‘_ n
“.1... .
M: I I

J "W 1 ,-
t‘.‘ -X

“mfg”-

I
‘lu‘h‘

I

..41‘g9,1.1,'
{I‘m

“-1‘ I‘M 1;!”
' {HEM ""129.

«111:
.

2" , .
Wan-v" .

J
11:}!11"'1
"’L IIJ1‘\‘I,

.; 111.:

.1Jf'..
J‘y‘u‘fl"

jI
H‘“:

I
1:12 ’
411‘.

112
.1 JJ‘I'n.‘W

£21 4.111331

ASTHM-

.1.
3......5.
F

I _J. .I‘-‘

{1.31.1 1V1foI-1AI1131“..
7153"“ .“ (ism
"9\1\“~.

,m ‘1.
. _ Ifi'm

'9.
PM“ ‘i'

,1JI: f
I‘ "‘4‘th
“3;: 'lfl'

133%
‘34 3.21”,
“lit, "33.?

1'
III?" '5‘“

I
'{Eh {j

q Jill’

J_ “I“:

.J’J'.’ . I

1.1 .1
mi,

111'. . "L: 'J’J} "Lyn-N
, 'fl 1.. ‘4: 1
1w“. , I. .1 9.1.1:.- gafinr‘ “3": Sin-"gem? g
1' . ... 3 “4:11.535; ”1:21:15
IP11? 11' - ;‘ ‘

‘32:“...
II, '321‘119 . -.
.. 29‘

‘M.

“1553931“ ‘64‘531 UL
'J‘JIIJ.“ $4M“

2 £144.11

:1.
5111111. $712“ 15 ., 1

1'11} " "3" 1311‘ 1"{46 fl
11NML1'T1111 111;;(11113111111111111111111111‘1‘;
If)? 1111‘551Ig1111111aifi111‘31.113%)? “iii

:1 I: ~ .1 ‘ 1,. . ' '

“.31“ 1..-... . fifi‘fi-fi‘éw J‘

' ‘W‘ " 3491”»

.1“
v.1”dh
.magp; :A‘ .11

‘I J H'fibfl‘

I
9111111351 .9. .
1... "w n’: 'J‘Jr‘zt'.
:,:J."|\..u 1-‘(1‘1‘an12‘211
".191. .1
.': 'U‘
I' if“ (‘I 961;“ 1.3"
. .
.u.J.:.JII~J-J .111
”41""

a. J: ’9'
fly“ “.6
‘4’“. hmilur‘

5.2,. 4:11,}
"319172 LgJ ,
‘L'fi-M ‘34“! :3!" ~
g if“ ‘9‘“:
right. 'u'J‘V‘ 1‘ ‘

I”? 3?
$11133. J... 1. "$3.: . .
I15. ‘ '1
. Km; .7
538‘}: I

I. c ’1‘“
’2: . ~32... 9.....311-J
‘ ~‘« ‘1‘ lei; ‘15
u £1“

1 .
""‘N‘fJ‘I M12. ' J
Us: 1 2'1 Q‘WLL‘U ‘51::3:
.1 .11 .11 1171111 13:11... 9.111111% ”'9:
,J . 1 4...
Tug?“ :8 IL!“
411! 9.1.2:??? 5,... .J "w‘
gmm 4‘1.“
2min *J
I._.,1,1I‘£§1.‘.Hnt If
$1311.

22?.“

..‘I
(1

1‘6”
. ,J
‘ El

, ‘J

I ‘ ’ L‘a‘qu
-.'l ._ '5 J J1];

3 1 fl.l.«,...f‘.

" I ‘ 1" 1") t u:
4:1)? 19“ 23"” ”it?
@3211

9 J31 ‘2'?!" “I
11.43““ 3.‘

94

“1:.
a. :.

$111321 ‘ . '
2 "#75"; “11%“:
‘I‘

I
.

9.7.
iii: 53'

“ht-I

'15:. F‘ .431 m.
it

4! 91! “I‘m,
(5)45}

‘IIIIJ

1_‘3L:I1‘p" R
2431'
r“.

. ”.155
mg
mp} n1“
$1.11.

53;:
"qu

13f 111-1
" 4

“11111112
.. if"? J

.1: 29:.
#1:»;

“1le l'
‘3'

 

‘zl'ipuJ

V ¢ ‘

:~—' H}? “'V'JJ‘.‘ -_ . “a
hzhwxfl ‘ ‘ '
.. 1 3%,: 1:43! 1“

é'fif‘?
(‘1 "flaked,“

I Liv
yuan-n»:
hymn.“

. C“ 1.

5:;
.1339
u"\ Jaw.

.. W:

L ‘1 w.

9 {3}” 7
‘Ll‘giti5‘fiJ-m
.w ‘-

.3115 9:35.315;
va‘é‘fi:

\{

”337‘.

111% “2.32:2.

”liq,

mug

urn _
"‘9‘ .953?“ .r‘
H 3,:
wk
«s

”via
‘12:“, 315’?“
' 233.51. 353? ‘ .
wl‘d“ ‘%

. A!
31%?“ 1331‘
34“? . '

33:51 $.51»;

$6,355:

:15». ’
.. . :6:
~33?

‘49; ‘92:

91

‘II 111
.31.

"a"

2...: J

932:: .35

g‘n‘
59‘s; ’JJI;

THESIS

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
THE INTENTION T0 REMAIN CHILDLESS:
SEPARATION RESPONSE, SEX ROLE IDENTITY
AND FAMILY BACKGROUND

presented by

Linda Sue Cohen
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

__Bh4JL__degree in m

JZ%W

Major professor

Belem;

MSU is an Affirmative Anion/Equal Opportunily Institution 0- l 2771

 

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
m

-

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES wiII
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beIow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE INTENTION TO REMAIN CHILDLESS:
SEPARATION RESPONSE, SEX ROLE IDENTITY
AND FAMILY BACKGROUND

BY

Linda Sue Cohen

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1984

317;?b00

ABSTRACT
THE INTENTION TO REMAIN CHILDLESS:

SEPARATION RESPONSE, SEX ROLE IDENTITY
AND FAMILY BACKGROUND

BY

Linda Sue Cohen

The purpose of the present study was to gain a better
understanding of why women decide not to parent. More
specifically the intent was to identify some of the develop-
mental, personality and family background variables that
distinguish women who state an intention not to parent from
those who intend to mother. The variables studied were
attachment and individuation need, sex role identity, iden-
tification with mother and perceived warmth, control and
cognitive involvement of parents.

All subjects were drawn from.Introductory Psychology
courses at Michigan State University. The sample was come
posed of 34 women who were very certain they intend to
parent and 26 women who were moderately or very certain they
intend not to parent. Attachment and individuation needs
were measured by the Separation Anxiety Test (Hansburg,
1972, 1980). The Bem Sex Role Inventory (Ban, 1981) was
used to evaluate sex role identity and identification with
mother. Perceptions of parents were measured using the

Parent Behavior Form (Kelly and Worrell, 1976).

Linda Sue Cohen
The hypothesis that women who intend not to parent
would show a lower attachment and higher individuation need
than women who intend to mother was not supported by the
data. Contrary to prediction there were no differences
between groups in attachment and a trend suggested that
future childfree women are actually lower in individuation
than future parents. As predicted, childfree women were
more likely to have a masculine sex role identity, were
lower in feminity, were less identified with their mothers,
and saw their mothers as less warm and more rejecting than
women who intend to parent. Also, as predicted there were
no differences between groups in perceived control exerted
by parents. However, contrary to expectations, no differ-
ences between groups were found in warmth of father and
cognitive involvement of parents.
The results were discussed in the context of an object
relations theory of female deve10pment. Methodological
issues including instrument reliability and validity, sam-

pling bias and research design were also examined.

In memory of
my Mother
who would have delighted

in sharing the joy
of this achievement

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Dr. Albert Rabin, who encouraged me to explore the ques-
tions of interest to me, provided professional guidance
and generously agreed to continue as chairperson of my

committee after his retirement.

To Dr. Linda Jackson for her careful reading of the text,
valuable feedback and, most of all, for her interest in

this project.
To Dr. Charles Hanley for his statistical advice.

To Dr. Gilbert DeRath for taking the time from his busy

schedule to serve on my committee.

To Beth Grant and Michelle Powers for their perseverance

during the tedious task of rating projective stories.

And a special thanks to my friends and valued colleagues;
To Terry, who continues to impress me with his knowl-
edge, sensitivity, understanding and capacity to make

me laugh, especially at myself.

And to Cheryl for her warmth, acceptance, unwavering

support and help in placing things in perspective.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O 0

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Traditional Analytic Theories of the Wish to

Parent . . . . .

A Psychoanalytic Reformulation of Mothering .

Voluntary Childlessness:
Norm O O O O O O O 0

Sex Role Identity . . . .

Family Background . . . .

HYPOTHESES O O O O O O O O O 0

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

SUbjeCtS O O O O O O 0 0
Instruments . . . . . . .
Procedure . . .

Hypotheses Operationally Defined

Statistic Analysis . . .

RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of Parenting
Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Additional Findings . . .

DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O

The Sample . . . . . . .
Demographics . . . . . .
Response to Separation .
Sex Role Identity . . . .

Deviation from the

O
O O O O O
O O O O 0

Intentions

Identification with Parents
Family Background Variables

Implications for Future Rese r h

iv

0
O
a

O
O
C

vi

10
19

27

29
29
35
51
53
56
57
57

64

REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O

APPENDICES

Iaaza'ubaucou1>

Background Information Questionnaire
Separation Anxiety Test . . . . . . .
Chart for Controlled Association . .
Pattern Summary Chart . . . . . . . .
Scoring Criteria for Projective Stories
Bem Sex Role Inventory . . . . . . . .
Parent Behavior Form . . . . . . . . .
Parent Behavior Form Scale Descriptions
Consent Form . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

112
114
139
140
141
144
147
154
156

Table

10

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Demographic Variables for the
Student Population, the Intent to Parent Group
and the Intent not to Parent Group .. .. ..

Interrater Reliability for Projective Ratings
of Attachment and Individuation on the Separa-
tion Aan-ety TeSt O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0

Distribution of Parenting Intentions in the
Total Student Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and WOmen Who Intend Not to Parent on
Attachment Need As Measured by the Separation

Anxiety Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Individuation Need As Measured by the Separa-

tion Anxiety Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi Square Comparing Number of Women Who Intend
to Parent and Number of Women Who Intend to be

Childfree with a Masculine Sex Role Identity

on the Bem Sex Role Inventory . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who Intend
Not to Parent on Perceived Similarity to Mother
on Sex Role Characteristics as Measured by the

Bem Sex Role Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who Intend
to Parent and Women who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceptions of Parent Behaviors on the Parent

Behavior Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who Intend
to Parent and Women who Intend not to Parent on
Components of Attachment and Individuation on

the Separation Anxiety Test . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance Comparing Women who
Intend to Parent and WOmen who Intend not to
Parent on Mean Attachment and Individuation
Scores on the Separation Anxiety Test with

the Number of Test Responses as a Covariate ..

vi

31

45

57

58

59

61

62

63

66

69

Table
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Chi Square Comparing Women who Intend to Parent
and Women who Intend Not to Parent on Sex Role
Identity Measured by the Bem Sex Role Inventory

Analysis of Variance Comparing WOmen who Intend
to Parent and Women who Intend not to Parent on
Masculinity and Femininity on the Bem Sex Role

Inventory 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who

Intend to Parent and Women who Intend not to
Parent on Perceived Masculinity and Feminin-
ity of Parents on the Bem Sex Role Inventory .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who intend
to Parent and Women who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceived Similarity to Father on Sex Role

Characteristics on the Bem Sex Role Inventory .

Analysis of Variance Comparing Women who Intend
to Parent and Women who Intend Not to Parent on
Mean Scores on Parent Behavior Scales of the

Parent Behavior Form . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance Comparing Women who
Intend to Parent and Women who Intend Not to
Parent 0n Mean Scores of Parent Behavior
Factors of the Parent Behavior Form with

Social Desirability as the Covariate . . . . .

Analysis of Covariance Comparing Women who
Intend to Parent and WOmen who Intend Not to
Parent on Mean Scores on Parent Behavior

Scales of Parent Behavior Form with Social
Desirability as the Covariate . . . . . . . . .

vii

69

70

71

72

73

75

76

INTRODUCTION

There has been a dramatic decrease in fertility in the
United States since the early 1960%h The fertility rate
changed from 3.6 children per woman in 1961 to less than 1.8
children per woman in 1975. A major factor among others,
that has contributed to this change is an increase in inten-
tional childlessness1 (Silka and Kiesler, 1977).

The incidence of voluntary childlessness in the United
States has fluctuated with the social, economic and politi-
cal climate of the country. It reached a peak during the
Depression of the 1930's and early 40's and rapidly declined
following World War II as men returned home from the ser-
vice, the feminine mystique took hold, and the post war baby
boom ensued. This trend continued until the 1970!s when an
upsurge in intentional childlessness began (Renne, 1976;
Veevers, 1974). Statistics show that by the mid—1970's
fifteen percent of a sample of college students “LS. Bureau
of the Census, 1976), sixteen percent of high school stu-
dents (Silka and Kiesler, 1977) and 4.6% of all wives under
thirty (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976) stated an intention

to remain childless throughout the childbearing years.

 

1The author recognizes that the terms childless and
childfree carry with them different connotations, with
childless suggesting a void and childfree implying freedom
from a burden. For lack of a more neutral term, childless
and childfree are used interchangeably in this document.

1

2

Traditionally mothering was considered to be an innate
instinct and motherhood a biological inevitability (Shields,
1975). However, the growth of the women's liberation move-
ment, rising concerns about overpopulation and the develop-
ment of more sophisticated and effective birth control tech-
nology have resulted in increased flexibility in prescribed
roles for men and women, a critical look at parenting and
increased consideration of a childfree lifestyle.

Despite these recent changes, our society is still
dominated by a pronatalist ideology (Bardwick, 1971; Maxwell
and Montgomery, 1969; Russo, 1976, 1979; Veevers, 1974).
Women continue to be expected to mother and those who choose
not to are stereotyped as selfish, immature and emotionally
disturbed (Calhoun and Selby, 1980; Jamison, Franzini and
Kaplan, 1979) and are subjected to considerable pressures
and sanctions by society, family and friends (Houseknecht,
1977; Levine, 1978).

Veevers (1973) has suggested that it is this pronatal-
ist attitude that has impeded the growth of psychological
research of intentional nonparenthood. Only one study to
date and that unpublished has attempted to explore the
psychodynamic factors underlying the intention not to par-
ent. Drawing on psychoanalytic theories of psychogenic
infertility, Levine (1978) hypothesized that childless women
would demonstrate more intense sibling rivalry, greater
unresolved oedipal concerns and a weaker identification with
their mothers than women who mother. The data provided at

least partial support for all three hypotheses.

3

The results of Levinefls study suggest that the psycho-
dynamic history of women with differing reproductive inten-
tions is a significant yet virtually unexplored area of
study. The present investigation attempted to contribute to
this body of research by proposing and testing an object
relations theory of intentional childlessness in college age
women. It also attempted to demonstrate that the intention
not to parent2 is related to sex role identity and a partic-

ular constellation of family background variables.

 

2The author recognizes that "the intent to parent" is
not necessarily synonymous with "the intent tn) have a.
child.’I 'The terms are, however, used interchangeably in
this document.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ti'l' JEJI'T] . EIIII'IIE I

Traditional psychoanalytic theories of the wish to
parent essentially propose that this wish is rooted in early
biologically based needs and fantasies. While the particu-
lar needs that this wish symbolically represents varies from
theorist to theorist, all adhere to a biophysiological ex-
planation of reproduction.

Freud's theory is perhaps the most widely known and
criticized of all psychoanalytic theories. Freud believed
that the womanus reproductive need emerges from the female
castration complex. At about the age of three the little
girl realizes that she does not have a penis as male chil-
dren do. 'The little girl believes that she has been cas-
trated, views this as a narcissistic wound and comes to see
herself as inferior. Discovering that the mother is also
deficient in this respect, the little girl turns away from
her mother in anger for depriving her of the penis. The
child turns to the father and hepes to receive a penis from
him. She gradually comes to realize that she cannot have a
penis but can have a child by the father. The wish for the
penis is then replaced by a wish for a child by the father
who then becomes the little girlfs new love object (Freud,

1925, 1931, 1933).

5

Other analytic theorists propose that the wish for a
child predates the female castration complex. Deutsch
(1924) and Kestenberg (1956) contend that this wish is
related to the need to master vaginal sensations that occur
in early childhood. Erikson (1968) alternatively proposes
that the wish for a child is rooted in the little girl's
knowledge of inner space, the knowledge that she is capable
of carrying a deve10ping child within her. This everpresent
awareness is not only a source of her wish to mother, but is
a major determinant of her entire personality character.

The intention to parent may include both a wish to give
birth as well as a desire to nurture a child. To fully
comprehend why women decide to have children, both factors
must be considered. However considerable insight into the
intention to have a child can be gained from the literature

describing why women wish to mother.

I E I J l' E E 1 l' Ellll .

Feminists, disenchanted and enraged by biologically
based psychoanalytic formulations regarding the psychology
of women, have recently turned to sociocultural explanations
to account for women's mothering. Theorists and feminists
have proposed that womenfis continued sense of responsibility’
to parent is largely a cultural phenomenon promoted by the
patriarchal society to maintain women in a repressed posi-
tion inferior in power and status to men (Bernard, 1974;
Friedan, 1965; Strouse, 1974). They see parenting as a

confining trap which has kept women from achieving their

6
full potential as individuals and View voluntary childless-
ness as the “Ultimate liberation” (Movius, 1980; Peck, 1971;
Peck and Senderowitz, 1974).

To embrace this explanation of mothering is to turn
women into passive victims of social forces (Flax, 1978).
It suggests that the responsibility for mothering is sup-
ported and perpetuated primarily by men. It denies the
influential role women have in reproducing mothering from
generation to generation and ignores psychodynamic sources
of motivations and behavior. Mothering not only fulfills a
social responsibility, but meets a deeply rooted psychologi-
cal need. To the extent that this need is met in our soci-
ety through parenting, women will continue to mother and, in
so doing will be instrumental in perpetuating the existing
social structure. Thus there is a continual interplay be-
tween cultural and intrapsychic forces. Both these aspects
must be considered to fully understand the continued process
of womens' mothering (Chodorow, 1978).

In an attempt to integrate these two perspectives,
Chodorow'(1978) posits that.a woman's attitude toward par-
enting is rooted in her early object relations. She does
not dismiss the impact of culture. Rather she suggests that
through interaction with one's family, a microcosmic re-
flection of our society's structure, a woman learns that
women mother and men are engaged in extrafamilial pursuits.
These expectations are internalized and integrated into her
psychic structure, becoming a part of her concept of self,

her definition of self in relation to others and her

7
expectations of others. She will, in turn, produce
daughters who will need to mother thus reproducing mothering
from generation to generation. The psychological process by
which this occurs is delineated below.

Personality theorists concur that girls remain depend-
ent on their mothers longer than boys (Bardwick, 1971;
Deutsch, 1944; Douvan and Adelson, 1966; Maccoby, 1966;
Rossi, 1966). The male child being of a different gender
from the mother, is treated as a psychological other from
birth. This results in an early resolution of separation-
individuation issues and rapid entry into the oedipal phase,
where issues of competition, jealousy and castration anxiety
predominate (Chodorow, 1978). Quite in contrast the rela-
tionship between a mother and her infant daughter is likely
to be characterized by overidentification. The mother thus
tends to see her daughter as a narcissistic extension of
herself (Chodorow, 1978). This is more likely to stimulate
memories of her own early parenting and reawaken conflicts
in relation to her own mother. To the extent that this
occurs she may project her own needs onto the child and be
unable to accurately respond to the needs of her daughter
who is in reality a separate human being with motivations,
intentions and feelings of her own (Benedek, 1970).

It is during the rapprochement subphase of deve10pment
that the child first becomes fully aware of her own sepa-
rateness. The child's needs oscillate between the require-
ment for separateness and developing sense of self, and the

continued need for reliance on the mother (Mahler, Pine and

8

Bergman, 197SL. Fear of separation or losing the mother's
love increases and the need to have the mother accessible
and responsive to the child's needs is of optimal signifi-
cance (Flax, 1978L. When.the mother has resolved her own
dependency conflicts from childhood she will promote her
daughter's independence. However, if the mother is ambiva-
lent about giving up the symbiotic relationship or is reliv-
ing her own infancy through her daughter, she will be less
likely to provide her daughter with the needed encouragement
to become more independent. Autonomy, rather than being
experienced by the child as a way of pleasing the mother, is
then experienced as a rejection for which the daughter is
likely to be rejected. Thus the individuation process in
girls is usually curtailed at this point (Flax, 1978).

During the oedipal situation a new move toward individ-
nation is made. Chodorow (1978) suggests that the turn to
the father during the oedipal period is not for a penis or a
baby as traditional Freudian theory suggests, but rather is
a way for the little girl to establish her autonomy. Be—
cause the father is relatively inaccessible and because his
relationship with his daughter develops at a later age, the
relationship never achieves the same intensity as the origi-
nal attachment to the mother. Thus turn to the father is
never complete, as traditional theory suggests. While the
little girl may resolve the oedipal conflict to the extent
that she establishes her father as her heterosexual object

choice and identifies with the mother, the mother remains

9
internally and externally a significant love object

(Chodorow, 1978).

The major task of adolescence, termed by 8103 (1962) as
the “second individuation process" is to relinguish internal
love objects in order to free one up to establish signifi-
cant extrafamilial attachments (8103, 1962). Because both
mother and father have been retained as internal objects the
process of relinquishment is particularly conflictual fOr
the adolescent girl. The conflict is further complicated by
the mother's own conflict over the daughter's separation.
Because mother and daughter are ambivalent, both remain
convinced that independence will bring about rejection
(Chodorow, 1978).

Chodorow further theorizes that because women's preoed—
ipal attachments to mother are never fully relinquished,
women tend to be more attuned to the needs and feelings of
other people, define themselves in terms of their relation-
ship with others, and retain the wish to reexperience pri-
mary identification. In adulthood women seek satisfaction
of their relational needs with men. However, because men in
our society have repressed their relational needs in order
to achieve a masculine identification, the satisfaction of a
womanfs‘attachment needs can never be adequately met in a
male-female relationship. It is therefore sought for in
symbiotic union with a child. Thus the wish for a baby
represents an attempt to reestablish a sense of merger with

the mother.

10
II] I £1.13] . D . l' E II N

Not all girls follow this normative path. Research
consistently demonstrates that voluntarily childfree women
are more autonomous than their parenting peers. Childless
women tend to assume "personal rather than other directed
guidelines“ (Veevers, 1974), are more able to formulate and
carry out plans on their own (Mikus, 1980) and possess
independent sources of self-esteem (Lewis, 1972; Rossi,
1965). Perhaps one of the most notable findings is that
these women are able to maintain self-esteem in the face of
significant criticism, sanctions and pressures exerted on
them by family, friends and society because of their choice
not to parent (Veevers, 1973);

This pattern of self sufficiency appears to have been
established early in development. In interviews these women
report having been seen by their families as more rebelli-
ous, with rebelliousness being manifested in verbal dis-
agreements and value differences (Levine, 1978). Other
findings have reported that intentionally childless women
have achieved greater psychological distance from their
families during adolescence than other women (Houseknecht,
1977, 1979; Lott, 1973), tend to challenge conventional
values (Levine, 1978) and in adulthood are more likely to
have changed religious affiliation or profess no religious
affiliation (Gustavus and Henley, 1971; Levine, 1978;
Veevers, 1973).

The independence of childless women.has been'clearly

established by the data. However, other empirical research

ll

raises questions about the nature of this autonomy. The
existence of a firm sense of autonomy, developed out of a
secure attachment to the mother facilitates and enhances
attachment. Truly autonomous individuals are able to move
freely between states of autonomy and relatedness. They are
not only able to form mature love relationships but are able
to depend on others and be depended upon without undue
anxiety (Bowlby, 1973).

Research on childless women suggest that their autonomy
is a more fragile nature. A thread that consistently runs
through the literature is the tenacity with which these
women safeguard their autonomy. They tend to have fewer
social supports (Houseknecht, 1977), show less interest in
interacting with people, prefer to be alone, avoid group
membership, tend to live further from their families of
origin and choose professions which require them to work
alone (Silka and Kiesler, 1977). In their adolescent years
they tend to date little, are more likely to marry later
than other women (Renne, 1976; Veevers, 1973) and identify
their husbands and their "first love." Even in their mar-
riages they are highly protective of their independence.
For many, the decision not to have children is made because
of a fear of disrupting the egalitarian nature of their
relationships (Levine, 1978), leaving them dependent on
their husbands and burdened by the dependency of their
children (Veevers, 1975).

Bowlby (1973) theorizes that for some girls early de-

velopmental conflict with the mother results in a premature

12

or defensive autonomy. Repeated separations of sufficient
duration may result in the child detaching herself from
reliance on the mother and becoming narcissistically depend-
ent on herself. This pattern results in a heightened drive
towards individuation. However, because it involves a re-
pression of attachment need, the development of relation-
ships is restricted (Hansburg, 1972). It is the contention
of this study that the above described object relational
pattern underlies the intention not to parent in adolescent
women.

Pregnancy and mothering involves a psychological re-
gression to the infantile stage of primary identification
(Benedek, 1960). It is this regression that provides the
mother with the basis for empathic understanding of her
child's needs and is the source of her capacities for giving
love and nurturance so essential for her childfls growth and
I development (Balint, 1939; Benedek, 1970; Winnicott, 1965).

Most.women, because they define themselves in relation to
others and retain the need for merger are not excessively
threatened by regression involved in the parenting process
(Chodorow, 1978). However, for the excessively self suffi-
cient woman, parenting and its accompanying regression not
only evokes conflict, but threatens her fundamental self
definition which is based on a sense of separateness, a
capacity to function autonomously and a denial of relation
and connection to others.

The theory presented above to explain the intention not

to parent suggests that these women haveea heightened need

L;

 

13

for individuation and an attenuated attachment need.
Hansburg (1972) proposes that the strength of onefls attach-
ment and individuation needs will be reflected in how«one
deals with separation. He describes a continuum along which
the balance between attachment and individuation need var-
ies. On one end are those individuals he labels "anxiously
attached}. 'These peOple will meet both mild and strong
separation experiences by seeking support from others. They
are likely to avoid separation experiences by staying in
close proximity'to their attachment figures. Chzthe other
end of the continuum are "excessively self sufficient" peo-
ple. These individuals find it difficult to utilize support
from others even at times of permanent separation. They are
likely to meet both temporary and permanent separations with
individuation behavior. Hansburg (1972) contends that most
individuals will fall between these two extremes. They will
meet temporary separations with minimal anxiety and will
respond with individuation behavior. However, when con-
fronted by a permanent separation they will tend to seek
support.

The women who intend not to parent appear to fit in the
group that Hansburg identifies as excessively self suffi-
cient. It was therefore predicted that women who intend not
to parent would show a higher individuation and lower at-
tachment response following a separation than women who
intend to mother. It was further predicted that they would
react to strong separation situations with a greater indi-

viduation than attachment response.

14
The theory proposed here to account for the intention
not to parent is largely an extension of Chodorow's theory
of mothering. However, Chodorow not only provides an object
relational basis for understanding reproductive intentions,
but also prOposes that the balance between attachment and
individuation need is a critical factor in the deve10pment

of sex role identity.

fi£x_BQl£_Id£nL1L¥
fl '1' . 1.! E S E J Ii l'l

Historically sex role identity was considered to be a
unidimensional concept with masculinity and femininity rep-
resenting its polar extremes. .According to this conceptual-
ization, individuals were labeled either masculine or femi-
nine, not both, and sex role was inextricably linked to
biological gender (Monroe-Cook, 1979).

The goal of sex role identity was to develop in chil-
dren of each gender "sex-appropriate characteristics so that
they may be capable of executing successfully the sex roles
society has assigned to them" (Spence and Helmreich, 1978,
p. 3). Boys were expected to develOp independence and other
instrumental traits to prepare them for their extrafamilial
occupational roles. Girls, on the other hand were expected
to develop expressive characteristics which would ensure
adequate fulfillment of their roles as wives and mothers.
For both boys and girls deviation from this normative pat-
tern, i.e., masculinity in girls or femininity in boys, was

considered pathological (Spence and Helmreich, 1978).

15
Empirical instruments based on this theoretical model
forced individuals into one of these categories by opera-
tionally defining one in terms of the absence of the other
(Constantinople, 1973). Constantinople posited that the use
of these instruments hampered the deve10pment of a dualistic

conceptualization of sex role identity.

D 1.! E S E ] Ii l'l
The dualistic model of sex role identity pr0poses that
masculinity and femininity operate independently and there-
fore may co-exist within the same individual. The theoreti-
cal basis for a dualistic formulation can be found in the
writings of Bakan (1966) and Jung (Campbell, 1971L. Bakan
writes:
For the male and in the female we have instances
of differentiation of function, especially with
respect to their roles in reproduction. If we
think of agency and communion as two major func-
tions associated with all. living substance, then
although agency is greater in the male and commun-
ion greater in the female, agency and communion
nonetheless characterize both. (Bakan, 1966, p.
122).
In a similar formulation, Jung introduces the concepts of
anima (femininity) and animus (masculinity). He posits that
in women the anima is conscious and therefore dominant while
the animus is unconscious. For men the opposite is true;
the animus dominates while the.anima is latent, Both.Jung
and Bakan emphasize the importance of achieving a balance
between these two dimensions.

It was not until the early 1970's that the empirical

use of unidimensional instruments was seriously questioned

 

l6

(Spence and Helmreich, 1978). Following Constantinople's
critique in 1973, a large body of research has developed
which provides empirical support for the duality of sex role
identity (Bem, 1974; Berzins, Welling and Wetter, 1978;
Spence and Helmreich, 1978; Spence, Helmreich and Stapp,
1976; Heilbrun, 1976). Using instruments which enable indi-
viduals to rate themselves separately on the domains of
masculinity and femininity, subjects attribute to themselves
varying degrees of socially valued feminine and masculine
characteristics, that appear to operate independently of
each other.

This dualistic conception of masculinity and femininity
has led to the broadening of our understanding of sex roles
and to the identification of four distinct sex role cate-
gories to replace the traditional two groups. These four
categories have been labeled "masculine" to refer to those
high in masculinity and low in femininity; "feminine" for
those high in femininity and low in masculinity; "androgy-
nous" indicating those high in both and "undifferentiated"
to designate those low in both masculinity and femininity.

It has been demonstrated that both males and females
can be characterized as either masculine, feminine, androgy-
nous or undifferentiated and that psychological adjustment
is related more to category than to the establishment of
'gender-approPriate" characteristics. Research indicates
that androgynous individuals show highest self-esteem (Bem,
1975; Spence et a1., 1975) and are better able to adapt

their behavior to the specific requirements of a situation

 

17

than are others who tend to respond in sex stereotyped ways
(Bem, 1974, 1975; Bem and Lenney, 1976). Data further show
that masculine individuals have higher self-esteem than do
feminine subjects, regardless of biological gender (Bem,
1975; Spence et al., 1978). This has been attributed to the
fact that masculine characteristics are more valued in Amer-
ican society than are feminine traits (Deaux, 1976; Rosen-
krantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman and Broverman, 1968; Spence
and Helmreich, 1972) and that feminine individuals are psy-
chologically less separate and therefore more dependent on
others for maintenance of self esteem.

Traditional psychoanalytic theory posits that the de-
velopment of sex role identity arises from the resolution of
the oedipal conflict resulting in identification with the
same sex parent. While this may have been adequate to
explain the deve10pment of unidimensional sex typed behav—
ior, it fails to account for androgyny or cross-sex identity
(Monroe-Cook, 1979).

In an alternative formulation, Chodorow (1978) theo-
rizes that sex role identity is primarily a manifestation of
the attachment-individuation balance. She prOposes that
femininity is associated with continued attachment need
while masculinity reflects the extent of individuation.
According to her formulation, traditional feminine identity
indicates a high attachment and low individuation need. In
contrast, masculine identity involves a repression of at-
tachment need and a heightened drive towards individuation.

Chodorow does not specifically address the androgynous or

18
undifferentiated categories. However, her theory can logi-
cally be extended to include these groups. Androgynous
women are those who are high in both attachment and individ-
uation, while those with an undifferentiated sex role iden-

tity are low in both these areas.

II] ! £1.13] 3 S E J Ii ! d

Only'one study to date has explored the relationship
between childlessness and sex role identity. In a study
comparing married childless women with mothers, Levine
(1978) postulated that childless women probably define them-
selves in less traditional terms than do other women and
consequently hypothesized that they would be more androgy-
nous than mothers. The prediction was not supported by the
data. Levine found no differences between groups on sex
role identity. However, she suggested that differences may
have been attenuated by use of the long form of the Bem Sex
Role Inventory, which was at that time in its developmental
stages.

The present study concurs with Levine that childless
women.are likely'to demonstrate a nontraditional sex role
identity. However, on the basis of the previously stated
hypothesis that women who intend not to parent are high in
individuation need and low in attachment need (a pattern
associated with a masculine sex role identity) it was pre-
dicted that women who intend not to parent would be more
likely to identify themselves as having a masculine sex role

identity than women who intend to mother.

19
W

A relatively neglected are in the exploration of non-
parenthood has been in the domain of family background
variables. Existing studies can be divided into two groups:
1) demographic research and 2) womean perceptions of their
early family life.

Demographic investigations compose most of the early
research on the intentionally childless woman. In one of
the earliest studies Lewis (1972) found that childless women
tended to be raised in nontraditional homes where 1) mother
was dominant over father, 2) religion was unimportant,
3) mothers were likely to have some higher education and
come from a higher socioeconomic level that their husbands
and 4) parents were more likely to be previously divorced.

Subsequent research has failed to corroborate these
findings. Studies have repeatedly reported that women who
remain childless by choice come from families which are
quite conventional. Childfree women tend to be raised in
intact families (Levine, 1978; Veevers, 1973) where there is
no more prevalence of divorce or separation than in families
of those who wish to, or have become mothers (Bram, 1974;
VLott, 1973). Furthermore, mothers of the intentionally
childless tended to be full time housewives during the
subjects' childhoods (Levine, 1978; Veevers, 1973) with
those who worked being forced to do so for financial reasons
(Levine, 1978). This discrepancy may be due to differences

in sampling.

 

 

20

In one respect mothers of childless women were even
more conventional than mothers of women who mothered. Con-
trary to expectations, Bram (1974) found that mothers of
women who mothered were slightly more likely to work full
time during the womanfislchildhood. Mothers of nonparents
tended to work only when the children were older. This
occurred even though childless women came from families of
lower socioeconomic status (Lewis, 1972; Strong, 1967;
Veevers, 1973). When employed, mothers of childless women
were no more likely to be employed in male identified pro-
fessions than mothers of women who mothered (Bram, 1974).

Empirical data regarding family size have reported
conflicting results. Some investigations have found that
nonparents tend to come from small families (Lewis, 1972;
Veevers, 1975) and are oldest (Veevers, 1973) or only chil-
dren (Bram, 1974; Veevers, 1973L. Other researchers have
found no differences in family size or ordinal position
(Houseknecht, 1979; Levine, 1978; Silka et al., 1977).

In a review of demographics, Bram (1974) concluded that
there was a weak association between family history and
fertility behavior. Consequently more recent research has
focused on the childfree woman's retrospective perceptions
of her family.

Bram (1974) found no difference in perceived role con-
flicts for mothers or fathers, nor was there a difference in
the "value of children" attributed to parents of childless
women and mothers. However, important differences have been

found between childfree women and parents on the perceived

21
quality of early family relationships. Women who were in-
tentionally childless were more likely to see parents as
less nurturant (Lott, 1973), the emotional climate of their
homes as lacking in warmth (Bram, 1974; Houseknecht, 1979;
Levine, 1978) and to have seen children as a major source of
friction between parents (Bram, 1974; Levine, 1978).

In interviews, Levine (1978) found that both mothers
and childless women experienced significant conflicts with
families in the process of growing up. However, the inten-
sity of these conflicts were stronger for the childfree
group than for the mothers. Some childless women reported
that their mothers had confided in them about their marital
conflicts. This had left them feeling angry and resentful
toward both parents. Other nonparents felt pressured to be
successful where their parents had failed and experienced
guilt for the sacrifices parents had made for them.

Both.Lott (1973) and Levine (1978) report that child-
less women were even more ambivalent toward their fathers
than their mothers. However, neither elaborated on the
nature of these conflicts.

The preceding review represents the sum total of liter-
ature available regarding the family background variables
associated with a childfree life style. The recent focus on
perceptions rather than factual data has provided promising
results. However, the conclusions tend to be based on
single questions about family closeness (Bram, 1974; Lott,
1973) or on global perceptions gleaned from interviews

(Levine, 1978). Therefore, one of the goals of this study

22
will be to identify parental background variables which
differentiate intended childless women from women who intend
to parent using instruments with established reliability and

validity.

Ii l'E' !' W] III]

The first variable that will be considered will be
identification with mother with respect to sex role charac-
teristics. There has been some controversy among theorists
on the significance of identification in the development of
sex role (Orlofsky, 1979). Research has failed to resolve
the conflict. Some researchers have concluded that identi-
fication plays a major role in the determination of sex role
(Heilbrun, 1973, 1976), while others have relegated it to a
secondary position (Lynn, 1976; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974).
In an investigation that provided partial support for both
these viewpoints, Orlofsky (1979) found that the influence
of identification differed according to sex role category
(Androgynous, masculine feminine or undifferentiated).
Thus, although there is disagreement about the importance of
its contribution, most agree that to a greater or lesser
extent, identification does play a role in the deve10pment
of sex role identity.

Benedek (1970) proposes that a woman's attitude toward
parenting is rooted in the little girl's early identifica-
tions with mother. Research has further demonstrated the
importance of a woman's identification with her mother in

achieving a satisfactory adjustment to pregnancy and

23
mothering (Ballou, 1978; Benedek, 1970; Colman and Colman,
1971).

Consequently, it is surprising thatonly one study to
date~has explored the relationshiptbetween identification
with mother and intentional childlessness. Comparing child-
free women and mothers Levine (1978) found that women who
have chosen not to parent show a weaker identification with
mother than women who are mothers. Levine, however, did not
explore the similarity of these women to their mothers in
regard to masculine and feminine characteristics.

It is expected that similar results would be found in
this area of sex role identity. Some support for this
expectation is provided by previous demographic research
which has reported that mothers of childless women lead
highly conventional lives, while their daughters have chosen
a life style that deviates from the traditional female role.
It is furthermore consistent with Orlofsky“s (1979) results
that masculine women are less similar to their mothers than
androgynous, feminine and undifferentiated women. The pre—
diction in this investigation was therefore made that women
who intend not to parent would be less similar to their
mothers in respect to sex role identity than women who

intend to mother.
ParenLBehaxior
Three additional variables were explored: 1) Mother

and Father warmth vs. rejection, 2) Mother and father con—

trol and 3) mother and father cognitive involvement, which

in

24
are the three orthogonal factors identified by Kelly and
WOrrell (1976) to describe parent behaviors.
As previously indicated, the findings of other investi-
gations that childless women have parents who are less warm

and nurturing was based on questionable methodology. Fur-

l
I
l
l
l thermore there was no direct theoretical or empirical basis
l on which to formulate hypotheses on the remaining two vari-
ables. Consequently research in the area of sex role iden-
r tity was utilized. Because it is being hypothesized that
l women who intend not to parent are masculine in sex role
identity, the family background of masculine women is par-
1 ticularly relevant to the present research.
l Only two studies to date have explored the development-
; a1 background of women with different sex role identities.
The first study done by Kelly and Worrell (1976) found that
I masculine women described their parents in highly positive
terms. Their descriptions were most similar to the androgy-
nous women, with both groups seeing their parents as more
encouraging of their cognitive pursuits and less controlling
than parents of feminine and undifferentiated women. Com-
l pared with the masculine group, androgynous women were
slightly more positive in describing their mothers, charac-
terizing them as more actively involved and encouraging of
their academic curiosity.
The results of the second investigation were strikingly
different. Orlofsky (1979), also studying college students,
reported that masculine women described both parents more

negatively than any of the other three groups. They saw

I .,

i 25

their parents as less accepting, involved, egalitarian, more
rejecting, and less encouraging of their cognitive develop-
ment.

Orlofsky cites the discrepancy between the two studies,
I but makes no attempt to account for the differences. One
might certainly speculate that the masculine sex role cate-
l gory encompasses two distinct groups which have reached a
I masculine identity through alternative developmental paths.
l Accepting this premise, a comparison reveals that women who
l intend not to parent appear more similar to Orlofsky's
masculine women. In the first section of this document, it
is pr0posed that a disruption in the early childhood rela-
tionship between the future childless woman and her parents
results in the development of defensive autonomy. In de—
scribing his group of masculine women Orlofsky similarly
concludes:

. . . if a source of strength is to be found in

masculine women from these data, it appears that

their strength and independence may be self-
protective, an autonomy and toughness reached by
self-protective withdrawal from cold excessively

rejecting parents (Orlofsky, 1979, p. 509).

It was consequently assumed that women who intend not
to parent would describe their own parents in much the same
i way as the masculine women in Orlofsky's study. It was
r therefore hypothesized that future childless women would
describe both father and mother as more rejecting than
future mothers, which was consistent with the results of

previous investigations of childless women. In accordance

with Orlofsky"s results it was further predicted that women

L...—_—__

 

 

26
who intend to parent would see their parents as less cogni-
tively involved than women who intend to mother. Finally
it was expected that there would be no difference between

groups on perceived parental control.

HYPOTHESES

WW

Hypothesis I:

Hypothesis II:

Women who intend to remain childless will
be more self sufficient and will seek fewer
attachments following a separation than
women who intend to parent.

Women who intend to remain childless will
be more likely to remain self sufficient
than to seek attachments in situations of
strong separation than women who intend to

parent.

_$_e_x_Ro_1_e_Id_enLi_tx

Hypothesis III:

Women who intend to remain childless will
be more likely to have a masculine sex role
identity than will women who intend to

parent.

E .1 E I i M . I]

Hypothesis IV:

Women who intend to remain childless will
show less similarity to their mothers with
regard to sex role characteristics than

will women who intend to parent.

27

Hypothesis V:

Hypothesis VI:

Hypothesis VII:

28

Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as less warm and more
rejecting than will women who intend to
parent.

Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as no different in exert-
ing control than will women who intend to
parent.

Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as less involved in their
cognitive development than will women who

intend to parent.

METHOD

W

The subjects for this study were selected from a pool
of women enrolled in Introductory Psychology Courses at
Michigan State University during Winter and Spring Terms,
1983. In both courses, subjects are given extra credit for
participating in ongoing research.

Subjects were obtained through two alternative proce-
dures. With the professor's approval the Biographical In-
formation Questionnaire was administered to entire sections
at the beginning or end of classes. The subjects were told
that there were two parts to the study and that only a small
number of them would be selected to participate in part II.
They were given no further information on what basis the
discrimination would be made.

In those classes where the professor would not allow
the questionnaires to be administered during class time,
sign up sheets were placed in the classrooms. On these
sheets, subjects were informed of the name of the experiment
”Future Role Expectations,” the number of credits to be
awarded for participation and the place and time to meet
with the experimenter if interested. At the designated time

subjects were administered the Biographical Information

29

30
Questionnaire and were given the same information provided
to students tested in the classroom.

In all, 762 women answered and returned the screening
questionnaire. Table 1 gives a summary of the demographic
characteristics of the college pOpulation of women from
which the study sample was subsequently drawn. The study
sample was composed of two groups of women. The first group
included 34 women who were very certain they intend to
parent. The second group was composed of 26 women who were
moderately'or very certain that they intend not to parent.
This determination was made on the basis of answers to the
following questions included on the Background Information

Questionnaire:

Do you intend to parent:

Yes No Undecided

 

 

 

How certain are you about this intention?

Very certain Moderately Certain

 

 

Moderately Uncertain Very Uncertain

 

All subjects also met the following criteria:
1. Never married

2. Never having given birth to a child

3. Not currently pregnant

4. Physically able to give birth to a child

Three hundred thirty-eight women met the criteria for
inclusion in the parenting group, while 27 women met the

inclusion criteria for the childfree group. All 27 women

 

31

Table 1. Comparison of Demographic variables for the Stu-
dent Population, the Intent to Parent Group and
the Intent not to Parent Group.

 

GBQQB
Intend Intend Not

 

VARIABLE POpulation to Parent to Parent
N 702 34 26
Age
Mean 19.18 18.96 19.16
S.D. 1.59 1.31 2.49
Marital Status
Single 95.20% 100.00% 100.00%
Married 1.70% 0 0
Separated .30% 0 0
Divorced .90% 0 0
Student Status
Freshman 63.20% 58.80% 57.70%
Sophomore 20.70% 20.60% 19.20%
Junior 10.00% 17.60% 7.70%
Senior 5.80% 2.90% 11.50%
GPA
Mean 3.17 2.65 3.26
S.D. .62 .41 .39
Major
No Preference 20.80% 11.80% 7.70%
Agriculture 2.60% 2.90% 3.80%
Humanities 2.40% 0 3.80%
Business 23.90% 38.20% 19.20%
Communications 10.30% 17.60% 7.70%
Education 1.30% 2.90% 0
English 5.10% 0 3.80%
Human Ecology 4.80% 8.80% 0
Natural Science 9.80% 2.90% 19.20%
Nursing 2.80% 2.90% 0
Social Science 13.10% 11.80% 23.10%
Veterinary Med. 1.60% 0 11.50%
.60% 0 0
Race
Caucasian 90.60% 94.10% 88.50%
Black 6.30% 2.90% 0
Other 3.00% 0 11.50%

32

Table 1. (Cont.)

 

 

GBQUE
Intend Intend Not
VARIABLE P0pulation to Parent to Parent
Religion
None 5.60% 0 33.60%
Protestant 31.60% 44.10% 15.40%
Catholic 40.50% 38.20% 42.30%
Jewish 4.80% 8.80% 0
Lutheran 3.00% 2.90% 0
Christian 1.40% 0 3.80%
Other 9.80% 2.90% 0
Parents' Marital Status
Married 76.40% 85.30% 65.40%
Separated 3.00% 2.90% 3.80%
Divorced 15.80% 5.90% 26.90%
Widowed 4.10% 5.90% 3.80%
Age sow1
0 - 5 2.90% 0
6 - 10 2.90% 15.20%
11 - 18 8.70% 15.20%
Father's Education
Post Graduate 24.60% 23.50% 38.50%
College Graduate 33.80% 35.30% 11.50%
High School
Graduate 34.30% 32.40% 34.60%
Not High School
Grad 6.70% 5.90% 15.40%
Mother's Education
Post Graduate 11.00% 11.80% 11.50%
College Graduate 34.20% 41.20% 15.40%
High School
Graduate 49.70% 38.20% 65.40%
Not H.S. Graduate 4.40% 5.90% 7.70%
Father's Occupation2
1 26.80% 20.60% 30.80%
2 20.50% 32.40% 15.40%
3 17.40% 8.80% 7.70%
4 7.80% 14.70% 7.70%
5 10.00% 5.90% 3.80%
6 3.70% 0 19.20%
7 2.10% 8.80% 3.80%
Unemployed 4.70% 0 0

 

 

33
Table 1. (Cont.)
QEQHE
Intend Intend Not
VARIABLE Population to Parent to Parent
Mother's Occupation2
1 1.90% 0 0
2 21.40% 26.50% 23.10%
3 10.30% 8.80% 3.80%
4 22.80% 11.80% 19.20%
5 3.40% 0 0
6 5.60% 0 15.40%
7 1.40% 2.90% 11.50%
Housewife 22.40% 26.50% 15.40%
Unemployed 4.30% 14.70% 7.70%
5353
Class I 25.20% 17.60% 30.80%
II 18.90% 35.30% 11.50%
III 23.60% 23.50% 11.50%
IV 17.70% 8.80% 19.20%
V 4.10% 8.80% 15.40%
Children in Family
Mean 3.50 3.29 3.65
S.D. 1.62 1.64 1.38
Sibling Position
Only 5.10% 2.90% 7.70%
Oldest 26.90% 38.20% 38.50%
Middle 32.60% 23.50% 30.80%
Youngest 35.20% 35.30% 23.10%
Marital Intentions
Yes 87.01% 100.00% 34.60%
No 1.00% 0 19.20%
Undecided 11.30% 0 46.20%
Childbearing Intentions
Yes 78.50% 100.00% 0
No 1.70% 0 100.00%
Undecided 19.50% 0 0
Births
No 97.70% 100.00% 100.00%
Yes 1.40% 0 0
Previous Pregnancies
No 98.70% 100.00% 100.00%

Yes 0 0 0

seq

 

 

34
Table 1. (Cont.)
GBQUB
Intend Intend Not

VARIABLE POpulation to Parent to Parent
Physical Problems4

No 95.40% 97.10% 100.00%

Yes 4.00% 0 0
Work Intentions

Yes 95.70% 97.10% 100.00%

No .40% 0 0

Undecided 3.60% 2.90% 0

 

lAge SDW = Subject's age at the time of separation, divorce
or widowhood of parents.

2Occupation
1 = Higher executives, prOprietors of large concerns

and major professionals.
= Business managers, proprietors of medium sized
businesses, lesser professionals.
Administrative personnel, small independent busi-
nesses and minor professionals.
Clerical and sales workers, technicians and owner
of little businesses.
Skilled manual employees.
Machine Operators and semi-skilled workers.
Unskilled employees.

\IO‘U'I ah I» M
II II

3SES determined by Hollingshead Two Factor Index (1957).

4 = Physical problems that would prevent pregnancy.

who stated an intention not to parent agreed to participate.
One subject left school before she could be tested. For
each intentionally childless woman identified, a woman in-
tending to parent was randomly selected from the same class
or group. This was done to minimize sampling bias. Eight
additional women who stated an intention to parent were
randomly selected to participate in the study to achieve the

previously agreed upon 60 subjects. This was done to reduce

35
statistical error. Four of the women originally selected
for inclusion in the intend to parent group, chose not to
participate. Four other women were contacted and all agreed
to be tested. Table 1 shows a comparison of the demographic
characteristics between the two research groups and the

population from which they were drawn.

Infiilnmfinlfi
Background Information Questionnaire

The Background Information Questionnaire (see Appendix
A) was developed specifically for this study. It consists
of 19 questions designed to gather demographic data about
the subjects and their families. Four additional questions
regarding subjects' marital, parenting and work intentions,
and pregnancy history were also included. The questionnaire
was administered to all potential subjects and was used to
identify those women who met inclusion criteria for the

study.

Separation Anxiety Test (SAT)
5 ._ . !' E3 . . .

The Separation Anxiety Test (see Appendix B) is a semi-
projective instrument which is designed to assess reaction
patterns to separation in adolescents (Hansburg, 1972;
1980). There are two forms, one for males and one for
females. The test consists of 12 pictures, each of which
depicts a different situation in which a child, either a boy

or a girl, is separating from a significant other. Six of

36
the pictures represent mild or temporary separations and six
depict strong or permanent separations.

Each of the pictures is accompanied by a title describ-
ing the type of separation situations and 17 statements
describing how the child in the picture might react or feel.
Each of the 17 items were judged by four highly experienced
clinical psychologists to represent a different psychologi-
cal mechanism one might use to deal with separation. These
mechanisms can then be grouped according to eight response
patterns representing different ego and superego functions.
These include: 1) attachment need; 2) individuation need;
3) hostility; 4) painful tension; 5) reality avoidance; 6)
self-esteem preoccupation; 7) self-love loss; and 8) identi-
ty stress.

Only the first two patterns, attachment and individua-
tion need, were used for this study. Each of these reSponse
patterns consists of three components. Attachment includes
feelings of rejection, loneliness and empathy. Individua-
tion consists of a feeling of well being, adaptation and
sublimation.

.All subjects were administered the female form of the
SAT. Subjects were instructed to look at each picture, read
the title underneath, and then indicate those statements
which represent how the girl in the picture feels. They
were then instructed to identify as many statements as
seemed appropriate. /

Each subject's protocol was then scored individually

and recorded on the Chart for Controlled Associations (see

37
Appendix C). Next, the total number of attachment responses
were calculated by adding the number of rejection, loneli-
ness and empathy responses. The individuation score was
similarly calculated by adding the adaptation, well-being
and sublimation scores. These were then placed in the
Pattern Summary Chart (see Appendix D). ‘The overall attach-
ment and individuation percentages for mild and strong pic-

tures were calculated.

K 1.1.!

Validity studies were done on 250 children between the
ages of 11 and 15 between 1967 and 1970 (Hansburg, 1972;
1980). The subjects were drawn from a number of different
settings in the New York City Long Island area including the
Pleasantville Cottage School, two group residences for the
Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA), two Catholic Charities
care facilities, the psychiatric clinic of the JCCA, several
public schools and a private Jewish day school.

The results indicated that girls showed a slight but
nonsignificantly higher attachment need than did boys. In-
stitutionalized children showed a lower attachment need than
other children. Jewish children were higher in attachment
need than Catholics. There were no differences across age
groups in attachment need.

In regard to individuation, the highest individuation
responses were found in children living in nuclear family

settings, while the lowest scores were obtained by children

38
with weak attachments to their families and those living in
institutional settings.

The children who were best adjusted showed a slightly
higher overall attachment than individuation score. On
pictures representing strong separations attachment exceeded
individuation.while the reverse was true for mild separa-
tions. A positive correlation was also found between the
extent to which individuation exceeded attachment and diffi-
culties in object relations.

Hansburg (1972) discovered that an adequate balance
between attachment and individuation is represented by an
attachment need of 20-25% and an individuation need of 16-
28%. Those individuals independently judged to be symbiotic
had attachment responses exceeding 25% and individuation
responses lower than 16%. Self—sufficient subjects had
attachment responses less than 20% and individuation re-
sponses greater than 28%

Sherry (1981) validated the SAT with a graduate and
undergraduate college population. Based on pretest and
interview data be judged the test to be applicable to these

groups.

B 1‘ 1.1.!

Internal consistency, computed by the split-half
method, revealed an overall reliability of .885. No indi-
vidual scale reliabilities were reported (Hansburg, 1972).
Coefficient alpha calculated for this research sample was

.747 for attachment and .732 for individuation.

39
E . l‘ £3 . . I'

The Separation Anxiety Test was also administered pro-
jectively. For this administration only the pictures with
descriptive titles were shown to the subject. They were
given the following directions which are virtually identical
to those given when administering the TAT (Murray, 1938).

I am going to show you a series of twelve pictures

and ask you to make up a story about each one.

When I hand you the picture, first read the title

underneath and then make up the story. Please

include in your story the following four things:

1) what is happening in the picture; 2) what led

up to the situation; 3) what are the people think-

ing and feeling; and 4) what is going to happen.

When you are finished with your story, place the

picture face down on the table in front of you.

All stories were tape recorded and later transcribed.
The protocols were then rated for attachment and individua-
tion needs according to the scoring system developed spe-
cifically for this study. The attachment score was composed
of four components: loneliness, rejection, relatedness, and
affiliation. The individuation score included three compo—
nents: object constancy, adaptation and exploration/
initiative.

Each of the twelve stories per protocol was rated on
these seven components by assigning a score of one if pres-
ent or zero if absent. The attachment score was then calcu-
lated by adding the loneliness, rejection relatedness and
affiliation scores across the twelve cards. The individua-
tion score was similarly calculated by adding the object

constancy, adaptation and exploration/initiative scores.

Comparisons were made and hypotheses tested.

40

Persianmsnt_of_§coring_§riteria

The scoring criteria for attachment were developed from
the theoretical and empirical literature of separation anx-
iety and attachment. There is some disagreement in the
literature as to whether separation anxiety is a primary
anxiety associated with object loss or a derivative of the
more basic anxiety associated with unsatisfied bodily needs.
There is, however, a growing consensus that separation from
an attachment figure is accompanied by anxiety and some
predictable patterns of response throughout the life cycle
(Antonucci, 1976; Bowlby, 1973).

Loneliness is a common response to the disruption of
the attachment bond at all ages, though the character of
attachment may differ depending on the developmental stage
at which the<disruption.occurs (Blos, 1962; Bowlby, 1973b,
1980; Hansburg, 1972, 1980; Sullivan 1953; Weiss, 1982).
Sullivan views loneliness as a response to lack of contact
in infancy, lack of an adult to share activities with in
childhood and an absence of intimate exchange with another
human being in preadolescence and thereafter. Furthermore,
loneliness reaches its full significance in adolescence
(Sullivan, 1953) as teenagers struggle to relinguish their
ties to their internal parental objects (Blos, 1967).

Rejection is also a frequent reaction to separation or
loss (Benedek, 1956; Bowlby, 1973; Klein, 1935; Rochlin,
1961). Klein proposes that the feeling of rejection has its
developmental roots in the depressive and persecutory anx-

iety that first occurs in infancy; It is experienced as a

41
loss of love from the attachment figure (Kris, 1950; Mahler,
Pine and Bergman, 1975) and is associated with a narcissis-
tic injury, a loss of self-esteem (Rochlin, 1961) and a
feeling of being unwanted and unwantable (Bowlby, 1973).

The third and fourth components, relatedness and affil-
iation, are indications of positive attachment that may
occur in the absence of the attachment object. They are
drawn from the literature that has attempted to apply at-
tachment concepts to adults. The relatedness component is a
composite of the affective components identified by Knudtson
(1976), Steindel (1981) and Troll and Smith (1976). The
affiliation dimension includes most forms of proximity seek—
ing which range from simple physical contact to emotional
intimacy. This affiliation response has also been identi-
fied as an important component of attachment (Knudtson,
1976; Maccoby and Masters, 1970; Murray, 1938; Steindel,
1981; Weiss, 1982) and may be viewed as the developmentally
more advanced manifestation of the clinging, crying, follow-
ing attachment behaviors of infancy (Weiss, 1982).

The establishment of object constancy is a primary
objective of the fourth and final phase of the separation-
individuation process (Mahler et al., 1975). It represents
the most mature form of object relationships (Hoffer, 1955)
and is achieved through the gradual internalization of the
object-mother, the differentiation of object from self, and
fusion of good and bad object and self—images into inte-
grated and stable internal object and self-representations

(Mahler, et al., 1975). This capacity to maintain an

42

internal representation of the absent love object increases
the individual's ability to accept separations and make
adaptations necessitated by the separation despite even
moderate degrees of discomfort. As individuation occurs,
separations, especially those that are predictable and of
mild intensity, are viewed not so much as a threat, but as
an opportunity to explore the world, engage in new experi-
ences and interact with new pe0ple (Arendt, Gove and Sroufe,
1970; 8103, 1962, 1967; Hansburg, 1972; Mahler, et al.,
1975; Matas, Arendt and Sroufe, 1979; Murphy, Silber,
Coelho, Hamburg and Greenberg, 1963).

On the basis of this literature the attachment scale
included components of loneliness, rejection, relatedness
and affiliation. The individuation scale was originally
composed of five components: object constancy, sense of
self, adaptation, sublimation and exploration/initiative.

A highly skilled clinical psychologist recommended the
object constancy and sense of self categories be fused into
one since they represented the same conceptual construct.
He also recommended that adaptation and sublimation cate-
gories be combined because they were not sufficiently dis-
crete to warrant separate categorization. Consequently the
final individuation scale was composed of the three compo-
nents object constancy, adaptation and exploration/initia-
tive. For a description of the criteria used to score each

category, see Appendix E.

43
Y 1.3.!
The attachment and individuation components and their
scoring criteria were submitted to three advanced doctoral
students in counseling psychology. All agreed that these

categories represented the constructs being addressed.

I . . E E I

The projective stories were rated for attachment and
individuation by two female senior psychology students who
received 490 course credit for their participation.

Raters participated in ten three-hour training sessions
over the course of five weeks. These were conducted by the
author.

In the initial session, subjects were told that the
research was directed at learning more about women with
different childbearing intentions, but were not informed of
the hypotheses. They were given a brief overview of the
concepts of attachment and individuation and were then given
the scoring criteria to study and a protocol of twelve
stories to rate.

The raters and the author scored the protocol independ-
ently then reconvened to discuss rationales for the scoring
of each category for each of the twelve stories. When
discrepancies occurred, these were discussed until consensus
was reached. This process was repeated five times until
adequate interrater reliability of .80 was achieved (Crano

and Brewer, 1973).

44

When the training process was completed each rater was
given 28 protocols to rate. This included 15 protocols from
the Intend to Parent group and ten from the Intend Not to
Parent group and six protocols randomly selected to be rated
by both to verify interrater reliability; Approximately
halfway through the rating process, interrater reliability
was found to have fallen below the acceptable level. An
additional training session was scheduled in which scoring
criteria were discussed and discrepancies reconciled. Fol-
lowing this session, subjects were asked to rerate all
protocols. Reliability was again checked after all proto-

cols had been scored.

I I I E ]' I'J'l

Interrater reliability at the end of training was .80
for attachment and .83 for individuation. The final inter-
rater reliability calculated on the basis of six protocols
was .78 for attachment and .80 for individuation. As Table
2 indicates, the interrater reliability for the components

ranged from {70 for loneliness to .86 for rejection.

W

Internal consistency was calculated for the attachment
and individuation scales. Coefficient alpha was.37l for
attachment and .657 for individuation. These are consider-

ably below'acceptable levels for reliability.

Ll—

 

45

Table 2. Interrater Reliability for Projective Ratings of
Attachment and Individuation on the Separation
Anxiety Test

 

 

Components Interrater Reliability

Attachment Total .78
Rejection .86
Loneliness .70
Relatedness .80
Affiliation .76

Individuation Total .80
Object Constancy .81
Adaptation .77
Exploration/Initiative .85

 

Bem Sex Role Inventory

The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI), Short Form (Bem
1981), is a 30 item instrument used to measure sex role
identity (see Appendix F). It represents a refinement of
the original 60-item, BSRI (Bem, 1974). The original BSRI
was developed in the early 1970's. Fifty male and 50 female
Stanford undergraduates were asked to rate the desirability
of 200 personality characteristics on a scale of one (not at
all desirable) to seven (extremely desirable) for either men
or women. No subjects were asked to rate characteristics

for both. They were instructed to make the ratings based on

46
what they thought would be culturally desirable, not their
own personal ideas of desirability.

Based on these ratings, a list of masculine and femi-
nine characteristics were compiled. A personality
characteristic was defined as masculine or feminine if it
was determined to be significantly more desirable in the
American culture for one sex than for the other. Seventy-
six of the original 200 personality characteristics met this
criterion. Of these, 20 were selected for the masculinity
scale and 20 for the femininity scale. Twenty additional
items, judged to be equally desirable for males and females
were included as an indicator of social desirability. The
score for each scale ranged from 2.00 to 5.00. After a
masculinity and femininity score was computed, each subject
was placed in one of four sex role categories,: androgy-
nous, masculine, feminine or undifferentiated by the median
split technique. Subjects scoring above the medians on both
masculinity and femininity scales were assigned to the an-
drogynous group. Those above the median of masculinity and
below the median on femininity were identified as masculine.
The feminine group was composed of those subjects scoring
above the median on femininity and below the median on
masculinity. Finally the undifferentiated group included
those women who scored below the medians of both scales.
The medians of 3.70 for masculinity and 4.01 for femininity,
computed from BEM Scores of 1180 Michigan State University
undergraduates were used in categorizing subjects (Jackson,

1983).

47
The short form of the BSRI was developed by Bem in
I order to improve internal consistency of the masculinity and
) femininity scales and the orthogonality between them. A
factor analysis was conducted separately for males and fe—
‘ males on the 40 masculine and feminine items. A varimax
I orthogonal rotation was then performed on the extracted
. factors. Twenty-five items, 11 feminine and 14 masculine
had factor loadings higher than .35. From these, 10 femi-
nine and 10 masculine items were selected for inclusion in
the short form based on the item-total correlations between
the individual items and the 40 original items. Ten filler

items were also included in the short form.
On the short BSRI, the items are arranged in a list of
30 bipolar adjectives with the letters A—E forming a scale
between two extremes. Subjects are asked to choose the
letter that best describes the person being rated. In this
study subjects were asked to rate themselves, their mothers
and their fathers, in that order. To score the BSRI the
numbers 1-5 were assigned to the letters A-E (A=1, B=2, C=3,
D=4, E=5). The scores on the 10 items belonging to each
scale were then summed and divided by ten. This results in

a single score for masculinity and one for femininity.

T - R

The following reliability and validity statistics were
computed on the basis of a rescoring of the original BSRI.
To evaluate test-retest reliability, 28 male and 28 female

Stanford University undergraduates were administered the

48
BSRI twice with a four week interval between testings.
Product moment correlations indicated good reliability for
both masculine and feminine scales with correlations ranging
from .76 for males on masculine items to .91 for males on

feminine items and females on masculine items (Bem, 1981).

The Marlowe-Crowne Social desirability Scale was also
administered to these 56 students. Product-moment correla-
tions between the Marlowe-Crowne scale and the femininity
and masculinity scales ranged from -.08 for males on the
masculinity scale to .24 for females on the femininity
scale. These low correlations indicate that the BSRI is not
measuring a general tendency to describe oneself in a so-

cially desirable manner (Bem, 1981).

W

Internal consistency'of the BSRI short form and tests
of scale independence were determined based on analysis of
data collected from 619 female and 920 male Stanford Univer-
sity undergraduates in 1973 and 1978. Coefficient alpha
computed separately for males and females ranged from .84
for females on both the masculinity and femininity scales to
.87 for males on the femininity scale indicating high inter—
nal consistency for both scales. Tests of correlation be-
tween masculinity and femininity indicate that these scales
are empirically independent. The correlations wee .10 and
.33 for females and males respectively in 1973 and .19 and

.12 for females and males in 1978 (Bem, 1981).

49

Coefficient alpha computed for the present research
sample was .874 and .879 for the masculinity and femininity
scales for subjects, .879 and .919 for their mothers and
.854 and .932 for their fathers. This indicates high inter-
nal consistency on both scales for all three groups. To
test independence of masculinity and femininity, product
moment correlations were computed. These were .07 for sub-
jects, -.07 for mothers and .08 for fathers, indicating

empirical independence of masculinity and femininity.

Parent Behavior Form (PBF)

The Parent Behavior Form (Kelly and Worrell, 1976, see
Appendix G) is a 135 item instrument designed to measure an
individual's perceptions of his/her parents' behavior. Each
subject was asked to rate each descriptive statement as
being like, somewhat like or not likeeach of her parents.
Those statements judged to be like the parent are given a
score of three, those somewhat like are assigned a two and
those not like are give a score of one. For each parent,
scores on the 15 scales and 3 factors were calculated.

The Warmth vs. Rejection factor score was obtained by
adding scores on the warmth, active involvement, egalitar-
ianism and cognitive independence scales and subtracting the
score on the hostile control and rejection scales. The
control factor score was calculated by adding the strict
control, punitive control and conformity scales and sub-
tracting the lax control scale. Finally, the cognitive

involvement factor score was determined by adding scores on

50
the cognitive curiosity, cognitive competence, cognitive
independence and achievement control scales. For a descrip-
tion of each of the scales, see Appendix H. Scores on each
of the 15 scales can range from 9 to 27. Possible range for
Warmth vs. Rejection factor is -16 to 90, 0 to 81 for the
Qontrol factor and 36 to 108 for the Cognitive Involvement

factor.

1 J'i'l

Kelly and Worrell (1976) report that PBF scales have
been shown to differentiate inpatient alcoholics and college
cheaters from experimental controls. The scales have also
been differentially related to internal/external locus of
control, children exhibiting different.academic behaviors
and potentials, and individuals in different sex-role cate-
gories (Kelly and Worrell, 1976; Monroe-Cook, 1978;
Orlofsky, 1979).

I l-E ! I E 1' l']'!

Test-retest correlations for the 15 PBF scales were
previously calculated on the basis of tests administered to
102 males and 110 females.

For men, correlations ranged between .64 for ratings of
their fathers on the strict control scale to .90 for ratings
of’their fathers on the active involvement scale. For women
correlations ranged form .54 for ratings of mothers on
rejection to .92 for ratings of fathers on active involve-

ment (WOrrell, 1983).

51
Coefficient alpha for the 15 scales ranged from .57 for

the achievement control scale no.90 for the warmth scale

(Monroe-Cook, 1978).

Interview

The interview was conducted in order to verify sub-
ject's parenting intentions reported on the Biographical
Information Questionnaire and to give them an opportunity to
discuss their motivations for making these choices. The
interview also was used to supplement information provided
on other instruments regarding self-perceptions,gmmsonal
and family history. The interview were unstructured and
varied in length from 15 to 90 minutes. The average inter-
view lasted for approximately 30 minutes. Only one woman
refused to be interviewed. This woman belonged to the group
of women intending not to parent. Brief summary notes were

made during and following each interview.

Procedure

Sixty women, 34 intending to parent and 26 intending
not to parent were selected to participate in the study.
All met the inclusion criteria described in the "subjects"
section of this document.

The experimenter contacted each subject by telephone to
request her participation in the study. At that time the
subject was briefly told what she would be requested to do,
reassured about confidentiality and informed of the number

of extra credits she would receive for participation. For

52
those who agreed to be tested, an individual testing session
was arranged.

A11 testing took place at the MSU Psychological Clinic.
Sessions ranged in length from one and one half to five
hours with the average taking approximately two and one half
hours. At the beginning of the session, each subject was
again told what the study would entail and was asked to sign
the standard Department of Psychology consent form and the
consent to audiotape (see Appendix 1). After signing the
consent forms, each subject was administered the test in-
struments in the following order:

1) Separation Anxiety Test--Projective

2) Separation Anxiety Test-—Semiprojective

3) Bem Sex Role Inventory-—Self, Mother, Father

4) Parent Behavior Form--Mother and Father

5) Interview

At the end of the interview each subject was thanked
for her c00peration and given an opportunity to ask ques-
tions. Subjects were told that the experimenter was inter-
ested in learning about womenhs reproductive intentions but
specific hypotheses being tested were not revealed. Sub-
jects were then asked not to discuss the research with

classmates.

H

Hypothesis I:

Operational

Ia.

Ib.

Hypothesis II:

Operational

II.

53
O ' D
Response to Separation
Women who intend to remain childless will
be more self sufficient and will seek fewer
attachments following a separation than
women who intend to parent.
Definition:
Women who intend to remain childless will
have a higher percentage of individuation
responses on the Separation Anxiety Test
(SAT) than women who intend to parent.
Women who intend to remain childless will
have a lower percentage of attachment re-
sponses on the SAT than women who intend to
parent.
Women who intend to remain childless will
be more likely to remain self sufficient
than to seek attachments in situations of
strong separation than women who intend to
parent.
Definition:
In situations of strong separation, women
who intend not to parent will be more like-
ly to have a higher individuation than
attachment percentage on the SAT than will

women who intend to parent.

Hypothesis III:

Operational

III.

Hypothesis IV:

Operational

IV.

Hypothesis V:

54
Sex Role Identity

Women who intend to remain childless will
be more likely to have a masculine sex role
identity than will women who intend to
parent.

Definition:

Women who intend to remain childless will
be more likely to score above the median on
masculinity and below the median on femi-
ninity on the Bem Sex Role Inventory than

women who intend to parent.

Family Background Variables

Women who intend to remain childless will
show less similarity to their mothers in
regard to sex role characteristics than
will women who intend to parent.
Definition:

Women who intend not to parent will show a
higher discrepancy between their own com—
bined scores on masculinity and femininity
and their mothers' combined scores on these
variables than women who intend to parent.
Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as less warm and more
rejecting than will women who intend to

parent.

Operational

Va.

Vb.

Hypothesis VI:

Operational

VIa.

VIb.

Hypothesis VII:

55
Definition:
Women who intend to remain childless will
rate their mothers as lower on the warmth
vs. rejection factor on the Parent Behavior

Form (PBF) than women who intend to mother.

Women who intend to remain childless will
rate their fathers as lower on the warmth
vs. rejection factor on the PBF than women
who intend to mother.

Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as no different in exert-
ing control than will women who intend to
parent.

Definition:

Scores on the maternal control factor will
not differ for women who intend to remain
childless and women who intend to parent.
Scores on the paternal control factor of
the PBF will not differ for women who in-
tend to remain childless and women who
intend to parent.

Women who intend to remain childless will
see their parents as less involved in their
cognitive development than will women who

intend to parent.

 

56
Operational Definition:

VIIa. Women who intend not to parent will rate
their mothers as lower on the cognitive
involvement factor of the PBF than women
who intend to mother.

VIIb. Women who intend not to parent will rate
their fathers as lower on the cognitive
involvement factor of the PBF than women

who intend to mother.

S . . 1 A l .
A one way analysis of variance was used to test Hypoth-
eses I, IV, V, VI, and VII. Hypothesis II and III were

tested using a Chi Square Test of Association.

RESULTS

2' I .I I. E E . I .

The distribution of parenting intentions obtained from

the Background Information Questionnaire is shown in Table

3. More than seventy six percent of the 762 women sampled

stated an intention to parent, 4.98 percent stated an inten-

tion not to parent and 17.98 percent were undecided.

Table 3. Distribution of Parenting Intentions in the Total

Student Sample

 

 

 

Category N Percent of Sample
Intend Not to Parent 38 4.98
Intend to Parent 585 76.78
Undecided 137 17.78

No Response __2 __.42§
Totals 762 100.00

Hypotheses
E I S I. E .
Wm

Hypothesis Ia predicted that women who intended to

remain childless would have a lower attachment score on the

Separation Anxiety Test than women who intend to parent.

57

58

This hypothesis was tested using data collected by the

projective and semiprojective administrations of the SAT. A

one way analysis of variance performed separately on each

set of data indicated this hypothesis was not supported.

The results are shown in Table 4.

 

 

 

Table 4. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend to
Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Attachment Need Measured by the Separation Anxiety
Test

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Projectivel n=30 n=22 df=1,50
Attachment
Total 17.17 16.36 .685 ns
Mild 8.03 7.50 .834 ns
Strong 9.13 8.86 .188 ns
Semiprojectivez n=36 n=24 df=1,58
Attachment
Total 22.95 22.69 .040 ns
Mild 14.95 13.52 .107 ns
Strong 27.61 28.11 .101 ns
% = Frequency scores

Percentage scores

As predicted the childless group showed a lower attachment

score except in the semiprojective strong separation situa-

tion but the differences were not significant.

59
W
It was predicted that women who intend not to parent
would have a higher individuation score on the SAT than
women who intend to parent. Table 5 indicates that contrary
to prediction, women who intend to remain childfree showed a
lower individuation response in both mild and strong separa—
tion situations than women who intend to mother. However,
the differences between groups were not significant.
Table 5. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend to
Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on

Individuation Need As Measured by the Separation
Anxiety Test

 

 

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Projectivel n=30 n=22 df=1,50
Individuation
Total 12.47 12.18 .067 ns
Mild 8.10 7.91 .066 ns
Strong 4.37 4.27 .033 ns
Semiprojectivez n=36 n=24 df=1,58
Individuation
Total 19.94 16.86 1.072 ns
Mild 36.72 30.46 1.340 ns
Strong 10.02 9.30 .130 ns

 

Frequency scores
Percentage scores

NH

60

Will

Hypothesis II predicted that women who intend not to
parent were more likely than women who intend to have chil—
dren to have a higher individuation than attachment response
to strong separation situations. The projective data did
not lend itself to such an analysis because of the different
numbers of categories composing the projective attachment
and individuation scores. Consequently only the semiprojec-
tive data was utilized to evaluate this hypothesis. The
prediction was not supported by the data. Only three women
in the future parenting group and two women in the future
childfree group showed a stronger individuation than attach—

ment percentage in strong separation situations.

Sex_role_ldentitx

W

The prediction was made that women who intend to remain
childless would be more likely to have a masculine sex role
identity than women who intend to have children. As Table 6
indicates, a chi square test of association comparing women
with different reproductive intentions on masculine sex role
identity produced a chi square value of 7.46, which was
significant at a p<.002 level of significance. Thus the

hypothesis was strongly supported by the data.

61

Table 6. Chi Square Comparing Number of Women Who Intend to
Parent and Number of Women Who Intend to Be Child-
free with a Masculine Sex Role Identity on the Bem
Sex Role Inventory

 

 

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent Total
Masculine 3 ll 14
Not Masculine 31 15 46
Total 34 26 60

 

x2 = 7.46, p < .002, df = 1

Identification_uith_Mother

W

It was predicted that women who intend not to parent
would see themselves as less similar to their mothers in
masculine and feminine characteristics than women who intend
to parent. More specifically the prediction was made that
SRSM, the discrepancy between the mother and daughter's
femininity score (FSM) added to the discrepancy between the
mother and daughter's masculinity score (MSM), would be
greater for the future childfree women than those who intend
to parent. Table 7 shows that this hypothesis was supported
by the data (F=8.864, df=1,58, p<.004). The table also
reveals that while the future childfree women indicated a
greater discrepancy on both masculinity and femininity
scales, the difference was significant only for the mascu-

linity scale (F=7.951, df=1,58, p<.006).

 

62

Table 7. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend to
Parent with Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceived Similarity to Mother on Sex Role Charac-
teristics as Measured by the Bem Sex Role

 

 

 

Inventory
91.0.1125.
Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Sex Role (self-mother 1.03 1.51 8.864 .004
Masc. (self-mother) .55 .97 7.951 .006
Fem. (self-mother) .48 .54 .347 ns
F .1 E I 3 H . l]
HYPQLhESiS_Y

It was predicted that women who intend not to parent
would rate their parents as lower in warmth/higher in rejec-
tion on the parent behavior from (PBF) than would those who
intend to become parents. The predictions were confirmed by
the data. Table 8 demonstrates that the results were in the
predicted directions reaching a significance level of p<.002

for mothers and p<.001 for fathers.

Wall

The hypothesis was made that women who intend not to
have children would see their parents as no different from
the parenting group in exerting control. The null hypothe-
sis was supported by the data. There was no difference
between groups in perceived control exerted by either mother

or fathers (see Table 8).

63

Table 8. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend to
Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceptions of Parent Behaviors on the Parent
Behavior Form

 

919.1125
Intend to Intend Not

 

 

Variable Parent to Parent F P
Mother n=34 n=26 df=1,58
Warmth 66.05 49.38_ 10.068 .002
Control 36.62 33.12 1.204 ns
Cognitive
Involvement 74.88 70.12 3.444 .064
Father n=33 n=25 df=1,56
Warmth 60.21 40.96 11.317 .001
Control 35.39 32.04 1.218 ns
Cognitive
Involvement 74.15 68.52 2.093 ns
W

Hypothesis VII predicted that women who intend to re-
main childfree would see their parents as less cognitively
involved in their lives than women who intend to parent.
Table 8 indicates that the differences between means were in
the directions predicted. However, the F ratio was nonsig-
nificant for the fathers and only approached significance

for the mothers (F=3.555, df=1,58, p<.064).

64
Eli'!' J E' 3'
During the course of this investigation some additional
analyses were performed to clarify the meaning of the

results already reported.

W

Analyses were performed on all demographic data in
Table 1 to determine if there were significant differences
between women who intend to parent and women who intend to
remain childfree. Significant differences were found on
three variables, GPA (t=5.45, df=52, p<.01), religion
(X2=20.83, df=6, p<.002) and marital intention (x2=31.02,
df=2, p<.00001). Trends toward significance were revealed
on the variables parent's marital status (X2=3.31, df=l,
p<.08), father's education (x2=3.47, df=l, p<.07), mother's
education (X2=3.45, df=l, p<.07) and college major
(X2=18.55, df=ll, p<.069).

Women who intend to remain childfree had a mean GPA of
3.26 which was significantly higher than the 2.65 reported
by the group of future mothers. Approximately one third of
the women who intend to have children reported no religions
affiliation. Women who intend to parent were more likely to
identify themselves as Protestant or Jewish than the future
childfree women. There were no significant differences
between groups in those who reported an affiliation with
Catholicism.

On the variable marital intentions all the women in-

tending to have children also reported an intention to

65
marry. For the group of women intending not to have chil-
dren 34.6 percent reported an intention to marry, 19.2
percent intend not to marry and close to half, 46.2 percent,
remain undecided.

A trend indicated that future childfree women were more
likely to have parents who were divorced than women who
intend to parent. However, when experiences of parental
separation, divorce and death were combined, women who in-
tend not to parent were no less likely to come from intact
homes than their peers.

In regard to father's education, fathers of both groups
of women were equally likely to have received a college
education. However, a trend suggested that fathers of fu-
ture childless women were less likely to have a terminal
bachelor's degree with most of the college graduates having
some postgraduate training. In contrast, a trend indicated
that mothers of future childfree women were less likely to
have graduated from college than mothers of women who intend

to mother.

W

Further analyses were performed only on the semiprojec-
tive data because the projective instrument had such poor
internal consistency.

A series of one way analyses of variance were conducted
to assess differences between groups on the individual com—
ponents of attachment and individuation. As Table 9 indi—

cates, there are trends demonstrating that women who intend

II

Table 9. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend to
Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Components of Attachment and Individuation on the

Separation Anxiety Test

 

 

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Attachment
Rejection
Total 4.72 5.61 1.089 ns
Mild 3.04 3.93 .635 ns
Strong 5.59 6.64 1.188 ns
Loneliness
Total 11.41 10.07 1.618 ns
Mild 8.72 8.38 .032 ns
Strong 12.78 10.81 3.247 .077
Empathy
Total 6.82 7.01 .068 ns
Mild 2.53 1.21 1.735 ns
Strong 9.23 10.66 1.907 ns
Individuation
Adaptation
Total 11.58 10.29 .565 ns
Mild 18.19 13.36 3.162 .081
Strong 8.19 8.41 .018 ns
Well Being
Total 2.42 2.59 .002 ns
Mild 6.52 6.87 .041 ns
Strong 1.07 .89 .157 ns

67

Table 9. (Cont.)

 

91521125
Intend to Intend Not

 

Variable Parent to Parent F P
Sublimation
Total 4.72 3.68 1.346 ns
Mild 12.01 10.09 .778 ns
Strong .92 .09 3.236 .077

 

not to parent are less likely to respond to strong separa-
tions with feelings of loneliness (F=3.247, df=1,58, p<.077)
and sublimation (F=3.236, df=1,58, p<.077). There is also a
trend indicating women who intend to remain childless are
less likely to show adaptation responses to mild separation
situations (F=3.162, df=1,58, p<.081). All other differ-
ences were nonsignificant.

Up to this point analyses on the SAT have been based on
comparing percentage scores calculated by dividing raw
scores on each component by the total number of responses to
the test. Hansburg (1972) introduced this scoring method to
control for differences in responsiveness(i.e.the number
of responses given). However, this method of scoring as—
sumes that each component has a perfect correlation with
responsiveness, i.e. that it increases proportionally as the
number of test responses increase. A pearson product moment
correlation was used to test the relationship between the

attachment and individuation scale scores and the total

68

number of test responses. The correlations were found to be
r=.86 for attachment and r=-.02 for individuation. Thus the
assumption for employing the percentage scoring method was
clearly violated in the case of individuation scores. It
was consequently decided to reanalyze the data using raw
scores with total responses as a covariate.

The results shown in Table 10 indicate that when the
SAT is rescored to control for responsiveness, future child-
less women continue to show no differences in attachment,
but show a trend in the opposite direction than predicted
indicating they are less individuated than future mothers,
with the difference reaching significance in the mild sepa-

ration situation (F=8.563, df=1,58, p<.005).

Sex_Rgle_IdentiLY

A chi square test of association was performed to
assess the relationship between sex role identity and the
intention to parent. As Table 11 indicates, a chi square
value of 23.29 with 3 degrees of freedom was significant at
the p<.00001 level of significance. The results indicate
that women who intend to be childfree are more likely to
have a masculine or undifferentiated sex role identity than
are women who intend to parent. The latter group is more
likely to see themselves as androgynous or feminine than are
the childless group.

The preceding results suggested that the critical var-
iable might be femininity. Consequently comparisons were

made between groups on masculinity and femininity. The

69

Table 10. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Mean Attachment and Individuation Scores on the
Separation Anxiety Test with the Number of Test
Responses as a Covariate

 

 

 

 

 

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
n=34 n=26 df=1,58
Attachment
Total 13.17 14.28 .999 ns
Mild 3.00 3.26 .402 ns
Strong 9.00 8.96 .006 ns
Individuation
Total 10.13 7.80 2.971 .090
Mild 6.67 4.59 8.563 .005
Strong 3.29 2.67 1.265 ns
Table 11. Chi Square Comparing Women who Intend to Parent
and Women who Intend Not to Parent on Sex Role
Identity Measured by the Bem Sex Role Inventory
Undiffer-
Group ’ Androgynous Masculine Feminine entiated Total
Intend to
Parent 12 3 13 6 34
Intend Not
to Parent __1 .Ll. .2. 12 2.6.
Total 13 14 15 18 60

 

x2 = 23.29, df = 3, p < .0001.

70

results shown in Table 12 reveal that women who intend not
to parent see themselves as significantly less feminine than
women who intend to parent (F=40.706 df=1,58 p<.00001). The
mean score on masculinity was lower for the future childfree
women than the parenting group but the difference was not
significant.
Table 12. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend

to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on

Masculinity and Femininity on the Bem Sex Role
Inventory

 

QLQHEE
Intend to Intend Not

 

Variable Parent to Parent F P
n=34 n=26 df=1,58

Masculinity 3.63 3.56 .179 ns

Femininity 4.29 3.49 40.706 .00001

 

Similar comparisons were made between groups on per-
ceived masculinity and femininity of parents. The women who
intend to be childfree viewed both their mothers and fathers
as being significantly less feminine than women who intend
to have children. As Table 13 indicates, the F value
reached a significance level of p<.00001 for mothers and

p<.017 for fathers.

71

Table 13. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceived Masculinity and Femininity of Parents
on the Bem Sex Role Inventory

 

Groups
Intend to Intend Not

 

 

Variable Parent to Parent F P

Mother n=34 n=26 df=1,58
Masculinity 3.42 3.25 .693 ns
Femininity 4.32 3.48 25.977 .00001

Father n=33 n=25 df=1,56
'Masculinity 4.11 3.92 1.108 ns
Femininity 3.51 2.96 6.008 .017

Ii I'E' I' '11 E I]

One final analysis was done on sex role identity vari-
eables to assess differences between groups on identification
with father. As Table 14 demonstrates there were no differ-
ences between groups in overall similarity to fathers
(SRSF). While the future childfree women saw themselves as
less similar to their fathers in both masculinity (MSF) and
femininity (FSF), the differences did not reach a signifi-

cant level for either variable.
W
Comparisons were made on each of the fifteen scales of

the Parent Behavior Form for mothers and fathers. The

72

Table 14. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Perceived Similarity to Father on Sex Role Char-
acteristics on the Bem Sex Role Inventory

 

Groups
Intend to Intend Not

 

Variable Parent to Parent F P
n=33 n=24 df=1,56

Sex Role (self-father) 1.58 1.95 2.437 ns

Masc. (self-father) .76 .93 .929 ns

Fem. (self-father .86 1.02 .933 ns

 

results shown in Table 15 indicate that women who intend to
remain childless rated both mothers and fathers as signifi-
cantly lower in acceptance, active involvement, egalitarian-
ism, cognitive independence and conformity. The future
childfree women rated only their mothers lower in encourag-
ing cognitive curiosity. While they viewed their fathers
as significantly more rejecting than the women who intend to
parent, only a trend towards seeing mothers of future child-
free women as more rejecting was demonstrated by the data.

A finding of particular note was that future mothers
scored significantly higher on social desirability for rat-
ings of both fathers and mothers. Consequently the differ-
ences between groups on the factors warmth/rejection, con-
trol and cognitive involvement were reanalyzed using analy-
sis of covariance with social desirability as the covariate.

This was done to determine whether differences reported

73

 

 

Table 15. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Mean Scores on Parent Behavior Scales of the
Parent Behavior Form
Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Mother n=34 n=26 df=1,58
Acceptance 23.29 19.08 14.916 .0003
Act. Involvement 22.91 18.62 16.348 .0002
Egalitarian 22.56 20.12 6.583 .0100
Cog. Independence 21.97 20.03 4.111 .0470
Cog. Curiosity 19.24 16.46 7.220 .0090
Cog. Competence 19.62 18.73 .935 ns
Lax Control 14.79 14.92 .020 ns
Conformity 20.29 17.54 9.330 .0030
Achievement Control 14.18 14.88 .747 ns
Strict Control 14.85 14.35 .236 ns
Punitive Control 16.26 16.15 .008 ns
Hostile Control 13.35 15.03 1.935 ns
Rejection 11.29 12.80 3.645 .0600
Infreq. Endorsed 9.58 9.53 .033 ns
Social Desirability 24.74 22.53 6.838 .0100
Father n=33 n=25 df=1,56
Acceptance 21.58 15.72 20.306 .00001
Act. Involvement 20.06 15.76 12.896 .0007
Egalitarian 21.15 18.00 7.724 .0070
Cog. Independence 21.94 19.12 5.248 .0300

74

 

 

Table 15. (Cont.)
' Intend to Intend Not

Variable Parent to Parent F P

Father (Cont.)
Cog. Curiosity 19.15 17.56 1.230 ns
Cog. Competence 18.00 17.12 .727 ns
Lax Control 14.55 15.36 .676 ns
Conformity 19.12 17.28 4.496 .0400
Achievement Control 14.94 16.20 1.657 ns
Strict Control 14.33 13.88 .210 ns
Punitive Control 16.48. 16.24 .042 ns
Hostile Control 12.91 14.24 1.432 ns
Rejection 11.61 13.40 6.285 .0200
Infrequently Endorsed 9.55 9.76 .478 ns
Social Desirability 24.97 21.20 16.148 .0002

 

between groups could be accounted for by social desirability
alone.

Inspections of Table 16 reveals that when social desir-
ability is controlled, women who intend to remain childfree
still see their mothers as lower in warmth/higher in rejec-
tion than women who intend to parent (F=3.740, df=1,58
p<.05L. However, the previously reported differences be-

tween groups on cognitive involvement of mother and warmth

of father no longer reach significance indicating these

75

Table 16. Analysis of Variance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Mean Scores of Parent Behavior Factors of the
Parent Behavior Form with Social Desirability as
the Covariate

 

 

Intend to Intend Not
Variable Parent to Parent F P
Mother n=34 n=26
Warmth 62.72 53.74 3.740 .05
Control 37.40 32.09 2.552 ns
Cognitive
Involvement 74.29 70.90 1.654 ns
Father n=33 n=25
Warmth 54.60 48.37 1.330 ns
Control 35.74 31.59 1.423 ns
Cognitive
Involvement 71.92 71.46 .012 ns

 

differences were attributable to social desirability and not
to actual differences between groups.

An analysis of covariance with social desirability as
the covariate was also performed on each of the Parent
Behavior Form scales for mothers and fathers. As indicated
in Table 17, women who intend not to have children still see
their mothers as significantly lower in acceptance (F=7.753
df=1,58, p<.007), active involvement (F=8.936, df=1,58,
pK.004), encouragement of cognitive curiosity (F=3.980,

df=1,58 p<.05) and conformity (F=8.243, df=1,58 p<.006) when

76

Table 17. Analysis of Covariance Comparing Women Who Intend
to Parent and Women Who Intend Not to Parent on
Mean Scores on Parent Behavior Scales of the
Parent Behavior Form with Social Desirability as

 

 

Covariate
Intend to Intend Not

Variable Parent to Parent F P

Mother n=34 n=26 df=1,58
Acceptance 22.70 19.86 7.753 .007
Act. Involvement 22.35 19.36 8.936 .004
Egalitarian 22.06 20.97 2.063 ns
Cog. Independence 21.57 20.36 1.137 ns
Cog. Curiosity 18.95 16.82 3.980 .050
Cog. Competence 19.33 19.10 .058 ns
Lax Control 14.84 14.86 .001 ns
Conformity 20.30 17.53 8.243 .006
Achievement Control 14.55 14.39 .037 ns
Strict Control 15.27 13.76 2.039 ns
Punitive Control 16.67 15.63 .685 ns
Hostile Control 13.97 14.22 .047 ns
Rejection 11.85 12.08 .119 ns

Father n=33 n=25 df=1,56
Acceptance 20.52 17.11 6.722 .012
Act. Involvement 19.23 16.87 3.542 .065
Egalitarian 20.18 19.27 .645 ns
Cog. Independence 20.88 20.52 .087 ns
Cog. Curiosity 18.15 18.89 .245 ns
Cog. Competence 17.47 17.81 .089 ns

77
Table 17. (Cont.)

 

 

Intend to Intend Not:

Variable Parent to Parent F P
Lax Control 14.38 15.36 1.140 ns
Conformity 18.52 18.08 .232 ns
Achievement Control 15.15 15.91 .460 ns
Strict Control 14.63 13.49 1.050 ns
Punitive Control 16.96 15.61 1.044 ns
Hostile Control 13.91 12.91 .845 ns
Rejection 12.30 12.49 .077 ns

 

social desirability is controlled. They furthermore, still
rate their fathers as lower in acceptance (F=6.722, df=1,56,
p<.012) and demonstrate a trend towards seeing their fathers
as less actively involved (F=3.542, df=1,56, p<.065) when

variance due to social desirability is partialled out.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to gain a better
understanding of why women decide not to parent. More
specifically the intent was to identify some of the develop-
mental, personality, and family background variables that
distinguish women who state an intention not to parent from
those who intend to mother. The specific variables studied
were attachment and individuation need, sex role identity,
identification with mother and perceived warmth, control and
cognitive involvement of parents.

The hypotheses that women who intend not to parent
would show a lower attachment need and a higher individua-
tion need than women who intend to mother was not supported
by'the dataa Contrary to prediction there were no differ-
ences between groups in attachment, and partial evidence
suggested that future childfree women are actually lower in
individuation than future parents. As predicted childless
women were more likely to have a masculine sex role identi-
ty, were less identified with their mothers, and saw their
mothers as less warm and more rejecting than women who
intend to parent. Also as predicted there were no differ-
ences between groups in perceived control exerted by par-

ents. However, contrary to expectations, no differences

78

79
between groups were found in warmth of father and cognitive
involvement of parents.
The results and additional findings that emerged from
this investigation, as well as directions for future re-

search will be discussed.

Wit

It is generally accepted that only a small portion of
women intend not to parent and still fewer women follow
through with these intentions. It was still somewhat sur-
prising to find such a low incidence of women who intend to
be childfree among the population sampled for this study.
Only 3.51% of the sample stated an intention not to parent.
This was considerably lower than the sixteen percent found
in a previous study of college age women ULS, Bureau of the
Census, 1976).

One possible explanation for this striking discrepancy
is related to the criteria used to identify future childless
women in these studies. Unlike the Census Bureau study, the
present investigation offered an Option to be undecided
about parenting and a certainty question. Thus the criteria
for this study may have been more stringent and thus re-
sulted in a considerably lower incidence. Another possibil-
ity involves the nature of the sample. The sample for this
study was drawn from a group of psychology students in a
conservative midwest university where the incidence of
childfree women might be expected to be lower than in a more

representative census sample. The third explanation

80
involves the timing of these two investigations. The census
statistics were gathered in the mid-1970\s at the height of
the women's liberation movement. The lower incidence of
childfree women found in this study may be due to the grow-
ing conservatism that characterizes our country today.

The discrepancy in incidence found between this study
and previous investigations indicates that caution must be
exercised in generalizing from these results to groups of
women who live in geographical areas or historical times in
which choices of nonparenthood are more accepted and even
encouraged. It is with this in mind that the results of

this study must be interpreted.

W

No predictions were made in regard to demographic var-
iables. However, investigation of these variables provides
an Opportunity to compare this population to those of other
studies.

The group of women who intend not to parent did not
differ significantly from their peers in age, race, marital
status, student status, family size, ordinal position, or
socioeconomic status. Significant differences were found on
GPA, religion and marital intentions, and a trend toward
significance was noted on college major, parent's marital
status and parents' education.

Future childfree women and future mothers were single,
primarily caucasian with mean ages of 19.16 and 18.96 re-

spectively. All the women intending to have children also

81

reported an intention to marry. For the group of women
intending not to parent; 34.6 percent reported an intention
to marry, 19,2 percent intend not to marry and close to half
(46.2%) remain undecided. Three quarters of both groups
were either freshmen or sophomores. The childfree group
reported a mean GPA of 3.26 which was significantly higher
that the 2.65 reported by the group of future mothers. The
majors most frequently mentioned by the future childfree
women were social science (23.1%), natural science (19.2%),
and business (19.2%),‘whi1e over half of future mothers were
either business (38.2%) or communications (17.6%) majors.
It was initially surprising to see so many business majors
in the group of future mothers. However, because this group
contains a high number of androgynous women, one might
speculate that business offers an opportunity to integrate
their instrumental and expressive traits.

It is interesting to note that 11.5 percent of the
women who intend not to parent were veterinary medicine
majors as compared to none of the future mothers and only
1.5% of the total population screened. The interest in
veterinary medicine seemed to reflect a more pervasive spe-
cial attachment to animals throughout much of the childfree
group. The interviews suggested that while for some the
affinity for animals stemmed from having been raised on a
farm, for others it seemed to be rooted in a belief that
animals were more dependable and accepting than people and

had been a source of comfort for them in their deve10pmental

82
years. This hypothesis is of course highly speculative and
bears further examination.

Consistent with previous research on childless women
(Levine, 1978; Veevers, 1973), the women who intend not to
parent were equally likely to come from intact families.
They were, however, more likely to have experienced parental
divorce than their peers. Furthermore, future childless
women were no more likely to be oldest or only children as
some studies have found (Bram, 1974; Lewis, 1972; Veevers,
1972; 1975). More than half of both groups of women were
middle or youngest children. This is similar to the distri-
bution found by Levine (1978) and is consistent with results
reported by Houseknecht (1979) and Silka et a1. (1977).

Women who intend to parent were more likely than future
childfree women to identify themselves as either Protestant
or Jewish. There were no significant differences between
groups in those who reported an affiliation with Catholi-
cism. .Approximately one third of the future childless women
compared to none of the future mothers reported no religious
affiliation. The high proportion of women with no religious
ties is again consistent with findings oflother studies of
childfree women.(Gustavus and Henley, 1971; Levine, 1978;
Veevers, 1973L. While these differences have been repeated—
ly noted they have rarely been discussed. Lewis (1972)
indicated that this reflects a lack of interest in religion
in the family of origin. Alternatively, one may speculate
that it indicates an attempt to establjiflla psychological

separation from the parents, a developmental task which has

   

 

83
been particularly difficult for the childless women in this
investigation.

In only one respect did the present group of women
differ from those of previous studies. Other research has
indicated that childfree women tend to come from lower
socioeconomic classes than women who mother (Lewis 1972;
Strong, 1967; Veevers, 1973). There were no significant
differences between groups in this study. It is, however,
worthy of note that twice as many future childfree women as
mothers came from homes in the two lower socioeconomic
classes and in the highest class. It will remain for future
research to determine whether the small number of subjects
and the use of a college sample in this study may have
contributed to this apparent discrepancy or whether this is
a characteristic unique to adult women who decide not to
parent. 'Whatever future research may find, on almost all
demographic variables adolescent women who intend not to

parent are remarkably similar to their adult counterparts.

W

It was predicted that women who intend to remain child-
free would demonstrate a higher individuation need, a lower
attachment need and a greater incidence of excessive self-
sufficiency than women.who intend to parent“ None of these
predictions were substantiated by the data. There were no
differences between groups on attachment need. Furthermore,
contrary to prediction, partial support indicating that

women who intend to remain childless are lower in

84

individuation than women who intend to mother was found.
The difference in individuation was revealed only when the
Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) was rescored controlling for
differences in responsiveness. Neither the projective
method nor the percentage scoring of the semiprojective SAT
revealed any significant discrepancies between groups in
either attachment or individuation.

The failure of the projective test to produce signifi-
cant findings may be due to a number of methodological
deficiencies with the projective procedure. The scoring
system used in this study was really of an exploratory
nature, and had not been subjected to the rigors of pilot
testing that is so critical for the development of a valid
and reliable instrument. The two scales, though possessing
face validity, had poor internal consistency. This may in
part reflect the difficulty in establishing operational
definitions for complex abstract constructs.

This problem was most evident in regard to the attach-
ment scale. The definition of attachment was drawn from two
bodies of literature, one focusing on responses to actual or
threatened loss (loneliness, rejection) and the other focus-
ing on positive manifestations of attachment (relatedness,
affiliation). An inspection of these categories reveals
that loneliness and rejection indicate acknowledgment that
an attachment has been disrupted, while relatedness and
affiliation reflect an attempt to intrapsychically or behav-
iorally'restore the bond. These two groups of responses may

represent sufficiently distinct aspects of attachment to

 

85

warrant separate classifications. It may also be that re-
latedness, which involves an ability to maintain a represen-
tation of the good object in its absence, is as much or
perhaps more an indication of individuation than.it is of
attachment. Clearly further analysis and piloting will need
to be done before this scoring system can be considered
useful in measuring concepts of attachment and individua-
tion.

One further problem was noted in the use of the projec—
tive test. In training the raters,i¢:was found that they
tended to project their own feelings and motivations into
the stories, particularly'when.productions were vague and
unelaborated. It was consequently decided that categories
would be scored only when feelings were specifically stated.
It is felt that much valuable information may have been lost
in the attempt to limit rater distortion and may have conse-
quently obscured differences between groups on these vari-
ables. However, the fact that such differences were not
found on the percentage scored SAT indicates the lack of
results cannot be totally attributed to problems in the
projective technique and the scoring system.

The semiprojective Separation Anxiety test has been
more widely used and consequently subjected to considerably
greater methodological scrutiny and revision than the pro-
jective SAT. Both the attachment and individuation scales
closely approach the recommended alpha level of .80 for
internal consistency (Crano and Brewer, 1973). Furthermore

since the semiprojective SAT is objectively scored, it is

86
not subject to the same rater distortion inherent in the
projective method. Yet the semiprojective SAT also failed
to produce significant differences between groups on either
attachment or individuation.

One possible explanation is that the previous exposure
to the pictures during the projective administration may
have reduced their stimulus value, rendering them incapable
of making the sensitive discriminations necessary to expose
differences between groups.

Another possibility involves the nature of the study
sample. While most studies of childfree women have looked
at married women, the current investigation has focused on
single adolescents. This developmental period is noted to
be a turbulent time marked by frequent changes in behavior
and attitudes. Perhaps reproductive intentions in adoles-
cence are so unstable that they bear little relationship to
intrapsychic structure or future behavior. While this re-
mains an important consideration, the finding of significant
differences between groups on several variables in this
study suggests it would be premature to dismiss the signifi-
cance of adolescent childbearing intentions at this time.

The absence of significant results may also be due to
the scoring method used on the SAT. .As previously mentioned
the percentage scoring method assumes high correlation be-
tween raw scores and the number of test responses. Using
this method obscures differences between groups on scales
like individuation which have low correlations with produc-

87

When the test is rescored controlling for responsive-
ness, women who intend to remain childless were no different
in attachment and a trend indicating they are lower in
individuation than women who intend to mother was found,
with the clearest differences appearing in response to the
mild separation pictures. These findings are particularly
noteworthy since they are highly discrepant from previous
research which has shown childfree women to be more autono-
mous and to seek fewer attachments than their peers. One
possible explanation for this is that these adolescent women
are not representative of the majority of women who decide
not to parent. Only one third of the women who ultimately
decide to be childfree are "early articulators" i.e. make
the decision during adolescence and prior to marriage (Bram,
1974; Houseknecht, 1979; Veevers, 1973). Consequently these
findings may be indicative of early articulators only. Fur-
thermore this sample includes women who not only eschew
motherhood but also marriage. Since previous investigations
have almost exclusively studied married women, it may be
argued that these women represent a distinctly different
group than those usually studied. It will remain for future
research to determine the relationship between adolescent
parenting intentions andladult childbearing attitudes and
behavior.

If we accept for the moment that these two groups are
similar an alternative explanation must be considered. The
hypothesis of higher individuation among future childless

women was based on the belief that childless women develop

88

autonomy as a defense against unsatisfied dependency needs
and is consequently of a very fragile nature. The finding
of lower individuation in the future childfree group may not
be as incompatible with a theory of defensive autonomy as it
first appears. The Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) may have
been more sensitive than was initially anticipated. The
SAT, because of its projective qualities, may be more likely
to tap unconscious levels of personality while other studies
have focused on attitudes and behaviors that are closer to
consciousness. Consequently internal responses and anxie-
ties that subjects may have been unwilling or unable to
acknowledge to themselves and others may have been revealed.

Furthermore, because the SAT focuses on the time of
separation when defenses are highly taxed it may be that
women who intend to remain childfree are not sufficiently
well defended to maintain repression of attachment needs
when in a dependent relationship. Taken in this context the
results may indicate that underlying the apparently autono-
mous childfree woman is an individual who when in a depend-
ent relationship, is highly sensitive to threats of abandon-
ment and is likely to respond in ways that compromise her
capacity to act in an individuated manner. Consequently,
these women may tenaciously cling to their autonomy and
avoid dependent relationships such as parenting which are
likely to evoke regression and infantile conflicts regarding
unsatisfied dependency needs.

Some support for this theory is provided by interview

data. Consistent with reports by Levine (1978) and Bram

 

89

(1974) of adult childless women, the future childless women
in this study described themselves as loners or private
people who place a high premium on their independence. Some
of these women totally denied needs for external support,
representing themselves as being totally independent and
secure. Others were more aware of their dependent needs but
were extremely cautious about entering into relationships.
They felt that the potential benefits were, more often than
not, insufficient to risk the loss of control and rejection
they tend to associate with close relationships.

Most of the childfree women had decided from an early
age to invest their energies in academic achievement and all
had clear ideas about pursuing a career. While many ex-
pressed some desire to someday have the companionship of a
husband, these women seemed very pessimistic that they would
be able to find a husband who would be trustworthy, capable
of communicating well and would respect their need for a
career.

Many'of'the women.who wanted children seemed equally
determined to have careers and knew that "doing it all"
would be difficult. However, they seemed less threatened by
children and husbands. Consistent with a theory of defen-
sive autonomy, the childless women, who described themselves
as most independent , seemed to feel that they would have
less control over directing their futures if they allowed
husbands and especially children to enter their lives. It
appeared that the future childfree women could ensure

control only by staying out of relationships. As with other

 

90
studies of childless women those in the investigation who
wished to marry did not want to sacrifice time and closeness
with husbands and the egalitarian quality of their relation-
ships to care for the needs of a child.

On the basis of these results one might theorize that
though the quantity of attachment needs for future parents
and nonparents may be the same the quality of these needs
might be quite different. The women who intend to remain
childfree may on an unconscious level be more ambivalent
about relinquishing the role of being cared for in return
for the role of caring for others. In object relations
terms, the attachment needs of future childfree women are
more likely than those of future parents to be characterized
by infantile rather than mature dependence.

Fairbairn (1941) theorizes that the quality of depend-
ency changes with increasing psychological individuation.
The child develops from a state of infantile dependence to a
state of mature dependence. The aim of infantile dependence
is primarily to receive from others while that of mature
dependence is predominantly giving. Those who have reached
mature dependence are completely aware of the separateness
of the other and are capable of taking the needs of the
other into consideration. Benedek (1970) suggests that it
is the mother's capacity to empathically understand the
needs of the child while maintaining awareness of separate-
ness that is so critical for good parenting. One might
speculate that the intention not to parent may in part be

attributable to a failure to develop to a stage of mature

91
dependence which is associated with a capacity to empathi—
cally'understand the needs of others and.a desire to meet
those needs.

Mature dependence can develop only when early depend-
ency needs are satisfied and the child is able to inter-
nalize a sense of being loved and lovable.

The greatest need for a child is to obtain conclu-

sive assurance that he is genuinely loved as a

person by his parents and his parents genuinely

accept his love. It is only in so far as such
assurance is forthcoming in a form sufficiently
convincing to enable him to depend safely upon his

real objects that he is gradually able to renounce

infantile dependence without misgiving. In the

absence of such assurance his relationship to his
objects is faught with too much anxiety over sepa-
ration.to enable him to renounce the attitude of
infantile dependence; for such a renunciation
would be equivalent in his eyes to forfeiting all
hOpe of ever obtaining satisfaction of his unsat-
isfied emotional needs (Fairbairn, 1941, Lh40).
The fact that the most striking differences between parent—
ing and nonparenting groups were found on the mild separa-
tion situations provides support for the theory that women
who intend not to parent are more likely than future mothers
to have unsatisfied dependency needs resulting from problems
in the early parent-child relationship. Hansburg (1980)
suggests then when individuation scores on the SAT are low
in response to the mild separation pictures, this indicates
an unusual sensitivity to separation. This occurs when an
individual has experienced disruptions in the attachment
bond in early childhood. These individuals consequently
respond to new minor threats of abandonment as if they were

major ones. We may therefore speculate that women who

intend not to parent were more likely to have experienced

 

92
disruptions in the early attachment bond than their parent-
ing counterparts.

Disruptions in the attachment bond may occur as a
result of repeated or traumatic separations or losses;
threatened abandonment; or insensitivity'of the parent to
the child's needs. As previously indicated, there is no
evidence to suggest that future childfree women were more
likely to have experienced a significant separation from
caretaking figures than their peers. However, other find-
ings suggest that future childfree women perceive their
mothers to be lower in femininity and warmth and their
fathers to be lower in femininity and acceptance than future
parents. Thus the parents of future childfree women may
have had difficulty responding to the child's needs for
acceptance and love. Having experienced such rejection in
their early attachment relationships, these future childfree
women may have develOped a greater sensitivity to separa-
tion, had difficulty in achieving a stable sense of autonomy
and may possess a greater ambivalence about dependency than
their peers who wish to parent.

It is important to point out that the conclusions drawn
here regarding individuation remain highly speculative since
they are largely based on a yet unvalidated scoring system
of the Separation Anxiety Test. The group of women who
intend to parent are not without conflict, regarding depend-
ency as they work to negotiate the "second individuation"
process of adolescence. Whether these differences in indi-

viduation are substantiated by future research remains to be

93
determined. However, what appears fairly clear is that
these two groups have learned to deal with conflicts over
dependency by developing different adaptive behavior pat-
terns. These women who intend to parent appear most com—
fortable while in a dependent relationship while the group
of women who intend to be childfree achieve security through

dependence on themselves.

E§x_BQl£_Id£nLi£¥.

The results of this study strongly confirmed the pre-
diction that women who intend to remain childless are more
likely to have a masculine sex role identity than women who
intend to parent. This finding may lead one to the errone-
ous conclusion that childfree women are more masculine than
future parents. In fact the results suggest that future
mothers are higher in masculinity than their future child-
less counterparts, though the differences do not reach sig-
nificance.

Further analyses indicated that future childfree women
were more likely to see themselves as either masculine or
undifferentiated while future parents more often rated them-
selves as androgynous or feminine. The fact that future
childfree and parenting groups each contains a subgroup high
and low in masculinity suggests that masculinity bears lit-
tle relationship to reproductive intentions. Rather, the
results strongly suggested that the critical difference
might be in femininity. When this was tested dramatic

differences were found, with future childfree women seeing

94
themselves as significantly less feminine than future
mothers.

The differences in femininity found on the Bem Sex Role
Inventory were reiterated in interviews. The future child-
less women tended to describe themselves as less feminine,
expressive, affectionate and nurturant than their peers.
Furthermore their interpersonal styles seemed consistent
with these perceived differences. The women who intend not
to parent in general were more intellectualized. Though
very thoughtful and articulate, they tended to analyze and
report feelings rather than express them and generally
seemed more controlled and less emotionally spontaneous than
future mothers. While many of the future childfree women
seemed to see themselves as different from other women, some
expressed distain for typically feminine women who they
described as flaky, excessively emotional, self sacrificing,
catty, competitive and untrustworthy.

The finding ofciifferences in femininity'makes intui-
tive sense and will come as little surprise to most.
However, the magnitude of this difference was somewhat sur-
prising in light of Levine's (1978) findings of no differ-
ences in sex role identity between childless and married
adult women. This may in part be attributable to the dif-
ferent instruments used in these investigations. Levine
utilized the long form of the BSRI which has since been
revised to maximize the internal consistency. The increased
reliability of the short BSRI used in this study may have

led to more conclusive findings.

95

Another explanation, not mutually exclusive of the
first, is that adolescent womenfls intentions about child-
bearing may be more directly related to their self percep-
tions of sex role characteristics. Perhaps the decisions
ultimately made by older women are made more complex by
social pressures, husbandls desires, career committments and
awareness that the biological capacity for childbearing is
time-limited.

The preceding results definitively demonstrate the
strong relationship between femininity and reproductive
intentions. However, the developmental root of this differ-
ence is considerable less clear. The hypothesis that child-
less women would be low in femininity was based on the
assumption of a theoretical link between femininity and
attachment need. Chodorow (1978) has proposed that those
characteristics which we associate with femininity reflects
continued attachment to the mother. The results of this
study did not appear to support this theory. There were no
differences between groups on attachment need nor was there
a significant correlation between attachment and femininity
(r=-.02). However, it would be premature to abandon the
theory at this point.

The failure to find a link between femininity and
attachment may be related to the instrument used to measure
sex role identity. The BSRI measures only those feminine
characteristics that are considered "social 1y desirable".
It may be that attachment is related to femininity only when

femininity is defined to include both desirable and

96

undesirable characteristics. A number of researchers have
recently been experimenting with deve10ping instruments that
use this expanded definition (Kellyy Caudill, Hathorn and
O'Brien, 1977; Spence, Helmreich, and Holahan, 1979). It
would be interesting for future research to further investi-
gate this theorized association using these newly developed
measures.

Alternatively, one might speculate that attachment and
femininity are related in a curvilinear rather than a linear
fashion. This would suggest that future childfree women
would exhibit a wider range of attachment responses with
scores being concentrated in the very high or very low
ranges of attachment need, while women who intend to parent
would score within the moderate range on this variable.
This formulation would not only provide a framework for
understanding the relationship between attachment and femi-
ninity, but is consistent with the finding of no differences
between groups on the attachment need variable.

The possibility must also be considered that femininity
is not a developmental outgrowth of attachment need and

instead is learned through the process of identification.

Ii I'E' li 'II E |

Traditional psychoanalytic and cognitive learning
theories propose that sex role identity is learned through
identification. Chodorow (1978) acknowledges identification
at the oedipal stage as a significant mechanism for the

development of femininity, but relegates it to a lesser role

97

‘ than continued attachment to the internal love objects.
Whether identifications play a primary or secondary role
will need to be explored by future investigations. This
study however, provides evidence that there is a relation-
ship between sex role characteristics of parents and their
adolescent daughters. Femininity of adolescent women was
significantly correlated with femininity of both mother
(r=.56 p<.001) and father (r=.34 p<.003). In contrast, only
mother serves as a model for her daughter's masculinity
(r=.23 p<.038).

While both parents act as important identification
models for daughter's development of sex role characteris-
tics, only identification with mother appears to have a role
in determining the intention to parent. Future childfree
women saw themselves as significantly less similar to their
mothers in combined scores of masculinity and femininity
(see Table 4%. There were however no differences between
groups in similarity to father. These findings support
results found by Levine (1978) and are consistent with
theories which suggest that identification with mother is
an important factor in resolving ambivalence toward preg-
nancy and parenting (Ballou, 1978; Colman and Colman, 1971).

A closer look at the results indicates that the rela-
tionship between future childlessness and identification
with mother may be more complex than it first appears. When
data are analyzed separately for masculine and feminine
components, there were significant differences between

groups in masculinity but not in regard to femininity. Thus

98
childfree women are less similar to their mothers in regard
to masculine characteristics than are future mothers, but
are equally similar to their mothers in respect to
femininity.

One possible explanation for these findings is that
because femininity for both mothers and daughters in the
childfree group is very low there may be a floor effect.
More specificallyu difference between mother andldaughter
may not be sufficiently large to demonstrate significant
differences with the relatively small sample. Some support
for this hypothesis is provided by the finding that feminin-
ity is negatively correlated with discrepancy scores between
self and mother (r=-.35 p .003). This would suggest that
those lowest in femininity'(i.e. the future childfree group)
would tend to show a higher discrepancy or lower identifica-
tion with mother on feminine characteristics.

An alternative but equally plausible explanation is
that women who intend to remain childless are acutely aware
that like their mothers they are lacking in those feminine
characteristics that are associated with good parenting. It
may be this awareness that convinces them of their inade-
quacy to parent. This formulation would suggest that the
future childless womaan similarity to mother in low femi-
ninity and the low identification with mother in other
respects are both important factors in the intention not to

parent in women.

99
E .1 E l i M . I]

As predicted there were no differences between women
who intend to remain childless and those who intend to
mother on perceived control exerted by parents. There were
also no differences between groups on cognitive involvement
of mothers or fathers, though differences had been predic-
ted. The expectation that future childfree women would see
their parents as less involved in their cognitive develop-
ment than future mothers was based on the belief that women
who intend not to parent would have a masculine sex role
identity, which Orlofsky (1979) has found to be associated
with lower cognitive involvement of parents.

As previously'indicated the childfree group was most
likely to describe themselves as either undifferentiated or
masculine. Unlike masculine women, undifferentiated women
did not see their parents as less encouraging of their
cognitive pursuits than either androgynous or feminine women
(Orlofsky, 1979L. Consequently» the results suggest that
cognitive involvement of parents bears little relationship
to the intention to mother in adolescent women.

The intention to parent does, however, appear to have a
strong relationship with the perceived quality of the affec-
tive relationship between women and their parents. It had
been predicted that women who intend to parent would de-
scribe their parents as less warm and more rejecting than
women who intend to mother. The prediction was definitively'
supported by the data for mothers, with results remaining

significant even when differences due to social desirability

100
were partialled out. The future childfree women tended to
see their mothers as less nurturant and loving, less helpful
at times of stress and less willing to listen to their ideas
and respect their opinions.

It is worthy of note that mothers of future childfree
women were no more likely to work than mothers of women who
intend to parent. However, future childfree women were more
likely to report feeling that they had been given responsi-
bility'to care for themselves at anlearly age. Most felt
that this experience had helped them to become more inde-
pendent than their peers. Some however felt independence
had been achieved at an emotional cost.

My impression was that the mothers of these childless
women were so burdened by their own problems and needs that
they had limited resources to devote to nurturing their
children. Future childfree women were more likely than
future mothers to describe families as lacking in closeness.
Some described an atmosphere of quiet alienation while
others reported chronic tension and open conflict.

In contrast, future mothers tended to describe their
mothers as loving and nurturant, at times to a fault. They
were however no less likely to report a history of conflict
with mother particularly during middle adolescence. Con-
flicts between future mothers and their mothers were much
more likely to focus on daughters' feelings of being over—
protected. Such concerns were rarely mentioned by the

childfree group.

101

Initially'significant differences were found between
women who intend not to parent and those who intend to
mother on warmth of father. However, when social desir-
ability was controlled for, the differences were no longer
significant. A significant difference was, however, found
between groups on acceptance by fathers and a strong trend
was found on active involvement. More specifically women
who intend to remain childfree saw their fathers as less
accepting of them. 'Fhey also exhibited a tendency to see
their fathers as less likely to give attention, love and
praise than future mothers.

These differences were clearly evident in interviews.
Both groups of women tended to see their fathers as less
emotional and less accessible than their mothers. However,
the future childfree women seemed significantly more alien-
ated from their fathers. They frequently reported that
fathers were uninvolved in the family and were rarely home
for meals. When they were at home they tended to be irrit-
able, demanding and rigid. One future childfree woman
stated that she had not really talked to her father until
age 16. Several of the women who intend not to parent
compared to only one future mother reported that fathers had
been physically abusive to mothers, themselves or other
children. One childfree woman stated that she and her sis-
ters had kept a knife in their bedroom to protect themselves
from their alcoholic, abusive father.

The future mothers were not without complaints about

their fathers. They tended to see fathers as too practical,

102

too rational, felt they had difficulty seeing things from
others' points of view and were reluctant to express their
feelings. However, unlike the future childfree women, fu-
ture mothers seemed to have a deep rooted sense that their
fathers were concerned, tried their best to understand and
were basically loving people. In most cases such percep-
tions were influenced by mothers, who tended to give their
daughters a view of the more vulnerable, sensitive side of
fathers.

The findings that women who intend not to parent saw
their mothers as less warm and their fathers as less accept-
ing lends support to previous investigations which have
reported similar findings on the basis of less methodologi-
cally sound procedures.

The implications of these results are difficult to
determine at this time. One might speculate that they
provide an understanding of the developmental roots of the
personality variables found to characterize women who intend
not to parent in this study. Research has demonstrated that
warmth and acceptance of parents is an important factor in
achieving individuation (Chodorow, 1978; Fairbairn, 194;
Mahler et a1, 1975), in the development of sex role identity
(Kelly and Worrell, 1976) and in the identification with
parents (Benedek, 1970; Chodorow, 1978). Object relations
theory proposes for the development of these characteris-
tics, warmth of parents is critical during the preoedipal
and oedipal period. Since this study measured parent be-

havior during adolescence, no conclusions can be drawn about

103
the quality of the early parent-child relationship for women
with different reproductive intentions. This will need to
be determined by future research. However, one may specu-
late that the lower warmth and acceptance that characterized
the parents of future childfree women may have made it
difficult to further resolve early conflicts that normally
resurface and are reworked during the second individuation

process of adolescence.

I 1' l' E E I E l

The present study has established that there is a
relationship between personality variables, family back-
ground and reproductive intentions for adolescent women.
However sampling bias limits the generalizability of the
results. This study was limited to the study of psychology
students in a conservative midwest university. Investiga-
tions using a random sample of college age women will help
to clarify the meaning of these results.

Generalizability of these findings is also limited by
the fact that the sample was composed of only adolescent
women. Throughout this research comparisons have been made
between the characteristics of this adolescent sample and
characteristics of older childfree women reported in other
investigations. Since older women were not included here,
no definitive conclusions can be reached regarding the rela-
tionship between these two groups. This issue is particu-
larly salient when considering the variable of autonomy. As

previously mentioned there were significant discrepancies

104

between the results in this study and others. It has been
suggested in the previous discussions that this discrepancy
might be due to the different methodologies used, with
previous studies measuring attitudes and behavior and this
study focussing on the more deeply rooted psychological
individuation. Only when a cross sectional study is under-
taken which tests both adolescents and older women using the
same instruments, will one be able to evaluate whether the
discrepancy is attributable to the measurement of different
levels of personality or to the testing of women at dif-
ferent deve10pmenta1 stages.

The relationship between adolescent reproductive inten-
tions and adult childbearing attitudes may be further clari—
fied by longitudinal research. To my knowledge all investi—
gations to date have tested women only at one point in time.
Not only would longitudinal research be able to determine
the stability of reproductive intentions but it would also
help to identify those factors that may alter a woman's
intentions regarding parenting. Though the present study is
focused on intrapsychic variables, future investigations
will need to include intrapsychic, social, economic and
political factors if a full understanding of the intention

not to parent is to be reached.

REFERENCES

 

REFERENCES

Antonucci, T. Attachment: A life-span concept. Human
WI 1976! 19' 135-142-

Arendt, R., Gove, R. and Stoufe, L. A. Continuity of adap-
tation from infancy to kindergarten: A predictive
study of ego resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers
Child Dent, 1979, 5.9.. 950-959

Bakan, D. The dualitx of human existenee. Chicagm Rand
McNally, 1966.

Balint, A. Love for the mother and mother love. In M.

Balint, (ed ), Primate lore and oaxehoanalxtie teeh:
nigue. New York: Liveright Publishing, 1965.

Ballou, J. The WLQQY. of oregnanex. Lexington, Ma.:
Lexington Books, 1978.

Bardwick, J. The Boreholoox of women. New York: Harper
and Row, 1971.

Bem, S. Ben Inuentorx Professional Manual. Palo AltO:
Consulting Psychologist, Inc., 1981.

Bem, S. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Jour:

nag. fészonsultinu and Clinieal Bayehologx' 1974 42.,

Bem, S. Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psycho-

logical androgyny- Journalof Personalitx and Soeial
Esxohologx: 1975, 3.1, 634-643.

Bem, S. and Lenney, E. Sex typing and the avoidance of
cross-sex behavior. Journal of Bersonalitx and Sooial
W291: 1976, 33., 48-54.

Benedek, T. The organization of the reproductive drive.

International Journal of Bsuohozanalxsis, 1960, .41, 1-
15.

Benedek, T. Motherhood and nurturing. In E. J. Anthony and

T. Benedek, (ed.), Barenthoodz. its Rambolosx and
EfilChQRaLthng. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.,
1970' 153-1660

105

 

106

Bernard, Jessie. The futuue of methehheed, St. Martin's
Press: NoYo' 19740

Berzins, J., Welling, M. and Wether, R. A new measure of
psychological.androgyny'basedcnlthe Personality Re-

search Form. Journal of Consulting and Clinieal Box:
My 1978' $5, 126'1380

Blos, P. Qnadoleseenoei Aosxohoanalxtieinteroretation.
New York: Macmillan.Publishing Co., 1962.

Blos, P. The second individuation.process of adolescence

Esxehoanalutie Studx of the Child 1967, 22, 162- 186
Bowlby, J. AttaCthnt. New York: Basic Books, 1969.

Bowlby, J. Separation; Anxietx and anger. New York:
Basic Books, 1973.

Bowlby: J. Loser Sadneseanddeoreseion. New York: Basic
Books, 1980.

Bram, S. To have or have not: A social psychological study
of childless couples, parents to be an parents. Unpub-
lished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
1974.

Campbell, J. (ed.), The Pertahle Jung. New York: Viking
Press, 1971.

Chodorow, N. The reoroduetion of mothering; Bsuohoanalxsis
and the SCCinCCY Ci gender. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1978.

Colman, A and Colman, L. Erednanexi the melouioal
experience. New York: Seabury Press, 1972.

Constantinople, A. Masculinity-femininity: An exception to

a famous dictum? REYCthogieal Bulletin, 1973: 8.0.:
389-407.

Crano, W. and Brewer, M. Erineioles of researeh in soeial
psyehelogx. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1973.

Deaux, K. The hehaxior of men and momen. Belmont, Ca.:
Wadsworth, 1976.

Deutsch, H. The 2519119.].ng ef Men. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1944.

Deutsch, H. The psychology of women in relation to the
functions of reproduction (1924). In J. Strouse (edJ.

Women and analxsis. New York: Dell, 1974.

 

107

Douvan, E. and Adelson, J. The adolesoent experienee. New
York: Wiley, 1966.

Erikson, E. Womanhood and inner space (1968). In J.

Strouse (ed.). Women and analysis. New York: Dell,
1974.

Fairbairn, W. R. D. A revised psychopathology of the psy-
choses and psychoneuroses. 1941. In W. R. I). Fair-

bairn (ed.) Esvohoanalvtiestudiesofthepersonalitvz.

The ooieot relation theorvof. personalitv- London:
Tavistock, 1952, 28- 58.

Flax, J. The conflict between nurturance and autonomy in
mother-daughter relationships and within feminism,

Feminist Studies 1978, .4121 172- 189.

Freud, S. Some psychical consequences of the anatomical
distinction between the sexes (1925). In J. Strouse

(ed.). Women and Analysis. New York: Dell, 1974.

Freud, S. Female sexuality (1931). In J. Strouse (edJ
Homen,and analysis, New York: Dell, 1974.

Freud, S. Femininity (1933). In J. Strouse (ed). Wemen
and analysis. New York: Dell, 1974.

Friedan, B. The feminine mvstioue. New York: Penguin,
1965.

Gibson, C. The [1.8. fertility decline 1961- 1975: The con-
tribution of changes in marital status and marital

fertility, Familv Planning Perspeotives 1976, 3., 249

Gustavus, S. and Henley, J. Correlates of voluntary child-
lessness in a select population, Seeial Bielegy, 1971,
l8, 277-284.

Hansburgpfl . Adolesoent separation anxietvi A method for

thestudvofadolesoentseparationprohlems. NewYork:
Krieger, 1972.

Hansburg, H. Adolesoent separation anxiety; Separation
disorders. New York: Krieger, 1980.

Heilbrun, A. Measurement of masculine and feminine sex role
identities as independent dimensions. Journal of_Con;
suiting and Clinioal Esvohologv 1976, 4.4, 183- 190.

Heilbrun, A. B. Parent identification and filial sex role

behavior, Mehraska Svmposium on Motivation. Lincoln,
Neb: University of Nebraska Press, 1973.

108

Helper, M. M. Learning theory and the self-concept. Jour:

111:3]. of Ahnormal and Soeial Beveheloov: 1955, 5.1, 184-

Hoffer. W. Fsvohoanalvsisi Eraetioal and researoh aspects.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1955.

Hollingshead, A. B. Tuo Faetor Index of Sooial Eosition.
New Haven, CT, 1957.

Houseknecht, S. Reference group support for voluntary
childlessness: Evidence for conformity. Journal of.

Marriage and the Eamilv: 1977, 285-292.

Houseknecht, S. Timing of the decision to remain voluntari-
ly childless: Evidence for continuous socialization.

Esvoholoov of Women Quarterlv, 1979, .4111, 89-96.

Jackson, L. Personal Communication, 1983.

Kearney,IL Feminist challenges to social structure and sex

roles. Esvohologv of Women Quarterlv. 1979, 4111, 16-
31. -

Kelly, J., Caudill, M. S., Hathorn, S. and O'Brien, J.
Socially undesirable sex characteristics: Implications
for androgyny and adjustment. Journal of. Consulting
m W W! 1977: 5.515).: 1185-11860

Kelly, J. and Worrell, L. Parent behaviors related to
masculine, feminine and androgynous sex role orienta-

tions. Journalof Consulting and Clinieal Esveholoov,
1976' My 843-8510

Kestenberg, J. On the deve10pment of maternal feelings in
early childhood: Observations and reflections. Psy:

W M 9f. the Child: 1956: 211: 157-291.

Klein, M. A contribution to the psychogenesis of manic-
depressive states (1935). In M. Klein (edJ. Lover

guiltandreoarationandothervortslfllflm. New
York: Dell Publishing Co., 1975.

Knudtson, F. Life—span attachment: Complexities, ques-

tions, considerations. Human Development, 1976: 12:
182-196.

Levine, J. Voluntarily childfree women and mothers: A com-
parative study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Michigan State University, 1978.

Lewis, E. Psychological determinants of family size: A
study of white middle class couples, ages 35-45 with
zero, one or three children. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972.

109

Lott, B. Who wants children? Some relationships among
attitudes towards children, parents and the liberation

of women, Ameriean stoholooist. 1973, 2.8.: 573-582.

Lynn, D. B. Fathers and sex role development. The Family
Coordinator 1976, 25., 403-409.

Maccoby, E. (ed.) The development at sex differenoes.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966.

Maccoby, E. and Jacklin, C. The osyehology of sex differ;
enoes. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974.

Maccoby, E. and Masters, J. Attachment and dependency. In
Mussen, P. (ed.), Carmiohaells manual of ohild psv:
ehology, 3rd edition, Volume II. New York: John

.Mahler, M., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. The psveholooieal.
hirth of the human infant. New York: Basic Books,
1975.

Matas, L., Arendt, R., and Srouge, L. A. Continuity of
adaptation in the second year: The relationship be-
tween quality of attachment and later competence.

Child W: 1979: 4.9.: 457- 556.

Maxwell, J. W. and Montgomery, J. E. Societal pressure

toward early parenthood. The Familv Coordinator, 1969,
340-344.

Mikus, K. Psychological correlates of early family forma-
tion. In D. McQuigan (ed.), Womean livesz. Nev theo:

Lia researeh and oolioy. Ann Arbor: University of

Monroe-Cook, E. The relationships between college women's
sex role identities and self-esteem and their percep-
tions of their parents' sex role identities, self-
esteem and the quality of the parent-daughter relation-
ship. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1979.

Movius, A. Voluntary childlessness: The ultimate libera-

tion. The Eamilv Coordinator 1976, 25., 57-63.

Murphy, E. B., Silber, E., Coelho, G., Hamburg, D. A., and
Greenberg, I. Development of autonomy and parent child
interaction in late adolescence. Amerioan Journal of,
Qrthopsvohiatrv, 1963: 33., 643- 652.

Murray, H. A. Explorations in personalitv. New York:
Oxford University, 1938.

 

 

110

Orlofsky, J. L. Parental antecedents of Sex role orienta-

tion in College men and women, Sex Roles, 1979, 5_L4.)_,
495-512.

Peck, E. The baby trap. New York: Bernard Gus Associates,
1971.

Peck, E. and Senderowitz, J. (eds.). The myth of mom and
£29.19. pie. New York: Thomas Crowell, 1974.

Renne, K. Childlessness, health and marital satisfaction,

Sooial Biology: 1976. 2313.1. 183-197.

Rochlin, G. The dread of abandonment: A contribution to
the etiology of the loss complex and to depression.

Psvohoanalytie Study of the Child, 1961, 2:11. 451-470.

Rosenkrantz, P., Vogel, 5., Bee, H., Broverman, I. and
Broverman, D. Sex role stereotypes and self concepts

in college students. Journal of Consulting and Clini:
eal Psychology 1968. 3.2.. 287- 295.

Rossi, A. Barriers to the career choice of engineering,
medicine, or science among American women. In J. A.
Matfield and C. G. Van Aken (eds.), Womm and the

Erofessions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1965.

Russo, N. The motherhood mandate. Journal of Sooial ls;
sues, 1976, 3.2.13.1: 143-153.

Russo, N. Overview: Sex roles, fertility and the mother-

hood mandate. Esvohologv 9!. Women Quarterly. 1979:
9.1.1.1.: 7'15-

Sherry, M. Father absence and separation anxiety reactions
in college freshmen. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1981.

Silka, L. and Kiesler, S. Couples who remain childless,

EamilvzlanningEerspeetives 1977. 911.). 16- 25.

Spence, J. and Helmreich, R. Who likes competent women?
Competence, sex role congruence of interests, and sub-
jects' attitudes toward women as determinants of inter-
personal attraction. Journal of Applied Sooial Esy:
My 1972' 2' 197-2130

Spence. J. and Helmreich. R. Masoulinity and femininity;
Their psvohoIogioal dimensions... correlates and anteoe:
dents. Austin: University of TExas Press, 1978.

 

111

Spence, J., Helmreich, R., and StapP: J. Ratings of self
and peers on sex role attributes and their relaiton to
self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and feminin-
ity. Journal of Personality and Sooial Esyehelogy.
1975, 31, 29-39.

Steindel, C. The relationship of self-esteem and life sat-
isfaction to attachment between elderly mothers and
their middle aged daughters. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981.

Strong, E. Interests of men and women. Journal of 5.9.9.113].
Esyohology. 1936. 1, 49-67.

Strouse, J. Women and analysis. New York: Grossman, 1974.

Sullivan. H. The interpersonal theory of psyohiauyo New
York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1953

Troll, L. and Smith, J. Attachment through the life span:
Some questions about dyadic bonds among adults. Human

WI 1976' 1.9.! 156‘170-

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Fertility history and prospects
of American Women: June 1975, Current Eopulation Re;
291.125: 1976-

Van Dusen R., and Sheldon E. The changing status of Ameri-
can women: A life cycle perspective, Amerioan,£syohol;_
93.13.11: 1976! 3.1.! 106:

Veevers, J. Voluntary childless wives: An exploratory
study. Sooiology and Soeial - An Internation:
1]. Journal: 1973! 3.6.! 291-310.

Veevers, J. The parenthood prescription: Alternatives.
gerapeetiyes on Soeiety and Environment. 1974, 3.. 32-

Veevers, J. The moral careers of voluntarily childless
wives: Notes on the defense of a variant world view.

The Family Coordinator. 1975. 473-487.

Weiss, R. Attachment in adult life. In C. Parkes and J.

Stevenson-Hinde. The plate of attaohment in human he;
hayior, New York: Basic Books, 1982, 171-184.

Winnicott. D. The Maturational processes and the faoilitaL:
ing environment. New York: International Universities
Press, 1965.

Worrell, L. Personal Communication, 1983.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

112

Student Number :

 

ucxonouun INFORMATION ourseromm
DIRECTIONS: Pleeee 2111 in or check the epprcpriete epeoee.

1) Rule: -
2) Addreee:

 

3) Telephone masher:
1:) Whet ie the beet time to reech you et the number ebove?

 

 

'6) Gender: Fenle__ me

5) Age:
7) tax-ital Stetue: Single“ Merried_ Sepereted__

Divorced__ Widowed—

 

8) Student Stetue: Freehnen__ Sophomore__ Junior—
Senior-

9) Cumulative Grede Point Aver-ego :
10) Inger: ..
11) Race : a...:.:...__ Bleok__ lexicon American—

. Other (oped-1y) .

12) Religion: Protestant__ Catholio__ Jewish—
Other (epecify) '

13).) Merritt]. Stetue or Pei-onto: m1:e_‘ Sepereted___
Divorced__ Widowed__

 

 

b) I: perente ere divorced eepereted or eidoeed. et what

:3. were you when this occurred?

 

14) mt ie the higheet level. of educetion reeched by your tether?

Did not mute high echool__ High school graduate—

College greduete Poetgreduete education
. .q .

 

Student Number 1

15)

16)
i7)
18)
19)

20)

21)

22)

23)

113

lhat ia the higheet level of education reached by your mother?
Did not graduate high achool__ High echooi graduate—
College graduate___ Poetgraduate education_ ‘
hther‘e Current Occupation: '
lother'a current Occupation:
How m children are there in your-family?
In your really. are you the: Only chi1d_ Oldeet__
Not the cldeet or the' youngeet_ Youngest—
9) Do you intend to aarry? Yee___ No___ Undecided—
b) How certain are you about your intention to marry?
Very certain__ Moderately certain—

 

 

Moderately uncerta in__ Very uncertain-
A) Do you intend to have children? Yee____ No_ Undecided—
b) How certain are you about your intention to have children?
Very certain_' Moderately certain—
Moderately uncertain___ Very uncertain-
c) (Women) Have you ever given birth to a'child? Yee__ No___
d) (Women) Are you now pregnant? Yee_ No__ .
e) Do you know of am reaeone that would physically prevent
you from having a child? Yee__ No___
Do you intend. to work outside the hone? Yee___ No__
Undecided—
How certain are you about your intention to work outside the
hole? Very certain__ Modertately certain___ .

. MOH*“V nn°.m1n Ventuee-AOUL' 63.111
Do you with to receive malts of this study following 11;.

completion? Yee__ No__

 

APPENDIX B

 

114

THE SEPARATION ANXIETY TEST
Directions to the End-er

Besuretohavearoomthatisundisturbedbyoutsiders.Havethechiidsitoppositetoyou.
Thebookcontainingthepicmresandthestatementsshouidbeplaceddirectiyinirontoithe
chidwhiieyouhavetheirsuucuomiorthechfldmfrontofymlnaddidonyousinuldhaw
therecordingchari in ironioiyou.

Onthechanwritethenarneoithechild.theciu’id'sa9e,boyorg'rl,dateofthetest,andthe
nameoitheiacilityinwhichthecl‘iidisiiving.itwouidalsobeusehiltohavethenumberoi
yearsinwhichthechiidhasbemihzinghthisfacilityuninenonthechan.

Read the instructions to the child and then have the youngster open the bookandto the
first picture. Tell him (her) to read the title under the first picture and to study the picture.
'Ihencallhisattentiontotheprintedpageoppositethepictme.Teilhimtoreadthetitieatthe
topofthepage.Thenaskhimtoreadthequestionsdoudasfoflows:

Didthisewrhappentoyou?Yea No
Ifitdidn’t.canyouimag§nehowitwouidieelifitdid?Yes No

Record ‘Y” for “Yes" and “N” for “No” directly under the Roman numeral Then say,
The child feels—

and repeat to him to select asmanystatemenisbeiowwhichteilhowthechiidfeeis. Now
inchcate that he can read the statements to himself and tell you the number of the statements
which he has selected. Encircie these numbers under the appropriate Roman numeral for the
picture. Proceed in this same manner for each picture and for each page of statements.
During the examination it is important not to prompt the chfld in any way. You must,
however, remind him that for each picture he should be sure to start out reading the
statements at the top and read them in order down the page. it is important that you encircle
the numbers under the proper picture. otherwise the test Will be invalidated If the child asks
any questions, simply reassure him to use his own judgment and to indicate which statement
or statements he thinks apply to the child's feeling. if the child selects only one statement on
aparticuiarpicture,remindhimthathemayseiectasmanyofthephraseshemayun’sh.
Should the child be unable to find any applicable statement. ask him to explain in his own
words how the child feels and record this on the back of the chart M'th the appropriate
number for the picture. Our experience has shown that this will rarely ever happen.
When youhaweompietedflnadmhfistmtbndflwteetanddisnissedthechiditwould
behelpiuitorecordyourobservationsofthechid’sbehafiorontl'iebackofthechart.

DirecfioaetotheClflll

This is not atest. ltisanexperiment to find out whatyoungpeople feel about somepictures
thatwehave.flierearemnditorwronganswers.Weareoniyinterestedinthewayyoufeei
about the pictures.

lamgoingtoshowyouthepicmresoneatatime.Foreachpicturetherewiilbeanumber
oistatementsaboutthechiidinthepicture.Youwillbeaekedtopickoutasmanystatements
asyouwishthattellhowthechildfeeis.

Now let's begin with the first picture.

Directions for All-Ito

This is not a test nor are there any right or wronganswers. Weareoniy interestedinthe
wayyoufeitor, thewayyouwouidhaveielt,ifyouhadbeenthechildineachofthe pictures
we are about to present to you. in other words we are asking you to imagine that you are a
chfld and to react as if the situation had occurred or might have occurred when you were a
child. For each picture there will be a number of statements about the chfld in the picture and
you will be asked to select asmanystatementsasyouwishwhichindicate howthechildieeis.
You merely have to read them to yourself and report aloud the numbers next to the
statements you have selected. Now let us begfn with the first picture.

 

 

 

 

115

I.“

./ .-
J. . .
'/I..’:- .mr i3
J. ’ 4 /

U,i

 

THE GIRL WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HER
GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT HER PARENTS

116

THE GIRL WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HER
GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT HER PARENTS

 

Did this ever happen to you? Yes .__..____1. No __
If it never happened to you. can you imagine how this child feels?
YCS a--__.___.-__ Ni) -__-__

 

Check of} below as many statements as you think tell how the girl feels.

The Girl Feels

1. that she will be much happier now.

2. that her parents don’t love her any more.

3. like curling up in a corner by herself.

4. a terrible pain in her chest.

5. alone and miserable.

6. that she dosen’t care what happens.

7. that she will do her best to get along.

8. that this house will be a scary place to live in.

9. that something bad is going to happen to her now.
10. that it’s all the fault of her neighbors“.
11. angry at somebody.
12. that she won’t be the same person any more.
13. that if she had been a good girl, this wouldn’t have

happened.

14. that it’s only a dream—it isn’t really happening.
15. like reading a book, watching TV or playing games.
16. sorry for her parents.
17. she won’t be able to concentrate on her schoolwork.

117

 

 

A GIRL IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS

Can you remember when this last happened to you? Yes

118

A GIRL IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS

__ No _____ ___

 

Can you imagine how this child feels about it? Yes ____ No

Check as many of the statments below which you think tell how this child feels.

This Child Feels

1.

P90!“

p—JH

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

r‘QtOQONQ‘P‘

that she doesn’t care what happens.

that the new class is a scary place to be.

sorry for her past teacher.

that if she had been a good girl, this wouldn’t have
happened.

like playing games with other children.

that something is happening to change her.
that she make the best of the situation.

that nobody really likes her.

that now she is going to have a good time.

that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.

that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

like sitting alone in the corner of the room.

very angry at somebody.

like she’s getting a stomach ache.

alone and miserable.

that something terrible is going to happen.

that somebody bad is responsible for doing this to her.

 

 

 

 

THE FAMILY lS MOVING TO A
NEW NEIGHBORHOOD

 

120

THE’FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW’ NEIGHBORHOOD

Did this ever happen to you? Yes - NH .
If it didn't. can you imagine how it would feel ll ll did" Yes 1----“ .\'n
Now try to imagine how the child in this [)ft'lllt't‘ fuels

Check of] as many statements below which say what you think the child jeeis.
You may check as many statements as you wish.

The Child Feels

!—-‘
HQEOPONQ‘Q‘PWNT‘

H

t—Jr—‘t—‘t—‘t—‘H
\lQUTPCON

afraid to leave.

a pain in the stomach.

that the neighbors made them move.

glad to get away from this bad neighborhood.
alone and miserable.

that she dosen’t care what happens.

that it’s only’a dream.

like hiding somewhere.

that the new house will be a scary place to live in.
that now she will be a different person.

that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

sorry for her parents.

. that she will make the best of the situation.

like punching somebody in the face.

. that nobody likes her any more.

that now she can make some new friends.

. that if she had behaved in the neighborhood. she

wouldn’t have to move.

 

121

 

 

//

///,

 

 

\1. 1 .
my a %\N 111.

  

flail—“..l .WU //

THE CHILD lS LEAVING HER MOTHER

TO GO TO SCHOOL

 

122

THE CHILD IS LEAVING HER MOTHER TO GO TO SCHOOL

You have done what this girl is doing many times.

You no doubt have some idea about her feelings. don't you?

Yes

 

No

 

Check as many statments below which you think tell how this girl feels.

The Girl Feels

that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

afraid to leave.

that school is a scary place to be.

that her mother doesn’t like her.

that she dosen’t care what happens.

angry at having to go to school.

like joining her friends and going to séhool.
glad to get away from her house.

sorry for her mother.

like she’s going to be sick.

that something is happening to change her.

. if she had been a good girl, her mother would let her

stay home.

. like staying home in bed.

that she will do her best to get along.

. that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.

alone and miserable.

. that somebody else is causing all this trouble.

123

 

A CHILD IS LEAVING HER PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP

 

124

A CHILD IS LEAVING HER PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP

iii. . 'i'lfii 'i'l :2 this ex'i‘i‘ litipt‘ieiied to pm.” Yes __ --_ No

C in in iiii.igiiie how it felt when it did happen? Yes __1___ No _ -1- _
I: :t (fidri': happen to you. can you imagine how it would feel if i: did?

Yes __L___ No

{You i lieu. off as many of the Sltllt’HIt’llla below aim: putt llllllh' tell what this

.' o l
3w. wens.

The Girl Feels

sorry for her parents.

angry about going.

that this is a scary place to be.

that now she will be a different person.

that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.
. that her mind can’t think straight. .

. like sitting alone in the back of the bus.

8. that someone else made this happen to her.

9. like reading a book and playing games.

10. that she doesn’t care what happens.

11. that something terrible is going to happen to her.
12. that a bad headache is coming on.

13. that nobody really loves her.

14. that she will make the best of the situation.

15. that if she had been a good girl, her parent’s wouldn’t
send her away.

16. that now she is really free to enjoy herself.
17. alone and miserable.

\iowewme

125

 

 

AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER,
THE FATHER IS LEAVING

 

126

AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER.
THE FATHER IS LEAVING

Did this ever happen to you? Yes No

 

 

If not, can you imagine how you would feel if it did? Yes No

 

 

Now check of] as many 0/ the statements below which tell what you think
the girl in the picture feels. Check as many statements as you wish.

The Girl Feels

very angry at the father.
that now she is free to do anything she wants to.
that her home will now be a scary place.

that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

5. that something terrible is going to happen to her now.
6. that someone else has been causing all of this trouble.
7. like reading a book, fixing something or watching TV.
8
9

PWNE“

. like something is happening to change her.
. lonely and unhappy.
10. nobody really likes her.
11. that she is going to be very sick.
12. like hiding away in her parent’s bedroom.
13. sorry for her mother.
14. that she doesn’t care what happens.
15. that she will try hard to work things out.
16. that she, herself, caused her father to leave.
17. that it’s only a dream—~it really isn’t happening.

 
  

127

 

THE GIRLS OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR
LEAVING ON A VOYAGE

 

 

128

THE GIRLS OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR
LEAVING ON A VOYAGE

Did this e‘tei' happen to you.” Yes __. ,- No

Can you imagine how you would feel if this happened to you?
Yes *__,__._ No __ _______

Now try to imagine how the child in the picture feels.
Chiit‘k off as many statements below which say what you think the child feels.

The Child Feels

H

sorry for her brother.

that if she had behaved better, her brother wouldn’t
have left her.

that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.
that this is a very scary thing.

very angry.

lonely and miserable.

that she will not be the same peson any more.
like sitting alone in her room at home:

that someone else caused all this trouble.

like playing a game with her friend.

that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

that she will try hard to work things out.

. that something terrible is going to happen to her.

. that nobody really likes her.

. that a bad stomach ache is coming on.

. that she doesn’t care what happens.

. that now she is free to enjoy herself in any way she likes.

N

H
t—‘QEOQON9SJ‘P‘PQ

F—d

r—‘r—‘r—lr—Jr—‘r—e
11001.pr

129

 

THE JUDGE IS PLACING THIS CHILD
IN AN INSTITUTION

130

THE JUDGE IS PLACING THIS CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION

Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes __ No

If it never happened to you. can you imagine how you would feel if it did?

Yes _

No

 

 

Now check as many statements below which tell what you think this child feels.
Check as many statements as you wish.

The Child Feels

HI—‘r—‘r—‘lr—‘r—‘t—JH
N©WQWNBQ

WWNQWPWNE

that the world is full of bad people who did this to her.
that it’s only a dream and she will wake up soon.
like committing suicide.

that she will go and make the best of it.

sorry for her parents.

that the court room is a frightening place.

like curling up in a corner.

dizzy and faint.

that she doesn’t care what happens.

happy to get to the institution as soon as possible.
that she is not very well liked.

. terrified at what will happen to her.
. like reading a book or watching TV.
. angry at the judge.

that now she won’t be able to learn school work.

. all alone and unhappy.

that now she will be a different person.

 

131

 

THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED

132

THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED

This has probably lldl)|)t’lli,’tl {ii it it: many tunes

Can you imagine in your mind that it is happening right mm"

Yes

 

No

 

Now check off those statements below LL'lllt'H ‘.()U thin—\- :... in it. ."it' Nit/(t lt’t’lS.
Check as many statements as you wish.

— The Girl Feels

PONP‘SJ‘PWN?‘

11.

12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

angry at the mother.

that it’s scary to be alone here.

like hiding under the covers.

that she doesn’t care what happens.

that something is happening to change her.

that someone in the family made the mother leave.
that now she’s free to enjoy herself in any way she likes.
that her mother doesn’t stay with her‘because she’s a
bad girl.

that it’s not reallyhappening—it’s only a dream.

that she will make the best of the situation.

like reading a book, watching TV or making clay
models.

that something bad is going to happen to her.

sorry for her mother.

that she is getting sick.

that her mother doesn’t really like her.

that she, won’t be able to study in school tomorrow.
very lonely.

 

133

 

THE GIRL’S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN
TO THE HOSPITAL

 

134

THE GIRL’S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL

 

Did anything like this ever happen in your .’.Illlll_\,".) Yes . - _ ___ _ No ,. __
11 it didn’t, can you imagine how you would feel if it did happen?
Yes No

 

Now check off as many statements below which tell what you think this child
feels. Check as many statements as you wish.

The Girl Feels

very angry at somebody.

that she will not be the same person any more.
glad that her mother is leaving.

like hiding in her room.

that she doesn’t care what happens.

that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.
that she’s going to have a bad headache.

that she will do her best to get along.

scared about what is going to happen to her.

sorry for her mother.

. that nobody likes her any more.

. like watching TV.

. that her mother became sick because she was bad.
. that somebody else caused all this trouble.

. that her room is going to be a scary place to stay in now.
. alone and miserable.

. that she won’t be able to concentrate on her school
work.

H
QWQONP‘P‘PWNC"

f-‘r—‘r—‘t—‘HD—‘H
\lO‘iU‘I-hOONi—t

 

135

I :-.:.II
, .i -
I

I .
. 'l,
.f‘,‘" .
’III‘
{...l

.T".i”"- .
e-Ql‘ulflzzlll ]

‘.i,-‘:

f ”it '
alts-Ilia:

.. ’ -' -'.
iii.
i? in“, . I '

s. .
4'" '
- -uj~ -.-' ' I
-- “as?" .. ~ -
.1- w" »- ,';‘_ .-.' . ~ ,' ' ‘
.. _ .cf,’... --- " ._

 

THE GIRL AND HER FATHER ARE STANDING
AT THE MOTHER‘S COFFIN

 

136

THE GIRL AND HER FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE
MOTHER’S COFFIN

[)iti this .'\‘L’l happen to you.’ Yes --___--.._ No _-.-_..-._

If it didn't. can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes _ No .

 

Not. .'I'L to :riiagiiie hou' the child in the picture feels.
Chink off as many statements below which say what you [litth the igliiltl feels.
You may check as many statements as you wish

The Child Feels

1. that she won’t be the same person any more.
2. frightened about what will happen to her.

that if she had been a good girl, it wouldn’t have
happened.

that now she is free to do what she wants.
angry about what happened.

that nobody will love her any more.

that she doesn’t care what happens.

that her home will now be a scary place to live in.
like sitting in a corner by herself.

that other people are to blame for this.

11. that she will make the best of the situation.

12. that it is only a dream.

13. a bad pain in her head.

14. sorry for her father.

15. alone and miserable.

16. that now she won’t be able to study any more.
17. like reading a book or watching TV.

93

H
QEDPONQ‘P‘P

 

 

137

 

THE GIRL IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME

 

138

THE GIRL IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME

 

 

 

 

 

'- Did you ever do anything like this? Yes - -_ No
If you didn't, did you ever-think at doing something like this”
Yes No _
Can you understand why this child would want to do this?
Yes . No
Now check as many of the statements below which you think tell how this
child feels.

The Child Feels

1. that she is just going away to have some fun.

2. angry at her parents.

3. afraid that she will be punished for something she did.

4. that she doesn’t care what happens.

5. that her parent’s don’t want her around any more.

6. that the neighbors have been stirring up her parents
against her.

7. terrible stomach cramps coming on.

8. that she will do her best to get along.

9. that she is only dreaming about this and it’s not

happening.
10. that something very bad is going to happen to her.
11. that it is awfully scary outside.
12. sorry for her parents.
13. like watching TV or reading a book.
14. like going to her hideout.
15. that she won’t be able to study school work any more.
16. that now she will be a different person.
17. lonely and miserable.

 

APPENDIX C

 

 

 

l

3.8—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 2 2 .2 2. 2 .. v 2. ... 2 2 3...... 2......
m t .2 2 u .n .... .2 2 .2 2. 2 2 3:22.22.
- 2- .2. 2 2 2 2 2 . 2 2 m .2 8.22.3.5
1 - - .. 2 2 2 .2l 2. 2 2 . 2 2 . 22......
it, t. 2 . -..l a 2 2. ... .2 2 2 2 . 22......
I. l t m 2 2 ...- rim 2 2 2 .2 2 . a 8.3.“...
- - t .2 2 2 l. m . .2 .2 .. 2 ...l 2 222......
t... 2 2 wt .2. ... .. . .2. .2 2. 2 528......
4...- ... 2 .-. l2- ... . 2 l. 2 2 .. ; .32.
1. l. t .1 .2 . .....t - ..l 2 2 2 2 2 2 l2 ......u...............<
l t t .24 2 2 M... ii. 2 2. 2 2 2 2 ... 3.2.8
1 , l .l - - 2 2 2 .1 2 . 2 2 2. . 2 -2 .2232.
ll- -..l l m- 2 2 2:12. i... . 2 2. 2 .. 2 a 3.5.2...
- - - l .22 ... .. .2 - 2 2 ... 2. «in l. 2- a 22......
mlw .. ill l2. .. 2 .2. -w 2 a 2 21 .. ... . 3.8.2....
8:22.850
2 2 2. -2 2 2 .. a . . 2 .. 2. .. 22......
- l. ...- . ... .2 2. .2 .2 2 .2 l Im... 8.2.2..

u a a ... . ... 2 ... u ......l s a 2.2.... 5......»

i lit. . l . - :82... .... 2......

2.2.2. 5... ...Sl2 ...- ... 2 n i=1... .... .2. .. -... ... .. . 2...... 2......

5E2... 2.2.382. 22.2.2.8 2.12.2...

 

APPENDIX D

 

 

.25 .23 2 28m 2 «.8... 2 a 8832.2!

 

cold—an
3i—..§o¢8<

 

82-2—88 33¢

 

:23. 22.8...

 

.80223222—225
25. 2023.32
20 52m. .8..- 32.3

 

Agafifiuoua 2.8.8.209
cecal—32- 1.3
303.21.:— 8:580:90

 

140

2322a,. 25
. .2356 assoc—:33
2.. .....2 «i.e.... 2.28.. .

 

«23:99.: 3.223 ...—a
.23.... .932...
2: Sam. 233,—. .22....-

 

.80233225
van 2389?:—

.2uu:n a: 222m. 5538--

 

33.5533 v23
..53...§.S.§.Ex
2.. :52 2.3.3.2....

 

252—...» $20 .3350;
..o 22:9 35¢

 

 

.822.— 5252 .22....»
2.3.2.5. 182. .2 ...-.2 .3 .. .> .... .... .2
.8555 ...-8.. 2:2 .23 2.2.... ...... 25.2.5... 329.3:

3.82.3335:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P¢<=U >I<223m ZIP—hi.-

 

APPENDIX E

 

SCORING CRITERIA FOR PROJECTIVE STORIES

Attachment

Rejection

l) A person with whom the child has had an ongoing

2)

relationship does not love, like or care about
the child or does not love/like/care about the
child to the extent they previously did.

The child feels rejected, abandoned or rebuffed

by another person.

Loneliness

The child feels sad, lonely, miserable, unhappy,

empty, a sense of loss, or grief because of being

separated from another person.

Relatedness

1)

2)

3)

4)

The child has feelings of security, content-
ment, confidence which is associated with the
current, remembered or expected presence of
another person.

The child feels responsible for or obligated to
another person.

The child loves, likes, cares about, under-
stands, is interested in or is concerned about
another person.

The child has influence over, is influenced by,

wants to be like or admires another person.

141

 

142
Affiliation
The child seeks out another for the purpose of
giving or receiving contact, attention, reassur-
ance, admiration, approval, acceptance, emotional
support, affection, understanding, comfort, advice

or to confide in.

lndiyiduation
Object Constancy/Sense of Self

l) A child has a feeling of security, contentment
or confidence in his/her capacity to function
in the absence of the person from whom the
child is being separated.

2) The child exhibits the ability to maintain a
feeling of relatedness to the person from whom
s/he is being separated.

3) The child expresses confidence that the rela-
tionship will continue and survive periods of
separation.

Adaptation (implies separation has been disruptive)/
Self Maintenance

1) The child accepts the separation and attempts
to change in order to overcome obstacles/prob-
lems created by the separation or to reestab-
lish some previous level of functioning.

2) The child adjusts to the situation, adapts or

does the best s/he can do.

 

3)

143
The child demonstrates the ability to carry on
routine tasks (school, play, social relation-
ships) in the absence of the person from.whom

s/he is separating.

Exploration/Initiative

l) The child seeks out new experiences or opportu-

2)

3)

nities.

The child feels excited about the prospect of
having new experiences.

The child desires independence or freedom for
the purpose of his/her growth and development.
An act simply for the purpose of defying or
getting back at someone is not a criterion for

scoring this category.

 

   

APPENDIX F

 

 

144

BEM SEX ROLE INVENTORY
INSTRUCTIONS

All your responses should be made on the printed (computer)
sheets with a #2 pencil. Before you begin, full in your
student number and sex and FILL IN THE CORRESPONDING CIRCLES

on each of the computer sheets attached to this form.

On the following pages is a list of 30 items. Each consists
of a pair of characteristics, with the letters A-E
in between. For example:
Not at all A....B....C....D....E Very artistic
artistic
Each pair describes contradictory characteristics, that is,
you cannot be both at the same time, such as very artistic

and not at all artistic.

The letters form a scale between the two extremes. You are
to choose a letter which describes where YOU fall on the
scale. For example, if you think you have no artistic
ability, you would choose A. If you think you are pretty
good, you might choose D. If you are only medium, you might

choose C, and so forth.

Now begin answering the questions on the answer sheet. Be
sure to answer elm question, use a #2 pencil, and answer
quickly because YOUR FIRST IMPRESSION IS BEST.

After you have finished the questionnaire describing
yourself, using the segond.printed computer answer sheet,
choose the letter which best describes YOUR MOTHER on each
of the 30 items.

 

 

ll.

12.

Almost never defend my
own beliefs

Not very affectionate
Not very conscientious
Not very independent
Not very sympathetic

Not very moody

Not very assertive

Not very sensitive to
the needs of others

lot very reliable.

Not a very strong
personality

Not very understanding
Not very jealous

Not very forceful

Not very compassionate
Not very truthful

Not much leadership
ability

Not too eager to
soothe hurt feelings

145

AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE

A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....R
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E

AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE

AOOOOBOOOOCOOIODOOOOE

ADOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE

A....3....c:...n....z
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E

AOOCOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE

AOOOOBOOOOCOCOODOOIOB

ACOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE

Code No.
Almost always defend my
own beliefs .
Very affectionate
Very conscientious
Very independent
Very sympathetic
Very moody

Very assertive

Very sensitive to the
the needs of others

Very reliable

Very strong personality

Very understanding
Vefiy jealous

Very forceful
Very compassionate
Very truthful

Much leadership ability

Very eager to soothe
hurt feelings

 

18.

19.

20.

2'2.
23.
24.
25.

26.

27.
28.
29.

30.

REMINDER -9 FILL IN THE CIRCLES FOR

Vhry secretive

Not willing to take
risks

Not very warm

Not very adaptable
Submissive

Not very tender
Conceited

Not willing to take a
stand

Not very fond of
children

Not very tactful
Not very aggressive

Not very gentle

very conventional

SHEET.

146

AOOOOBOOOOCOOIODOOOOB

AOOOIBOOOOCOOOODOOOOB

A....B....C....D....E
A....n....c....n....t
A....s..,.c....n....e
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E
A....B....C....D....E

AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOB

AOOOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE
ACCOOBOOOOCOOOODOOOOE
aOOOOBOOOCCOOOODOOOOB

ACCCOB.OOOCOCCOD.CIIE

Not very secretive

Willing to take risks

Very warn

Very adaptable
Dominant

Very tender

Not conceited

Very willing to take a
stand

Very fond of children
Very tactful

Very aggressive

Very gentle

Not very conventional

SEX, 8 STUDENT NUMBER ON YOUR ANSWER

 

APPENDIX G

IT 4‘

 

147

PARENT BEHAVIOR FORM

Directions:
On the following pages you will find a series of
statements which a person might use to describe his
parents. Read each statement and decide which answer
most closely describes the way each of your parents has
acted toward you. Indicate your answer on the separate

answer sheet.

If you are under 16, answer the questions as they
describe what is happening now. If you are over 16,
answer as you would have around the age of 16. If you
have been living with someone other than your real
mother or father, answer the questions in terms of

those individuals.

 

148

‘ MOTHER

Makesmefeelbettcaftctalkingovcmy
worriuwitth.

2. Oftanpreisesme.

3.

10.

11.

Letsmehelptodecidehowtodothingswe're
worln'ngon. .

.Reallywaflenntoulljuathowlfeelabout

thins!-

. Wantametoknowhewandwhynaturalthinp

happeninthewaytheydo.

Emegesmetodevebpafterschoolsldlla
andhobbiee.

. Letamedressinanywaylpleaae.
. Tellametothinkandplanbefonlact.
. Isunhappythatl'mnotbetterinschoolthanl

am.

Ssestoitthatlknowexactlywhatlmayor
maynotdo.

Inaiatathatlmuatdoeractlyael'm told.

12. IfItakesomeoneelse'ssideinanal-gument.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

sheisooldanddiatanttome.
Thinhlemjuatsomeoneto“putupwith."
Tellsmeneitherofushaea brain.
Isconsiderateofothers.
Isabletomakemefeelbettcwhenl amupset.
Bellevesinshowinghclovefame.
Dosen’tgetangryifldiaecnewithhcidea'a.
Lilaemetoasectmyownideeewithher.
Lilreatodiscuaecnrrentevutawithme.
Providedmewithpunleewhenlwaayoung.

nDom'ttellmewhattimetobehomewhenl

goout.

23.?ellamethatgoodhardworkwillmakeliie
worthwhile

24. Says that myteechersoftenexpecttoollttleof
me.

25. Wantstolmowexactlywherelamandwhatl
amdm'ng.
Believeeinhavingalotofrulesandstickingto
them.

. Says I'ma big problem.
Makes mefeel I'm not loved.

. Seyathatthingawithsugartaetssmr.

853,838

. Makes good decisions about family problems.
31. Makes me feel free when I'm with her.

32. Tells me how much she loves me.

33. Allows me to be myself.

34. Likes when I'm able to criticize my own or
others’ ideas effectively. ‘

35. Talks with me about philosophical ideas.

36. Hastakenmetolookatpaintings. sculpture
andarchitecture.

37. Lets medoenything I like todo.

38. Sea to it that I keep my clothes neat. clean.
andinorder.

39. Wantsmetoknowalotoffactsregardlessof
whethrornottheyhavemeeningforme.

40.Dosan'tletmegoplaoesbecausesomething
mighthappentome.

41. Believes that all my bad behavior should be
punishedinsomeway.

42. Almost always complains about what I do.

43. Ismintuestsdinmeetingortalkingwith
myfriende.

 

 

a

47.
48.
49.

50.
51.

. Expectsmetostareatthesunf‘ahonrs.
. lshardwakingandeflcint.
. Comfutsmewhnl'mafraid.

Tellsmel'mgoodlooking.
Dosan'tmindifllddhcabmtthinga.

Wantametokeepanopumindabontmyown
oroth-e'belieia.

Pointsonttbebeeutieso‘nanne.

Hastakmmetoseeapdamanoeinaplayor
correct.

szDomn'tpeymnchattentimtomymisbo

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.
58.
59.
60.

61.

havitr.

Wantsmetohavethesemerelip‘ousbeliefsas
shedoa.

Seysshewonldliketoseemeentca
professionwhichrequireea'iginalthinking.

Isalwaystellingmehowlshouldbehave.

Haema'emleathatlunremembc.sois‘

oftenpnnishingme.
Tellsmelamimnnmre.
Doesn'tshowthtsheloveeme.
Tellsmetheeerthiasquare.
lsarssponsibleperson.
Chetamenpwhenlamsad.

62. Sayslmalrehchappy.

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

Enjoysitwhenlbringfriendatomyhome.
Ispleeeedwhenlbringupa'lginalideaa.
'l‘alhwithmeabonthowthingsaremade.
Playsclaaeicalmueicwhenlamhome.
Doeanotinsistlobeyiflcomplainorprotat.

TanghtmetobelieveinGod.

149

69.

‘ 7o.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.
76.
77.
78.

79.

81.

Wants metopursueaoaminascientifioally
relatadfield.

Wantstooontrolwhatevcldo.

Seeetoitthatlobeywhenshetellamssome-
thing.‘

Oftenblowshertopwhenlbotherher.
Doesn’tseemtothinkofmevcyoften.
ReedstomeinGnefiandLatin.
Istruthfnl.
Hasagoodtimeathomewithme.
Givesmealotofcereandattention.
Allowsdiscnssionofrightandwmng.

Likeswhsnlaakquesfionsaboutallkindsof
thine:

. Encouragesmetodiamssthecausesandpos-

sible solutions of social. political. economic or
international problems.

Buysbooksformetoreed.

82. Excaseemybedcondnct.

83.
84.

87.

39.

Encourages me to pray.

Seysshewaildlikemetobeanimportantor
famoupcsonsomeday.

.Keeperemindingmeaboutthingslamnot

allowedtodo.
Punishes mewhenl don'tobey.

Wheneverwe get into adiscuesion. she treats
memorelikeachildthananamilt.

.Changeshermindtonnhthingseesiafor

herself.
Gives me green lollipope evuyday.

. Uses goodjudgement.
91.

lseasytotalkto.

 

 

92. Beoomeeveryinvolvedinmylife.
93. Iseesywithme.
94. Tellsmetostandupforwhatlbelieve.

96. Feelelshouldreedasmuchasposeibleaimy
own.

96.3mmtobediflcentfromothc
punk.

97. Canbetalkedintothingseesily.
98. Feelshnrtwhnldon'tfollowhisadvioe.

99.Expectsmetobesuocseainlineverything1
try.

100. Is always gettingafterme.

101.Believesinpunishingmetocorrectandim-
provemymanners.

102.Whenldon'tdoashewante.says I'm not
gratefulforallhehasdonefa'me.

103. Doesn'tgetmethingsunlesslaskoverand
overagain.

104. Buysmethousanddollarsuitsordressea.
105. Is honest in dealing with othts.

106.8eemstoseemygoodpnintsma'ethanmy
faults.

107. Says l'mverygoodnatm'ed.
108. Triestobeafriendrathcthanaboee.
109. Givesmereesonsforrulesthathemakee.

110. Encairagesmetoreednewsperiodicalsand
watchnewshreedoestsonTV.

111. fisquiresmetoarriveatmyownconchnions
whenIhaveaproblemtosolvi.

112. Seldominsiststhatldoanything.
113. Feelshurtbythethingsldo.

114. Is more concerned with my being bright rather
than steady and dependable.

[.1
01
O

115. Decideswhatfriendslcangoaroundwith.

116. Loses his tamper with mewhen I don't help
aroundthehouse.

117. Tellsmeofallthethingshehasdoneforme.
118. Asksotherpeoplewhatldoawayfromhome.
119. Expectemetomakeallofmyownclothee.
120. Obeysthelaw.

121. Smileeatmevcyoftsn.

122.1salwaysthinkingofthingsthatwillplease
me.

123. 'l‘riestotreetmsasanequal.

124.1‘rainsmetobsrationalandobjectiveinmy
ll'l'

125. Encouragesmetofoolaround withnewidees
eveniftheyturnouttohavebeenawastsof
time.

126. Wants me to find out answers for myself.

127. Doesnotbothertoenfm'cerules.

128. Seemstoregetthatlamfiowingupandam
spendingmoretimeawayfromhome.

129. PrefI-s metobegoodinacademicworkrather
thaninsports.

130. Tellsmehowtospendmyfreetime.

131. Doesn’t give me any peace until 1' do what he
9‘”-

132.1slesefriendlywithmeif1don'tsesthings his
way.

133. Almostalwayswantstoknowwhophonedme
orwrotetomeandwhattheysaid.

134. Says I should never ride in an automobile.

135. Makes guests feel at home.

 

1.

151

FATHER

Makaamefealbettarafta'talkingovrmy

2. Oftenm-eieesme.

3.

‘0

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

Letamabalptodecidehowtodothlngswe’re
workingon.
Reallywantametotallhimjuethowlfeal
aboutthinga. .

. Wantsmetoknowhowandwhynaturelthings

happenintheweythsydo.

.Encmragaametodevelopeftrschrnlskills

andhobbiea.

. Letsmedressinanywaylpleasa.
. Tellsmetothinkamiplenbeforelact.
.lsunhappythatl’mnotbsttuinschoolthanl

Seestoitthatlknowexactlywhatlmeyor
maynotdo.

Inaiststhatlmustdoerectlyesl'mtold.

IfI takesomeoneelsa’ssideinanargumentha
isébldanddistanttoma.

Thinkslamjustsomeonato“putupwith."
Tellsmaneitheroiushesabrein.
Isconsiderateofotha's.
Isabletomekamafealbettxwhanlamupsat.
Believesinshowinghialovefa'me.
Doesn’tgetangryifldisegreawithhisidaas.
Likeametoessartmyownideaewithhim.
Likestodiscusscun'enteventswithme.

Providedmewithpunleswhenlwesyoung.

22.Doesn'ttsllmewhettimetobehomewhenl

go out.

23.Tellsmethatgoodherdworkwillmakelife
worthwhile.

24. Saysthatmytsachersoftsnexpacttoolittleof
me.

25. Wentstoknoweaactlywherelamandwhatl
amdoing.

26. Believesinhavingalotofrnlesandstickingto
them.

27. Says I’mabigmblem.

28. Makeamefeall'mnotloved.

29. Saysthatthingswithsugertastesour.

30. Mekeagooddecisionsabout family problems.
31. Makeamefeelfreawhenl'mwithhim.

32. Tellsmehowmuchhalovesme.

33. Allowsmetobemyself.

34. Likeswhenlamablatocn’ticizemyownor
othce'idaaseffectively. ’

35. Talks with me about philosophical ideas.

36.Hastakenmatolookatpaintings.sculpture
andarchitecture.

37. Letsmedoanythingllikatodo.

:flfiklmnmulhmmmeMMMmMm

and in order.

39. Wentsmetoknowalotoffactsreprdleseof
whetherornottheyhavemeaningforme.

40.D9aen’tlatmagoplecesbeoeusesomething
mightheppsntome.

41.3elievesthatallmybadbehavia'shouldbe
punishedinsomeway.

42. Almost always complains about what I do.

43.1sneverintarestsdinmeetingortalkingwith
myfriefnds.

 

44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

. 49.

50.

51.

Expectametostareatthasunforhours.
lshardwa-kingandeificient.
Comfatamewhen I'mairaid.
TellsmeI’mgoodlooking.
Doesn'tmindiflkidhimabontthings.

Wantametokeepenopanmindabontmyown
oroth-e'beliefe.

Pdntsoutthebaentieaofnemra.

Hestakmmetoseaapcfmnancainaplayor
cones-t.

52Doasn't peynmchatuntimtomymisbe-

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.
58.
59.
60.

61.

hevia.

Wantsmetohavethesannreligiousbeliefsas
hedoaa.

Sayshewouldliketossamsentcaprofession
which . . . III‘ I'
Isalwaystellingmahowlshouldbehave.

Hesmoreruleathenlcanramembc.sois
oftmpuniahingme.

Tellemelamimmature.
Doesn'tshowthathelovesme.
Tellemetheearthissquare.
Iseresponsibleparson.
Che-'smeupwhenlamsad.

62. SaysInnkehimhappy.

63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

Enjoys it when I bring friends to my home.
lspleasadwben 1 bn'ngupmideas.
Talks with me about how things are made.
Plays classical music when 1 am home.

Does not insist 1 obey if I complain or protest.

Taught me to believe in God.

69.

70.

71.

152

Wantsmatopursueacereerinascientiflcally
relatedfield. - ‘

Wants to control whatever I do.

Seastoitthatlobaywhenhatellsmesome-
thing.

72. Oftenblowshistopwhenlbothm'him.

73.

Doesn'tseamtothinkoimeveryoften.

764. RaedstomeinGreakandLatin.

75.
76.
77.
78.

79.

81.

Istrnthful.
Hesagoodtimeethomewithme.
Givasmealotofcereendattention.
Allowsdiscussionofrightendwrong.

Likaswlnnlaskquestionsaboutallkindsof
l' .

.Encourageametodiscussthecausesand

possible solutions of social. political. economic
or intentional problems.

Buysbooksim'matoread.

82. Excnsaamybadconcluct.

83.
84.

85.

87.

89.

Encourages me to prey.

Sayshewouldlikemetobeanimportantor
femouspersonsomeday.

Keepsremindingmeaboutthingslamnot
allowedtodo.

Punishes me when I don’t obey.

Whenevu'wegetintoadiscussion. hetreats
memorelikaachildthananadult.

.Chengeshismindtomakethingseasierfor
himself.

Gives me green lollipops everyday.

. Usesgoodjudgement.
91.

lseasytotalkto.

r—x

 

92. Becomeavcyinvolvedinmylife.
93. Iseesywithma.
94. Tellsmetostandupfa'wbatlbelieve.

95. Feelslahouldreadaenmchaspoaaibleonmy
own.

96.Encouregeamatobedlffuentfromother
people

97. Canbetalkedintothingeeasily.
96. Feelshurtwhmldon'tfollowhcadvioa.

99.8mmtobasuccassfn'lineva-ythingl
try.

100. Isalwaysgettingaftmme

101.8eliavesinpnniahingmatoem-rectandim-
provemymennme.

102When1don'tdoushewantasaysl'mnot
gratefulfcallshehesdomfam. -

103.Doasn'tgetmethingsunlaealaskoverand
ovcagain.

104. Buysmethousenddollerssuitserdreases.
105. Iehonaatindaalingwithoth-e.

106.8aamstosaamygoodpointsmorethanmy
faults.

107. SaysI’mvrygeodnstured.

108. Trieatobeafriemiratherthanabosa.
109. Gives mereasonsfm'rulaathetshemekes.

110. Encourages me to read news periodicals and
watchnewsbieedcastsonTV.

111. Requireamatoerriveetmyownconclusions
whenlhevaepoblamtosolve.

112. Seldomineistathatldoenything.
113. Feelshurtbythethingaldo.

153

114.1smoreconctnedwithmybsingbrightrather
thanstesdyanddepsndable.

115. Decidaswhatfriendslcengoaroundwith.

116. Loeaahttenmcwithmewhmldon’thelp
aroundthehouea.

117. Tellsmaofellthethingsshehesdonefcrme.

116. Asksothmpsqlswhatldoawayfromhome.

119. Expectematomekeellofmyownclothes.
120. Obsysthelaw. ‘
121. Smilaaatmevaryoftan.

1221salwaysthinkingofthingsthatwillpleese
me.

123. Triestotreatmeasanequel.

124.Trainsmetoberationalandobjectiveinmy
l'l'

125. Encouragesmetofoolaroundwithnewideas
eveniftheyturnouttohavebeenawasteof
time.

126. Wantsmetofindoutanswersformysali.

127. Doaanotbothartoenfa'carules.

128. Seemtoregletthetlamgrowingupandam
spandingmaetimeawayfromhome.

129. Prefers me tobegoodinacademic work rather
thaninsports.

130. Tellsmehowtospendmyfreatime.

131. Doesn't give me any peace until I do what she
“I“

132. Is less friendly withma if I don’t see things her
way.

133. Almost always wants to know who phoned me
orwrotstomeandwhattheysaid.

134. Says I should never ride in an autombile.

135. Makes guests feel at home.

 

APPENDIX H

 

 

 

Parent Behavior Form Scale Descriptions

.hmqmomg .5
Active Involve-ent AI
Equalitarianisn 8

Cognitive Independence CI
Curiosity CU
Cognitive Competence - CC
Lax Control LC
Confer-ity CO
Achievement AC
Strict Contror' SC
Punitive Control' PC
Hostile Control BC
Rejection R

The order of the scales is determinedgby the correlation of each cluster
with the lead scale of acceptance. Therefore, the scales range roughly
on an acceptance-rejection dimension. Scales high on the list have a.
closer correlation with Acceptance. Scales on the lower end of the list
have a negative relationship with acceptance and scales near the middle
have low or variable relationships depending upon the parent being

considered.
3%u*¥*‘”9§

Active
Involvement:

Equalitarian-
isn:

The parent is seen as warm. loving, accepting. Listens
to problens. nurturant and caring, concerned about
feelings. easy going. hes a positive view of child and
enjoys his companionship.

The parent becomes actively nurturant and initiates

open indications of positive feelings. Parent takes an
active role in colnunicating his feelings and concern
for the child. Hunts child to know how parent feels
about his. Becomes actively involved in child's activi-
ties.

Tries to treat the child as an equal. Allows open
expression of child's feelings. even if negative.
Accepts disarrcencnts, listens to child's opinions.
Accepts child's friends and ideas. Hen-punitive and
nonecritical.

Encourages child to think for himself, to come to his
own conclusions. whats child to express his individ-
uality with parent and with others as well. Encourages
critical thinking while keeping an.open mind about his
own and others' ideas. Encourages originality, analysis
of ideas. Emphasis on child developing own sources of
infatuation rather than taking on parents' ideas.

 

LC!

CO:

AC:

QC:

IIC :

.1555

wants the child to ask questions about life, the world and him-
self. Enjoys intellectual dialogue with child. Wants child to
appreciate nature and how it evolved. Wants child to keep in-
formed on current events and new ideas.

wants child to develop skills and to be competent at a variety
of tasks. Vents child to develop cultural and aesthetic inter-
ests. Provides wide exposure to cultural activities. Encourages
individuality and competence at problem solving.

Provides a wide latitude of freedom for child's activities. Bots
not set down many specific rules for child to follow. Allows
child to avoid obeying rules that do exist and ignores misbehavior
that occurs. Is never coercive or demanding. Allows child free-

dom to develop his own rules.

wants child to adopt values of hard work, religious involvement.
obedience to rules'and orderliness. Takes an active role in
teaching and enforcing these values. Tends to view the child as
an extention of himself in these values and feels hurt when child
does not conform. Pears losing control over child.

Pas high goals for achievement for child. Feels child could do
more to be meeting these goals. Communicates to child that he
falls short of parent expectancies for him. Wants child to
excell in an outstanding career involving professional or scien-
tific areas. would like child to be famous. Expects child to
be academically superior and successful in all of his endeavors.

Has many rules that he communicates and enforces carefully. V
Supervises child's activities and is restrictive about free move-
ment. Constantly reminds about rules, tries to monitor all be-
havior. Tells child what to do in his free time and with whom
he may associate. -

Insistent and coercive about conformity to all rules. Punishes
all misbehavior. Punishes frequently for a variety of infringe-
ments. Has many rules. Loses temper when child does not comply
and nags until he does.

Communicates his dissatisfaction with everything child does. Tells
child he is a big problem. Gives blanket criticisms, loses his
temper easily, becomes cold when child disagrees with him. Con-
trols child through accusations. guilt induction and psychological
withdrawal from the relationship. -

Communicates his active dislike and dissatisfaction with child.
Never shows love or concern. Makes it clear that child is of
little importance to him. At the same time, he is intrusive'
about child's activities and price into his private life.

 

 

 

APPENDIX I

l.

2.

3.

l.

5.

6.

156

HICHIGAR STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

, DEW RESEARCH CURSE!!! FOE!

I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study
being conducted by: Linda Cohen

under the supervision oi:
Albert 1. Robin. Ph.D. .

Academic Title:

_ Professor

The study has been erplained to me and I understand the ex-

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

I understand that I am free' to discontinue my participation '
in the study at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be treated in
strict confidence and that I will remain anonymus. within
these restrictions. results of the study will be made available
to me at my request. . .

I understand that my participation in the study does not guar-
antee any beneficial results to me.

I understand that. at my request. I can receive additional
erplamtion of the study after ny participation is completed.

Signed:

 

 

mm as new mam: ‘ Women's Roleé L

 

   

M'c/ITI'ITILHINHLTIJEILHfi/flHjiujflfifll'lflflyiflffiiflflfl'ES