.- No.- *2. :2...- - - “Eu—no.5 3:332.”
:omH :NNH aim. “in”? :2 .- *2 . :VN. aux-m- :nm. :vmr :2 . snow-r :2..- .uMN. :vni :3.- 1 o§n< “50%—EON
8 8 8.. 3.- 8.- 8. 8. :2. to. t _. s- :8.- 8. .- 8.- :3. tom. 8.85 age... Eases
- 523%

w. E 3 2 I m_ N_ : o- a m N. w w v m N _ DEE-EN?

 

833.8: 2.8: 2: 2: 233% 3333559

e 28:.

69

Table 7

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Efi’ects of Childhood Traumas and Parental
Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Alienation

 

 

Variable p t p Adjusted R2
Gender .06 1 .09 .276

Childhood Abuse .19 2.32 .021 *

Marital Problems -.02 -.25 .81’

Painful Feelings about Divorce -.01 -.18 .85

Mother Care -.11 -1.6 .11

Mother Dependence .133 1.73 0851'

Mother Freedom .075 .911 .36

Father Care -.19 -2.7 .007"

Father Dependence -.065 -.95 .35

Father Freedom -.04 -.5 3 .60

Model .17

 

70

Table 8

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Eflects of Childhood Traumas and Parental
Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Insecure Attachment

 

 

Variable ,6 z p Adjusted R2
Gender -.122 -2.12 .035*

Childhood Abuse .26 2.62 .009"

Marital Problems .000 -.001 .999

Painful Feelings about Divorce .064 1.08 .282

Mother Care -.05 -.75 .45

Mother Dependence .15 1.91 0571'

Mother Freedom .034 .410 .68

Father Care -.16 -2.22 .027“

Father Dependence .008 .118 .906

Father Freedom .032 .408 .684

Model .16

 

71

Table 9

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Eflects of Childhood Traumas and Parental
Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Egocentricity

 

 

Variable p t p Adjusted R2
Gender .123 2.04 .042*

Childhood Abuse .102 1.18 .239

Marital Problems -.008 -.l 1 .913

Painful Feelings about Divorce .025 .408 .683

Mother Care -.11 -1.5 .144

Mother Dependence .041 .510 .610

Mother Freedom .1 18 l .37 .172

Father Care -.13 -1.7 .0821

Father Dependence .017 .24 .811

Father Freedom -.04 .47 .64

Model .07

 

72

Table 10

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct Eflects of Childhood T raumas and Parental
Caregiving Variables on the Object Relations sub-scale of Social Incompetence

 

 

Variable ,6 t p Adjusted R2
Gender -.086 -1.39 .166

Childhood Abuse .0300 .3420 .733

Marital Problems .0230 .3130 .754

Painful Feelings about Divorce -.016 —.247 .805

Mother Care -.009 -.1 19 .905

Mother Dependence .1520 1.830 .0681'

Mother Freedom -.045 -.513 .608

Father Care -.084 -1.09 .276

Father Dependence .0670 .8940 .372

Father Freedom .1030 1.230 .220

Model .024

 

73

Table 11

Mediating Effects of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas and Parental

Caregiving on Depression

 

 

Variable p r p Adjusted R2
Step 1

Gender .055 1.02 .311

Childhood Abuse .1830 2.720 .007

Mother Dependence .1420 2.510 .013

Father Care -.148 -2.27 .024
Model .12
Step 2

Gender .074 1.52 .130

OBJECT RELATIONS

Alienation .261 4.58 .000

Insecure Attachment .315 5.54 .000

Childhood Abuse .0500 .8090 .419

Mother Dependence .0770 1.512 .132

Father Care -.037 -.628 .530
Model .31

 

74

Table 12

Mediating Effects of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas and Parental
Caregiving on Anxiety

 

 

Variable p t p Adjusted R2
Step 1

Gender -.030 -.536 .593

Childhood Abuse .138 1.99 .047

Mother Dependence .178 3.07 .002

Father Care -.052 -.780 .436
Model .064
Step 2

Gender -.014 -.255 .799

OBJECT RELATIONS

Alienation . 1 71 2.72 .007

Insecure Attachment .235 3.76 .000

Childhood Abuse .044 .650 .516

Mother Dependence .132 2.36 .019

Father Care .025 .388 .698
Model .15

 

75

Table 13

Mediating Efibcts of Object Relations on the Impact of Childhood Traumas and Parental

Caregiving on Dissociation

 

 

Variable ,6 t p Adjusted R2
Step 1

Gender .081 1.51 .132

Childhood Abuse .220 3.28 .001

Mother Dependence .202 3.60 .000

Father Care -.028 -.434 .665
Model

.13

Step 2

Gender . 120 2.27 .024

OBJECT RELATIONS

Alienation -.043 -.701 .484

Insecure Attachment .297 4.83 .000

Childhood Abuse .158 2.38 .018

Mother Dependence .167 3.06 .002

Father Care .014 .219 .827
Model .19

 

76

Table 14

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct and Moderating Efiects of Perceived
Social Support on Object Relations and Depression

 

 

Variable p t p Adjusted R2
Gender .045 .953 .342
OBJECT RELATIONS
Alienation .25 1 4.54 .000* *
Insecure Attachment .201 3.20 .002"
Egocentricity .296 5.36 .000"
Social Incompetence .004 .067 .946
PERCEVIED SOCIAL SUPPORT
fi'om Friends .084 1.60 .112
fiom Family -.090 -1.73 .085'1'
Model .36

PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT FRIENDS (PSS-Friends) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Friends x Alienation -.562 -1.73 .085'1‘
PSS-Friends x Insecure Attachment .526 1.06 .291
PSS-Friends x Egocentricity .613 1.55 .123
PSS-Friends x Social Incompetence -.228 -.61 .542

PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT FAMILY (PSS-Family) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Family x Alienation -.558 -l.90 .0591’
PSS-Family x Insecure Attachment -.199 -.481 .631
PSS-Family x Egocentricity .167 .493 .623
PSS-Family x Social Incompetence .443 1.28 .202

 

77

Table 15

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct and Moderating Efiects of Perceived
Social Support on Object Relations and Anxiety

 

 

Variable ,6 t p Adjusted R2
Gender .022 .399 .690
OBJECT RELATIONS
Alienation .197 3.07 .002"
Insecure Attachment .253 3.47 .001"
Egocentricity .008 .126 .900
Social Incompetence .039 .629 .530
PERCEVIED SOCIAL SUPPORT
From Friends .082 1.34 .180
From Family --007 -.120 .905
Model .14

PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT FRIENDS (PSS-Friends) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Friends x Alienation .458 1.21 .226
PSS-Friends x Insecure Attachment -.605 -1.05 .296
PSS-Friends x Egocentricity -.180 -.391 .696
PSS-Friends x Social Incompetence -.038 -.088 .930

PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT FAMILY (PSS-Family) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Family x Alienation -.042 -.123 .902
PSS-Family x Insecure Attachment -.517 -1.09 .279
PSS-Family x Egocentricity -.559 -1.43 .154
PSS-Family x Social Incompetence .472 1.18 .239

 

78

Table 16

Multiple Regression Analysis for the Direct and Moderating Eflects of Perceived
Social Support on Object Relations and Dissociation

 

 

Variable a t p Adjusted R2
Gender .152 2.76 .006* *
OBJECT RELATIONS
Alienation -.003 -.051 .960
Insecure Attachment .312 4.30 .000"
Egocentricity .069 l .09 .278
Social Incompetence .045 .742 .459
PERCEVIED SOCIAL SUPPORT
from Friends .072 1.18 .240
from Family -.047 -.772 .441
Model .14

PERCEIVED SOCIAL SUPPORT FRIENDS (PSS-Friends) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Friends x Alienation
PSS-Friends x Insecure Attachment
PSS-Friends x Egocentricity
PSS-Friends x Social Incompetence

-.327 -.869
.450 .779
.272 .590
-.008 -.018

.386
.436
.556
.985

PERCEIV ED SOCIAL SUPPORT FAMILY (PSS-Family) x OBJECT RELATIONS

PSS-Family x Alienation
PSS-Family x Insecure Attachment
PSS-Family x Egocentricity
PSS-Family x Social Incompetence

-.701 -2.09
-.219 -.464
.134 .347
1.22 3.08

.038*
.643
.729
.002”

 

79

Social Support:

1. Friends
2. Family

 
  

   
 
 

Parental Caregiving
1 .
2. Dependence

 

Care

 

  

3. Freedom

 

 

   

\7

 
   
   

  

Adult Mental
Health:

 
  

Object Relations

      
   

  

1. Depression
2. Anxiety
3. Dissociation

    
   

    
   
 
 

      
 

1. Alienation
2. Insecure

 

 
 

Attachment
3. Egocentricity
4. Social

   

Incompetence

 
 
     

Childhood Traumas

     

1. Childhood abuse

    
    

2. Divorce
adjustment
3. Martial

 
 

Problems

  

Figl_l_re 1. Object relations as a mediator between childhood traumas and adult mental
health as well as parental caregiving and adult mental health. Also, social support as a
direct effect on adult mental health as well as a buffer between object relations and adult

mental health.

80

Figure 2: Social Support from Family and Alienation Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dissociation

 

baa

 

 

 

 

 

Low High

Level of Alienation

81

o-

 

Dissociation

Figure 3: Social Support from Family and Social Incompetence Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Social Incompetence

82

DISCUSSION
Object Relations and Childhood Traumas

The major hypotheses for this study that object relations would mediate the
impact of childhood traumas and parental caregiving on psychopathology in a college
sample were supported. Childhood abuse significantly predicted depression, anxiety, and
dissociation in this sample of young adults. College students who experienced more
childhood maltreatment, that is higher levels of physical and emotional neglect, physical
and emotional abuse, and/or sexual abuse while growing up, reported greater levels of
depression, anxiety, and dissociation. While other studies have found a similar negative
impact of trauma on young adult adjustment, (Andrews, 1995; Abdulrhamn & De Luca,
2001; Braver et al., 1992; Brock, Mintz, & Good, 1997; Lizardi et al., 1995; Malinosky-
Rummell & Hansen, 1993; Martinez-Taboas & Bemal, 2000; Maynes & F einauer, 1994;
Sandberg & Lynn, 1992; Sanders, McRoberts, & Tollefson, 1989), the findings from the
current study begin to explain some of the mechanisms involved.

In addition to the significant relationship between childhood abuse and young
adult mental health, a significant relationship was found between childhood abuse and
object relations deficits. Higher childhood abuse significantly predicted higher levels of a
lack of basic trust in relationships, dissatisfaction in relationships, and a difficulty in
getting close to people. In addition, childhood abuse significantly predicted greater
difficulties in interpersonal relationships, oversensitivity to rejection, as well as a greater
longing for intimacy. A number of previous studies supported the finding that traumatic

childhood experiences contribute to difficulties with object relations (Baker et al., 1992;

83

Elliott, 1994; Jarmas & Kazak, 1992; Orndufi‘ & Kelsey, 1996; and Twomey, Kaslow, &
Croft, 2000).

Finally, object relations deficits mediated the relationship between childhood
abuse and young adult adjustment. More specifically, participants’ lack of basic trust in
relationships as well as difficulty in relationships, fully mediated the relationship between
childhood abuse and depression, as well as childhood abuse and anxiety, and partially
mediated the relationship between childhood abuse and dissociation in young adults. The
consequences of traumatic experiences during childhood such as sexual abuse, emotional
abuse and neglect, physical abuse and neglect are all incorporated into the personality and
into the ability to relate to others (Fairbaim, 1952; Kemberg, 1976). More specifically,
childhood abuse can interfere with object relations development and lead to deficits in
interpersonal relations. For example, a child who has experienced trauma from loved
ones may internalize a caregiver who is too neglectful and
hurtful, and that in turn could lead to severe splits of good and bad figures in his or her
life. There may not be enough adequate caregiving for the child to accommodate the
trauma experienced. The child may learn that caregivers and later other people that the
child cares about are expected to behave in hurtful ways, and in that way the adult comes
to expect abuse within relationships (Twomey, Kaslow, & Crofi, 2000). The child may
grow up with greater levels of a lack of trust and less satisfaction in relationships, a
difficulty with intimacy, and at the same
time, a longing for intimate relationships (Bell, Billington, & Becker, 1986).

Previous research has shown that abuse from family members has greater

negative repercussions for the child than abuse from a stranger (Elliot, 1994). According

84

to Fairbaim (1941), a child whose needs for care have not been fulfilled, may grow up
with a fixation on the caregiver who did not fillfill his or her needs, and that fixation can
transfer from the primary caregiver to friendships and romantic partners in the future. A
trauma inflicted upon a child by someone other than a caregiver can also have negative
repercussions for the child. If a child experiences physical or sexual abuse by someone
other than a caregiver, a child’s trust in people may be shaken and in return a child could
also develop a lack of trust in others and experience difficulties in developing
relationships. In addition to splitting, there is another defense mechanism that Fairbaim
proposed, “The Moral Defense”. If the child is mistreated in some way, it is easier for a
child to believe that he or she deserves this treatment because he or she is a bad child
instead of blaming those that are mistreating the child (F airbairn, 1943). Fairbaim
suggested that it is easier to believe that one is ‘bad’ in a world made of good objects,
than to be good in a world of bad objects. According to F airbaim (1943), it is safer to
believe one lives in a world of good objects. The child is finding a way to cope with
mistreatment and maintaining a bond with the caregivers. The child believes that he or
she is deserving of mistreatment, and the child’s caregivers or the person who is inflicting
the mistreatment is protected. This can also explain difficulties with interpersonal
relationships later on in life, especially if there is an internalization of the self as bad,
which usually follows an internalization of a neglectful caretaker. If the self is perceived
as bad internally and not worthy of others’ love, then one may get into unfulfilling
relationships with others and seek those that fulfill the feeling that one is not worthy. In
addition, if someone is preoccupied with relationships and is longing for them, the young

adult may not recognize that he or she has a choice whether to stay in a relationship, since

85

the goal is to hold on to a relationship as much as possible. Furthermore, according to this
theory, mental health adjustment of young adults would be disturbed and the young adult
could experience higher levels of psychopathology such as depression, anxiety and
dissociation.
Obiect Relations and Divorce/ Separation Impact

This study hypothesized that object relations would mediate the impact of painful
feelings about divorce on young adult psychopathology. This was not supported in this
study. Difficulties adjusting to divorce did not significantly impact object relations. In
this study, about 23% (N = 73) of the sample came from divorced and separated homes.
Only 21% of the sample filled out the divorce questionnaire (N= 66), while the rest
received scores of zero on this variable. In the US, 40% of college age people have
parents that are married to each other (N ielson, 1999). Nevertheless, when relatively
small studies using college populations were examined, the divorce rate of participant’s
parents in the particular sample varied. Moreover, if the divorce rate was not selectively
examined, it was usually lower than 40% and closer to the current study’s rate of 23%.
For example, one study that did not selectively recruit based on divorce, found a divorce
rate of 19% among the parents of its sample of 341 participants (Grant, Smith, Sinclair, &
Salts, 1993). Another study found that 46 participants were from divorced homes out of
348 undergraduate students; there was a 13% divorce rate (Black & Sprenkle, 1991). In a
few more studies that randomly examined divorce rates among its college samples, the
rates were 25% (Gabardi & Rosen, 1991), 31% (Lopez, Campbell, & Watkins, 1988),
and 19% (Franklin, Janoff-Bulman, & Roberts, 1990). Thus, the 23% divorce rate in the

parents of the current sample is consistent with other studies of this population and thus it

86

appears that it is possible to generalize the findings from this study to the general
population.

Despite not finding significance between painful feelings about divorce and object
relations, when correlations were examined, divorce adjustment significantly correlated
with higher sensitivity to relationships, more difficulty with tolerating separations, as
well as a greater yearning for intimacy. Even though in many divorced homes, the
children spend time with both parents, divorce is still a separation, since the child no
longer lives with both caregivers under the same roof. A number of studies found that
college students from divorced families reported less trust of a future spouse and
significantly more negative attitudes about marriage than students who did not experience
divorce (Black & Sprenkle, 1991; Franklin, Janoff-Bulman, & Roberts, 1990; Gabardi &
Rosen, 1991). Thus, when a child’s primary caregivers separate or divorce, the belief that
one can find a relationship that would last “ever after” may be broken. This can definitely
lead to more insecurity in relationships, and difficulty with intimacy. Divorce adjustment
did not correlate significantly with mental health adjustment such as depression, anxiety
or dissociation in the current study. It appears that the effect on object relations is not
significant enough to impact current mental health adjustment. It is possible that object
relations may eventually affect later mental heath adjustment. In the current study, about
20% of the participants who came from divorced and separated families (N = 13)
indicated that the divorce occurred when they turned 18 years or older. This could have
also contributed to the lower impact of painful feelings about divorce on object relations
and young adult mental health. Previous research has shown that children may experience

depression five to ten years after the divorce as well as during the transition to adulthood

87

(Hetherington et al., 1989; Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1989). So, for those who
experienced parental divorce and separation later in their lives, the impact on mental
health symptoms may not be showing yet. Also, the trauma of divorce later in life may be
less detrimental than when it occurs at an earlier age. According to Anthony (1974), if a
divorce occurred when a child is at college, the young adult is more mature and is better
able to deal with feelings of divorce than someone younger. The older the child, the more
he or she is differentiated from caregivers. In addition, the relationship of the child with
their parents can serve as protective as well as a risk factor in terms of the impact of the
divorce on young adult adjustment (Hillard, 1984; Palosaari et al., 1996).
Object Relations and Marital Problems

Marital problems consisting of relations between parents, and exposure to
parental alcoholism while growing up did not significantly predict object relations
deficits in young adults in this study. However, this is a non clinical population. There
was very little alcoholism reported in the families while growing up. This could have
contributed to a less powerful connection between this and young adult adjustment.
Nevertheless, this connection exists in previous studies A number of studies in the
literature found support that exposure to interparental Violence and verbal aggression
while growing up was associated with elevations in depression, anxiety, and trauma
symptoms for college students (Blumenthal, Neemann, & Murphy, 1998; Henning et al.,
1997). Not finding object relations as a mediator between marital problems and young
adult adjustment, yet finding significance of bivariate correlations may have to do with

multicollinearity in the predictors. Due to the shared variance, while individually the

88

predictors may contribute to the dependent variables, when they are in the regression
model, their individual significance is lowered or rendered nonsignificant.

In the current study, when bivariate correlations were examined, higher marital
problems were significantly related to higher depression and dissociation. Young adults
who experienced violence between their parents, and greater parental alcoholism while
growing up, experienced greater'adjustrnent difficulties as young adults. In addition,
higher marital problems were related to deficits in object relations. More specifically,
higher marital problems were related to a lack of basic trust in relationships, difficulty in
interpersonal relationships and toleration of separations, as well as being able to View
others only in relation to the self, and not trust others’ motives. Growing up with conflicts
between primary caregivers and heavy drinking by one of the parents can be difficult for
a child. It is possible that parents, who struggle with many conflicts with each other, are
not as attentive to their child’s needs. This may impact a child’s development of trust in
relationships as well as the ability to connect with others. Furthermore, observing
emotional and physical problems between primary caregivers has been related to
depression and lower self-esteem among college students (Silvem et al., 1995).
According to Hetherington (1988), children of alcoholics grow up in a family
environment that contains anger, fear and frustration. This can be related to difficulties
with basic trust in relationships, not trusting others’ motives, and insecurity in
relationships.

Object Relations and Parental Caregiving
As predicted, object relations mediated the impact of parental caregiving on

psychopathology in young adults. Caregiving by fathers was strongly related to the

89

quality of object relations in offspring in this sample. High caring by father included high
levels of affection, frequent smiling, ability to make one feel better when he or she were
upset, understanding and praising the child. More specifically, young adults who reported
a more caring father while growing up reported significantly lower depression scores.
Lower levels of caring by father were related to adjustment difficulties in this sample.
This was supported by previous research (Alnaes & Torgersen, 1990; Leon & Leon,
1990; Zemore & Rinholm, 1989). When lack of basic trust and satisfaction in
relationships was controlled for, the relationship between father caregiving and
depression was no longer significant, constituting full mediation. Thus, lower levels of
father caregiving contributed to a greater lack of basic trust and dissatisfaction in
relationships as well as difficulty in getting close to people, and this contributed to higher
depression levels.

According to Fairbaim (1940), the mother is the first significant object for the
child, and the father is the second most important object for the child. Often in the
literature, there has been greater focus on maternal care and behavior. The current study
points out the importance of the father-child relationship. A less caring father can
contribute to an internalization of a neglectful caretaker. The more neglectful the
caretaker, the greater the splitting of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ parts, and the greater the
splitting of the self (Celani, 1999). If the neglect is severe, it is possible that the child has
not learned how to bridge the splits and view one as both caring and frustrating. If the
young adult experiences conflict in current interpersonal relationships, it becomes easier
to resort to splitting and experience problems in relating to others. In addition to this,

there could also be an expectation that develops that others cannot be trusted and that

90

they may be neglectful. At the same time, there is still a yearning for a connection, and
one seeks unfulfilling relationships. Unfulfilling relationships contribute to poorer mental
health such as depression.

Encouragement of dependence by fathers is characterized by attempts to control
and intrude into the child’s life. Higher levels of encouragement of dependence by fathers
were related to higher depression, anxiety and dissociation in this study, which indicates
greater adjustment difficulties in young adulthood. Furthermore, higher levels of
encouragement of dependence by father were also related to higher insecurity in
relationships, as well as higher discomfort in romantic relationships and social self-
consciousness. Higher encouragement of fi'eedom and independence by father was
related to greater trust in relationships and less difficulties with intimacy. For example, in
one study, a sample of women diagnosed with depression who reported overprotective
fathers, perceived their marriage as worse than those who did not report their fathers as
overprotective (Rodriguez et al., 1993). In another study, college students who perceived
their parents as lacking in warmth and encouragement of autonomy reported greater
depression, anxiety, and loneliness (Boles, 1999).

Object relations also mediated the impact of maternal caregiving on young adult
adjustment. More specifically, higher encouragement of dependence by mothers was
related to greater adjustment difficulties characterized by higher depression, anxiety and
dissociation scores among this college population. A number of previous studies
supported this finding (Alnaes & Torgersen, 1990; Parker, 1979; Parker, 1986; Parker et
al., 1979; Rodriguez et al., 1993; Whisman & Kwon, 1992). In the current study,

struggles in interpersonal relationships as well as oversensitivity to separations and

91

rejections mediated the impact of encouragement of dependence by mothers on
depression, and partially mediated the impact of encouragement of dependence by
mothers on anxiety and on dissociation. Higher encouragement of dependence by
mothers indicates maternal encouragement of dependence on her and less support for
individuation, and greater control and intrusion. A maternal figure that struggles with
helping her child individuate and become more independent could contribute to a child
developing difficulties in interpersonal relationships. More specifically, if there is
difficulty helping the child establish boundaries, it may be harder for the child later in life
to end inappropriate relationships. Furthermore, it is possible that any step for
independence by the child may have been met with either rejection or a show of hurt
feelings from the maternal figure. This can contribute to a young adult who is hesitant to
approach others and someone who can be socially withdrawn, and at the same time
yearning for relationships. All of this can add to young adult adjustment difficulties.
Object relations did not mediate the impact of mother care and freedom, as well
as father dependence and freedom on young adult psychopathology. Nevertheless, there
were significant correlations between most of these variables and the trauma and object
relations variables. More specifically, higher caregiving by mother contributed to greater
trust in others, less difficulties with relationships, as well as less preoccupation with the
self. This was related to better young adult adjustment. The importance of maternal care
was explored in a few previous studies. One study found that higher maternal care was
related to more positive thoughts about self than did those with less caring mothers
(Ingram et al., 2001). In another study examining a college sample, greater shame affect

was related to lower maternal care (Lutwak & Ferrari, 1997). According to F airbaim

92

(1940), the mother is the most significant object for the child. If a child experiences a
caring mother, one who is understanding, smiles often and is warm and affectionate, the
child intemalizes the caregiver and the relationship, and that serves as a template for
other relationships in the future. The firture relationship would most likely include greater
trust in others, less preoccupation with the self and more fulfilling relationships. There is
also greater tolerance for difficulties in relationships. A caring mother would probably
result in less splitting of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ maternal object for the child and in less
splitting of the self (Fairbaim, 1943). Therefore, there may be a greater acceptance of
liked and disliked parts of the self. In addition, the young adult may be less likely to
resort to splitting when difficulties occur in relationships and therefore have more
fulfilling relationships, and as a result, better mental health adjustment later in life.
Perceived Social Support

Perceived social support from friends and family did not significantly impact
young adult psychopathology. The question of causality can be difficult to ascertain when
it comes to the association between perceived social support and psychopathology.
Research has suggested that higher perception of social support is tied to better mental
health. Nevertheless, participant’s depression levels can also lead to lower perception of
support (Wei & Tao, 2003; Stice, Ragan, & Randall, 2004). The lack of significant
results could be tied to participant’s levels of psychopathology. Another reason for lack
of significance between perceived social support and psychopathology could be because
of multicollinearity between predictors in the regression models, rendering many of them
insignificant. Nonetheless, when trends were examined, higher perception of social

support from family was related to lower depression in this sample. A number of

93

previous studies supported this finding (Cumsille & Epstein, 1994; Holahan, Valentiner,
& Moos, 1994; Maton, 1990; Menees, 1997). In the current study, perceived social
support from family was negatively correlated with mental health adjustment such as
depression and dissociation. Furthermore, perceived social support from friends was also
negatively correlated with depression. Even though there was no significant finding in
terms of the direct effect of social support on young adult adjustment, there was still
some evidence of a positive relationship between perceived social support from friends
and family, and young adult adjustment.

Even though object relations continue to develop during childhood and
adolescence, current factors such as perceived social support especially from family, may
serve as protective factors. The following findings should be interpreted with caution
because a high number of analyses were conducted to test for moderation, and it is
possible that the significance is a result of type I error. Two findings were supported
according to the prediction that perceived social support would moderate the impact of
object relations on young adult psychopathology. Perceived social support from family
moderated the impact of lower levels of lack of basic trust and less satisfaction in
relationships and difficulty with intimacy on dissociation, and the impact of struggles
with romantic relationships and self-consciousness on dissociation. More specifically,
students who reported higher levels of alienation, reported lower dissociation scores
when they perceived higher social support from their families, than students with lower
perception of social support from family. It appears that higher perception of social
support from family served as a protective factor for students with a greater lack of basic

trust in relationships and difficulty with relationships, in terms of dissociation levels. If

94

someone has difficulties forming relationships and lacks trust, perceiving higher support
from family contributes to lower dissociation.

The second significant interaction between perceived social support from family
and social incompetence indicated that higher levels of perceived support fi'om family
protected students who experienced lower levels of discomfort and self-consciousness
about social interactions, and their dissociation levels. It is possible that feeling
comfortable with family support eases the discomfort of social relationships. It appears
that in the current study, higher perception of social support from family protected
individuals with object relations deficits. According to Lepore (1992), higher levels of
perceived social support in one social domain can buffer individuals fi'om distressing
personal interactions in another social domain. A number of studies found that perception
of higher social support from family contributed to greater self esteem, better adjustment
to college, and higher self-efficacy beliefs among college students (Cutrona et al., 1994;
Holahan, Valentiner, & Moos, 1994; Menees, 1997; Torres & Solberg, 2001).
Conclusion

Previous research demonstrated that childhood maltreatment leads to young adult
adjustment difficulties (Andrews 1995; Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen, 1993), but the
process by which psychopathology develops needed further investigation. One of the
strengths of this study is that it is one of the first to examine the mechanism of object
relations by which childhood abuse and parental caregiving contribute to young adult
adjustment. One particular previous study examined object relations as a mediator
between childhood abuse and adult suicidal behavior, but the population was clinical and

all female (Twomey, Kaslow, & Croft, 2000). An additional strength of the current study

95

is that a large number of childhood traumas were examined in a non-clinical population.
The study looked at a college population, which makes it possible to generalize the
findings to the general population. In addition, the sample also represented an adequate
number of men and women.

This study demonstrated that childhood maltreatment and parental caregiving
styles influence object relations development and contribute to deficits in the
establishment of basic trust and satisfaction with relationships, one’s comfort with
intimacy, level of sensitivity to rejection and separations, how others’ motives are
perceived as well as how one approaches romantic relationships. As a child grows up, the
original caregiver relationships are internalized and serve as templates for future
relationships. Deficits in object relations interfere with one’s ability to relate to others.
The young adult ends up unable to develop healthy relationships, which leads to
adjustment difficulties and vulnerability to psychopathology such as higher depression,
anxiety and dissociation levels. Perceived social support from family appeared to buffer
the impact of object relations deficits on young adult adjustment.

Limitatifi and Research Implications

There are a number of limitations to this study. One of the first limitations to
consider is the possibility of Type I error throughout the study. A large number of
analyses were conducted and that increases the possibility of Type I error. Nevertheless,
each analysis was hypothesis driven. Another main limitation is that this is a cross—
sectional, retrospective study and therefore it is harder to attribute causation to the results.
In the future, researchers should focus on designing a prospective longitudinal study, so

that more information could be gathered about caregiving styles as well as reactions to

96

 

different types of traumas. Another limitation is that this study examined a non-clinical
population and therefore the levels of trauma were significantly lower than in other
studies. This may have contributed to a lack of more significant findings. For example,
the impact of caregiver death at an early age could not be analyzed because of the low
rate of this event in this sample. Also, object relations deficits did not mediate between
parental divorce, parental problems and parental alcoholism. This could have occurred as
a result of the low rate of occurrence of these events in this study. Nonetheless, when
examining bivariate correlation analyses, a mediation relation exits. Future researchers
should seek out participants with these particular experiences so that other types of
traumas could also be examined and their impact on object relations and young adult
psychopathology.

An additional potential limitation is the manner in which data was collected. Data
was collected in groups of 10-12 people at a time, and students sat next to each other and
filled out the measures. Since a number of the questions were sensitive and private,
sitting next to another student could have affected one’s comfort level at answering the
questions truthfully. Furthermore, even though students did not have much information
about the study before hand, they may have ran across other students who participated in
the study, who could have shared more information about the study. For example,
students filled out the same questionnaires, except one additional one that students of
divorced and separated parents filled out. It is possible that students could have known
from someone else that in order to finish the study faster, they could indicate that their

parents are married, even if they were divorced or separated, and not have to fill out the

97

 

extra questionnaire. In the future, asking students to not discuss this study with others
who may take it in the future could be helpful.

In this study, results of a factor analysis suggested combining different types of
childhood abuse (e. g. sexual, emotional, physical and neglect) into one childhood abuse
score. Unfortunately, this made it difficult to distinguish the individual impact of each
type of childhood trauma. Even though the above literature review indicated that the
consequences of emotional abuse could be as severe as those of sexual and physical
abuse (Gauthier et al., 1996; Melchert, 2000), future studied could focus on examining
individual traumas separately. The impact of sexual abuse and physical abuse can be
different on object relations development and young adult adjustment. It would be helpful
to recruit a much larger sample size in order to examine the impact of different kinds of
traumas separately.

An additional limitation is the use of self-report data of past events. To interview
and collect data from caregivers, especially since participants rated their parents’
caregiving styles, would give us more information. Also, future studies could compare
participants’ reports of childhood traumas and verify them against hospital records, or
school records, since it is difficult to rely on one source of information. Another
limitation is the evaluation of object relations with one measure. More specifically, the
BORI examines object relations deficits, especially those that are associated with the
ability to interact and relate to others such as levels of trust, ability to connect with others,
tolerate intimacy, as well as tolerate separations and rejections (Bell, Billington, &
Becker, 1986). It would also be helpful to measure object relations with a projective

measure, in order to gain greater understanding of the unconscious processes related to

98

one’s functioning and ability to relate to others. This study established that object
relations is an important mechanism by which childhood maltreatment impacts young
adult adjustment. In the future, it would be beneficial to establish a control group, and
examine object relations of young adults who did not experience much childhood
maltreatment. A college population is a time of change and growth, and adjustment can
be impacted by the new experience of college, and that in and of itself can contribute to
adjustment difficulties. Finally, the multicollinearity between the predictors, the
childhood trauma and parental caregiving variables was a limitation for interpreting the
results of this study. Shared variance may have obscured real relationships between the
predictors and the outcomes.

The current model tested perceived social support as a direct effect on
psychopathology as well as a moderator between object relations deficits and
psychopathology. An alternative model could be considered, one that would test
perceived social support as a potential mediator between object relations deficits and
psychopathology. One’s level of lack of basic trust and satisfaction in relationships, as
well as ability to tolerate separations and rejections and get close to others, could impact
building and maintaining relationships, which could influence perception of social
support, and that could impact psychopathology such as depression, anxiety and
dissociation. In the filture, research that would include object relations and social support
would benefit from testing social support as mediator.

The goal of the current study was to examine a general college population of men
and women and to include both in analyses since a number of previous studies examined

either samples of men or women (Malinosky-Rummell & Hansen, 1993; Sanders &

99

 

Moore, 1999; Schaff & McCanne, 1998). Nevertheless, when a One-way AN OVA was
conducted with gender as the factor and all the other main variables as the dependent list,
there were a few significant results that revealed gender differences (see Table 4). Gender
was controlled for in each analysis. Even though the results of the study can be
generalized to both college men and women, in the future, it would also be helpful to
analyze the data separately for men and women, in order to gain more information.
Clinical Implicm

This study helped us further understand what could be affecting individuals
suffering from depression, anxiety and dissociation. These individuals may have
underlying object relations deficits which are ofien not assessed in therapy. Based on the
results of this study, object relations deficits should be assessed in therapy since lower
levels of lack of basic trust in others, difficulty in interpersonal relationships, inability to
tolerate loss and separation and yearning for intimate relationships mediate the impact of
childhood abuse and parental caregiving on young adult adjustment. More specifically,
amount of father caring and warmth as well as mother encouragement of dependence on
her contributed to object relations impairments. These object relations deficits interfere
with the capacity to develop and enjoy relationships which affect psychopathology. It
would be beneficial in individual therapy for therapists to focus on clients’ ability to
relate to others. Working from an object relations perspective, where it is the relationship
with the therapist that is important and how the relationship can be internalized as a new
positive relationship, could help with future relationships. This can aid in repairing some
of the lack of basic trust in relationships, difficulty tolerating rejections and fear of

abandonment, as well as preoccupation with the self, and mistrust of others’ motives.

100

Group therapy could be another avenue to address object relations deficits, in a small and
safe group environment. A process group, where individual relationships between
patients can be addressed could impact object relations.

One example of a therapy that focuses on object relations issues is Time Limited
Dynamic Psychotherapy (TLDP), a 15-20 session individual treatment developed by
Hanna Levenson (1995), based on Strupp and Binder’s work (1984) focusing on the
patient’s interpersonal style of relating to others, especially as Viewed through the
relation to the therapist. The therapist’s goal is to provide a new, more accepting
experience for the patient as well as provide a new understanding for the patient. The
TLDP model uses an understanding that current relation patterns were learned from the
past. In addition, these current patterns will lead to interpersonal difficulties within the
therapy with the therapist. Through the therapist’s participation and observation of these
interpersonal difficulties, the therapist is able to assist the patient to understand their
patterns and work to change them (Levenson, 1995). This appears to be an appropriate
treatment for someone with object relations deficits. In conclusion, addressing a person’s
object relations development, especially the ability to have basic trust in relationships,
tolerate separations and rejections as well as yearning for intimacy, would help one to
develop better relationships with others and as a result have better adjustment and less

vulnerability to psychopathology as measured by depression, anxiety and dissociation.

101

 

APPENDICES

102

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1. How old are you:

2. What is your date of birth: / /
Mo Day Yr

 

3. What year of college are you currently in?

4. What is your major (or if you don’t have one), what would you like to major in?

 

5"

Where do you currently live?

Dorm
Apartment off campus

A house with friend/s
Sorority / Fraternity House
Home with parents
Other: please specify

AAA/\AA
vvvvvv

 

6. Marital status:

Single

Dating

Living with romantic partner
Married

Separated Grow long? )
Divorced

Separated

Widowed

AAAAAAAA
vvvvvvvv

7. Parent’s Marital Status (check as many that apply for each parent)

Mother Father Primary Guardian
Single ( ) ( ) ( )
Living with partner ( ) ( ) ( )
Married ( ) ( ) ( )
Separated (how long?__) ( ) ( ) ( )

103

Divorced ( ) ( ) ( )
Widowed ( ) ( ) ( I

8. Race or Ethnic group You Mother Father
Native American ( ) ( ) ( )
Asian ( ) ( ) ( )
Black, Afiican-American ( ) ( ) ( )
Latino, Hispanic-American ( ) ( ) ( )
Biracial (mixed): ( ) ( ) ( )
Specify __
White, Caucasian ( ) ( ) ( )
Other

9. What is the highest level of education your parents, and/or step-parents have

 

completed?
Mother Father Stepmother Stepfather
Grade school or less ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Some high school ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
High school degree/GED ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Some college ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
An Associate’s degree ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
College degree ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Some graduate school ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Graduate degree ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
10. Which of the following best describes the occupation of your parents and/or
stepparents.
Mother Father Stepmother Stepfather

Artist, writer designer, crafisperson ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Farmer, agricultural worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Homemaker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Manager, administrator ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Profesional: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Specific type

Technician, skilled worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Student ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Semiskilled or unskilled worker ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
White-collar

(sales, clerical, secretary) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Retired ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Unemployed ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Other ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

104

1 1. Are you working at this time?

1. 0 Yes 2. O No Hours per week?

 

12. What was the total income of your family of origin last month?

 

13. Which of the following best describes your religious affiliation?

 

( ) Protestant (What type? )

( ) Catholic

( ) Jewish

( ) Muslim

( ) Atheism/Agnosticism (N 0 religious affiliation)

14. Are both of your parents alive? (If Yes, proceed to question #19)

 

15. If No, which parent passed away?

16. How old were you when it happened?

17. Has your surviving parent remarried? (If No, proceed to question #19)
18. If yes, how old were you when your parent remarried?

19. How many biological and stepsisters do you have?

 

20. How many biological and stepbrothers do you have?

 

105

APPENDIX B

PBI

This questionnaire lists various attitudes and behaviors of parents. As you remember your
Mother/Father in your first 16 years, please mark the most appropriate answer next to
each question.

1. Spoke to me with a warm and fiiendly voice

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
2. Did no help me as much as I needed

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
3. Let me do those things I liked doing

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
4. Seemed emotionally cold to me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
5. Appeared to understand my problems and worries

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
6. Was affectionate to me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
7. Liked me to make my own decisions

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
8. Did not want me to grow up

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
9. Tried to control everything I did

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike

106

10. Invaded my privacy

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike

11. Enjoyed talking things over with me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
12. Frequently smiled at me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
l3. Tended to baby me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
14. Did not seem to understand what I needed or wanted

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
15. Let me decide things for myself

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
16. Made me feel I wasn’t wanted

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
17. Could make me feel better when I was upset

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
18. Did not talk with me very much

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
l9. Tried to make me dependent on her/him

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
20. Felt I could not look after myself unless she/he was around

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike

21. Gave me as much freedom as I wanted

107

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
22. Let me go out as often as I wanted

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
23. Was overprotective of me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
24. Did not praise me

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike
25. Let me dress in any way I pleased

0. ( ) Very like 1. ( ) Moderately like 2. ( ) Moderately unlike 3. ( ) Very unlike

108

APPENDIX C

CTQ
Instructions: These questions ask about some of your experiences growing up as a child
and a teenager. For each question, bubble in the number that best describes how you
feel. Although some of these questions are of a personal nature, please try to answer as
honestly as you can. Your answers will be kept confidential.

1.When I was growing up, there was someone in my family whom I could talk to about
my problems.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
2.When I was growing up, people in my family criticized me.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
3.When I was growing up, I didn’t have enough to eat.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

4.When I was growing up, people in my family showed confidence in me, and
encouraged me to achieve.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
5.When I was growing up, someone in my family hit me or beat me.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

6.When I was growing up, I felt that I better take care of myself, because no one else
would.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
7.When I was growing up, people in my family argued or fought with each other.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
8.When I was growing up, I lived in a group home or in a foster home.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

9.When I was growing up, I knew that there was someone to take care of me and protect
me.

109

 

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

10.When I was growing up, there was someone outside of my family (like a teacher or a
neighbor) who was like a parent to me.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
IDA-When I was growing up, someone in my family yelled at screamed at me.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

11.When I was growing up, I saw my mother or one of my brothers or sisters get hit or
beaten.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

12.When I was growing up, someone in my family made sure that I went to school unless
I was sick.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

13.When I was growing up, people in my family called me things like “stupid” or “lazy”
or “ugly”.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

14.When I was growing up, I was living on the streets by the time I was a teenager or
even younger.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

15.When I was growing up, there was someone in my family whom I admired and
wanted to be like.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
16.When I was growing up, my parents were too drunk or high to take care of the family.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
17 .When I was growing up, I rarely got the love or attention that I needed.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
18.When I was growing up, people in my family got into trouble with the police.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

110

 

l9.When I was growing up, there was someone in my family who helped me feel that I
was important or special.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

20.When I was growing up, I had to protect myself from someone in my family by
fighting, hiding, or running way.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
21.When I was growing up, I felt like there was someone in my family who wanted me to
be a success.

1.0 Never
true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

22.When I was growing up, I felt like there was someone in my family who wanted me to
be a success.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

23.When I was growing up, I lived with different people at different times (like different
relatives, or foster families).

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

24.When I was growing up, I believe that one of my brothers or sisters might have been
molested.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
25.When I was growing up, I felt that I was loved.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

26.When I was growing up, the other kids that I hung out with seemed like my “real
family”.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
27 .When I was growing up, I rarely had a father (or step-father) around the house.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
28.When I was growing up, my parents tried to treat all of us children the same.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

111

 

28A.When I was growing up, I thought that my parents wished I had never been born.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

29.When I was growing up, I got hit so hard by someone in my family that I had to see a
doctor or go to the hospital.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

30.When I was growing up, there was someone in my family who made sure that I stayed
out of trouble.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

31 .When I was growing up, people in my family hit me so hard that it left me with
bruises or marks.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
32.When I was growing up, I belonged to a gang.

l.O Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
33.When I was growing up, the punishments 1 received seemed fair.

10 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

33A.When I was growing up, I had sex with an adult, or with someone who was a lot
older than me (someone at least 5 years older than me).

l.O Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

34.When I was growing up, there was someone older than myself (like a teacher or a
parent) who was a positive role model for me.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

35.When I was growing up, I was punished with a belt, a board, or a cord (or some other
hard object).

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
35A.When I was growing up, there was nothing I wanted to change about my family.
10 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

36.When I was growing up, people in my family got high or drunk.

112

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
37.When I was growing up, people in my family looked out for each other.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
38.When I was grong up, my parents were divorced or separated.

l.O Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
39.When I was growing up, people in my family said hurtful or insulting things to me.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
40.When I was growing up, I believe that I was physically abused.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

41 .When I was growing up, people in my family tried to keep me away from bad
influences.

l.O Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

42.When I was growing up, there was an adult or another responsible person around the
house when I was at home.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

43.When I was growing up, I got hit or beaten so badly that it was noticed by someone
like a teacher, neighbor, or doctor.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
44.When I was growing up, people in my family seemed out of control.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

45.When I was growing up, people in my family encouraged me to stay in school and get
an education.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
46.When I was growing up, I spent time out of the house and no one knew where I was.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

47A.When I was growing up, I felt that someone in my family hated me.

113

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
48.When I was growing up, people in my family felt close to each other.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

49.When I was growing up, someone tried to touch me in a sexual way, or tried to make
me touch them.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
50.When I was growing up, people in my family pushed me or shoved me.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
51 .When I was growing up, there was enough food in the house for everyone.

l.O Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

52.When I was growing up, everyone in my family had certain chores that they were
supposed to do.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

53.When l was growing up, someone threatened to hurt me or tell lies about me unless I
did something sexual with them.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
53A.When I was growing up, I had the perfect childhood.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
54.When I was growing up, I was frightened of being hurt by someone in my family.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

55.When I was growing up, someone tried to make me do sexual things or watch sexual
things.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
56.When I was growing up, someone in my family believed in me.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

56A.When I was growing up, someone molested me.

114

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
57.When I was growing up, I believe that I was emotionally abused.
1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

58.When I was growing up, people in my family didn’t seem to know or care what I was
doing.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
59.When I was growing up, there was someone to take me to the doctor if I needed it.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
59A.When I was growing up, I had the best family in the world.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

59B.When I was growing up, people in my family had secrets that I wasn’t supposed to
share with anyone.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
60.When I was growing up, I believe that I was sexually abused.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true
61 .When I was growing up, my family was a source of strength and support.

1.0 Never true 2.0 Rarely true 3.0 Sometimes true 4.0 Often true 5.0 Very often true

115

APPENDIX D

PF AD

Instructions: Please bubble in the best answer to the following questions about your
parents’ divorce.

1. My father caused most of the trouble in my family

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
2. My father caused the breakup of my family

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

3. If my father had been a better (nicer/stronger) person, my parents would still be
together

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
4. Before my parents’ divorce, it was my father who usually made my family unhappy

l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
5. Sometimes I feel angry at my father for my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
6. I still have not forgiven my father for the pain he caused my family

1. 0 Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

7. I feel like I might have been a different person if my father (mother) had been a bigger
part of my life

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

8. I had a harder childhood than most people

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
9. I really missed not having my father around as much after my parents’ separation

l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

116

10. I wish my father had spent more time with me when I was younger

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
11. My childhood was cut short

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
12. My fiiends whose parents are not divorced seem to have happier lives

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
13. I probably would be a different person if my parents had not gotten divorced

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
14. I often wonder how life would be different if my parents were still together

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

15. I worry about big events like graduations or weddings, when both my parents will
have to come

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
16. My parents’ divorce still causes struggles for me

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
17. I still think a lot about the time around my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
18. I feel doomed to repeat my parents’ problems in my own relationships

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
19. I sometimes feel that people look down on me because my parents are divorced

l- O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
20. Sometimes I feel angry at my mother for my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

117

21. My mother caused the breakup of my family
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

22. If my mother had been a better (stronger/nicer) person, my parents would still be
together

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
23. I still have not forgiven my mother for the pain she caused our family

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
24. Before my parents’ divorce, it was my mother who usually made my family unhappy
l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
25. My mother caused most of the trouble in my family

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
26. I sometimes wonder if I could have prevented my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
27. I wish I had tried harder to keep my parents together

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
28. A lot of my parents’ problems were because of me

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
29. If I had been an easier child, my parents might not have gotten divorced

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
30. Even though it was hard, divorce was the right thing for my family

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
31. I feel comfortable talking to my friends about my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

32. My parents eventually seemed happier after they separated

118

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
33. My parents’ divorce relieved a lot of tensions in my life

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
34. Sometimes I wonder if my father even loves me

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
35. My father is still in love with my mother

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
36. My mother is still in love with my father

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
37. I often wish my family could be like it was before my parents’ divorce

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree
38. I sometimes dream my parents will get back together

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Neutral 4. 0 Agree 5. O Strongly Agree

119

 

APPENDIX E

CAST

Please bubble the answer below that best describes your feelings, behavior, and
experiences related to a parent’s alcohol use. Take your time and be as accurate as
possible. Circle each question either “Yes” or “No”.

1.Have you ever thought that one of your parents had a drinking problem?
1. Yes 2. No

2.Have you ever lost sleep because of a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

3.Did you ever encourage one of your parents to quit drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

4.Did you ever feel alone, scared, nervous, angry or frustrated because a parent was not
able to stop drinking? 1. Yes 2. No

5.Did you ever argue or fight with a parent when he or she was drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

6.Did you ever threaten to run away fiom home because of a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

7.Has a parent ever yelled at or hit you or other family members when drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

8.Have you ever heard your parents fight when one of them was drunk?
1. Yes 2. No

9.Did you ever protect another family members from a parent who was drinking?
1.Yes 2. No

10.did you ever feel like hiding or emptying a parent’s bottle or liquor?
1. Yes 2. No

11.Did many of your thoughts revolve around a problem drinking parent or difficulties
that arise because of his or her drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

12.Did you ever wish your parent would stop drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

120

 

13.Did you ever feel responsible for any guilty about a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

l4.Did you ever fear that your parents would get divorced due to alcohol misuse?
1.Yes 2. No

15.Have you ever avoided outside activities and fiiends because of embarrassment and
shame over a parent’s drinking problem?
1. Yes 2. No

16.Did you ever feel caught in the middle of an argument or fight between a problem
drinking parent and your other parent?
1. Yes 2. No

 

l7.Did you ever feel that you made a parent drink alcohol?
1. Yes 2. No

18.Have you ever felt that a problem drinking parent did not really love you?
1. Yes 2. No

19.Did you ever resent a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

20.Have you ever worried about a parent’s health because of his or her alcohol use?
1.Yes 2. No

21 .Have you ever been blamed for a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

22.Did you ever think your father was an alcoholic?
1. Yes 2. No

23.Did you ever wish your home could be more like the homes of your fiiends who did
not have a parent with a drinking problem?

1. Yes 2. No

24.Did a parent ever make promises to you that he or she did not keep because of
l . l . g?

1. Yes 2. No

25.Did you ever think your mother was an alcoholic?
1. Yes 2. No

121

26.Did you ever wish you could talk to someone who could understand and help the
alcohol related problems in your family?
1. Yes 2. No

27.Did you ever fight with your brothers or sisters about a parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

28. Did you ever stay away from home to avoid the drinking parent or your other parent’s
reaction to the drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

29. Have you ever felt sick, cried, or had a “knot” in your stomach after worrying about a
parent’s drinking?
1. Yes 2. No

30.Did you ever take over any chores and duties at home that were usually done by a
parent before he or she developed a drinking problem?
1. Yes 2. No

122

l‘:

 

APPENDIX F

CTS

Directions: This is a list of things your father and mother might have done when they
had a conflict. Now taking all disagreements into account (not just the most serious one),
how often did they do the things listed at any time during the time that you were growing
up? Please circle the best answer for both father and mother separately.

0 = Never

1 = Once per year

2 = Two or three times per year

3 = Often, but less than once a month
4 == About once a month

5 = More than once a month

Father Mother
F. Yelledand/orinsulted 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
G. Sulkedand/orrefusedtotalkabout it 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
H.Stompedoutoftheroom 012345 012345
I. Threw something(butnotattheother) or 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
smashed something
J. Threatenedto hitorthrowsomethingatthe other 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
K. Threw something atthe otherperson 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 l 2 3 4 5
L. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved the other 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
M. Hit (or tried to hit) the other person but not 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
with anything
N.Hitortriedtohittheotherpersonwith 012 3 4 5 012 3 4 5
Something hard
O.Threatenedtobreakupthemarriageby 012345 012345
Separation or divorce

P. Other. Please describe:

 

 

123

APPENDIX G

BORI

Read each item with care and please respond according to your most recent experience. If
a statement tends to be true for you, put a mark by the item indicating T. If a statement
tends to be false for you, put a mark by the item indicating F. Please try to respond to all
the statements.

I have at least one stable and satisfying relationship.

If someone dislikes me, I will always try harder to be nice to that person.
I would like to be a hermit forever.

I may withdraw and not speak to anyone for weeks at a time.

I usually end up hurting those closest to me. I‘

 

My people treat me more like a child than an adult.

If someone whom I have known well goes away, I may miss that person.

I can deal with disagreements at home without disturbing family relationships

I am extremely sensitive to criticism

10. Exercising power over other people 18 a secret pleasure of mine

11. At times I will do almost anything to get my way

12. When a person close to me is not giving me his or her full attention, I often feel
hurt and rejected

13. If I become close with someone and he or she proves untrustworthy, I may hate
myself for the way things turned out

14. It is hard for me to get close to anyone

15. My sex life is satisfactory

16. I tend to be what others expect me to be

17. No matter how hard I try to avoid them, the same difficulties crop up in my most
important relationships

18. I have no influence on anyone around me

19. People do not exist when I do not see them

20. I’ve been hurt a lot in life

21. I have someone with whom I can share my innermost feelings and who shares
such feelings with me

22. No matter how hard I try to avoid them, the same difficulties crop up in my most
important relationship

23. I yearn to be completely “at one” with someone

24. In relationships, I am not satisfied unless I am with the other person all the time

25. I am a very good judge of other people

26. Relationships with people of the opposite sex always turn out the same way with
me

27. Others frequently try to humiliate me

28. I generally rely on others to make my decisions for me

29. I am usually sorry that I trusted someone

99°39‘99pr

124

30. When I am angry with someone close to me, I am able to talk it through

31. Manipulating others is the best way to get what I want

32. I often feel nervous when I am around members of the opposite sex

33. I often worry that I will be left out of things

34. I feel that I have to please everyone or else they might reject me

35. I shut myself up and don’t see anyone for months at a time

36. I am sensitive to possible rejection by important people in my life

37. Making fiiends is not a problem for me

38. I do not know how to meet or talk with members of the opposite sex

39. When I cannot make someone close to me do what I want, I feel hurt or angry

40. It is my fate to lead a lonely life

41. People are never honest with each other

42. I put a lot into relationships and get a lot back

43. I feel shy about meeting or talking with members of the opposite sex

44. The most important thing to me in a relationship is to exercise power over the
other person

45. I believe that a good mother should always please her children

125

APPENDIX H

CES-D

Using the scale below, indicate the number which best describes how often you felt, or
behaved this way—DURING THE PAST WEEK.

0 = Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)

1 = Some or a little of the time (1-2 days)

2 = Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days)
3 = Most or all of the time (5-7 days)

DURING THE PAST WEEK:

1. l was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.
2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.

3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues eve with help from my family or
fiiends

4. I felt that I was just as good as other people.

5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.
6. I felt depressed.

7. I felt that everything I did was an effort.

8. I felt hopeful about the future.

9. I thought my life had been a failure.

10. I felt fearful

11. My sleep was restless

12. I was happy

13. I talked less than usual.

14. I felt lonely.

15. People were unfriendly.

16. I enjoyed life.

17. I had crying spells.

18. I felt sad

19. I felt that people disliked me.

20. I could not get “going.”

lllllllllllllllll

126

APPENDIX I

BSl-A

Below is a list of problems and complaints that people sometimes have. Read each one
and select the number that best describes how much discomfort that problem has
caused you during the past week, including today.

0= not at all l=a little bit =moderately 3=quite a bit 4=extremely
How much were you distressed by:

1. Nervousness or shakiness inside

2. Suddenly scared for no reason

3. Feeling fearful

4. Feeling tense or keyed up

5. Spells of terror or panic

6. Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still

127

 

APPENDIX J

DES

Directions: This questionnaire consists of twenty-eight questions about experiences that
you may have in your daily life. We are interested in how often you have these
experiences. It is important, however, that your answers show how often these
experiences happen to you when you not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. To
answer the questions, please determine to what degree the experience described in the
question applies to you and bubble in the best answer. i

.1

1.Some people have the experience of driving a car and suddenly realizing that they don’t
remember what has happened during all or part of the trip. How often does it happen to

 

you? i
l. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

2. Some people find that sometimes they are listening to someone talk and they suddenly
realize that they did not hear part or all of what was just said.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

3. Some people have the experience of fining themselves in a place and having no idea
how they got there.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

4. Some people have the experience of finding themselves dressed in clothes that they
don’t remember putting on.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

5. Some people have the experience of finding new things among their belongings that
they do not remember buying.

1. 0 Never 2. 0 Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

6. Some people sometimes find that they are approached by people that they do not know
who call them by another name or insist that they have met them before.

1. 0 Never 2. 0 Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

7. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling as though they are standing
next to themselves or watching themselves do something and they actually see
themselves as if they were looking at another person.

128

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time
8. Some people are told that they sometimes do not recognize fiiends or family members.
1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

9. Some people find that they have no memory for some important events in their lives
(for example, a wedding or graduation).

l. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. 0 A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

10. Some people have the experience of being accused of lying when they do not think
that they have lied.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

11. Some people have the experience of looking in a mirror and not recognizing
themselves.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

12. Some people sometimes have the experience of feeling that other people, objects, and
the world around them are not real.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

13. Some people sometimes have the experience of feelings that their body does not seem
to belong to them.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

14. Some people have the experience of sometimes remembering a past event so vividly
that they feel as if they were reliving that event.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

15. Some people have the experience of not being sure whether things that they
remember happening really did happen or whether they just dreamed them.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

16. Some people have the experience of being in a familiar place but finding it strange
and unfamiliar.

l. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

129

17. Some people find that when they are watching television or a movie they become so
absorbed in the story that they are unaware of other events happening around them.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

18. Some people sometimes find that they become so involved in a fantasy or daydream
that it feels as though it were really happening to them.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time
19. Some people find that they sometimes are able to ignore pain.
1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. 0 A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time l. 1

20. Some people find that they sometimes sit staring off into space, thinking of nothing, t:
and are not aware of the passage of time.

 

l. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time I
21. Some people sometimes find that when they are alone, they talk out loud to

themselves.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

22. Some people sometimes find that in one situation they may act so differently
compared with another situation that they feel almost as if they were two different

people.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time
23. Some people sometimes find that in certain situations they are able to do things with
amazing ease and spontaneity that would usually be difficult for them (for example,
sports, work, social situations, etc.).

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

24. Some people sometimes find that they cannot remember whether they have done
something or have just thought about doing that things (for example, not knowing
whether they have just mailed a letter or have just thought about mailing it).

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

26. Some people sometimes find writings, drawings, or notes among their belongings that
they must have done but cannot remember doing.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

130

27. Some people sometimes find that they hear voices inside their head that tell them to
do things or comment on things that they are doing.

1. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

28. Some people sometimes feel as if they are looking at the world through a fog so that
people and objects appear far away or unclear.

l. 0 Never 2. O Seldom 3. O A little of the time 4. O Often 5. 0 Most of the time

131

APPENDIX K

PSS
Directions: The statements that follow refer to feelings and experiences which occur to
most people at one time or another in their relationships with FRIENDS. For each

statement, bubble in the best answer for you.

1. My fiiends give me the moral support I need
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

2. Most other people are closer to their friends than I am

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
3. My fiiends enjoy hearing about what I think

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
4. Certain friends come to me when they have problems or need advice

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
5. I rely on my friends for emotional support

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
6. If I felt that one or ore of my friends were upset with me, I’d just keep it to myself

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
7. I feel that I’m on the fringe in my circle of friends

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

8. There is a friend I could go to if 1 were just feeling down, without feeling funny about
it later

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
9. My friends and I are very open about what we think about things
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

10. My fiiends are sensitive to my personal needs

132

l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
11. My fiiends come to me for emotional support

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

12. My friends are good at helping me solve problems

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. 0 Strongly Agree
13. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of friends

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
14. My fiiends get good ideas about how to do things or make things from me.

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
15. When I confide in friends, it makes me feel uncomfortable

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
16. My fiiends seek me out for companionship

l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
17. I think that my fiiends feel that I’m good at helping them solve problems

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

18. I don’t have a relationship with a friends that is as intimate as other people’s
relationships with friends

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
19. I’ve recently gotten a good idea about how to do something from a fiiend

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
20. I wish my friends were much different

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

133

Directions: The statements that follow refer to feelings and experiences that occur to
most people at one time or another in their relationships with FAMILY. For each
statement, bubble in the best answer for you.

1.My family gives me the moral support I need

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make things from my family
1. 0 Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
3. Most other people are closer to their family than I am
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

4. When I confide in the members of my family who are closest to me, I get the idea that
it makes them uncomfortable.

I. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
5. My family enjoys hearing about what I think
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
6. Members of my family share many of my interests
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
7. Certain members of the family come to me when they have problems or need advice
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
8. I rely on my family for emotional support
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

9. There is a members of my family I could go to if I were just feeling down, without
feeling funny about it later

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
10. My family and I are very open about what we think about things
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

11. My family is sensitive to my personal needs

134

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
12. Members of my family come to me for emotional support
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
13. Members of my family are good at helping me solve problems
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of members of my family
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

15. Members of my family get good ideas about how to do things or make things from
me

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
16. When I confide in members of my family, it makes me uncomfortable

I. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

17. Members of my family seek me out for companionship
l. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

18. I think that my family feels that I’m good at helping them solve problems
1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

19. I don’t have a relationship with a member of my family that is as close as other
people’s relationships with family members

1. O Strongly disagree 2. 0 Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree
20. I wish my family were much different

1. O Strongly disagree 2. O Disagree 3. 0 Agree 4. O Strongly Agree

135

APPENDIX L

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH

Object Relations as a Mediator between Parental Caregiving, Childhood
Experiences and Young Adult Well Being

Anat Barlev, M.A.

Department of Psychology
Michigan State University

129 Psychology Research Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1117
(517) 355-9564

This research project was developed to study how childhood experiences and
parental caregiving while growing up, impact young adult well being. In this study, you
will be asked to fill out a number of measures. One of them includes thinking about an
early memory about your mother and father and writing them down. After the completion
of the measures, the experimenter will explain more about the purpose of the study. The
entire experiment will take approximately 1.5 hours to complete.

By signing this consent form, you agree that the experiment has been explained to
you and that you have freely given your consent to participate. Participation is voluntary.
You may choose not to participate at all, and may refuse to answer any questions. You
may also discontinue the experiment at any time without penalty.

The information that you provide in this experiment will be treated with strict
confidence. Your answers will remain anonymous in any reports of research findings.
Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you would
like a copy of the final report from this study, please provide your address and one will be
mailed to you upon its completion.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your participation in this study,
please contact Dr. Robert Caldwell at the following email address: bob@gnsu.edu.
You may also contact Dr. Ashir Kumar, Chair, University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects, (517) 355-2180, if you have questions regarding your rights
as a participant in human subjects research.

 

 

Signature Date

136

APPENDIX M

FEEDBACK FORM

Childhood Experiences and Young Adult Adjustment

Thank you very much for participating in the present study!

Difficult childhood experiences such as abuse, parental divorce, parental death,
etc, have been linked with young adult adjustment difficulties, such as depression and
anxiety. In addition, parental caregiving dimensions of care and overprotection have been
documented to also relate to young adult adjustment. Nevertheless, the mechanisms by
which these experiences relate to later adjustment have not been determined. Object relations

is a possible mechanism. It is the development of internal representations of self and object
(person) as images of the original infant-caregiver relationship, which is internalized and later
serves as a template for human social interactions. The main hypothesis of this study is that one’s
object relations will mediate between childhood experiences and young adult adjustment as well
as between parental caregiving and young adult adjustment.

If you would like more information about the outcomes of this study, please do
not hesitate to email Anat Barlev at barlevan@msu.edu. Thank you again for your

participation.

137

REFERENCES

Abdulrehamn, R. Y., & De Luca, R. V. (2001). The implications of childhood sexual
abuse on adult social behavior. Journal of Family Violence, 16, 193-203.

Adam, K. S., Lohrenz, J. G., Harper, D., & Streiner, D. (1982). Early parental loss and
suicidal ideation in university students. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 27, 275-
281.

Allen, S. F., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1995). Psychological separation of older adolescents
and young adults from their parents: An investigation of gender differences.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 542-546.

Alnaes, R., & Torgersen, S. (1990). Parental representations in patients with major
depression, anxiety disorder and mixed conditions. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 81, 518-522.

Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1991). Consequences of parental divorce and marital
unhappiness for adult well-being. Social Forces, 69(3), 895-914.

Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and
offspring well-being during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73(3), 895-915.

Amato, P. R. (1999). Children of divorced parents as young adults. In E. M. Hetherington
(Ed.), Coping with divorce, single parenting, and remarriage: A risk and
resiliency perspective (pp. 147-163). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations, Publishers.

Anthony, E. J. (1974). Children at risk from divorce: A review. In E. J. Anthony & C.
Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk. Oxford,
England: John Wiley & Sons.

Andrews, B. (1995). Bodily shame as a mediator between abusive experiences and
depression. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 104(2), 277-285.

Andrews, J. A., Foster, S. L., Capaldi, D., & Hops, H. (2000). Adolescent and family
predictors of physical aggression communication, and satisfaction in young adult

couples: A prospective analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
68, 195-208.

Ashby, J. S., Mangine, J. D., & Slaney, R. B. (1995). An investigation of perfectionism in
a university sample of adult children of alcoholics. Journal of College Student
Development, 36(5), 452-456.

138

Baker, L., Kenneth, R. S., Westen, D., Nigg, J. T., & Lohr, N. E. (1992). Malevolence,
splitting, and parental ratings by borderlines. The Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease, 180(4), 258-264.

Baker, D. A. (1997). Substance abuse among college students with disabilities: The
relationship between adult children of alcoholics and codependency. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol 58(6-A),
Dec 1997, pp. 2092, 5 7(7-A), 2850.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Barrera, M. (1986). Distinctions between social support concepts, measures, and models.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(4), 413-445.

Becker, B., Bell, M., & Billington, R. (1987). Object relations ego deficits in bulimic
college women. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43(1), 93-95.

Bell, M., Billington, R., & Becker, B. (1986). A scale for the assessment of object
relations: Reliability, validity, and factorial invariance. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 42(5), 733-741.

Bell, M. D. (1995). Bell object relations and reality testing inventory (BORRTI) manual.
In. Los Angeles: Western Psychological.

Bennet, A., & Stirling, J. (1998). Vulnerability factors in the anxiety disorders. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 71, 31 1-321.

Bernstein, D. P. & Fink, L. (1998). CTQ: Childhood trauma questionnaire manual. San
Antonio: Harcourt Brace.

Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a
dissociation scale. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1 74(12), 727-735.

Black, L. E., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1991). Gender differences in college students' attitudes
toward divorce and their willingness to marry. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 14(3-4), 47-60.

Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 29, 107-157.

139

Blumenthal, d. R., Neemann, J ., & Murphy, C. M. (1998). Lifetime exposure to
interparental physical and verbal aggression and symptoms expression in college
students. Violence and Victims, 13, 175-196.

Bluth, G. J. (1995). Parental drinking as a predictor of cognitive style, depression, and
hopelessness: Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences &
Engineering, 55(8-B), 3580.

Boles, S. A. (1999). A model of parental representations, second individuation, and
psychological adjustment in late adolescence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55,
597-562.

Bost, K. K., Vaughn, B. E., Washington, W. N., Cielinski, K. L., & Bradbard, M. R.
(1998). Social competence, social support, and attachment: Demarcation of

construct domains, measurement, and paths of influence for preschool children
attending Head Start. Child Development, 69(1), 192-218.

Brabant, S., & Martof, M. (1993). Childhood experiences and complicated grief: A study
of adult children of alcoholics. International Journal of the Addictions, 28(11),
1 l 1 1-1 125.

Braver, M., Bumberry, J ., Green, K., & Rawson, R. (1992). Childhood abuse and current
psychological functioning in a university counseling center population. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 39, 252-257.

Breier, A., Kelsoe, J. R., Jr., Kirwin, P. D-, Beller, S. A., Wolkowitz, O. M., & Pickar, D.
(1988). Early parental loss and development of adult psychopathology. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 45(11), 987-993.

Brewin, C. R., & Vallance, H. (1997). Self-discrepancies in young adults and childhood
Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 600-606.

Briere, J ., & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult syrnptomatology associated with three
types of child abuse histories. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(3), 357-364.

Brock, K. J ., Mintz, L. B., & Good, G. E. (1997). Differences among sexually abused and
non-abused women from functional and dysfunctional families. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 4, 425-432.

Bryant, S. L., & Range, L. M. (1997). Type and severity of child abuse and college
students' lifetime suicidality. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21 (12), 1169-1176.

Burks, N., & Martin, B. (1985). Everyday problems and life change events: Ongoing
versus acute sources of stress. Journal of Human Stress, I I, 27-35.

140

Bush, S. 1., Ballard, M. E., & Fremouw, W. (1995). Attributional style, depressive
features, and self-esteem: Adult children of alcoholic and nonalcoholic parents.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24(2), 177-185.

Canetti, L., Bachar, E., Galili-Weisstub, E., De-Nour, A. K., & Shalev, A. Y. (1997).
Parental bonding and mental health in adolescence. Adolescence, 32, 381-394.

Carpenter, D. R. (1995). Adult children of alcoholics: CAQ profiles. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly, 32(2), 63-70.

Carpenter, J. A. (1996). Between acceptance and publication: a sampling of some
common problems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 57(4), 341-342.

Castillo, L. G., Conoley, C. W., & Brossart, D. F. (2004). Acculturation, White
marginalization, and family support as predictors of perceived distress in Mexican
American female college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 151-
157.

Celani, D. P. (1999). Applying Fairbaim's object relations theory to the dynamics of the
battered woman. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 5 3(1 ), 60-73.

Chase, N. D., Deming, M. P., & Wells, M. C. (1998). Parentification, parental
alcoholism, and academic status among young adults. American Journal of
Family Therapy, 26(2), 105-114.

Chase-Lansdale, L. P., Cherlin, A. J ., & Kieman, K. K. (1995). The long-term effects of
parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A developmental
perspective. Child Development, 66(6), 1614-1634.

Cherlin, A. J. (1992). Marriage, divorce, remarriage (rev. and en]. ed. ). Cambridge, MA,
US: Harvard University Press.

Churchill, J. C., Broida, J. P., & Nicholson, N. L. (1992). Locus of control and self-
esteem of adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 51(4), 373-
376.

Claydon, P. (1987). Self-reported alcohol, drug, and eating-disorder problems among
male and female collegiate children of alcoholics. Journal of American College
Health, 36(2), 111-116.

Coffey, P., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., Bennett, R. R., & Jankowski, M. K. (1996).

Dating violence: The association between methods of coping and women's
psychological adjustment. Violence and Victims, I 1, 227-23 8.

141

Cohen, L. H., McGowan, J ., Fooskas, S., & Rose, S. (1984). Positive life events and
social support and the relationship between stress and psychological disorder-
American Journal of Community Psychology, 12, 567-587.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.

Cohen, S., Sherrod, D. R., & Clark, M. S. (1986). Social skills and the stress-protective
role of social support. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50(5), 963-
973.

Coleman, F. L., & F rick, P. J. (1994). MMPI-2 profiles of adult children of alcoholics.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(3), 446-454.

Conger, R. D., Cui, M., Bryant, C. M., & Elder, G. H. (2000). Competence in early adult
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.

Cuijpers, P., Langendoen, Y., & Bijl, R. V. (1999). Psychiatric disorders in adult children
of problem drinkers: Prevalence, first onset and comparison with other risk
factors. Addiction, 94(10), 1489-1498.

Cumsille, P. E., & Epstein, N. (1994). Family cohesion, family adaptability, social
support, and adolescent depressive symptoms in outpatient clinic families.
Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 200-214.

Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Russel, D. W. (1994).
Perceived social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory
perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369-3 78.

Cutter, C. G., & Cutter, H. S. (1987). Experience and change in Al-Anon family groups:
Adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48(1), 29-32.

Depner, C. E., & Ingersoll-Dayton, B. (1988). Supportive relationships in later life.
Psychology and Aging, 3, 348-357.

Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: an
introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13(3), 595-605.

Derogatis, L., & Spencer, P. (1982). The brief symptom inventory: Administration,

scoring and procedure manual-1. Riderwood, MD: Clinical Psychometric
Research

142

Domenico, D., & Windle, M. (1993). Intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning among
middle-aged female adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 659-666.

Down, W. R., & Miller, B. A. (1998). Relationships between experiences of parental
Violence during childhood and women's self-esteem. Violence and Victims, 13,
63-77.

Ducharrne, J ., Koverola, C., & Battle, P. (1997). Intimacy development: The influence of
abuse and gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(4), 590-599.

Duncan, R. D. (2000). Childhood maltreatment and college drop-out rates: Implications
for child abuse researchers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(9), 987-995.

El-Guebaly, N., Staley, D., Leckie, A., & Koensgen, S. (1992). Adult children of
alcoholics in treatment programs for anxiety disorders and substance abuse.
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 3 7(8), 544-548.

Elliott, D. M. (1994). Impaired object relations in professional women molested as
children. Psychotherapy, 31(1), 79-86.

Fairbaim, W. R. D. (1940). Schizoid factors in the personality. In Psychoanalytic studies
of the personality (pp. 3-27). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fairbaim, W. R. D. (1941). A revised psychopathology of the psychoses and
psychoneuroses. In Psychoanalytic studies of the personality (V 01. Routledge &
Kegan Paul, pp. 28-58). London: London.

Fairbaim, W. R. D. (1943). The repression and the return of bad objects (with special
reference to the 'war neuroses'). In Psychoanalytic studies of the personality (pp.
59-81). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fairbaim, W. R. D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.

Ferenczi, S. (1949). Psycho-analysis and education. International Journal of Psycho-
Analysis, 30, 220-224.

Fernandez, M. E., Mutran, E. J ., & Reitzes, D. C. (1998). Moderating the effects of stress
on depressive symptoms. Research on Aging, 20, 163-182.

Fischer, K. E. (1997). An investigation of the relationship of parental alcoholism and
family dysfimction to stress and problem drinking among college students.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences.
Vol 58(6-A), Dec 1997, pp. 2092, 58(6-A), 2092.

143

 

 

Franklin, K. M., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Roberts, J. E. (1990). Long-term impact of
parental divorce on optimism and trust changes in general assumptions or narrow
beliefs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 743-755.

F romuth, M. E., & Burkhart, B. R. (1989). Long-tenn psychological correlates of
childhood sexual abuse in two samples of college men. Child Abuse & Neglect,
13(4), 533-542.

Gabardi, L., & Rosen, L. A. (1991). Differences between college students from divorced
and intact families. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 15(3/4), 175-191.

Gauthier, L., Stollak, G., Messe, L., & Aronoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood neglect
and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological functioning.
child Abuse and Neglect, 20(7), 549-559.

Glick, P. C., & Lin, S. (1986). Recent changes in divorce and remarriage. Journal of
Marriage & the Family, 48(4), 737-747.

Gondolf, E. W., & Ackerman, R. J. (1993). Validity and reliability of an "Adult Children
of Alcoholics" index. International Journal of the Addictions, 28(3), 257-269.

Gordon, J. E. (1995). The psychological and social functioning of adult children of
alcoholics: An attachment perspective. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 55(11-B), 5067.

Grant, B. F. (2000). Estimates of US children exposed to alcohol abuse and dependence
in the family. American Journal of Public Health, 90(1), 112-115.

Grant, L. S., Smith, T. A., Sinclair, J. J ., & Salts, C. J. (1993). The impact of parental
divorce on college adjustment. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 19(1-2), 183-
193.

Green, A. H. (1998). Factors contributing to the generational transmission of child
maltreatment. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 3 7, 1334-1336.

Hadley, J. A., Holloway, E. L., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1993). Common aspects of object
relations and self-representations in offspring from disparate dysfunctional
families. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 348-3 56.

Hart, K. E., & Hittner, J. B. (1991). Irrational beliefs, perceived availability of social
support, and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4 7, 582-5 87.

Havey, J. M., Boswell, D. L., & Romans, J. S. (1995). The relationship of self-perception

and stress in adult children of alcoholics and their peers. Journal of Drug
Education, 25(1), 23-29.

144

Haviland, M. G., Sonne, J. L., & Woods, L. R. (1995). Beyond posttraumatic stress
disorder: Object relations and reality testing disturbances in physically and
sexually abuse adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 34(8), 1054-1059.

Heesacker, R. S., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1990). Assessing object relations and social
cognitive correlates of eating disorder. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3 7,
419-426.

Henning, K., Leitenberg, H., Coffey, P., Bennet, T., & Jankowski, M. K. (1997). Long-
term psychological adjustments to witnessing interparental physical conflict
during childhood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 21 , 501-515.

Hetherington, S. E. (1988). Children of alcoholics: an emerging mental health issue. Arch
Psychiatr Nurs, 2(4), 251-255.

Hetherington, E. M., Stanley-Hagan, M., & Anderson, E. R. (1989). Marital transitions:
A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 44(2), 303-312.

Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (1999). The adjustment of children with
divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40(1), 129-140.

Hillard, J. R. (1984). Reactions of college students to parental divorce. Psychiatric
Annals, 14(9), 663-670.

Hinz, L. D. (1990). College student adult children of alcoholics: psychological resilience
or emotional distance? Journal of Substance Abuse, 2(4), 449-457.

Holahan, C. J ., Valentiner, D. P., & Moos, R. H. (1994). Parental support and
psychological adjustment during the transition to young adulthood in a college
sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 215-223.

Ingram, R. E., Overbey, T., & Fortier, M. (2001). Individual differences in dysfunctional
automatic thinking and parental bonding: Specificity of maternal care. Personality
and Individual Diflerences, 3 0, 410-412.

Irwin, H. J. (1994). Proneness to dissociation and traumatic childhood events. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 182, 456-460.

Jarmas, A. L., & Kazak, A. E. (1992). Young adult children of alcoholic father depressive

experiences, copying styles, and family systems. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 2, 244-251.

145

Jay, G. M., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Social support, and adjustment to university life:
A comparison of Afiican American and White Freshman. Journal of Community
Psychology, 19, 95-108.

Johnson, P. (2001). Dimensions of functioning in alcoholic and nonalcoholic families.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23(2), 127-136.

Jones, J. P., & Kinnick, B. C. (1995). Adult children of alcoholics: Characteristics of
students in a university setting. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 40(2), 58-
70.

Kaslow, N. J ., Revier, S. L., Chance, S. E., Rogers, J. H., Hatcher, C. A., Wasserman, F.,
et al. (1998). An empirical study of the psychodynamics of suicide. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 46, 777-796.

Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse
on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological
Bulletin, 1, 164-180.

Kemberg, O. T. (1976). Object-relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New York:
Jason Aronson, Inc.

Kowa, S. R. (1995). A comparative study of the personality characteristics of adult
children of alcoholics compared with the personality characteristics of non-adult
children of alcoholics among a college student population. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences. Vol 58(6-A), Dec 199 7,
pp. 2092, 58(6-A), 2092.

Lang, F. R, Featherman, D. L., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1997). Social self-efficacy and
short-term variability in social relationships: the MacArthur successful aging
studies. Psychology & Aging, 12(4), 65 7-666.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J ., Monson, C. M., Meyer, K. A., Caster, J ., & Sanders, A.
(1998). The associations among family of origin Violence and young adults'

current depressed hopeless, suicidal and life threatening behavior. Journal of
Family Violence, 13, 243-261.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J ., & Rohling, M. (2000). Negative family of origin
experiences: Are they associated with perpetrating unwanted pursuit behaviors?
Violence and Victims, 15, 459-471.

Larson, J. H., Holt, B., Wilson, S. M., Medora, N., & Newell, K. (2001). Dating

behaviors, attitudes, and relationships satisfaction of young adult children of
alcoholics. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 19(1), 1-18.

146

Laumann-Billings, L., & Emery, R. E. (2000). Distress among young adults from
divorced families. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 671-687.

Leon, C. A., & Leon, A. (1990). Panic disorder and parental bonding. Psychiatry Annals,
20, 503-508.

Lepore, S. J. (1992). Social conflict, social support, and psychological distress: evidence
of cross-domain buffering effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63(5), 857-867.

Leslie, 13., Owen, N., Salmon, J., Bauman, A., Sallis, J. F., & Lo, 3. K. (1999).
Insufficiently active Australian college students: Perceived personal, social, and
environmental influences. Preventive Medicine, 28, 20-27.

Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (1998). The moderating effects of
parenting on children's adjustment in woman-abusing families. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 13, 383-397.

Levenson, H. (1995). T ime-limited dynamic psychotherapy: A guide to clinical practice:
Basic books, A division of HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Lewis, H. S. (2000). Psychosocial adjustment of adult children of alcoholics: A review of
the recent empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 20(3 ), 311-337.

Liem, J. H., & Boudewyn, A. C. (1999). Contextualizing the effects of childhood sexual
abuse on adult self-and social functioning: An attachment theory perspective.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(11), 1141-1157.

Lipman, A. J. (1990). Causal attributions in offspring of alcoholics. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly, 7(4), 31-45.

Lizardi, H., Klein, D. N., Ouimette, P. C., Riso, L. R, Anderson, R. L., & Donaldson, S.
K. (1995). Reports of the childhood home environment in early-onset dysthymia
and episodic major depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1, 132-139:

Lopez, F. G., Campbell, V. L., & Watkins, C. E. (1988). The relation of parental divorce
to college student development. Journal of Divorce, 12(1), 83-98.

Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M. C., & Rice, K. G. (2000). Parental divorce, parent-child
bonds, and adult attachment orientations among college students: A comparison
of three racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 177-186.

Lutwak, N., & Ferrari, J. R. (1997). Understanding shame in adults: Retrospective

perceptions of parental bonding during childhood. The Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease, 185, 595-598.

147

Lynskey, M. T., & Fergusson, D. M. (1997). Factors protecting against the development
of adjustment difficulties in young adults exposed to childhood sexual abuse.
child Abuse and Neglect, 21, 1 177-1190.

Malinosky-Rummell, R., & Hansen, D. J. (1993). Long-term consequences of childhood
physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 68-79.

Mangold, W. D., & Koski, R. R. (1990). Gender comparisons in the relationship between
parental and siblings violence and nonfamily Violence. Journal of Family
Violence, 5, 225-235.

Martin, B., & Burks, N. (1985). F arnily and nonfamily components of social support as
buffers of stress for college women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15,
448-465.

Martin, J. L. (1995). Intimacy, loneliness, and openness to feelings in adult children of
alcoholics. Health & Social Work 20(1).“52-9.

Martinez-Taboas, A., & Bemal, G. (2000). Dissociation, psychopathology, and abusive
experiences in a nonclinical Latino university student group. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 32-41.

Maton, K. I. (1990). Meaningful involvement in instrumental activity and well-being:
Studies of older adolescents and at risk urban teen-agers. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 18, 297-320.

Maynes, L. C., & Feinauer, L. L. (1994). Acute and chronic dissociation and somaticized
anxiety as related to childhood sexual abuse. The American Journal of Family
Therapy. 22, 165-175.

Melchert, T. P. (2000). Clarifying the effects of parental substance abuse, child sexual
abuse and parental care giving on adult adj ustment. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 31(1), 64-69.

Menees, M. M. (1997). The role of coping, social support, and family communication in
explaining the self-esteem of adult children of alcoholics. Communication
Reports, 10(1), 9-19.

Mintz, L. B., Kashubeck, S., & Tracy, L. S. (1995). Relations among parental alcoholism,
eating disorders, and substance abuse in nonclinical college women: Additional

evidence against the uniformity myth. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(1),
65-70.

Nielsen, L. (1999). College aged students of divorced parents: F acts and fiction. College
Student Journal, 33(4), 543-572.

148

Omduff, S. R., & Kelsey, R. M. (1996). Object relations of sexually and physically
abused female children: A TAT analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
91-105.

Palosaari, U., Aro, H., & Laippala, P. (1996). Parental divorce and depression in young
adulthood: Adolescents' closeness to parents and self-esteem as mediating factor.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 93(1), 20-26.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10.

Parker, G. (1979). Reported parental characteristics in relation to trait depression and
anxiety levels in a non-clinical group. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 13, 260-264.

Parker, G. (1981). Parental representations of patients with anxiety neurosis. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 63, 33-36.

Parker, G. (1982). Parental representations and affective symptoms: Examination for a
hereditary link. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 55 , 57-61.

Parker, G. (1986). Validating an experiential measure of parental style: The use of a twin
sample. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 73, 22-27.

Parker, G., & Lipscombe, P. (1981). Influences of maternal overprotection. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 303-31 1.

Parker, G., & Manicavasagar, V. (1986). Childhood bereavement circumstances

associated with adult depression. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 59, 387-
391.

Peck, J. S., & Manocherian, J. R. (1989). Divorce in the changing family life cycle. In B.
Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A flamework for
family therapy (Vol. xiii, pp. 593). New York, NY, US: Gardner Press, Inc.

Perris, C., Holmgen, S., Van Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1986). Parental loss by death in
the early childhood of depressed patients and of their healthy siblings. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 165-169.

Pfohl, B., Stangl, D., & Tsuang (1983). The association between early parental loss and
diagnosis in the Iowa 500. Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 965-967.

Pierce, R. S., Frone, M. R., Russell, M., Cooper, M. L., & Mudar, P. (2000). A

longitudinal model of social contact, social support, depression, and alcohol use.
Health Psychology, 19(1), 28-38.

149

Pilat, J. M., & Jones, J. W. (1985). Identification of children of alcoholics: Two empirical
studies. Alcohol Health and Research world, 9, 27-33.

Post, L. I. (1992). Expectancies, coping skills and alcohol addiction in adult offspring of
alcoholics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(8-B), 4455.

Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends
and from family: three validation studies. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11(1), 1-24.

Protinsky, H., & Ecker, S. (1992). Intergenerational family relationships as perceived by
adult children of alcoholics. Family Therapy, 1 7(3), 217-222.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401.

Rind, B., Tromovitch, P., & Bauserman, R. (1998). A meta-analytic examination of
assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples. Psychological
Bulletin, 124(1), 22-53.

Roberts, J. E. & Gotlib, I. H. (1997) Lifetime episodes of dysphoria: Gender, early
childhood loss and personality. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 3 6(2),
195-208.

Robinson, N. S., & Garber, J. (1995). Social support and psychopathology across the life
span. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology, Vol.
2: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Rodney, H. E. (1995). A profile of collegiate Black adult children of alcoholics. Journal
of College Student Development, 36(3), 228-235.

Rodriguez, N., Mira, C. B., Myers, H. F., Morris, J. K., & Cardoza, D. (2003). Family or
friends: Who plays a greater supportive role for Latino college students? Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), 236-250.

Rodriguez, V. B., Bayon, C., Franco, B., Canas, F ., Graell, M., & Salvador, M. (1993).
Parental rearing and intimate relations in women's depression. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 88, 193-197.

Roehl, J. E., & Okun, M. A. (1984). Depression symptoms among women reentering
college: The role of negative life events and family social support. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 25, 251-254.

Rodney, H. E. (1994). What differentiates ACOAs and non-ACOAs on a Black college
campus? Journal of American College Health, 43(2), 57-63.

150

Rodney, H. E. (1995). A profile of collegiate Black adult children of alcoholics. Journal
of College Student Development, 3 6(3), 228-235.

Roy, A. (1981). Role of past loss in depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3 8, 301 -
302.

Rozenda, F. G., & Well, J. M. (1983). Use of the semantic differential to evaluate long-
terrn effects of loss of a parent on concepts of family. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 143, 269-278.

Russell, M., Henderson, C., & Blume, S. B. (1985). Children of alcoholics: A review of
the literature. New York Children of Alcoholics Foundation.

Sandberg, D. A., & Lynn, S. J. (1992). Dissociative experiences, psychopathology and
adjustment, and child and adolescent maltreatment in female college students.
Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 101, 717-723.

Sanders, B., McRoberts, G., & Tollefson, C. (1989). Childhood stress and dissociation in
a college population. Dissociation: Progress in the Dissociative Disorders, 21(1),
17-23.

Sanders, B., & Moore, D. L. (1999). Childhood maltreatment and date rape. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14(2), 115-124.

Sato, T., Uehara, T., Sakado, K., Nishioka, K., Ozaki, N., Nakamura, M., et a1. (1997).
Dysfunctional parenting and a lifetime history of depression in a volunteer sample
of Japanese workers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 96, 306-310.

Schaaf, K., & McCanne, T. R. (1998). Relationship of childhood sexual, physical, and
combined sexual and physical abuse to adult Victimization and posttraumatic
stress disorder. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(11), 1119-1133.

Schmidt, L. A. (1995). The role of problem drinking in psychiatric admissions. Addiction,
90(3), 375-389.

Schreiber, R., & Lyddon, W. J. (1998). Parental bonding and current psychological
functioning among childhood sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 358-362.

Sheridan, M. J. (1995). A proposed intergenerational model of substance abuse, family
functioning, and abuse/neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(5), 519-530.

151

Silove, D., Parker, G., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., & Manicavasagar, V. e. a. (1991). Parental
representations of patients with panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 835-841 .

Silvem, L., Karyl, J ., Waelde, L., Hodges, W. F ., Starek, J ., Heidt, E., et a1. (1995).
Retrospective reports of parental partner abuse: Relationships to depression,
trauma symptoms and self-esteem among college students. Journal of Family
Violence, 1 0, 1 77-202.

Spiegel, D., & Cardena, E. (1991). Disintegrated experience: The dissociative disorders
revisited. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100(3), 366-378.

Steiger, H., & Houle, L. (1991). Defense styles and object-relations disturbances among
university women displaying varying degrees of "symptomatic" eating. Journal of
Eating Disorders, 10, 145-153.

Stemberg, K. J ., Lamb, M. E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes, R. M., et
a1. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on children's behavior problems and
depression. Developmental Psychology, 1 , 44-52.

Stice, E., Ragan, J ., & Randall, P. (2004). Prospective relations between social support
and depression: Differential direction of effects for parent and peer support?
Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 1 13(1), 155- 1 59.

Strand, P. S., & Wahler, R. G. (1996). Predicting maladaptive parenting: Role of
maternal object relations. Journal of clinical child Psychology, 25 , 43-51.

Strauss, M. A. (1979). Measuring interfamily conflict & violence: The conflict tactics
scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

Strupp, H. H., & Binder, J. L. (1984). Psychotherapy in a new key. New York: Basic
Books.

Taliaferro, G. L. (1996). The influences of early family environment and parental
alcoholism on adult psychological status. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 5 6(10-B), 5802.

Taylor, D. A. (1983). Views of death from sufferers of early loss. Omega, 14, 77-82.

Torres, J. B., & Solberg, V. S. (2001). Role of self-efficacy, stress, social integration, and
family support in Latino college students persistence and health. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 59, 53-63.

Truant, G. S., Herscovitch, J ., & Lohrenz, J. G. (1987). The relationship of childhood
experience to the quality of marriage. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 87-92.

152

Truant, G. S. (1994). Personality diagnosis and childhood care associated with adult
marital quality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 269-275.

Twomey, H. B., Kaslow, N. J ., & Croft, S. (2000). Childhood maltreatment, object
relations, and suicidal behavior in women. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 1 7(2),
3 13-33 5.

Wagner, B. M. (1997). Family risk factors for child and adolescent suicidal behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 246-298.

Waller, N. G., Putnam, F. W., & Carlson, E. B. (1996). Types of dissociation and
dissociative types: A taxometric analysis of dissociative experiences.
Psychological Methods, 1(3), 300-321.

Waller, N. G., & Ross, C. A. (1997). The prevalence and biometric structure of
pathological dissociation in the general population: Taxometric and behavior
genetic findings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(4), 499-510.

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1989). Second chances: Men, women, and children a
decade after divorce (V 01. xxi). New York, NY, US: Ticknor & Fields.

Watson, D. (2003). Investigating the construct validity of the dissociative taxon: Stability

analyses of normal and pathological dissociation. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112(2), 298-305.

Wei, L., & Sha, T. (2003). The relationship between perceived stress and depression and

anxiety in college students: The effects of social support. Chinese Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 11(2), 108-1 10.

Westen, D. (1990). Towards a revised theory of borderline object relations: Contributions
of empirical research. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 1 71(4), 661-693.

Whisman, M. A., & Kwon, P. (1992). Parental representations, cognitive distortions and
mild depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 557-568.

Williams, A. W., Ware, J. E., & Donald, C. A. (1981). A model of mental health, life
events, and social supports applicable to general populations. Journal of Health &
Social Behavior, 22(4), 324-336.

Wright, V. L. (1993). Coping skills of adult children of alcoholics (ACAs): An empirical
investigation and theoretical analysis. Dissertation Abstracts International Section
A: Humanities & Social Sciences. V0158(6-A), Dec 1997, pp. 2092, 53(12-B),
6579.

153

Yama, M. F., Tovey, S. L., Fogas, B. S., & Teegarden, L. A. (1992). Joint consequences
of parental alcoholism and childhood sexual abuse, and their partial mediation by
family environment. Violence & Victims, 74(4), 313-325.

Zemore, R., & Rinhohn, J. (1989). Vulnerability to depression as a function of parental
rejection and control. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21, 364-376.

Zucker, A. L. (2000). Presenting problems, symptoms, abuse history, and demographic
characteristics of students requesting services at a university counseling center.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,

60(8-B), 4263.

154

     

  

lliilil‘jljjl‘jjjflljlliijjljl

3