SlMIILARITIES OF DEFENSE BREFER‘ENCES WITHIN FAMIIIES, WITHIN SEX GROUPS, AND T HEItR. RELATIONSHIP TO PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION IN ADOLESC‘EN‘I‘ MALES Thesis r‘or the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Mark H ‘I‘I‘aeIan ”€9.64 TH 5513 I (J. ' O Q ,Q' i O This is to certify that the thesis entitled "“ '"* " CE“ DEED]: a ‘HT‘J l‘I u‘ _.‘_. ..i_ Him T,".‘,‘71"'"" 7 “ft-71 1)T\'fi1".m1;\'3'1=va‘jr‘t LTTFHIT _._.._.zt.\) ' ' H \ . .I'JQ NJ. 1‘ .041: .1 J 1‘4... “14..-.1, FfiIlLIES, men” n SEX GROUPS, AID T131? RELKTIClflllP TO PARSIEAL IDETTIFICATIOH IE ADOLESCENT MALES presented by Kerk H. Thelen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for P11. D . Psychology degree in III LIBRARY Michigan State University I l I ABSTRACT SIMILARITIES OF DEFENSE PREFERENCES WITHIN FAMILIES, WITHIN SEX GROUPS, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION IN ADOLESCENT MALES by Mark H. Thelen The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the defense preferences of parents to those of their children. It attempted to determine if there are commonalities of defense preferences within sex groups, and within families, and if parental identifi—- cation is a factor in the acquisition of defense preferences. Fifty males, 17 and 18 years of age, and their natural parents constituted the sample of subjects employed in this study. The subjects were obtained from two local high schools. Each of the 150 subjects completed the Blacky Defense Preference Inventory (D.P.I.) and the Block Adjective Check List in their home. In addition each adolescent completed the Check List three more times. once to describe "your mother," once to describe "your father," and once to describe "your ideal self." Two indices of identification were employed. The correspondence on the Check List of the adolescents and their parents. as each took it to describe themselves, Mark H. Thelen provided a "real similarity" measure of identification with each parent. The correspondence on the Check List of the adolescent's description of "your mother" and "your father" with "your ideal self" yielded "ego ideal" measures of identification. Each adolescent could then be ranked on these indices of identification. The results may be summarized as follows: The adolescents were significantly more similar to their father in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult males. The prediction that the adolescents would be more similar to their mother in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult females was not supported. No relationship was ascertained between the identification of a son with his father and the similarity of defense preferences with those of his father. There was no evidence supporting the prediction that those adolescents strongly identified with their mother would exhibit defense preferences similar to those of the mother. The male adolescents did not manifest defense preferences more similar to their father than their mother. The adult males failed to reflect defense preferences significantly different from those of the adult females. Mark H. Thelen An additional analysis of the data was performed which revealed that the adult males were significantly more heterogeneous in their patterns of defense preferences than the adult females. The implications of this for the hypotheses in this study and for subsequent research were discussed. The various findings were considered in terms of their relationship to one another. This was followed by a discussion of the findings in the light of previous research. Also. attention was given to problems in the use of "similarity indices" and the D.P.I. The need for a new measure of defense preferences was emphasized as an important condition to continued exploration of defense preferences. In the recommendations for future research, particular attention was given to investigating the notion that adult males tend to employ more varied defense preferences than adult females. //% 1”” SIMILARITIES OF DEFENSE PREFERENCES WITHIN FAMILIES. WITHIN SEX GROUPS. AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION IN ADOLESCENT MALES BY 6‘ J Mark Hk’Thelen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1964 To My Dear Wife ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Albert I. Rabin for his guidance and inspiration during this work and throughout my graduate studies. I am also grateful to Dr. Terrence Allen. Dr. Carl Frost. and Dr. John R. Hurley for their constructive comments and suggestions. To my wife. Shirley. and my children. Jeff and Randy. all of whom contributed in their own way to the completion of this work. thank you very much. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The Concepts Identification and Defense Mechanism 4 Pertinent Theoretical Literature 6 Relevant Research 10 II. THE INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Block Adjective Check List 16 The Defense Preference Inventory 19 III. HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 IV. SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Sample 25 Administration and Scoring of the Instruments 26 Analysis of the Data 27 V. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Additional Findings 36 VI. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 The Findings 40 The Results and Other Pertinent Research 42 Research Problems 45 Future Research 47 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 50 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 iv Table LIST OF TABLES Page A comparison of the adolescents on the D.P.I. with their father vs. all nonrelated adult males (A and B). and with their mother vs. all nonrelated adult females (C) . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Results of the rank correlation coefficient relating the similarity of defense preference between the adolescents and their fathers with the "real similarity" (A) and "ego ideal" (B) indices of identification with their father . . . . . 32 Results of the rank correlation coefficient relating the similarity of the adolescents with their mothers on the D.P.I. with the "real similarity" (A) and "ego ideal” (B) indices of identification with their mother . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Results of the Wilcoxon Test comparing the adolescents on the D.P.I. with their father vs. their mother . . . . . . . . . 35 Results of the Wilcoxon Test comparing the adult males on the D.P.I. with each other vs. the adult females (A). Results comparing the adult females with each other vs. the adult males (B) . 37 The average rank of the adult males. the adult females and the adolescents for each defense category over all 11 cartoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 LIST OF APPENDICES Append ix Page I- INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 II. THE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST . . . . . . . . . . 58 III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BLACKY TEST . . . . . . 59 IV. THE MEAN RANK OF THE ADULT MALES.AND THE ADULT FEMALES FOR EACH OF THE 55 D.P.I. ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 vi INTRODUCTION The concept of identification has long been recognized as a key term in psychological theories. particularly in Psychoanalytic Theory. It has been the focus of a good deal of research which attempted to ascertain the validity of the concept and determine the nature of the processes involved. Such has not been the case with the various defense mechanisms. While they are crucial concepts in traditional Psychoanalytic Theory. the mechanisms of defense have suffered the same neglect as most of the other ego functions. Only in recent years, with the advance of Ego Psychology. have the mechanisms of defense been given the theoretical and research attention which appears to be warranted. The book by Anna Freud. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1937). made a most significant contribution toward a more accurate and complete understanding of the origin and functioning of the mechanisms of defense. At the same time it is evident that this was only the beginning of our efforts to better understand this area of ego functioning. Anna Freud (1946). was probably well aware that her book on the mechanisms of defense raised more questions than it answered. She wrote: At particular periods in life and according to its own specific structure the individual ego selects now one defensive method now another —- it may be repression. displacement. reversal. etc. -- and these it can employ both in its conflict with the instincts and in its defence against the liberation of affect (p. 34). Her reference to "particular periods in life and according to its own specific structure" reflect the lack of knowledge which she felt about the matter of the acquisition and subsequent utilization of defense preferences. Another of the leading Ego Psychologists (Hartmann. 1958) pinpoints the question which is the primary focus of this research. He states: we are entitled to ask: What determines the choice of just this means of instinctual drive mastery? (p. 14) waelder's awareness of the lack of understanding about the acquisition of defense preferences is reflected in the following statement: What the causes for an individual's choice of his characteristic defense mechanisms may be -- whether constitutional. or selection. by the dominant instinctual drives. of those forms of defense which are congenial to them. or early chance application plus fixation by accidental success -- is an important question; we cannot yet answer it satisfactorily (1960. p. 180). The basic question to which this research addresses itself is: how do defense preferences originate? The major purpose of this study is to explore the idea that parental identification may be an important factor in the acquisition of defense preferences. In addition. there are secondary objectives which are concerned with ascertaining similarities of defense preferences within families and sex groups. CHAPTER I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The Concepts Identification and Defense Mechanism While it is generally agreed that Freud introduced the concept of identification into the psychological literature (Tolman. 1943: Stoke. 1950). many others have modified the original meaning of the term both conceptually and operationally. Mowrer (1950). Sanford (1955). Sappenfield (1956). and Sears. Maccoby and Levin (1957) are but a few who have given their own idiosyncratic definition to the term. However. much of the disagreement centers around differences as to the factors which underlie or motivate a child to identify with a parent. Since this study is concerned only with identification as such and not with the factors which underlie it. it is not necessary to be concerned with many of the issues and differences of opinion which surround this concept. It may be well to note at this point that identifi- cation is often considered a defense mechanism. In this research. however. it is viewed as a separate process. Also. it is not one of the defense mechanisms studied in this research. In essence. Psychoanalytic Theory speaks of secondary identification (subsequently to be referred to simply as identification) as a process in which the individual takes into himself the psychological attributes of other people. Stoke writes as follows: From the wealth of context in which the term is used it is usually implied that a child gives its emotional allegiance to one of its parents and attempts to duplicate in its own life the ideas. attitudes. and behavior of the parent with whom it is identifying. There are occasional uses of identification in Freudian literature aside from the above. but this is the chief usage and the one with which we shall be concerned (1950. p. 163). The concept of defense mechanism also originated with Psychoanalytic Theory. Its importance to dynamic psychology and the broadness of its applicability has been increased by the Ego Psychologists. Waelder writes on this point: Freud's use of the term defense is narrower than that employed by Ego Psychologists.‘ Freud saw defenses in terms of the protection of the ego against instinctual demands. whereas Anna Freud described some mechanisms of dealing with unpleasant external reality and danger (1960. p. 180). The broader definition is accepted for the purposes of this study. Any behavior is seen as defensive to the extent that it is designed. usually unconsciously. to protect the individual from anxiety. discomfort or unpleasant situations and experiences. Pertinent Theoretical Literature The literature concerning the determinants of defense preferences may be seen in terms of four points of view. It is readily apparent that most of the writers do not see any one of the orientations as having exclusive influence on the defense preferences of a given individual. These points may be briefly stated as follows: 1. Constitutional and genetic factors determine which defenses an individual will employ in a given situation. 2. The nature of the instinctual impulse. the type of conflict and the developmental level at which the person is fixated influence which defenses are to be used. 3. Defenses which have been reinforced on previous occasions are likely to be utilized in subsequent situations. 4. An individual comes to use certain defenses. because one or both parents. with whom the person has identified. exhibit these defenses. These conceptions of defense preference may be seen in the following paragraphs in which the theoretical position of a number of writers is reviewed. Freud (1950) emphasized genetic factors but did not deny the importance of the environment: we have no reason to dispute the existence and importance of primary congenital variations in the ego. A single fact is decisive. namely. that every individual selects only certain of the possible defensive mechanisms and invariably employs those which he has selected. This suggests that each individual ego is endowed from the beginning with its own peculiar dispositions and tendencies. though it is true that we cannot predicate their nature and conditioning factors. Moreover. we know that we must not exaggerate the difference between inherited and acquired characteristics into an antithesis: what was acquired by our ancestors is certainly an important part of what we inherit (p. 343). Hartmann (1958) concurs with Freud in giving attention to constitutional as well as environmental factors as influential in the acquisition of defense preferences. The following quote attests to his orientation: Naturally the antithesis of ego (as a regulative factor) and ego apparatuses must not be equated with the antithesis of environmentally determined and constitutional. The ego as a regulative agency too has constitutional roots. In the course of psycho- analysis. ego constitution (just like drive consti- tution) appears in its negative aspect. so to speak. that is. as a limit to the explanation of a behavior by environmental influences (pp. 101—102). Anna Freud (1937), in her writings. is inclined to give almost exclusive emphasis to the nature of the instinctual demand (the second point of view discussed above) as the determinant of defense selection. This may be seen in the following statements: For the part played by the ego in the formation of those compromises which we call symptoms consists in the unvarying use of a special method of defence. when confronted with a particular instinctual demand. and the repetition of exactly the same procedure every time that demand recurs in its stereotyped form. We know that there is a regular connection between particular neuroses and special modes of defence. as. for instance. between hysteria and repression or between obsessional neurosis and the processes of isolation and undoing (pp. 36-37). A study by Chodoff and Lyons (1958) suggests that there may not be such an intimate relationship between personality type and diagnosis. They studied all patients who had a discharge diagnosis of conversion reaction in the Washington. D.C.. V.A. Hospital over a two-year period. They determined the personality types of the 17 patients using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual obtaining the following breakdown: seven were diagnosed as having passive- aggressive personalities. two as having emotionally unstable personalities. two as having inadequate personalities. two as having schizoid personalities. one as having a paranoid personality. and three as having hysterical personalities. Since the defense of repression is an outstanding character- istic of a conversion reaction. the findings of Chodoff and Lyons suggest that there is little correspondence be- tween personality type and defense preference. at least in the case of repression. Dollard and Miller (1950) focus on learning theory in general and the concept of reinforcement in particular: however. they acknowledge that the nature of the drive has a bearing on the acquisition of defense preferences. They indicate four factors that determine which defense will occur: (1) drives and cues have an innate hiearachy of responses. Each drive has a tendency to elicit somewhat different responses. (2) The innate hierarchy of responses to drives and cues may be modified by learning. Thus a response. that was originally weak to a certain pattern of drives and cues. may become strong. (3) When the responses to different drives and cues are incompatible. compromise responses may occur. (4) Reinforced responses are more likely to occur than those not reinforced. Such reinforce— ment is dependent upon the nature of the drive and the physical and social environment that allow drive reduction to occur. It should be noted that the reinforcement point of view with regard to defense preference is by no means incompatible with the notion that identification is an important factor. One might take the position that identifi— cation occurs through reinforcement. Fenichel (1945) writes of five factors which he feels are important in determining which defenses are to be acquired and developed. These include the nature of the instinctual impulse. the time when the decisive conflict was experienced. the nature and intensity of the frustrating factors. and whether or not alternative gratifications were available at the time of the frustration. Because of its special relevance to this study the fifth factor listed by Fenichel is quoted: In most cases. however. analysis succeeds in showing that a special defensive attitude was forced on the individual directly by a particular historical situation: either it was the most suitable attitude in a given situation. and all later situations are then reacted to as if they still were the pathogenic one. or all other possible attitudes were blocked in a given situation. or the attitude was favored by some model in the child's environment. with whom the child identified him- self. or the attitude is exactly opposite to that of a model whom the child did not want to be like (Fenichel. 1945. p. 524). To the four general points of view concerning the determinants of defense preferences. a fifth might well be added. This would deal with the social and cultural 10 variables relevant to defense preferences. Devereux (1956) writes along this line: The material composing the unconscious segment of the ethnic character is maintained in a state of repression by means of defense mechanisms. usually supplemented by cultural pressures (p. 26). Relevant Research This study selects one of the four orientations presented in the last section in attempting to ascertain the role of identification in the acquisition of defense preferences. The following pages contain a review of the research literature which is relevant to the questions to which this study is addressed. Miller and Swanson (1960) focus on child rearing practices and differences in social class as each might relate to defense preferences in preadolescent boys. In order to give the reader an idea of the orientation of Miller and Swanson. the following quote concerning the use of power is offered. Underlying a number of our hypotheses is the assumption that in identifying with an adult. a child selects the traits most evident in the adults methods of using power. The older 3 boy becomes. the more he internalizes his parents' expressive characteristics since they are such integral aspects of the methods whereby his behavior.is regulated. If the father strikes people in order to get his way. the son is inclined to strike people; if the father appeals to guilt feelings in others. the son expresses himself less directly (p. 309). The results of their research which are pertinent to this study are summarized in the following paragraphs. 11 Their prediction that lower class subjects would use denial (defense preferences were measured by a story completion technique) more frequently than the middle class subjects failed to be supported. However. their prediction con— cerning the middle class was supported: namely..that boys from the middle class are significantly more inclined to repress their failures than are boys from the lower class. The authors attempt to give some logic to the latter finding: First we assumed that repression creates relatively little distortion of one's total field of awareness. and that it facilitates socially conforming behavior. Few facts are eliminated from consciousness. and the tolerable ones can be reported accurately. Their meaning does not have to be denied. As reported in Chapter 2. people in the middle class place a high value on accurate perception. since it helps to evaluate the probable outcomes of certain economic risks. and to indicate the kinds of impulses that must be inhibited for the sake of future gratifications (Miller and Swanson. 1960. pp. 240-241). The above quote leads this writer to believe that the parents of middle class boys are inclined to employ repression for the reasons described above. How else would the middle class children come to know that repression would help them maintain accurate perception? At another point. the authors write: If this is a true difference. the inclination to repress rather than to deny failure may be associated with intense parental pressure only in the middle class but not in the working class (p. 245). 12 . Weiss (1957) in a study with males. and Selzer (1957) in a study with females. found that ”intellectualizers" tended to come from a higher socioeconomic class and identify mere with their father. whereas "repressors" tended to be of the lower socioeconomic class and identify more with their mother. Defense preference was ascertained by the unanimous agreement of three raters using Schafer's system with the Rorschach test. The findings of Miller and Swanson that middle class boys tended to use repression more than lower class boys might appear to contradict the findings of weiss and Selzer. It must be remembered. however. that in Miller and Swanson's work the defense was precipitated by a fear of failure whereas Weiss and Selzer employed the Rorschach. The data from these two studies may well be seen as evidence for the notion that defense preference may be dependent upon the stimulus situation. and that a study should not compare subjects across vastly different situations. Since a given expressive style often contains defensive behavior. the work of Miller and Swanson in this area is pertinent to this review. They consider that aggression may be manifested in a variety of expressive styles. Their research in this area reveals that their subjects act as their parents act and not necessarily in accordance with parental requests. They found that the expression of aggression as reflected in story endings 13 I is predominantly indirect for those children whose parents have favored psychological techniques of discipline. The expression of aggression in story endings of the corporally punished youngsters is predominantly direct. Some of their thoughts regarding these findings may be seen in the following quotes: The threat of punishment often plunges children into conflict. They want to obey but they are reluctant to forego the forbidden pleasure. To resolve the conflict. the children identify with their mothers. If two mothers differ in their methods of punishment. their children often differ accordingly (Miller and Swanson. 1960. p. 75). If the boy whose mother prefers psychological tactics tries to hit her. she does not retaliate but acts hurt. In identifying with her. he becomes a nonfighter. To the extent that his behavior reflects this identification. he does not attack others. even in self—defense. since he has not patterned himself after an attacker. Instead. when.he is in difficulty he controls himself just as his mother has done. and he shows that he is being hurt by the attacker (Miller and Swanson. 1960. p. 75). These quotes reveal Miller and Swanson's belief that the child may introject the modes of parental child rearing behavior and employ them in their own life situations which have nothing to do with parent-child interactions. Leaving the work of Miller and Swanson briefly. Witkin et. a1. (1962) make a few comments along this line. Some mothers seemed overexacting in the standards they imposed on their children since they themselves were rigid and overcontrolled. They emphasized values such as neatness. orderli- ness. and perfectionism. One mother reported that her child was unable to submit any papers to his teacher which did not meet his (the child's) criteria of excellence. She added that he too 14 lacked creativity and imagination. was obsessively clean and neat. and had many fears of contamination by dirt and bugs. She commented that the father was also neat. that you'd never know there was a man in the home. The child had apparently internal- -ized the standards which were emphasized so clearly in the home. and his behavior reflected the family pattern (PP- 347-348). Neatness. orderliness and perfectionism are seen as modes of behaving which may be utilized as defenses against anxiety. Thus the comments by Witkin et. a1. appear to be relevant to the purposes of this review. Studies concerned with the relationship between sex identity and defense preferences. and sex differences in defense preferences are seen as pertinent to this study. The identification of a child with his or her like sexed parent would seem to be a plausible explanation for sex differences in defense preferences. Miller and Swanson (1960) have explored the relation- ship between sex identity and defenses against aggression. Frank's Drawing Completion Test (Frank and Rosen. 1949) was used as a measure of unconscious identity and Gough's Femininity Scale (Gough. 1952) as a measure of conscious identity. In this study the subjects were undergraduate men. The results indicated that those men who manifested a conscious and unconscious feminine identity utilized denial and withdrawal more than the other two groups. (One group consisted of those who manifested an unconscious feminine identity but a conscious masculine identity. The other group consisted of those subjects who tested to be 15 masculine in their identifications at both the conscious and unconscious levels.) This study suggests that there are differences in defense preferences between groups of subjects which vary in their male sex identity. If this is the case. one might also expect sex differences in defense preferences. Part of a study by Peak. Muney and Clay (1960) has to do with this point. Using the Blacky Defense Preference Inventory as a measure of defense preference. they found that women tended to prefer reaction formation more often than the men who preferred projection more often than women. This analysis was performed only on those cartoons which Blum identified as hostility situations (i.e.. cartoons II. III. IV. VII and VIII). Weiss (1957) and Selzer (1957). using the Rorschach test. obtained somewhat similar results. In a psychiatric population. they found few female "projectors" and few male "deniers." The defense preferences were ascertained from interview data. In view of the above discussion. it appeared feasible to postulate the following general hypotheses: There are similarities of defense preferences within families. within sex groups. and betweenggdolescent male§_§nd one of their parents when they are strongly identified with that parent. CHAPTER II THE INSTRUMENTS The Block Adjective Check List The Adjective Check List. which was devised by Blodk (1958). consists of 79 adjectives to which the sub- ject is to respond. The subject is asked to mark 30 of the adjectives with an X indicating agreement. 30 with an 0 indicating disagreement. Nineteen adjectives are to be left blank. Block reasoned that the similarity between the subject's ideal self and his perception of one or both of his parents gives a measure of identification with his parents. Thus each subject would take the test three times; first in terms of "Your Ideal Self." next in terms of "YOur Father." and finally in terms of "Your Mother." One of the reasons that Block devised the Adjective Check List was to study its relationship to the Semantic Differential employed by Lazowick (1955) as a measure of identification. Lazowick had contended that the Semantic Differential tapped unconscious or preconscious material. Block (1958) conducted a study with a group of college students in which he administered the Semantic Differential and the Adjective Check List as measures of identification. Aftéar correcting for attenuation. he obtained a correlation l6 l7 coefficient of .94 between the two instruments. Block concludes that the Semantic Differential did not measure unconscious material to any greater extent than the Adjective Check List. In addition. Block (1958) obtained a higher split—half reliability for the Adjective Check List than for the Semantic Differential. In view of this and other research (Chang and Block. 1960). the Adjective Check List was felt to be an appro- priate instrument as a measure of identification. The approach used by Chang and Block employs an "ego ideal" conception of identification. Other conceptions have been employed in previous research including one which considers the correspondence between the son and his father (or mother) as each of them sees themselves. This may be seen as the "real similarity" approach to measuring identification. Measures of both. the "ego ideal“ and the "real similarity" conceptions. will be employed in this study. Using the "ego ideal" approach to measuring identifi- cation involves repeated testing of the same individual with the same tests. This immediately introduces the problem of set. A second problem occurs when a subject is asked to take a test as he thinks his parents would take it. The researcher can never be sure to what extent the subject is projecting his feelings onto a parent. Despite these apparent limitations the "ego ideal" con— ception has been utilized successfully with the Adjective 18 Check List by Chang and Block (1960). They found that a group of overt homosexuals. equal in age. education. and socio-economic status to the control group. were more identified with their mother and less identified with their father than the control group. In order to obtain a measure of "real similarity" between parent and son it was necessary for each subject to indicate how he sees himself by means of the Block Adjective Check List. In addition to this each of the adolescent subjects took the test in terms of "Your Mother.” "Your NIFather." and finally in terms of "Your Ideal Self." A copy of the instructions and the test may be found in Appendix I and Appendix II respectively. A change in the Adjective Check List was necessary because some of the adjectives are not understandable to the population in this study. In order to deal with this problem an explanatory phrase was constructed for each of the adjectives that might not be understood by one or more of the subjects. The subjects were instructed to draw the examiner's attention to these words at which time the explanatory phrase was orally given. The subjects asked for the meaning of one of 17 adjectives on the Check List 76 times. Often the same subject asked the meaning of more than one adjective. 19 The Defense Preference Inventory The Defense Preference Inventory (M 53) revised by Blum (1956b) utilizes the original Blacky Test Cartoons (1956a). It is a test designed to arouse feelings associated with psychosexual conflict. A copy of the instructions and test for males may be found in Appendix III. For the female subjects two changes are made in the presentation of the test. First. Blacky is depicted as a female dog in the statements for all the cartoons. Second. the order of the presentation of cartoons X and XI is reversed. Both of these changes are part of the regular testing procedure established by Blum when he devised the instrument. The subject is asked to rank five statements for each cartoon in terms of how well they fit the situation. Each statement represents one of five defensive modes; namely. intellectuali- zation. regression. projection. reaction formation. and avoidance (the generic term for the repression-denial family). In the first application of this instrument Goldstein (1952) found that subjects. who tended to employ the same type of defense with a number of the Cartoons. manifested more disturbance in their spontaneous stories to the test than those subjects with more flexible defense preferences. This was the first of a number of studies Which attempted to ascertain differences between general defenders and specific defenders (Shire. 1954; Segal. 1954). Shire found. as predicted. that the general defenders 20 manifested significantly more maladjustment on the Munro Inspection Technique (with the Rorschach) and on the spontaneous stories of the Blacky Test. Segal (1954) equated a group of general defenders and specific defenders on the basis of TAT and Blacky stories for strength of hostility or dependency impulses. He found that in a personal interview situation the general defenders were less able than the specific defenders to express feelings of hostility and dependency toward their mothers. Employing the D.P.I. as a measure of defense pre- ference. Peak. Muney and Clay (1960) found sex differences in defense preference. Women tended to prefer reaction formation more than the men who. in turn. preferred pro- jection more than the women. Blum (1964) has recently reported the results of a cross—cultural project in which he utilized the D.P.I. His subjects were college students from Denmark. France. Germany and Israel. He found that the variation of defense preferences among individuals of a given country is as great as the variation between countries. Blum (1956b) claims that the D.P.I. has been found to have some degree of face validity. Blum agrees. however. with Cronbach and Meehl (1955) in the emphasis which they give to construct validity for psychological tests. Thus if the D.P.I. is employed successfully in a variety of research situations, i.e., the hypotheses are confirmed. 21 support is achieved for both the underlying construct and the method of measurement. The existing research with the D.P.I. is encouraging in this respect. In addition to indications of construct validity. significant associations of the avoidance preferences with a number of predicted behavioral criteria have been found. Research has revealed a significant positive correlation between a preference for the avoidance items and: (l) a manifestation of perceptual defense in tasks involving tachistoscopic presentation of the Blacky Pictures (Nelson. 1955): (2) a tendency to forget the pictures in a series of recall tests (Blum. 1956b); and (3) choosing neutral rather than conflict type solutions in word-completion and anagram experiments (Blum. 1956b); and (4) when combined with high conflict. poor recall of humorous cartoons (weiss. 1955). Blum (1956b) has conducted research which gives an idea as to the reliability of the D.P.I. He obtained product moment correlation coefficients of .45 and .46 using the test-retest technique with three to four weeks between testing sessions. Seventy-three per cent of those state- ments ranked first or second on one administration were also ranked first or second on the second administration. Last choices were nearly as stable as first choices. The D.P.I. was chosen for this study because it is an objective. quantifiable instrument. which while 22 projective in nature. still bears an observable resemblance (in the eyes of a trained person) to the purpose of the test. CHAPTER II I HYPOTHESES The general hypotheses put forth at the end of Chapter I were as follows: There are similarities of defense preferences within families. within sex groups. and between adolescent males and one of their parents when they are strongly identified with that parent. Putting the above hypotheses in operational terms. they read as follows: 1. Male adolescent subjects manifest defense pre- ferences which are more similar to those shown by their father than to the nonrelated adult males. Male adolescent subjects employ defense pre- ferences which are more similar to those mani- fested by their mother than to the nonrelated adult females. A positive correlation is predicted between the degree of identification of the adolescent with his father and the similarity of defense preferences. a. Adolescent subjects who are high on the "real similarity" index of identification with their father are expected to have defense preferences similar to those of their father. b. Those adolescents who obtain a high "ego ideal" score with regard to their father will manifest defense preferences similar to those of their father. 23 4. 24 A positive correlation is predicted between the degree of identification of the aiolescent with his mother and the similarity of defense pre— ferences. a. The adolescent subjects who have a high "real similarity" with their mother will demonstrate defense preferences similar to those of their mother. b. Those adolescent subjects who are high on the "ego ideal" index of identification with their mother will reflect defense preferences similar to those of their mother. The male adolescent subjects exhibit defense preferences more similar to those demonstrated by their father than their mother. The adult male subjects reflect defense pre- ferences which differ significantly from those employed by the adult female subjects. CHAPTER IV SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE The Sample The sample consisted of 50 families each containing an adolescent son 17 or 18 years of age and his natural parents. Thus there were three subjects from each of the 50 families: the father. mother. and adolescent son. The general occupationalulevel of the adult males may be described as follows:. 10 as managerial or professional. 22 as skilled or-white-collar workers. and 18 as unskilled. Five of the adult males have completed college. 23 have completed high school. and the remaining 22 did not complete high Schoo1. The Subjects were obtained through two local high schools. One of these is a Catholic High School and the other Contains primarily Catholic students. In each school the principal called the 17 and 18 year old boys together at which time they were asked to cooperate in the Study and to enlist the cooperation of their parents. Seventy—two percent of the families contacted agreed to take the tests. Five families. which had agreed to cooperate. were not tested as the established quota of 50 famnilies was reached. 25 26 Administration and'Scoring of the Instruments The instruments were administered individually in the homes of the families. Each subject completed the Blacky DefenSe Preference Inventory first and then took the Adjective Check List. .The instructions for the Adjective Check List and D.P.I. may be found in Appendix I and Appendix III respectively. The scoring of the D.P.I. is actually done by the subject as he completes the test. in that the subjects rank the statements to each card. Two subjects may~be compared by determining the differences in ranks to each cartoon and squaring these differences. Thus. there is a measure of the dissimilarity of defense preferences. In order to make the data easier to work with conceptually. the squared dissimilarity score over all cards between any two subjects was subtracted from a constant of 550 giving a similarity score. This figure was chosen because it is higher than the maximum possible dissimilarity score that could occur between any two subjects. A similarity score measures the similarity of the patterns of responses of two people to the D.P.I. Block's scOring of the Adjective Check List con- sidered only the differences in responses on the response sheets titled "YOur Ideal Self? and "Your Father." This analysis is weak in that it fails to take the degree of the differences into account. In order to increase the 27 power of the test. this study considers the responses to each item on the Adjective Check List as a kind of ranked data with a 0 being equal to a rank of zero. leaving the item blank being comparable to a rank of one. and an X equal to a rank of two. The responses of the adolescent and his parents to each item were compared and the resulting difference scores were squared. Likewise. the adolescent subject's description on the Adjective Check List of his "ego ideal" and his description of his mother and father was compared in the same manner. These squared difference scores were summed over all items giving a dissimilarity score for the "real similarity" and "ego ideal" indices. By subtracting these dissimilarity scores from a constant 200. similarity scores were obtained which were used to measure the two conceptions of identification. The constant of 200 was selected because it is larger than the maximum possible dissimilarity score that could result from a comparison of two subjects on the Adjective Check List., Analysis of the Data The test of significance regarding hypotheses one. two. and five was the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test (Siegel. 1956). The t test was applied to the data as a test of significance for the sixth hypothesis. The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient (Siegel. 1956) was employed as the test of significance for the third and 28 fourth hypotheses. A one-tailed test of significance was applied to the first and second hypotheses because results in the opposite direction would not be psychologically meaningful. A two-tailed test was applied to the remaining hypotheses. The data for the first and second hypotheses were analyzed in exactly the same fashion. Consider the first hypothesis which states that "the male adolescent subjects manifest defense preferences which are more similar to those shown by their father than to the nonrelated adult males." The data for eaCh son were treated as follows:. First the similarity score of defense preferences between son and father wasdetermined.l Then the Same son was compared with all other fathers and the mean similarity score of all these compariSOns was then determined. The difference between these two scores when determined for each son. resulted in data appropriate for the Wilcoxon Test. Substi— tuting the father for the mother the data for the second hypotheSIs were analyzed in exactly the same manner. In order to test the fifth hypothesis. the similarity of defense preferences of each son with his father and with his mother was determined. The difference of these two scores for each son was ranked making the data suitable for the Wilcoxon Test. —.— 1A computer. Control Data Corporation 3600, was employed in the analysis of the data. 29 To test the sixth hypothesis. each adult male was compared on the D.P.I. with all other adult males and a mean similarity score was determined. Likewise. each adult male was compared with all the adult female subjects and a mean similarity score was established. It was expected that the difference between these two mean similarity scores. for each adult male. would prOvide the data to test the sixth hypothesis. Because of the unusual distribution of scOres Of the two sex groups when they were compared with one another. mean rank Scores were obtained and t tests were applied to the data. Hypotheses 3a. 3b. 4a and 4b were tested by'a comparable method. Consider. for example. hypothesis 3a which readS. "Adolescent subjects who are high on the 'real similarity' index of identification with their father are expected to have defense preferences similar to those of their father." First each adolescent was ranked on the "real similarity" index with regard to his father. Likewise they were also ranked on the similarity of their defense preferences to those of their father. These two sets of ranked data provided the necessary information to conduct the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient. A similar procedure was followed for hypotheses 3b. 4a and 4b. in each case ranking the subjects on the relevant measure of identification and similarity of defense preferences. CHAPTER V RESULTS In this section the hypotheses will be reiterated and the pertinent data will be presented. Table 1 contains the information relevant to the first and second hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. The male adolescent subjects manifest defense preferences which are more similar to those shown by their father than to the nonrelated adult males. The results of the data comparing each son on the D.P.I. with his father versus all nonrelated adult males are contained in row (A) of Table l. Employing the Wilcoxon Test a z-score of 1.27 was obtained. By a one- sided test. this falls at the .102 level and. while sug- gestive. is not Statistically significant. An examination of the data revealed that a small number of families made a large contribution which runs counter to the prediction. The Wilcoxon Test is highly sensitive to such data. In order to minimize the influence of the magnitude of the differenCe scores. the Sign Test (Siegel. 1956) was applied to the same data. Row (B) of Table 1 shows that with the Sign Test a z-score of 1.84 was obtained. Such a z-score is significant at the .033 level. This provides some confirmation for the first hypothesis. 30 31 On the basis of the above analyses. it appears that the adolescents tend to Employ defense preferences which are more similar to those of their father than to the nonrelated adult males. Table l. A comparison of the adolescents on the D.P.I. with their father vs. all nonrelated adult males (A and B). and with their mother vs. all nonrelatbd adult females (C). l‘ { ,— i T _ z z ' Significance Level (A) . 7 506 1.27 Not significant . (B) (Sign Test) 1.34 p = .033 I (c) ,.536.5 ~.98 Not significant I HypotheSis 2. The maIe adolescent subjects employ defense preferences which are more similar to thoSe manifested by their mother than t6 the nonrelated adult females. 'The data pertinent to this hypothesis may be found in row (C) of Table 1. This row contains the z-score from the Wilcoxon TestlcomparIng the adolescents on the D.P.I. 'with their mother and with all nonrelated adult females. A zescore of ;98‘falls at the .163 level Of significance. While a slight difference is suggeSted. it cannot be con— cluded that the sons are more similar in defense preferences to their mother than to nonrelated adult females. Hypothesis 3. A positive correlation is predicted between the degree of identification of the adolescent with his father and the similarity of defense preferences. 32 Hypothesis 3a. Adolescent subjects who are high on the "real similarity" index of identification with their father are expected to have defense preferences similar to those of their father. Row (A) of Table 2 contains the information relevant to this hypothesis. The correlation coefficient and the accompanying t test of significance are reported. The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient results in a negative correlation of .20. This is in a direction counter to that which was predicted. However. Table 2 shOws that the t associated with a correlation of .20 is 1.414 and is not statistically significant. It is evident from this analysis that hypothesis 3a is not supported. Table 2. Results of the rank correlation coefficient relating the similarity of defense preferences between the adolescents and their fathers with the "real similarity" (A) and "ego ideal" (B) indices of identification with their father. -rs~ ' t Significance Level (A) - -.20 1.414 Not significant (B) .02 .139 Not significant .gypothesis 3b. Those adolescents who obtain a high "ego ideal" score with regard to their father will manifest defense preferences similar to those of their father. The statistical data appropriate to this hypothesis may be found in row (B) of Table 2. The rank correlation 33 of the similarity of defense preferences between the adolescents and their father with the "ego ideal" index of identification with their father is .02, which is clearly not significant. Therefore. hypothesis 3b fails to be supported. Hypothesis 4. A positive correlation is predicted between the degree of identification of the adolescent with his mother and the similarity of defense preferences. Hypothesis 4a. The adolescent subjects who have a high "real similarity" with their mother will demonstrate defense preferences similar to those of their mother. The statistical data serving as a test of this hypothesis may be found in row (A) of Table 3. The table reveals a Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient of -.17 with an associated t—score of 1.202. This t—score is not statistically significant. Furthermore. the correlation is in a direction opposite of that which was predicted. 'Table 3. Results of the rank correlation coefficient relating the similarity of the adolescents with their mothers on the D.P.I. with the "real similarity" (A) and "ego ideal" (B) indices of identification with their mother. rs t Significance Level (A) -.17 1.202 Not significant (B) —.13 .91 Not significant 34 Hypothesis 4b. Those adolescent subjects who are high on the "ego ideal" index of identification with their mother will reflect defense preferences similar to those of their mother. The statistical data pertinent to this hypothesis are reported in row (B) of Table 3. The correlation co- efficient based on the relevant ranked data is -.l3. Table 3 shows that the associated t score of .91 is not statistically significant and is in a direction counter to that which was predicted. The information in Table 3 clearly suggests that there is no relationship between the similarity of the adolescents with their mothers on the D.P.I.. and the "real similarity" and "ego ideal" indices of identification with their mother. Hypothesis 5.. The male adoIescent subjects exhibit defense preferences more similar to those demonstrated by their father than their mother. Table 4 contains the statistical data on which the Wilcoxon Test was based in order to test this hypothesis. The T score of 617.5 represents the sum of the ranks with the less frequent sign. These data result in a z-score of .19 which is clearly not significant. Furthermore. the z-score of .19 is in a direction opposite of that predicted. The fifth hypothesis. therefore. is not supported. 35 Table 4. Results of the Wilcoxon Test comparing the adolescents on the D.P.I. with their father vs. their mother. T 2 Significance Level 617.5 —.19 Not significant Hypothesis 6. The adult male subjects reflect defense preferences which differ significantly from those employed by the adult female subjects. It was initially intended to test this hypothesis by comparing each adult male on the D.P.I. with all other adult males and obtain a mean similarity score. Likewise. each adult male was compared with all the adult female subjects and a mean similarity score was established. The difference between these two mean similarity scores. for each adult male. was to provide the data to test the sixth hypothesis. Implied in this type of analysis was the assumption that the individual differences in defense preferences would be fairly comparable between the adult male and female groups. Data will be presented in the latter portion of this section showing this not to be the caSe. In view of this. a different analysis of the data was performed: one which provided for a test of the hypothesis of sex differences among the adult subjects. In this analysis. the mean rank for each of the 55 D.P.I. items was obtained for the adult males and for the adult females (see Appendix IV). This approach was used in order 36 to avoid cancellation effects which might occur in an analysis over all 11 cartoons. A t test was performed on each of the items and the adult males were found to differ significantly from the adult females on only three of the 55 items. This number of significant findings could readily be expected to occur by chance. Thus this analysis of the data indicates that the adult males fail to be different in their defense preferences from the adult females. Additional Findings The unexpected findings. which were alluded to in the presentation of the results. will now be discussed. The reader will recall that the original intention was to test Hypothesis 6 by comparing each adult male with all of the other adult males and with all adult females. The results of this analysis may be seen in row (A) of Table 5. The z-score of -4.24 is significant beyond the .00003 level but in a direction opposite of that predicted. Row (B) of Table 5 shows the results of comparing each adult female with all of the other adult females and with all adult males. These data give a z—score of 5.03 which is significant beyond the .00003 level. A literal interpretation of the above findings suggests that. not only are the adult females more similar in defense preferences to one another than to the adult males. but the adult males are more similar to the adult 37 Table 5. Results of the Wilcoxon Test comparing the adult males on the D.P.I. with each other vs. the adult females (A). Results comparing the adult females with each other vs. the adult males (B). T 2 Significance Level (A) 198 -4.24 p = .00003 (B) 116 5.03 p = .00003 females in defense preferences than they are to one another. An explanation for these unexpected results is that. compared with the adult females. the adult males are con- siderably more heterogeneous in their patterns of defense preferences. In order to determine if this is in fact the case. an additional statistical test was conducted. The mean similarity score on the D.P.I. of each adult male with all other adult males was determined. Likewise. the mean similarity score on the D.P.I. of each adult female with all other adult females was determined. These two mean similarity scores were compared for each of the 50 families. If the adult males are more heterogeneous in their patterns of defense preferences. the mean similarity score of each adult mal; should be lower than that of his female counterpart. The analysis shows this to be the case. Applying the Sign Test to the data gives a z-score of 3.25 which is significant at the .001 level. Mere will be said about the possible implications of these findings in the Discussion Section. 38 Table 6 is presented as additional information. It contains the mean rank of each subgroup for each defense preference pooling the data from the 11 cartoons. The order of preferences is very close for the adult males and the adult females. Both give the highest average rank to avoidance and the lowest average rank to intellectualization. It is also interesting to note that the adult females rank only one defense category higher than their male counter- parts; that being avoidance. The other four defense categories are all given a slightly higher average rank by the adult males. Table 6. The average rank of the adult males. the adult females and the adolescents for each defense category over all 11 cartoons. Adult Males Adult Females Adolescents Avoidance 2.50 2.32 2.85 Reaction Formation 2.96 3.04 3.01 Regression 3.01 3.03 2.84 Projection 3.23 3.25 3.22 Intellectualization 3.30 3.37 3.08 The pertinent data in Table 6 do not support the findings of Peak et. used projection more than females and that females employed reaction formation more than the males. (1960). They found that males The differences in the respective means for these two defenses as listed in Table 6 are readily accounted for on the basis of chance. It must be remembered. however. that Peak et. studied 39 a college population which may differ in many important respects from the subjects employed in the current research. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION The Findings The results may be briefly summarized as follows: the adolescents are significantly more similar to their father in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult males. They are not significantly more similar to their I mothers in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult females. however. None of the identification hypotheses were supported. No relationship was ascertained between the identification of a son with his mother or father and the similarity of defense preferences. The male adolescent subjects did not manifest defense preferences more similar to their father than to their mother. The adult males fail to be different in their defense preferences from the adult females. The adult males were found to show more variation in their defense preferences than the adult females. Perhaps it would be well to consider the possible effects of the variation in heterogeneity of defense preferences in the subpopulations. e.g.. adult males. adult females. and adolescents. on the other hypotheses. Consider 4O 41 the second hypothesis. If the adult females are particularly homogeneous. it would be very difficult for the adolescents to be significantly more similar to their mother than to nonrelated adult females. The fifth hypothesis might also be affected by the differing variation in the subpopulations. If the adult females are relatively homogeneous in their defense preferences. the adolescents might tend to be more similar to their mother in defense preferences than their father who comes from a more heterogeneous population. This follows the same logic as that which has been put forth to account for the findings that the adult males have defense preferences more similar to the adult females than. to one another. If the homogeneity in the adult female population is having this effect. it could be cancelling out the tendency for the sons to employ defense preferences more similar to their father than their mother. There are alternative explanations to account for the finding that the adolescents do not employ defense preferences more similar to their father than their mother. 1. Adolescents are struggling with strong impulses which. because of their intensity. call for a different constellation of defenses. Their defense structure. either preceding or following adolescence. might be quite different. 2. Adolescence is a period of rebellion and attempted independence from the parents. Male adolescents are often 42 particularly defiant of paternal authority when it demands that he behave in a certain manner. The adolescents may enter the testing sutiation determined to respond to the D.P.I. in a way different from that which would be expected by their father. 3. Perhaps the adolescents have simply not completed the developmental process of acquiring a relatively stable set of defense preferences. These three factors. which may be affecting the adolescent subject's responses to the D.P.I.. may have a bearing on some of the other hypotheses. The identification hypotheses (3a and 3b) would seem to be particularly vulner- able as they involve a comparison of each son with his father on the D.P.I. On the other hand. the lack of support for the identification hypotheses is consistent with the finding that sons are not more similar to their fathers than to their mothers on the D.P.I. Certainly the D.P.I. and the Adjective Check List. used on this type of population. reveal no relationship between the identification of a male adolescent with a parent and the similarity of defense preferences with that parent. The Results and Other Pertinent Research Having interrelated the various findings of this study. it is appropriate to consider these findings in the light of other pertinent research. When comparing these 43 studies. however. it must be remembered that most previous studies have been on college populations. The subjects in this study are either older or younger than the college age. Also. they are probably lower in intelligence and in social class standing. although there would be many exceptions to this. Further. the subjects for this study are primarily of the Catholic Faith. With these points in mind. we may proceed. The question of sex differences in defense preferences again deserves attention. Also employing the D.P.I.. Peak et. a1. (1960) found that men used projection more than women and women used reaction formation more than men. Since this study failed to find sex differences in defense preferences. it does not support the results of Peak et. al. The notion that males. as a group. vary more in their defense preferences than females. is one of the more intriguing findings of this study. A possible explanation is that men have more freedom. more alternatives for behavior than do women. This would be particularly true with regard to sexual and hostility conflicts which often provide the impetus for defensive behavior. Men are more free in the American culture to openly ventilate such impulses. A consequence of the constraints of society on women is that they tend to respond in a similar fashion to a stress— ful situation. Only further research will offer objective clarity to these speculative remarks. 44 The finding in this study. that adult males show more variation in their patterns of defense preferences than adult females. has important implications for other research which employs similarity indices. For example. research on identification frequently employs similarity indices. If one of the subpopulations studied has a more heterogeneous pattern of responses than the other subpopu- lation. the results may be greatly affected and have a different meaning than that intended by the researcher. It is also possible that hypotheses would fail to be supported if this situation should exist. Further. this study suggests that careful consideration should be given before obtaining similarity indices to test hypotheses. What bearing do the findings of this study have on the work of Miller and Swanson (1960). Weiss (1957) and Selzer (1957)? In all of this research. social class differences in defense preferences were observed. This study did not deal with social class as such. However. Miller and Swanson explain their findings by putting forth the idea that parents exert considerable pressure on their children to employ certain defenses. If this is in fact the case one would expect the children to have defense preferences more similar to their father than to nonrelated adult males. and more similar to their mother than to non- related adult females. The former of these two was supported by this study and the latter was not supported. 45 Consequently no clear refutation or confirmation is offered by this study for Miller and Swanson's notion of parental pressure influencing defense preferences. The finding in this study that there is no relation— ship between identification and similarity of defense preferences has no direct bearing on previous research. Since there is no directly pertinent research reported in the literature. this part of the current study must be considered exploratory. It does. however, fail to support the ideas of Fenichel (1945) concerning the role of identification in the acquisition of defense preferences. Research Problems The next point of attention is the research problems which have been encountered in this study. 1. Problems in the use of similarity indices: any study which relates the similarity of A and B with the similarity of A and C makes a far reaching assumption. The assumption is that the two subpopulations. B and C. differ in their patterns of responses. Consider. for example. the fifth hypothesis in this study. For this hypothesis it was implicitly assumed that the mother and father of each son differed in their pattern of defense preferences. If they do not. it is impossible to support the hypothesis. The adolescents cannot be significantly .mggg similar to their father than to their mother in defense preferences. 46 2. Problems with the D.P.I.: a number of the subjects. particularly some of the adult males. found it difficult to maintain a serious attitude toward the test. These cases were. however. the exception rather than the rule. Another possible problem came to mind during this study. When using the D.P.I. across vastly different age groups. the cartoons may have a very different stimulus value. An example of this kind of complication may be seen in the Oral Eroticism Cartoon. The mothers may respond to this Cartoon with maternal feelings. the sons with oral and dependent feelings. and the fathers with a still different feeling. This kind of varying stimulus value could have a strong impact on the pattern of responses in the respective subpopulations. 3. Problems in the use of adolescents as subjects: adolescence is a period of turmoil. intense conflict. emotional instability. and often rebellion. These factors can complicate the entire situation and may have a consider- able impact on the test scores. Seventeen and 18 year old boys were deliberately chosen to minimize this problem and still have access to the population through a school setting. 4. Limitations of the identification instrument: when employed for research purposes. this concept has been a very elusive one. There are a large number of operational definitions with a large number of instruments and none of them have attained the goals for which they were conceived. It would not be legitimate to generalize the findings of 47 this study concerning identification beyond the Adjective Check List. 5. The effects of using primarily a Catholic population: the bearing that this fact has on the data is completely unknown. 6. The reader should also be reminded that 28 percent of the subjects refused to cooperate. There is no way of knowing what effect this might have on the data and the results. Future Research In the remainder of this section a few comments will be made about the directions that future research might take. Since research on the acquisition and development of defense preferences is a virgin area. nearly any study along this line has potential value. There are a number of specific issues. however. which have come to the researcher's attention during this study. If the D.P.I. is to be used. there are three points to keep in mind. First. it is probably best to consider the various defenses separately. instead of pooling them as this study has done. The results then would have much more clarity and meaning. Second. a separate analysis and statistical test for the data on each cartoon might be a worthwhile investment. The data on certain cartoons may support a given hypothesis but it may not be strong enough to make an analysis over all 11 cartoons significant. Or 48 even more important. the cartoons may cancel out one another. For example. in this study the adolescents may be more similar to their father in defense preferences on some cartoons. but more similar to their mother on others. If this should be the case. the net result of an 11 cartoon analysis would be no significant relationship. Third. similarity scores should not be employed unless it is first determined that the subpopulations. that are compared with one another. are equally heterogeneous in their patterns of responses. It appears that a new test of defense preferences is badly needed. A test which is not related to psycho- sexual stages of development and which has a more homogeneous stimulus value would appear to be desirable. A story com- pletion test dealing with content that often arouses anxiety. e.g.. sex. aggression. and the violation of any other social .mores. would seem to be a promising possibility. An important question that needs further exploration is whether men as a group tend to employ more varied defense prferences than women. Also. what are these defenses and why are men free to utilize them but not women? This kind of research could make a considerable contribution to our understanding of personality development and emotional disturbances. It could be revealing to consider young females and compare their defense preferences with those of their parents. Would the same patterns hold for males and females? 49 For reasons described earlier in this section. it is probably best to avoid using adolescents. unless the purpose of the research is to study this developmental period. The use of a preadolescent or a college age group would avoid some of these pitfalls. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of the defense preferences of parents to those of their children. It attempted to determine if there are commonalities of defense preferences within sex groups. and within families. and if parental identification is a factor in the acquisition of defense preferences. Fifty males. 17 and 18 years of age. and their natural parents constituted the sample of subjects employed in this study. The subjects were obtained from two local high schools. Each of the 150 subjects completed the Blacky Defense Preference Inventory (D.P.I.) and the Block Adjective Check List in their home. In addition each adolescent completed the Check List three more times. once to describe "your mother.’ once to describe "your father." and once to describe "your ideal self." Two indices of identification were employed. The correspondence on the Check List of the adolescents and their parents. as each took it to describe themselves. Exrovided a "real similarity" measure of identification with each parent. The correspondence on the Check List of the adolescent's description of "your mother" and "your father" 90 51 with "your ideal self" yielded "ego ideal" measures of identification. Each adolescent could then be ranked on these indices of identification. The results may be summarized as follows: The adolescents were significantly more similar to their father in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult males. The prediction that the adolescents would be more similar to their mother in defense preferences than to nonrelated adult females was not supported. No relationship was ascertained between the identification of a son with his father and the similarity of defense preferences with those of his father. There was no evidence supporting the prediction that those adolescents strongly identified with their mother would exhibit defense preferences similar to those of the mother. The male adolescents did not manifest defense preferences more similar to their father than their mother. The adult males failed to reflect defense preferences significantly different from those of the adult females. An additional analysis of the data was performed which revealed that the adult males were significantly more heterogeneous in their patterns of defense preferences 52 than the adult females. The implications of this for the hypotheses in this study and for subsequent research were discussed. The various findings were considered in terms of their relationship to one another. This was followed by a discussion of the findings in the light of previous research. Also. attention was given to problems in the use of "similarity indices" and the D.P.I. The need for a new measure of defense preferences was emphasized as an important condition to continued exploration of defense preferences. In the recommendations for future research. particular attention was given to investigating the notion that adult males tend to employ more varied defense preferences than adult females. REFERENCES Block. J. An unprofitable application of the semantic differential. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1958. 22. 235. Blum. G. S. The Blacky pictures. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1956a. 20. 487—488. Blum. G. S. Defense preference in four countries. J. PrOjo TeChol 1956b! 20] 33-410 . Blum. G. S. Defense preferences among university students in Denmark. France. Germany. and Israel. Jo Pr0jo TeChol 1964! 28! 13-190 Chang. Judy and Block. J. A. Study of identification in male homosexuals. J. Consult. Psyphol.. 1960. 24. 307-310. Chodoff. P. and Lyons. H. Hysteria. the hysterical personality and "hysterical" conversion. Am. J. of Psychiatpy. 1958. 114. 734-740. Cronbach. L. J.. and Meehl. P. E. Construct validity and psychological tests. Psyghol. Bull.. 1955. 52. 281-303. Devereux. G. Normal and abnormal: the key problem of psychiatric anthropology. In: Some uses of anthropology. Washington. D.C.: Anthrop. Society of Washington; 1956. 23-48. Dollard. J. and Miller. N. Personalityyand psychiatpy. McGraw-Hill BoOk Co.. Inc., New York. 1950. Fenichel. O. Theypsychoanalytic theory of neurosis. Norton. New York. 1945. Frank. Kate and Rosen. E. A projective test of masculinity- femininity. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1949. 13. 247-256. Freud. Anna. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. The Hogarth Press. London. 1937. 53 54 Freud. S. Analysis terminable and interminable. In: Collected papers. No. 5. Hogarth Press. London. 1950. 316-357. Goldstein. S. Ayprojective study of_psychoanalytic mechanisms of defense. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1952. Gough. H. Identifying psychological femininity. Educ. Psychol. Measurement. 1952. 12. 427—439. Hartmann. H. Ego Psychology and the problem of adaptation. International Universities Press. New York. 1958. Hollingshead. A. B. Two Factor Index of Social Position. New Haven. Connecticut: Yale Station. 1957. Jourard. S. M. Identification. parent-cathexis. and self— esteem. J. Consult. Psychol.. 1957. 21. 375-380. Lazowick. L. M. On the nature of identification. J. Abn. and Soc. Psychol.. 1955. 51. 175-183. Miller. D. R. and Swanson. G. E. Inner conflict and defense. Henry Holt and Company. New York. 1960. Miller. N. E. and Dollard. J. Social learning and imitation. Yale University Press. New Haven. 1941. Mbwrer. O. H. Learning theory_and personality. The Ronald Press. New York, 1950. Nelson. S. E. Psychosexual conflicts and defenses in visual perception. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1955. Payne. D. E. and Mussen. P. H. Parent-child relations and father identification among adolescent boys. .J. Abnorm. and Soc. Psychol.. 1956. 52. 358-362. Peak. Helen. Muney. B. and Clay. M. Opposite structures. defenses and attitudes. Psyghol. Mono.. 1960. 74. (8. #495). 25 pp. Sanford. N. The dynamics of identification. Psychol. Review. 1955. 62. No. 2. 106-118. Sappenfield. B. R. Personality dynamics: an integrative psychology of adjustment. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1956. 55 Sears. R. R.. Maccoby. Eleanor E. and Levin. H. Patterns of childrearing, Row, Peterson and Co.. Evanston. Illinois. 1957. Segal. A. B. Prediction of expressed attitudes toward the mother. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1954. Selzer. 8. Relationships between developmental experiences and choices of defensive behavior: Study II. females. Diss. Abstr.. 1957. 17. 1389-1390. Shire. A. Personality correlates of defense preferences. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1954. Siegel. S. Nonparametric statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc., New York. 1956. Stoke. S. M. An inquiry into the concept of identification. J. General Psychol.. 1950. 76. 163-189. Tolman. E. C. Identification and the post-war world. J. Abnorm. and Soc. Psychol.. 1943. 38. 141-148. Waelder. R. Basic theory of psychoanalysis. International Universities Press. New York. 1960. Weiss. B. A. Relationships between developmental experiences and choice of defensive behavior: Study I. males. Diss. Abstr.. 1957, 17. 1392-1393. Weiss. J. L. An experimental study of the psychodynamics of humor. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan. 1955. Witkin. H. A. et. a1. Psychological differentiation. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 1962. APPENDICES APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST On the next page you will find a list of adjectives. You are asked to describe yourself in terms of these adjectives. Mark an.X before the adjective if you feel it to be true or characteristic of yourself. Mark anig before the adjective if you believe it to be false or uncharacteristic of yourself. Leave the space blank if the adjective is not suitable or relevant to yourself. '1 There is one restriction placed upon you. You are permitted to make only 30 X's and 30 0's. no more and no less. Since there are a total Of 79 adjectives. you will be leaving 19 of them blank. Please check the list when you have finished to be sure you have exactly 30 X's and 30 0'3. If you do not know the meaning of the word. just ask and a definition will be given. ' ----—--—-----------—-------——--—--—--—----_—-—-.—--—--_———--- INSTRUCTIONS : On this page. follow the same instructions. only this time describe your mother in terms of these adjectives. Remember make only 30 X's and 30 0'5. no more and no less. INSTRUCTIONS: On this page. follow the same instructions. only this time describe your father in terms of these adjectives. Remember make only 30 X's and 30 0'5. no more and no less. ---------------------------—--.-------------—--------“----- INSTRUCTIONS : On this page. follow the same instructions. only this time describe your ideagyself. as you would ideally like to be. in terms of these adjectives. Remember make only 30 X's and 30 0'8. no more and no less. 57 IIIIIII||||||I|I|||I|||I|||||I||I|II||ll APPENDIX II THE ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST absent-minded affected ambitious assertive. bossy calm cautious changeable conceited confident considerate cooperative cruel. mean defensive. dependent determined disorderly dissatisfied dramatic dull easily embarrassed easily hurt energetic fair-minded. frank free with praise friendless friendly helpless hostile idealistic imaginative impulsive inhibited intelligent interests wide. introspective. lazy masculine obnoxious dominant self-excusing objective versatile self-aware 58 I||||III||I||H|| IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII persevering . personally charming precise psychologically secure reasonable rebellious relaxed resentful reserved. dignified restless sarcastic self-assured. poised. self-confident self-controlled self-indulgent selfish self-pitying sense of humor sensible. level-headed sentimental shrewd. clever sincere slow in speech and movement snobbish sophisticated stubborn suspicious sympathetic tense timid. touchy. tactless unconventional undecided. confused unhappy uninterested. indifferent unworthy. inadequate warm withdrawn. worried. meek. submissive irritable introverted anxious APPENDIX III INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE BLACKY TEST I am going to show you a series of pictures about a dog named Blacky. These are like the cartoons you see in the funny papers. Look at each cartoon for as long as you feel you need to. Then rank the five statements about the cartoon from one to five. There are five different state- ments for each cartoon. Place the number one beside the statement which fits best. a two beside the statement which fits next best. and so on. Place a five beside the state— ment which fits least well. The five statements for each cartoon are on separate pages following these instructions. Please work as rapidly as possible. Are there any questions before starting the test? Rank all of the following statements according to how well they seem to fit the situation. l-fits best 4-fits fourth best 2-fits second best S-fits worst 3-fits third best Cartoon I A. Blacky makes sure he eats heartily to facilitate the growth of healthy bodily tissues which will fortify him for activities which might lie ahead. B. Blacky tends to act in the same helpless infantile way as when he was first born. often stuffing him- self more than is good for him. C. Blacky is busy getting his dinner here. but he thinks it is really Mama who makes him eat so much all the time. D. As Blacky eats. he thinks to himself that its about time he went after his own food rather than having to depend on Mama. E. When Blacky is busy with other things. he often for- gets to come to eat. but here he's making up for lost time. 59 60 Cartoon II When Blacky gets angry. he often throws a temper tantrum like he did in his earlier days. Blacky tries to pretend that he's ferocious. but when Mama is around he is sure to be overly gentle. calm. and well-behaved. Blacky is a firm believer in the idea of releasing one's aggressions. so he feels justified in ripping Mama's collar here. Blacky is so intent on chewing the collar to pieces that he doesn't even realize it belongs to Mama. In Blacky's own way of thinking. his family has been treating him so unfairly that he feels entitled to chew up the collar. Cartoon III It may look like Blacky is relieving himself between his parent's houses, but possibly he's just digging a hole to bury a bone. Blacky knows Mama and Papa are not going to like the spot he chose. but to his way of thinking a dog's physical well-being is extremely important. The consequences of Blacky's relieving himself there might very well make him wish that he were a young pup again. Blacky thinks his behavior here is perfectly all right because he senses that Mama and Papa have been unreasonably irritated with him. even though their actions didn't show it. Blacky figures that Mama and Papa will be pleased to find him so clean and neat about covering his mess. 61 Cartoon IV A. Blacky is feeling irritable. but he'll cheer up when he realizes that Mama and Papa love each other so much. B. Though Blacky is the one behind the bushes. he's still upset by the thought that his parents are hiding their love-making from him in order to keep him out of the group. C. At the moment Blacky is upset watching his parents together. but he'll soon forget his anger as he starts playing again. D. As Blacky watches. he works himself into a fit of anger and helpless rage which will force Mama to take care Of him again. E. Blacky feels justified in getting angry here because he wants his parents to enjoy the other activities they had planned. Cartoon V A. Blacky has come to believe that frequent explorations of this sort are necessary to learn more about the role of his sexual anatomy in the functioning of his body. B. Though licking himself. Blacky isn't affected by sexual sensations and will soon move on to other parts of his body. C. Blacky will soon give up this childish practice and will devote his time to more constructive activities. D. Blacky is enjoying his discovery, but he knows that others often get very upset and guilty over such actions. B. When Blacky gets puzzled by a strange new experience like this. he naturally thinks back to the "good old days" before such problems existed. 62 Cartoon VI Blacky is intently watching this scene. waiting to see if Tippy's appearance will be improved as a result. Blacky's anticipation of this happening to him will lead him to act like a puppy too young to have his tail removed. Blacky's own reaction here is merely one of interest. but he thinks that seeing such an act would make other dogs panicky whenever they got around a knife. Blacky is frightened here. but knows that experiences like this will toughen him for future trials and tribulations. At first Blacky is terrified by seeing the knife. but he soon decides that it must be some new kind of game. Cartoon VII Blacky is so perplexed and frustrated by the toy that he may lose control of his temper the way he did when he was a pup. Blacky wants to mind his own business but he figures the toy dog is trying to start a fight by blocking his path. Blacky has eagerly called the family's attention to his new toy dog. which he is very proud of. Blacky feels justified in this furious outburst against the toy dog because. after all. discipline is vital to the development of a well-rounded personality. Blacky is delighted to have this little companion to whom he can give advice. love and affection. 63 Cartoon VIII A. Standing off at a distance like this, Blacky is impressed primarily by the fact that his family is such an intimate group. B. Blacky is pleased to see Mama and Papa being affectionate to Tippy. since he feels that Tippy deserves a turn at getting attention. C. Blacky believes that insight into his own jealousy of Tippy will enable him to handle himself better in competitive situations later on. D. As Blacky watches the rest of the family. he'll act like a helpless infant so they will have to treat him like a baby the way they once did. E. Blacky suspects that Tippy has been trying to win over Mama and Papa because Tippy is envious of their feelings toward Blacky. Cartoon IX A. Blacky feels he wouldn't be in the spot he's in now if others hadn't led him astray. B. Blacky's unhappiness will force him to drift into other thoughts which don't bother him as much. C. After an experience like this. Blacky will become a model of virtue and scrupulously avoid any wrong- doing. D. Though he's suffering now. Blacky will come to realize that his code of ethics is needlessly strict and confining. E. This experience proves so disturbing to Blacky that it will be a long time before he is able to act his age again. 64 Cartoon X A. Blacky isn't concerned about not getting a dog like this. because he figures that even beautiful females are sometimes inadequate in their dealings with males. B. Blacky hasn't been very successful in his love life. but he likes to believe that fantasy often serves as a preparation for action. C. Blacky is solely concerned with adding to his long list of female conquests. and here he is dreaming of another prospect. D. Blacky's dream is becoming clearer to him. but he still can't make out who that familiar figure could be. E. Blacky is dreaming here. of a mate who will cater to his strong needs for comfort. support. and protection. Cartoon XI A. Blacky is enjoying his dream now. but he probably won't remember it when he wakes up. B. As Blacky dreams. he thinks of the gap between what his family really is like and what ideal dogs should be. C. When Blacky wakes up to what he's really like. he'll want to run to his parents for advice and comfort. D. After Blacky awakens. he'll begin to show off and act like the big shot he dreamt about. E. (Blacky figures he doesn't amount to much now. but knowing where one really stands is half the battle. APPENDIX IV THE MEAN RANK OF THE ADULT MALES AND THE ADULT FEMALES FOR EACH OF THE 55 D.P.I. ITEMS I L —:—; ' MeanMRank Item Defense Category Adult Males Adult Females l Intellectualization 2w74. 3.12. 2* Regression 2.28 1.80 3 Projection 2.90 3.22 4 Reaction Formation 3.88 3.64 5 Avoidance 3.20 3.22 6 Regression 2.48 2.84 7 Reaction Formation 3.20 3.26 8 Intellectualization 3.02 2.90 9 Avoidance 2.28 2.04 10 Projection 4.02 3.96 11 Avoidance 1.94 1.64 12 Intellectualization 3.08 3.38 13 Regression 3.10 3.40 14 Projection 3.90 3.80 15 Reaction Formation 2.98 2.78 16 Reaction Formation 2.52 2.92 17 Projection 3.10 3.10 18 Avoidance 2.24 2.20 19 Regression 3.38 3.36 20 Intellectualization 3.76 3.42 21 Intellectualization 3.06 3.36 22 Avoidance 2.04 1.78 23 Reaction Formation 2.56 2.82 24 Projection 3.38 3.14 25 Regression 3.96 3.90 26 Reaction Formation 2.54 2.80 27 Regression 3.34 3.54 28 Projection 3.12 3.02 29 Intellectualization 3.48 3.42 30 Avoidance 2.52 2.22 31 Regression 2.26 2.54 32 Projection 2.54 2.42 33 Avoidance 3.20 3.16 34 Intellectualization 3.60 3.88 35 Reaction Formation 3.40 3.00 36 Avoidance 2.56 2.52 I\_ n 66 Mean Rank Item Defense Category Adult Males Adult Females 37 Reaction Formation 2.58 2.34 38 Intellectualization 3.48 3.60 39 Regression 3.26 3.36 40 Projection 3.12 3.16 41 Projection 3.02 3.28 42 Avoidance 2.54 2.68 43 Reaction Formation 3.00 2.92 44 Intellectualization 3.12 3.06 45 Regression 3.34 3.06 46* Avoidance 2.40 1.48 47 Projection 3.00 3.38 48 Regression 3.30 3.38 49* Reaction Formation 2.82 3.66 50 Intellectualization 3.48 3.04 51 Projection 3.40 3.30 52 Intellectualization 3.48 3.78 53 Reaction Formation 3.10 3.26 54 Avoidance 2.62 2.56 55 Regression 2.38 2.10 *Employing a t test. significant at the .05 level.