Milli

\lljllll\llllllllllll Mill 1

1293 10062 6476

Mill

THEM.

 

This is to certify that the
. thesis entitled
YOUNG WOMEN ' S PHENOMENOLOGICAL SENSE OF FATHER

AND PARENTAL MARITAL RELATIONSHIP AND THEIR
RELATION TO PATERNAL LOSS

presented by

Susan J. Darlington

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Personnel
Services, and
Educational Psychology

Ma 4%?

Major professor

Date 7/Vé/7C}

0-7639

    
   
  

  

méfié
as“.

4 or? 1!“

WE;

M713 1991

Novsom

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

  

Y

 

 

 

 

 

© 1979

SUSAN JANE DARL l NGTON

ALLRIGII'S RESERVED

YOUNG WOMEN'S PHENOMENOLOGICAL SENSE OF FATHER
AND PARENTAL MARITAL RELATIONSHIP AND THEIR
RELATION TO PATERNAL LOSS

By

Susan J. Darlington

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and
Educational Psychology

1979

ABSTRACT

YOUNG WOMEN'S PHENOMENOLOGICAL SENSE OF FATHER
AND PARENTAL MARITAL RELATIONSHIP AND THEIR
RELATION TO PATERNAL LOSS

By

Susan J. Darlington

Studies on the effects of father absence on children often
fail to consider the type of father lost. Additionally, few have
addressed the importance of the father-daughter relationship. When
perceptions of father have been examined, subjects with absent
fathers have been excluded.

The purpose of this study was, first, to measure women's per-
ception of father on a number of factors to determine how this sense
differs with father loss, cause and time of loss, perception of the
parental marital relationships, and presence of an older brother;
second, to develop scales to aid in examining these factors. These
scales included the Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS), Percep-
tion of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS), Recall of
Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS), Perception of Parental Death Scale
(PPDS), and the previously-developed Schaffer Childrens' Reports of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI).

Questionnaire reliabilities and scales' relationships were

computed on responses of 181 women drawn from four universities.

Susan J. Darlington

Differences between groups were determined by 20 widows' daughters,
28 divorcees' daughters, and a random selection of 25 daughters from
intact homes.

Multivariate analyses of variance were performed. There
were no significant differences between women from divorcees',
widows' and two-parents' homes on any of the measures except for
responses to the PPMRS. While women from intact and widows' homes
responded similarly, women from divorced homes scored significantly
higher, reporting much more dissimiliarity between their view of an
ideal marriage and their parents'. Supplementary analyses of women
whose fathers died and those whose fathers divorced found signifi-
cant differences on Factor 11 (Lax versus Firm Control) of the CRPBI.
Women from divorcees' homes indicated significantly morelax control
than women from widowed homes. Trends in univariates showed
divorced fathers were perceived as more extreme autonomy granting and
less child-centered than intact and widows' husbands. Intact home
fathers were reported as more likelytxJuse withdrawal of relations
as a means of control than either of the loss groups. These results
suggest that widows' daughters have perceptions of their fathers as
being more protectively involved than the divorcees' perceptions of
their living fathers.

A correlational matrix, run to determine relationships between
sclaes, revealed three good, one moderate, and two fair significant
correlations between Schaffer's scale's Factor I and the Discrepancy
form of the PFS. Also, there were one good, three moderate, and

three weak significant correlations between Schaffer's Factor I

Susan J. Darlington

scales and the Real form of the PFS. There were no other significant
correlations between Schaffer's Factors 1, II, and III, PFS, PPMRS,
RPDS, and PPDS.

. . I sit in the dark studio and talk to the child: "You can
see by what is happening in the world that there is no father
taking care of us. We are all orphans. You will be a child
without a father as I was a child without a father . . ."

But inside this woman there is still a child; there is
still a ghost of a little girl forever wailing inside, wailing
the loss of a father. Will you go about, as I did, knocking
on windows, watching every caress and protective love given
to other children. For as soon as you will be born, as just
as soon as I was born, man the husband, lover, friend, will
leave as my father did.

It would be better to die than to be abandoned, for you
would spend your life hunting the world for this lost father,
this fragment of your body and soul, this lost fragment of
your very self [speaking to her yet unborn child] (Nin, Vol. 1,
l966, pp. 339—340).

ii

Gersh and Kathy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following people played a significant part in the process
of writing this dissertation. I am continually pleased in recalling
the amount of concern and cooperation I encountered from friends,
acquaintances, students, subjects, and colleagues too numerous to
mention in full.

My children, Kristoffer, Joshua, and Meagan, for their help
in collating and stapling, waiting for me while I wrote one more
page, talked with one more subject, persuaded one more professor,
and for making my life so much richer.

Kathy Scharf for enthusiasm, support, affection, and faith.

Gersh Kaufman for providing the environment to sow the seeds
necessary to grow the ideas and feelings behind this dissertation.

Geoffrey Roehm for his patience, humor, and Optimism during
all night drives between Illinois and Michigan, hours of wading
through paper work, and entertaining children wondering what's
become of their mother.

Roger Weir, who remained a caring, patient friend and excel-
lent director through periods of "forgetting" to write, for hours
spent helping with editing and typing needs, digging up resources to
help with computer fundings and giving me time to finish.

Judith Taylor for enormously valuable assistance with statis-
tical and computer procedures. I am especially appreciative of her

iv

combination of intellectual competence and friendly personal
interest.

Bill Hinds for coming in during vacation breaks, consistent
involvement and interest, and appropriate helpfulness and calm in what
was at times a tedious process.

Lynn Rapin for numerous hard, whimsical confrontive kicks
to my procastinating backside.

Margaret Parsons for her steady commitment to our friendship
and dependable assistance in being my East Lansing contact and
“runner." Her hugs and smiles have been invaluable.

Bob Rummary for his pure altruism in going out of his way to
provide me subjects from his classes.

My mother for struggling to understand and support, for many
times baling us out of temporary crises in finance and health.

The following pe0ple provided places to sleep, ideas to
bounce off of, classes to gather subjects from, help in getting
necessary test forms, and support: Raymond Riskey, Fran Stott,

Gary Stollock, Kenneth Venick, Skip Lemkee, Jerry Strouse, Debra
Oberg, Peter Shapero, Phillip Bisbee, Paul Weikert, and hHlliam
Parsons.

T.G.T.F.T.I.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . .

Need for the Study
Purpose of the Study
Theory . . .
Father- -Family Effect .
Older Brother Effect .
Time of Loss Effect
Summary of Theory .
Hypotheses .
Causal- -Comparative Hypotheses
Father-Family Effect .
Older Brother Effect .
Time of Loss Effect . .
Correlational Hypotheses Relationship Between Scales
Overview . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter II .
Chapter III .
Chapter IV
Chapter V

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Father- -Daughter Relationships. Theory . .

Summary of Father- -Daughter Relationship Theory
Father- -Daughter Relationships. Research.

Summary of Father Daughter Relationship Research
Loss of Father--Impact on Daughter . .

Loss of Father by Divorce

Loss of Father by Death . .

Summary of Loss of Father--Impact on Daughter

vi

Page
ix

xii

. xiii

Father Absence and Sibling Composition . . . 37
Summary of Father Absence and Sibling Composition . 38
Time of Father Loss . . . . . . . . . 38
Summary of Time of Father Loss . . . . 42
Marital Relationship and Intactness of the Home . . 44
Summary of Marital Relationship and Intactness of
the Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . 58
Design Hypotheses 1 through 13 . . . . . . . 60
Design Hypotheses 10 through 18 . . 62
Population and Selection and Description of the Sample 63
Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Selection of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Sample Description . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Instrumentation . . . . . 72
Overview of Retrospective Parenting Scales . . . 73
Children' 5 Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI) . . . . . 80
Reliability of the CRPBI from Sample Data . . . . 91
Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS). . . . 92
Phenomenological Parent Marital Relationship Scale
(PPMRS) . . . . . 107

Perception of Parental Death Scale (PPDS). . . . lO9
Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) . . . . . 110

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Causa1-Comparative Hypotheses . . . . 114
Father-Family Effect (Tested by Multivariate

Analysis). . 114

Father-Family Effect (Tested by Analysis of Variance) 115
Older Brother Effect (Tested by Multivariate

Analysis). . . . . 117
Older Brother Effect (Analysis of Variance) . 118
Time of Loss Effect (Tested by Multivariate Analysis

of Variance). . 118

Time of Loss Effect (Tested by Analysis of Variance) 119
Summary of Causa1-Comparative Hypotheses' Tests . . 120

vii

Correlational Hypotheses . .
Hypotheses l3 through 15--Relationship Between the
CRPBI, PPMRS, and PFS

Hypotheses 16 through 18--Relationship Between the .

CRPBI, PFS, PPMRS, and the Perception of Parental
Death Scale (PPDS) .

Hypotheses 19 through 21L-Re1ationship Between the .

CRPBI, PFS, PPMRS, and the Recalled Parental
Divorce Scale (RPDS) . .
Summary of Correlational Hypothesis Testing.
Summary of Hypothesis Testing .
Supplementary Analyses . . .
Multivariate Analysis of Differences Between Two
Loss Groups .
Multivariate Analysis of Differences Between Two
Groups, Loss and No Loss . .
Univariate Analyses of Multivariates Used for
Testing Hypotheses .

Univariate of Interest in Examining Differences in

Time of Loss . .
Supplementary Analysis: Summary .
Swmmy. . . . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary . . .
The Problem . .
Design and Method .
Results
Limitations
Subjects . .
Design and Methodology
Measures . . .
Discussion of the Results .
Group Differences .
Scale Relationships .
Implications for Future Research

LIST OF REFERENCES
APPENDICES .

viii

Page
120
122

127

128

LIST OF TABLES

Causal-Comparative Design
Cell Sizes in Correlational Design

Father's Occupational Level and Intactness of the
Family . .

Mother's Occupational Level and Intactness of the
Family . .

Father's Completed Educational Level and Intactness
of Family . .

Mother's Completed Educational Level and Intactness
of Family .

Classification of Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior in Terms of Factor Dimensions

Concepts and Sample Items of the Revised Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory

Orthogonally Rotated Composite Factor Matrix for
Young Woman's Reports of Paternal Behavior .

Internal-Consistency Reliabilities for the Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory Scales

Concepts and Sample Items for the Phenomenal
Fathering Scale . .

Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Revised Real
and Ideal Tests of the Phenomenological Fathering
Scale . . . . . . . .
Real Factors Determined by an Eigen Value of 1.00
Ideal Factors Determined by an Eigen Value of 1.00

Real Factors Determined by a Varimax Rotation Setting
of Twelve . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Page
60
63

67

68

7O

71

75

82

89

93

98

99

101
102

103

Table

Ideal Factors Determined by a Varimax Rotation
Setting of Fourteen

Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Real, Ideal,
and Discrepancy Forms of the Phenomenological Father-
ing Scale . . .

Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Real, Ideal,
and Discrepancy Forms of the Perception of Parental
Marital Relationship Scale . . . . . .
Divorce Factors Determined by an Eigen Value<rfl.OO .

Mean and Standard Devision on the PPMRS of Three
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Factor Analysis of Group Differences' Results .

Significant Relationships Between Each of the Scales
of Schaffer's Factor I and the Real Form of the PFS .

Significant Relationships Between Each of the Scales
of Schaffer's Factor I and the Discrepancy Form PFS .

Relationships Between Schaffer's Factor 11 and the
Discrepancy Form PFS

Relationships Between Schaffer's Factor III and the
Discrepancy Form PFS

Results of Correlational Examination of Scale
Relationships

Univariate Analysis of Factor III Multivariate Test
of Differences Between Two Groups . . .

Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee
Homes on Rating of Paternal Extreme Autonomy

Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee's
Homes on Rating of Paternal Nonenforcement .

Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee's
Homes on Rating of Paternal Control .

Univariate Tests for Family-Father Effect Differences
Between Three Groups on the CRPBI Factor 11

Page

104

107

109

112

116
121

124

124

126

127

131

134

134

135

135

137

Table

4.13

4.15

4.16

4.18

Page

Univariate Test for Family-Father Effect Differences
Between Three Groups on the CRPBI Factor III . . . 138

Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
Scale 3 (Possessiveness) . . . . . . . . . . 139

Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
CRPBI Factor III Scale 18 (Extreme Autonomy) . . . 139

Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
Scale 12 (Nonenforcement) . . . . . . . . . 140

Univariate Tests for Time of Loss Effect Difference
Between Two Groups on the Discrepancy Score of the
PFS and CRPBI Factor I . . . . . . . . . . 142

Differences Between Women with Early and Late

Paternal Loss on the Discrepancy Score of the
Phenomenological Fathering Scale . . . . . . . 142

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page

3.1 Number of Mutual Items (Total Items) Between Factors--
Comparison of Real and Ideal Reduced Factor Analyses 106

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. Test Pack Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
B. Internal-Consistency Reliabilities and Orthogonally
Rotated Factor Matrices for the Children's Report
of Parental Behavior Inventory Scales . . . . . 206

C. Scoring and Scale Factor Placement for Schaffer's
Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory . 210

D. Twelve Factors from Second Factor Analysis of the Real
Form of the Phenomenological Fathering Scale . . . 224

E. Four Factors from Factor Analysis of the Recalled

Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) . . . . . . . . 228
F. Correlational Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
G. Written Subjects' Comments . . . . . . . . . . 234

xiii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

An increasing rate of divorce in this country has given rise
to a growing concern about the effects of father absence on child
development. In 1970, the United States census reported that 3.5
million families with young children are headedtn/a single parent
and more than 85% of these single parents are women (U.S. Census,
1970, p. 402). Or in other words, at least 10% of the nation's
children live in fatherless homes. Additionally, "three times that
many (children) are fatherless for a significant part of childhood”
(Biller & Meredith, 1975). And this figure does not include those
children in two parent homes where the father is psychologically
and/or physically unavailable (Lamb, 1978).

Numerous studies have been done with conflicting results
about the possible adverse effects of paternal absence on the
developing child (Despert, 1962). Negative generalizations abound
regarding the problems, behavior, and psychological well-being of
children reared solely by their mothers. The negative generalizations
frequently are based on contradictory evidence in research that is

replete with methodological flaws (Herzog & Sudia, 1968).

One large problem in the research is the failure to consider
the type of father lost° It is quite possible that the departure of
some fathers is a relief. The contribution of father often is
determined circuitously by comparing children with fathers in the
home to children without fathers in the home (Pederson, 1976; Herzog
& Sudia, 1968). Such a comparison produces no direct information
about what fathering is, how fathering varies, and the effects of
fathering variations. In other words, what_is it that is missing in

————_————

g_father-absent home which causes differences between children from

 

two-parent and one-parent families? Finally, a comparison of children
from father-present and father-absent homes may be demonstrating the
effects of other losses besides father loss. For instance, the
quality and quantity of mothering may decrease because of greater
financial difficulty and responsibility along with deprivation of
emotional support suffered from husband 1055. These issues will be

discussed more fully in Chapter II.

Need for the Study

 

Until recently, the role of the father in child development
has been overlooked and virtually ignored in the research. The
increase in divorce, and the father's subsequent absence from the
home, however, has increased the interest in examining his influence
or lack of influence. While there are theories and numerous studies
examining the effects of father presence and absence on males, very
little research has addressed the importance of the father-daughter

relationship in the psychological development of women (Biller, 1976;

Lamb, 1974). Some studies do suggest that the father has a signifi-
cant impact on his daughter, even in absentia (Hetherington, 1972;
Fish & Biller, 1972).

This study will attempt to examine the meaning "father" has
for women as they are growing up. It will look at how young women
report their fathers' behaviors and attitudes toward them as they
were growing up as it relates to a number of factors related to
fathers' presence or absence in the home. The use of women's
perceptions instead of direct observations follows the frequently
expressed theory that a person's perception or phenomenological sense
of a situation has more influence on the person's behavior and/or
emotions than its objective reality (Land, Papenfuhs & Walters, 1976;

Fish & Bi11er, 1972).

Purpose of the Study

 

There are two main purposes of this study:

1. To examine and compare daughters reported phenomeno—
logical sense of father with a number of factors to determine how
this sense differs with father loss, cause of loss, time of loss,
perception of the parental marital relationship, and presence of an
older brother,

2. To develop scales to aid in examining these factors.
Responses on Schaffer's paternal section of his Children‘s Reports
of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) will be compared and corre-

lated with responses on the Darlington Phenominological Parental

Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS) and the Phenomenological Fathering
Scale (PFS). Additionally, women with experience of paternal loss

will respond to scales developed to measure their type of loss, i.e.,
a parental death scale or a parental divorce scale, The relationship

between all five scales will be analyzed.

Theory
Father-Fami1y_Effect

 

It is not surprising that no theory about daughters'
perceptions of father exists, since there is no comprehensive approach
examining the father-daughter relationship. Freud, Parsons, and
some social learning theorists have made some limited speculations
about the father's role in assisting the daughter's sex role identity
formation (Lamb, 1974; Lynn, 1974; Biller, 1971, 1976). But currently,
not enough is known to predict how a daughter's perception of her
father varies according to his presence, absence, age at loss and
reason for loss.

There are some studies that have begun to examine variations
in daughters' perception of father and they present results and
explanatory hunches which might be relevant. A significant investi—
gation conducted by Mavis Hetherington (1972, 1973) found very
different modes of interpersonal heterosexual styles between three
groups of females. The groups were comprised of females from intact,
widows', and divorcees' homes. While the study will be described in

more detail in the following chapter, her findings are especially

germane to this study and therefore are the foundation upon which
hypotheses on father-family effect are based.

Hetherington's research showed that females whose fathers
had died were very distant toward males, possibly as a reaction to
an overly idealized, fantasized conception of their fathers. A
number of case studies done during World War II support Hetherington's
conclusion about an overly idealized paternal image. In those
studies (Machtlinger, 1976, citing Burlingham & Freud, 1944), children
refused to accept the death of their fathers and continued to talk
as though their fathers were still alive. In fact, they often
described their fathers as more giving and available than they had
been while alive. Peter Neubauer (1960) emphasizes that in almost
all of the cases of parental loss he examined, fantasies existed
about the missing parent that play a part in the developmental
process. Finally, Bach (1946) found that children whose fathers
were absent portrayed fathers as nurturant and less punitive during
doll play than did children whose fathers were in the home.

In contrast to the daughters whose father had died,
Hetherington found that females coming from divorced homes actively
and seductively sought out male attention. As a possible explanation
for the seductiveness, she suggests females in this group may be
reacting to their mothers' acknowledged insecurity, anxiety, and
lower self-esteem by assuming the only way to be happy is to have a

man. These same mothers also expressed negative feelings toward

their ex-spouses. Hetherington suggests that a negative perception
may cause anxiety in the daughters around other males.

As an alternative explanation for the seductive behaviors
of these females, the writer hypothesizes that this anxiety may be
channeled into a seductive, pursuer style in an attempt to compensate
for the mother's failure to maintain the married relationship. The
writer suggests an additional explanation could be the presence of a
reaction formation against feelings of anger toward the father that
is generalized toward all males. The presence of such feelings
could threaten the female with fear of more abandonment should they
be expressed, thus, opposite, exaggerated feelings are exhibited.

The father-present daughters in Hetherington's study appeared
to respond to males by being neither overly distant nor overly
seductive, but tended to appear relaxed and "appropriate" in their
behavior.

Michael Lewis and Marsha Weinraub (1976), discussing the
indirect aspects of father-child relationships, present a concept
about certain relationships within the child's social network that
may also account for Hetherington's results. The concept is called
transitive which implies that if the mother has a relationship with
a person, the child does also, even if the child has no direct
contact with that person. As an example, the researchers point out
the deep feelings of affection children often express toward grand-
parents whom they have rarely seen. In the case of the father-child

relationship, they suggest that the mother can facilitate a

relationship with father even if the father has no direct contact
with the child. A transitivity explanation would go as follows: a
loves b (I love my mother), b loves c (my mother loves my father),
therefore a loves c (I love my father). According to their theory,
this also follows for the intensity of the feelings transferred, i.e.
how strongly, positive or negative, the child feels for the father.
Congruent with this theory is Adler's (Baxter, Horton & Wiler, 1964)
belief that it is the mother who sets the stage for the relationship
of the father with the child. The mother's attitude toward her
husband greatly affects how she presents him to their child.

The writer suggests that one can conclude from the above
theories that a marital relationship which is perceived by the child
as congenial would set the stage for a different sense of father
than a marital relationship full of strife or indifference. Also,

a mother expressing many angry or disappointed feelings toward her
ex-husband could transmit a different sort of perception about

father than a widow for whom the marital relationship was good (Green,
1976; Biller, 1971, 1976).

It is probable, the author hypothesizes, that women whose
fathers have died during childhood have idealized pictures of their
fathers (Tessman, 1978), while their peers who have experienced a
divorce might have negative images of their fathers. This would
seem to be related to their perceptions of his relationship with
their mother. Based on Hetherington's research, the writer suggests

that women from intact homes may have more realistic, less extreme

perceptions of father. Further research and theory will be presented

in the following chapter.

Older Brother Effect

 

While there are no theories and almost nonexistent research
dealing with the effect of an older brother on child development,
the writer hypothesizes that the presence of an older brother as a
male role model could modify extreme perceptions of males and hence
reports of father. Limited studies cited in Chapter II show that
the presence of an older brother modifies father absence effects on

aggression for little boys.

Time of Loss Effect

Childhood perceptions of loss and their relationship to
adult perception is rarely examined, but there are some limited
theories surrounding how time of loss may affect the image of the
lost parent. These theories may be relevant to this study's inquiry
into the later memory of father and parental marital relationship
experienced by women with parental loss.

According to Piaget's theories on cognitive development, a
child before the age of eleven or twelve would have a very limited
ability to realistically analyze experiences with the lost person and
the experience of loss itself (Inhelder & Piaget, 1968; Tessman, 1978).

A psychoanalytic view of the impact of time of loss of
parent would examine the psychosexual stage of development of the child

at the time of loss. In the case of a daughter losing a father,

there would be a special concern over a loss during the Oedipal stage.
Such a viewpoint would predict that a loss of father during that time
would leave the daughter with unresolved Oedipal feelings toward
the father, and consequently an idealized memory of him. Such an
interpretation of the reaction to father loss would also predict
heterosexual interpersonal difficulties later in development.

In agreement with the prediction of long term effects
from time of loss were Tessman's findings (1978). She found that
the younger the child at the time of loss, the more likely that
individual would later have images of the lost parent that were

highly powerful in ability to gratify or deprive.

Summary of Theory

The preceding section examined theory concerning hypotheses
described in the next section. Specifically, they cover father-
family effect, how type of family (widow's, divorcee's, or intact
homes) affects perception of father and parents' marital relationship;
older brother effect, whether the absence or presence of an older
brother affects the perception of father and parents' marital
relationship; and time of loss effect, whether age at time of loss
affects perception of father and parents' marital relationship.
Some limited theory and research in these areas suggest that all
three factors may mediate perception of father. The section on
father-family effect suggests that perception of father is influenced

by the quality of the marital relationship.

10

Hypotheses

This study will compare young women's sense of their father,
and parents' marital relationship across a number of variables. Very
little research or theory has been done in the area of perception
of father, parental marital relationship and parental loss. Addi-
tionally, the scales devised to measure this sense are new and
lacking in tested reliability and validity. These two factors, the
newness of the scales being used and the lack of available research
in this area, lead to the forumulation of null hypotheses, i.e. the
prediction of no differences due to lack of objective data or theory
to predict the differences and direction of differences. Hypotheses
are presented in groupings of area of interest and correspond to the

preceding theory section.

Causal-Comparative Hypotheses
Father-Family Effect

Hypothesis 1: There will be no differences in the
perceptTOn of father acceptance versus rejection
among women who have been raised in intact, widowed,
and divorcees‘ homes.

Hypothesis 2: There will be no differences in the
perception of father psychological control versus
psychological autonomy among women who have been
raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees' homes.

Hypothesis 3: There will be no differences in the
perception of father lax versus firm control among
women who have been raised in intact, widowed, and
divorcees' homes.

Hypothesis 4: There will be no differences in the
perception of parental marital relationship among
women who have been raised in intact, widowed, and
divorcees' homes.

11

Older Brother Effect

 

Hypothesis 5: There will be no differences in the
perception of father acceptance versus rejection
among women who have been raised in homes with or
without an older brother.

Hypothesis 6: There will be no differences in the
perception of father psychological control versus
psychological autonomy among women who have been
raised in homes with or without an older brother.

 

Hypgthesis 7: There will be no differences in the
perception of father lax versus firm control among
women who have been raised in homes with or without
an older brother.

 

Hypothesis 8: There will be no differences in the
perception of parental marital relationship among
women who have been raised in homes with or without
an older brother.

 

Time of Loss Effect

 

,Hypothesis 9: There will be differences in the
perception of father acceptance versus rejection
among women who have lost their father early
(between the ages of 4 and 7) or late (between the
ages of 8 and 12).

 

Hypothesis 10: There will be differences in the
perception of father psychological control versus
psychological autonomy among women who have lost
their father early or late.

 

Hypothesis 11: There will be no differences in the
perception Effather lax versus firm control among
women who have lost their father early or late.

Hypothesis 12: There will be no difference in the
perception‘Ef parental marital relationship among
women who have lost their father early or late.

Correlational Hypotheses: Relationships Between Scales

Hypothesis 13: There will be no relationship
between phenomenological sense of father, paternal
acceptance versus rejection and parental marital
relationship for college-age women.

12

Hypothesis 14: There will be relationship between
phenomenological sense of father, paternal psycho-
logical autonomy versus psychological control and
parental marital relationship for college-age women.

Hypothesis 15: There will be no relationship between
phenomenOlogical sense of father, paternal finn
versus lax control and parental marital relationship
for college women.

 

Hypothesis 16: There will be no relationship between
perception of parental death, and the phenomono-
logical sense of father, paternal acceptance versus
rejection, and parental marital relationship for
college women.

 

Hypothesis 17: There will be no relationship between
perception of parental death, and the phenomeno-
logical sense of father, paternal granting of
psycholgoical autonomy versus psychological control,
and parental marital relationship for college women.

Hypothesis 18: There will be no relationship between
perception of parental death, and the phenomono-
logical sense of father, parental firm versus lax
control, and parental marital relationship for
college women.

Hypothesis 19: There will beruarelationship between
recall of parental divorce, and the phenomonological
sense of father, parental acceptance versus
rejection, and parental marital relationship for
college women.

 

Hypothesis 20: There will be no relationship between
recall of parental divorce, and the phenomeno-
logical sense of father, parental granting of psycho-
logical control, and parental marital realtionship
for college women.

Hypothesis 21: There will be no relationship between
recall of parental divorce and the phenomenological

sense of father, parental firm versus lax control.
and parental marital relationship for college women.

912cm
An overview of the study concerning young women's perceptions

of their fathers and their parents' marital relationship as they were

13

growing up and those perceptions relation to the women's experience
and perceptions of paternal loss, type of loss, time of loss, presence

of an older brother, and other demographic information is as follows:

Chapter II

Presented in this chapter will be pertinent literature
concerning the father-daughter relationship, loss of father, parental
marital relationship, and influence of older siblings. Special
attention will be given to studies examining the perception of
young women that used scales similar to the ones used in this inves-
tigation and to studies exploring theories about the role the father

plays in female development.

Chapter III

 

The research design, methodology, population, and instru-

mentation of data collection are discussed.

Chapter IV

 

The data are analyzed in this chapter.

Chapter V

A summary of the study findings, conclusions, and recommen-

dations for further research are presented in the final chapter.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Literature relevant to the investigation will be presented
in this chapter. Areas that will be reviewed are the father-daughter
relationship, the impact of the loss of father on daughter by divorce
and death, the absence of father in relationship to sibling compo-
sition, the effects of the time of father loss, and the impact of
marital relationship on the developing child. A major criticism of
the literature on the role of the father in female development is
the lack of theory with which to connect research results (Johnson,
1963). Therefore, the review of the father-daughter literature will

include pertinent theory and research.

Father-Daughter Relationships: Theory

 

The paucity of theory on fathering, particularly in relation
to daughters, is reflected in the relative dearth of research in this
area. Bronfenbrenner (1960) notes that although elaborate theoretical
explanations of assumed phenomena have been made, in reality,

. . .very little is known about the extent of variation
in the behavior of fathers and mothers toward sons and

daughters, and even less about the possible effects of
such differential treatment (p. 39).

14

15

Johnson (1963) has a different view which is appealing; that is,
although
. ."very little is known" about parental behavior and
identification process, (it is) because there is no adequate
theoretical explanation to which existing findings can be
assimilated and thereby become "known" (p. 319).
Currently there are a number of studies being done that
suggest the importance of this parent-child relationship for females.
This interest may lead to formulation of more complete theories.
Whether the problem lies in the lack of conceptual base or in the
absence of research itself, the fact remains that shortcomings do
exist in the literature in this area.
Freud emphasizes the role the father plays in the identifi-
cation of the young girl with her mother during the Oedipal phase of
her development. In resolving her futile strivings for an erotic
attachment with her father, the daughter begins to give up her compe-
titive feelings toward her mother, and instead, begins to emulate the
woman who has her father's love and attention (Biller, 1971, 1976;
Lynn, 1974). While stressing the importance of the father as a
primary love object during the Oedipal phase, Freud altered his
description of this phase for females several times. Finally in 1926
he stated:
We know less about the sexual life of little girls
than of boys. But we need not feel ashamed of this distinc-
tion; after all the sexual life of adult women is a "dark
continent" for psychology (Freud, 1961, originally published
1926).

Deutsch (1944) suggests more specifically that when the little

girl behaves passively, helplessly and/or seductively, the father shows

16

her tenderness and affection. However, when she behaves agressively
and/or in a "masculine" fashion, he discourages her.

Johnson (1963) likewise contends that the father rewards
“attractive and good" behavior in his daughter. She suggests that
he is less demanding of his daughter than his son. Biller (1971,
1976) concurs that is the father who encourages the sex differences
between boys and girls. He states that the father encourages his
daughter's femininity by praising and attending to her when she
engages in coy and girlish behavior. However, Biller (1975), in his
book Father Power, warns fathers that too much praise for this kind
of behavior may be harmful. He suggests that over-encouragement of
demure, passive behavior limits the possibilities a female has for
growth as a whole human being. Further discussion of this stance
will be in the following section on research on the father—daughter
relationship.

Leonard (1965) discusses the importance of the father in a
sex role development from a psychoanalytic viewpoint. She cites case
studies which point out different kinds of significant pathological
fathering modes which contribute to various problems of adolescent
females. Initially, she defines fathering as:

. . .the sum of nurturing, protection, affection, guidance
and approval given by the father to his child: it is his
availability to give love and to be loved (to be used as
love—Bbject): —to*be admired, emulEtEH‘Efid obeyed (to be

used as)a model—for ident1fication and superego formation)
p 326

 

17

Lonard maintains it is the mature man:
. . .who has found an unneurotic solution to his own oedipal
conflict and has achieved a satisfying marriage relationship
(who is) able to offer his daughter desexualized affection
at the critical stages in her development (p. 33).

She discusses defenses the father may use if he has not
attained the necessary intrapsychic resolutions, and the impact of
such defense strategies on the adolescent female. Fathers with
poorly defined incestuous feelings for their daughters may produce
extreme defense reactions on the female's part. Leonard hypothesizes
two results of an incestuous father attitude. One result is promis-
cuity, which is a means to replace her father with a safer target for
her unconscious oedipal wishes. The second result is the daughter's
regression to pre-oedipal hostility.

Reactions to a nonparticipating or absent father have two
possible outcomes, according to Leonard, both of which have pathological
components. The female may build an idealized father image whom she
futilely seeks to find in a love object, or she may seek love but be
unable to return it.

Leonard stresses the importance of an affectionate relationship
between father and daughter in order for the daughter to be able to
have loving relationships with boys of her own age later. A father
who rejects or ignores his daughter may contribute to her remaining
in a masculine identified phase of development. Thereby, Leonard

speculates, the daughter tries to please both parents by being like

the man her mother loves and being the boy her father wanted or was,

18

Less specifically, there are ideas (as opposed to theories)
about the role of the father beyond sex role learning that focus on
the impact of fathering on the developing boy. In striking contrast
to most of these ideas, Erik Erikson (1962) stresses not the goodness
or badness of parenting ability but the father's encouragement and
guidance of autonomy.

Fathers, if they know how to hold and guide a child, function

somewhat like guardians of the child's autonomous existence.

. .For there is some which only a father can do, which is,

I think, to balance the threatening and forbidding aspects

of his appearance and impression with the guardianship of

the guiding voice. Next to the recognition bestowed by the

gracious face, the affirmation of the guiding voice is a

prime element of Man's sense of identity. Here the question

is not so much whether in the judgment of others the father

is a good model or a bad one, but whether or not he is

tangible and affinnative. . .Intangibly good fathers are

the worst (p. 124).
Until recently, the importance of a father to model risk taking activity
has been primarily emphasized for boys, but recent investigation
suggests the importance of such a model for girls (Walstedt, 1977),
No theory as of yet has followed these results. Walstedt‘s investi-
gation will be discussed in the following section.

Summary of Father-Daughter
Relationship_Theory

 

 

Psychodynamic ideas were reviewed. Freud, after numerous formu-
lations about little girls' sexual development indicated near the end
of his life that generally little was known about females' sexuality.
Deutsch suggests that the father encourages passive, coy behavior

and discourages aggressive or "masculine" behavior. Biller concurs

19

that it is the father who encourages sex role behavior, but warns

this encouragement can be damaging to the growth of the female as a
whole being. More specifically, Leonard theorizes about the kind of
maturity the father needs to possess in order to give his daughter
the much needed ability to give and receive love, and to be used as

a model for superego formation. She hypothesizes various pathological
outcomes from different inadequate fathering styles. Erikson's
theory is in contrast to the sex role emphasis in examining fathers
and daughters. In speaking of fathering of sons, he stresses the
importance of a tangible, affinning father who encourages and guides

autonomy.

Father-Daughter Relationships: Research

 

Research on the impact of fathering on daughters indicates
that the father's behavior toward his daughter, as well as his absence,
is an important aspect in her mental health, social adjustment, sex
typing, relationship with the opposite sex, cognitive functioning,
mathematical ability, creativity, popularity in elementary school,
ability to be regularly orgasmic, and in her development of achievement
potential (e.g., Biller, 1976; Goodenough, 1937; Heilbrun, Harrel 8
Gillard, 1967; Hetherington, 1972; Helson, 1971; Lidz, Parker &
Cornelison, 1956; Nelson, Macoby & Rau, 1960; Milton, 1957; Schaffer,
1965; Tausch, 1952; Walstedt, 1977; Fasher quoted from a letter to
Lynn, 1974; Worrell & Worrell, 1971).

Several studies related to females' perceptions of their

fathers used questionnaires which were similar to ones used in the

20

present study. Many used variations on the Schaffer (1965) scale
which is included in this investigation.

Stressing the importance of such an exmaination of perceptions
of parents are the findings of Serot and Teevan (1961). While not
dealing specifically with the father-daughter relationship, they
found a child's phenomenological sense of his/her parents, as measured
by Schaffer's Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI), to be related to the child's adjustment as measured by the
California Test of Personality. The subjects were fourth grade
students, mostly lower-middle and upper-lower class. There was very
little agreement between how the child perceived his/her parents'
relationship with him/her and how the parents saw their relationship.
The researchers concluded:

It seems that an important developmental step has been
underemphasized in theory and almost absent from research.
Previous experiments have tried to relate parental attitudes
or the quality of the parent-child relationship (as measured
by questionnaires or interviews) directly to the nature

of child development. They have not discovered definite
one-to- -one relations, for they failed to take into account
the fact that the child reacts to his perceptions of the

situation and not to the situation directly (underlined by
the writer for emphasis, p. 337).

 

 

 

Data did not differentiate between boys and girls or between mothers
and fathers. Also, no information was given on the subjects' race.
Focusing only on women's perceptions of their fathers, Fish and
Biller (1973) compared college women from intact homes who scored
their perceptions of father toward the accepting end of the polar

dimension "acceptance-rejection" on Schaffer's retrospective parenting

21

scale (1965a, 1965b) to those women who scored their fathers toward
the rejecting end. A comparison of adjustment was made based on
Gough and Heibrun's (1965) Adjective Check List. Fish and Biller
used those items which have been found to discriminate personal
adjustment. The adjustment score is computed by subtracting those
scores of items found to be correlated to positive adjustment from
the scores of those found to be correlated to negative adjustment.
The childhood perceptions of theirfathers'interactions recalled by
these young women were highly related to how they saw themselves and
to their personal adjustment. Fish and Biller conclude nurturance
seems to have facilitated personal adjustment, while women who
experienced their father as rejecting had difficulty in personal
adjustment.

Seigelman (1965) used the paternal scale of a retrospective
instrument on parenting, developed with Anne Roe, to examine young
women from intact homes. He compared their scores to results on the
Cattell 16 PF. Extroverted females on the Cattell reported loving
fathers, whereas introverted females reported rejecting fathers.

Comparing the responses of institutionalized depressive patients
on an individual item factor analysis of the Schaffer's Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI), Raskin, et al. (1971)
found that depressive patients rated both parents more negatively
than did normal subjects. The difference was significant on the
first factor of acceptance vs. rejection. Adult depressives perceived

more emotional deprivation, i.e., less positive involvement and

22

affection during their adolescence. Separate results were not
presented for male and female subjects.

The following studies lend support to Biller's notion that the
overly nurturant father may also have a negative impact on his
daughter's emotional growth. The report of such a father tends to
be made by a more cautious, unassertive woman.

Using a modification of Schaffer's scale, the Behavior Form
(Worell & Worell, 1971), Walstedt (1977) examined the relationship
between remembered experience with father and scores on the Altruistic
Other Orientation Scale (A00). Her subjects were mature women who
had been raised in intact homes. The A00 is based on the construct
of the same name that is used to label the attitude of self-sacrifice
often taken by women in male-female relationships. Strong positive
relationships between fathering practices, adoption of the A00,
educational level, income, and the ability to be self-supporting were
found for women whose fathers were central in their development. The
group of women who most frequently endorsed AOO additionally reported
that their fathers stressed caution and safety, expected them to be
diplomatic, little ladies, good listeners, discouraged them from
being spunky and assertive and did not help them develop study habits.
These women were the least educated and the least able to be self-
supporting.

Worell and Worell (1971) found perception of father related to
personality characteristics and to reactions to the women's liberation

movement. Women who supported the movement were found to be "normal"

23

but with a strong sense of independence. Women who opposed the
movement were more frequently found to have fathers who were exces-
sively affectionate and nurturant. They were self-protected, fearful
of danger, deliberate, unvarying and resistant to change. Compared
to women who supported the movement, the latter group was less
logical in approaching problems and less curious, exploring, and
analytical.

Stabler and Goodrich (1966) studied college women's responses
to the possiblity of a natural environmental danger over an extended
period of time. When compared to the low anxiety female, high
anxiety females had higher scores on the Parent-Child Relations
Questionnaire subscales measuring father love, protectiveness, and
casualness; and lower scores on scales measuring demandingness,
rejection, neglect, and symbolic punishment. High anxiety females
also reported a greater need for dependency and affiliation, and
were more timid than their low anxiety peers. The researchers
emphasize:

Although individual subscales did not differ reliably, the
consistency of the pattern clearly indicates that the
father-child relationship was the differentiating factor
in the background of low and high anxious females (p. 316).

Bronfenbrenner (in Petrollo & Bass, ed., 1961), compared
responses of tenth grade students to a behavioral checklist for both
of their parents. He examined differences on the checklist for
students rated as high, medium, and low on responsibility and on
leadership by their teachers. The educational level of fathers was

used as an indication of socioeconomic class. In his investigation,

24

the mother was seen to exceed the father in all areas of the checklist.
Her prominence, while most marked in traditional maternal spheres
such as nurturance, affection, protection, and presence, also
exceeded, to a lesser extent, the father in negatively toned rela-
tionships. She was seen as a more important source of power, disci-
pline, rejection, and demands for achievement.

When punishing, Bronfenbrenner found that each parent tended
to be more active, firm, and demanding with a child of the same sex,
and more lenient and indulgent with the child of the opposite sex.
With respect ot protectiveness and affection, there was a shift in
preference for the opposite sex. However, the tendency on the part
of fathers to be warm and solicitous with daughters was much more
pronounced than it was for mothers with their sons. This tendency
of paternal overprotectiveness and affection adversely affected the
development of responsibility and leadership in females in the Bron-
fenbrenner study.

When contrasting different parental styles with the sex of
the child and its relation to responsibility, Bronfenbrenner found
different modes of parenting to have different impact.

For sons, high levels of responsibility are associated with
greater presence, nurturance, affection, and companionship,
especially from the mother. . .and--even more markedly--with
increased discipline and authority from the father. . . .

In contrast, for girls, virtually all these parental vari-
ables are negatively related to level of responsibility—-

this reverse effect being most marked for intercession,
protectiveness, and power (p. 254).

 

 

Bronfenbrenner emphasizes that there were differential optimal levels

of emotional support related to the development of responsibility.

25

In examining parental antecedents of leadership, Bronfenbrenner found
that parental behaviors which facilitated the development of
leadership in boys, impeded the development of leadership in girls.

The primary factors here were not authority but affiliative compan-

 

ionship, nurturance, principled discipline, affection, and affective

 

ISEEEQ: He stresses that the companionship and affection which seems
to impede the development of leadership in girls is much more intense
than the level of affection that seems to aid the development of
leadership in boys.

In a study conducted by Dropplemen and Schaefer (1963), girls
reported receiving more love and affection from both their parents,
while boys reported receiving more punishment and hostile treatment.
Their sample was comprised of white seven grade Catholic school
children from intact homes. Girls and boys reported mothers as more
lvoing, nurturant, and affectionate than fathers. On a cluster of
traits that involved a negative emotional type of behavior, i.e.,
daughters saw mother as higher than father. On a less involved
negative cluster of behavior, i.e., rejection, neglect, and ignoring,
females saw their fathers as clearly higher than mother. In addition,
children perceived the parent of the opposite sex as more autonomy-
granting than the parent of the same sex.

Examining younger children's differential perceptions of
their parents, Kagen (1955) used a four-question survey with students
in grades one through three. He found that as females got older,
they saw their mothers as less gratifying of their needs and their

fathers as more so.

26

Tausch (1952), in an intensive study of 85 fathers, paints a
similiar picture of fathers' differential treatment of their sons and
daughters. The fathers had a total of 160 children equally divided
between boys and girls. Fathers reported frequencies and types of
motor activities with their daughters and sons until age five. Tausch
found a noticeable decline in reports of motor activities with females
after age five. During the interviews, fathers reported participating
in the routine daily care and safety of girls more than of boys.
Tausch suggests that these differences may point to the father's
possible concept of his daughter as fragile, dainty, and in need of
constant supervision. Her quotes of fathers about their daughters
confirms this notion.

Summary of Father-Daughter
Relationship Research

 

 

Research on father-daughter relationships has found that a
father's behavior towards his daughter is an important aspect in her
mental health, sexuality, cognitive functioning, popularity in ele-
mentary school, etc. Of particular importance to this study, and
hence emphasized in the preceding review was the relationship between
report of father and aspects of the daughter's psychosexual development.
Serot and Teevan (1961) found children's reports of both parents on
the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) to be
related to the child's adjustment as measured by the California Test
of Personality. Parent's self-report on the CRPBI was not related

to the children's adjustment.

27

Fish and Biller (1973) found college women who scored their
father toward the rejecting end of Factor I (acceptance versus
rejection) of the CRPBI to have more difficulty in personal adjustment
than women who scored their fathers as more accepting. Siegelman
(1965) found extroverted females reported loving fathers, whereas
introverted females reported rejecting fathers. Raskin, et a1. (1971)
found depressive patients rated both parents on the CRPBI as more
rejecting than a group of normal subjects.

In addition to relating rejecting fathers to negative adjust-
ment, a number of reviewed studies demonstrate problems in adjustment
for daughters with overly nurturant fathers. Walstedt (1977) found
mature women who rated their fathers as stressing caution and safety,
behaving like a little lady, diplomacy, good listening, and as
discouraging spunkiness and assertiveness were most likely to have
lower educational levels, income, and ability to be self-supporting
than women with fathers who did not stress such a traditional role.
Worell and Worell (1971) found perception of an excessively affectionate
father to be related to fear of danger, deliberate, unvarying
resistance to change, opposition to women's liberation, and less
logical, curious, and exploring approaches to problems. In the
face of potential natural disaster, Stabler and Goodrich (1966) found
the most differentiating factor for high anxiety females was higher
score on parenting scales measuring father love, protectiveness, and
casualness; and lower scores on paternal demandingness, rejection,

neglect, and symbolic punishment. Bronfenbrenner (1961) found

28

protectiveness and affection from the opposite sexed parent (in a
much smaller amount for girls than for boys) to adversely affect
responsibility and leadership in the elementary school classroom.
Tausch found that fathers in 1952 reported a decline in engagement
in motor activities with their daughters by the age of five, and an
increase in participation in routine daily care and safety more than
with boys. It would appear that paternal rejection and over affec-
tion and nurturance both contribute to problems in women's psycho-

sexual and social development.

Loss of Father--Impact on Daughter

 

Traditionally studies of children from father-absent homes in
comparison to children from father-present homes have used their
results to point out the impact of father loss. Clearly, there are
other significant factors affecting the father-absent household besides
paternal absence (Pederson, 1975; Herzog & Sudia, 1968; Brandwein,
et al., 1974). Therefore, the researcher would like to review some
of the literature related to this issue before examining the
literature related to father loss from divorce and death.

Herzog and Sudia (1968) surveyed over 400 studies of father-
absent children. From these studies they selected a "core group"
which dealt directly with effects on children who are growing up in
fatherless homes. This "core group" included 59 studies, which they
sorted into those upholding and those opposing the "classic" view.
"Classic" view studies were those which reported adverse traits and

behaviors associated with the absence of father. 0f the core group,

29

29 studies support the "classic" view, 17 challenge it, and 13 report
mixed results. Seven of the 29 studies reporting adverse effects were
judged to have reasonably sound methodology, as were seven of the 17
challenging the "classic'I view. Herzog and Sudia note that some
studies overlook certain factors which are important to consider.

For example, studies relating juvenile delinquency to broken homes
fail to take into account the evidence that apprehension and treatment
of juveniles is influenced by the fact that they come from broken
homes. Also, father absence nay be more or less stigmatized for
different groups, thereby having a different impact and meaning for
the family. Another missing element is the recognition of the
different kinds of one-parent and two-parent families. Few studies
have compared the harmonious, well-organized, one-parent home with

the conflict-ridden, two-parent home. Herzog and Sudia are also
struck by the lack of attention paid to daughters and the overuse of
masculinity-femininity measures. They suggest that it may be more
relevant to examine the child's humanness and adequacy as a child,
particularly in view of the current concern over distinctions between
maleness and femaleness.

Generalizations made from heavily confounded research measures
with instruments of dubious validity may not only be a waste of
resources, but may prove to be misleading, if not destructive (Rosen-
feld, 1973; Brandwein, et al., 1974). Herzog and Suida point out
that in the studies they examined, results were often stated with

strongly qualified suspicion of confounding factors. However, when

30

these studies were cited by others, the investigators' qualifications
were ignored.

Keeping in mind some of the facts about the single-parent
family that might bias and confound research on father loss, the
literature on the impact of father absence, especially on the
daughter, will be discussed. An attempt will be made to keep separate
the findings on divorce and death, although thiS'Hsoften not the case
in research on father absence. Hetherington's research cited
previously provides the rationale for examining divorce and death

separately. Studies on divorce will be examined first.

Loss of Father by Divorce

 

Studies are extremely rare on the impact on the developing
female of loss of father because of divorce. How such a loss affects
the daughters' perceptions of their fathers occasionally has been
speculated about but never researched. Therefore, most of the
literature presented here involves both sexes but is broadly relevant
to this study.

Antony (1974) reviewed the literature to assess the possible
risks of divorce. He suggests that the child could become acutely
psychiatrically disturbed, develop traumatic neurosis, or be
chronically maladjusted if parents are divorced. The child may
develop a psychiatric disorder later in adulthood. Antony suggests
that the quality of the marriage before the divorce, as Opposed to

the divorce itself, has a close relationship to the quality of

31

disturbance engendered in the child. His ideas on this will be
presented later in the parental marital section.

In those children who show more than situational reaction
to the divorce, Antony speaks of symptoms such as persistence of
silence, panic, guilt, hostility, somatic symptoms, depression,
accident proneness, and school problems. Children with adjustment
difficulties often exaggerate their part in causing the divorce and
wish for a reunion. He states post-divorce bickering over money may
lead children to assume it was the cost of their upkeep that caused
their father to leave. Antony describes an overall symptom pattern
following divorce called neurosis of abandonment. In this neurosis,
the child alternates between depression and aggressiveness--grieving
the loss of the family unit and feeling small, weak, and intensely
vulnerable. He stresses that the quality of parenting following the
divorce is important in the resolution of the child's fears.

Wallerstein and Kelly (1976a, 1976b) also stress the importance
of the cooperative postdivorce parental relationship in facilitating
a healthy adjustment for the child. In agreement with Hetherington
(1974), they found that readjustment to divorce took one to two years.
Antony, as well as Wallerstein and Kelly, found different coping and
defense strategies among different ages of children and suggest that
age at loss of father is an important element to consider when

examining the person who has experienced father loss.

32

Loss of Father bnyeath

 

Literature on the impact of loss of father through death is
scant, especially if one is interested in impact on females. Typically,
such studies focus on institutionalized adults and comparisons are
made across diagnoses or with a control group of non-institutionalized
pe0ple for incidence of death during childhood. Very little beyond
the incidence is studied, so that information about the meaning the
death has for the people involved is unknown. Additionally, the
focus is typically on loss of mother. An exception to this type of
study was an examination of the early marital relationships established
by couples in which one partner had a history of parental death
(Jacobson & Ryder, 1969). Of relevance here is a marriage syndrome
described by the researchers in which the wife's parent (half the
women in the group had lost their mothers, half had lost their
fathers) died when she was in mid-adolescence. The wife in these
cases had marked inability to enjoy sexual relations in an otherwise
close marriage. The other syndrome of interest to this study is one
in which either husband or wife have experienced loss. The syndrome
is characterized by early loss and chronic conflict. The median age
of loss for this group was seven and proportion of loss of father or
mother was equal. Rage and ambivalence were prevalent with intermit-
tent sexual relations that were for the most part avoided. Anger was
often prolonged for weeks with these couples. Although a different
and cogent approach to studying the impact of childhood parental death

on the adult, generalizations cannot be realistically made because of

33

a very small sample size. A breakdown of this data along sex of
parent and marriage partner would be enlightening. However, it would
add little reliable knowledge in this case due to the small number
of couples in each group. An outstanding exception is a study done
by Hetherington on women from two-parent homes, homes broken by
divorce, and homes broken by death. All of the daughters were first
born and a large proportion were an only child. Those with siblings
had sisters. The sample ranged in age from 13 to 17 and were from
lower and lower middle class homes. No attempt was made to control
for age at loss for the death or divorce groups. No differences
between groups were found in the mean age, education, and occupation
of the fathers or mothers, age and education of the subjects, maternal
employment, religious affiliation, or number of siblings.

The most striking differences between the daughters was
their interpersonal behaviors with males. In an interview with a
male asking broad, superficial questions about school, television,
etc., there were very different styles of relating between groups as
opposed to no differences in a similiar situation with a female
interviewer. The interviewer was seated behind a desk. There were
three chairs in which the subject could choose to sit. One was
directly across from the interviewer, one directly next to the
interviewer's right side, and one was across from him and toward the
far corner of his desk.

Of the females from homes in which the father had left due

to divorce, 85% sat in the position next to the interviewer. Behaviors

34

typical of this group were lots of smiling, eye contact, talking,
and open body position (arm or arms around the back of the chair,
in back of the head, etc.). In the group of women whose fathers had
died, the women chose the chair farthest away from the interviewer,
toward the corner across from him 85% of the time. In contrast to
the group first described, this group made very little eye contact,
rarely smiled, answered questions in short sentences, and maintained
closed body positions with their arms often folded in front of them,
legs close together or crossed. Of the women from the intact home
group, 85% chose the chair opposite the interviewer and used a variety
of behaviors common to the other two groups in moderate frequency.
These differences were paralleled in behavior at a dance in which
all three groups of girls were asked to dance equally often but where
the divorcees' daughters spent a greater amount of time in closer
proximity to the area where the boys stood, while the widows' daughters
kept their distance and spent long amounts of time in the lavatory.
Hetherington found that the daughters whose parents were
divorced reported more heterosexual activity than any other group.
They began dating earlier, and more frequently, and were more likely
to have had sexual intercourse. Mothers of this group often mentioned
problems of control and worries over their daughters' promiscuity.
The females whose fathers had died reported late starts in dating
and seemed sexually inhibited. Widows often commented on the infre-
quency of their daughters' dates and inhibition around males in

contrast to their ease around other females.

35

Scores on the Manifest Anxiety scale showed fatherless females
to be more anxious than those with fathers. Females from divorced
families showed lower self-esteem than the other females. On the
mother interview measure, divorced mothers appeared to have negative
attitudes toward the ex-spouse and to life in general, and tended
to be more anxious than other groups of mothers. Although they
expressed concern about their adequacy as mothers, they reported the
same positive relations and patterns for discipline and affection as
the other mothers.

Hetherington suggests that the impact of loss of father for
women emerges in adolescence and centers around the ability to
interact appropriately with males. The differences in style between
the two father-loss groups of females, she suggests, possibly can be
explained as a reaction to the type of loss and handling of anxiety
around that loss. Where there has been a divorce, the daughters may
react to their mothers' unhappiness by assuming the only way to be
happy is to have a man. Hence, a seductive pursuant attitude toward
males is adopted. Where there has been the death of a father,
according to Hetherington, the daughter may have a very idealized
image of her father and, consequently, regard other males with
apprehension and intimidation.

Summary of Loss of Father--
Impact on Daughter

 

 

Researchers in the area of father loss, in examining and

comparing the child from a single parent family and the child from a

36

two parent family often erroneously ascribe differences between the
children to father absence per se. Herzog and Sudia (1968),

Pederson (1975), and Brandwein, et a1. (1974) point out the confounding
variables in father absence studies besides the direct impact of
father loss, such as differences in time of loss and reason for loss
(desertion, death, separation, etc.). There are indirect variables
such as loss of economic support, spouse emotional support, social
stigma in a couple-oriented society, loss of higher standard of
living, and change in place of residence that may account for differ-
ences between groups and have little to do with the actual occurence
of father loss. Herzog and Sudia also point out the lack of attention
paid to daughters and an overuse of measures of masculinity and
femininity.

Antony (1974), in a reivew of the literature, suggests that
the quality of the marriage before the divorce may have a closer
relationship to the child's quality of disturbance than the divorce.
He also stresses the importance of the post-divorce relationship
between the parents and the quality of parenting in the resolution
of the child's fears. Wallenstein and Kelly (1976a, 1976b), in
agreement with Antony and Hetherington, found that a cooperative
relationship following divorce facilitated a healthy adjustment for
the child. Additionally, the age of loss was found in all of the
studies to be important in examining different reactions to father
loss.

Jacobson and Rider (1969) found that childhood parent death

was related to certain patterns of marital difficulties. Marriages

37

with spouses who had experienced early parental death had the most
marital discord and lack of sexual contact. Hetherington (1972,

1973) found that women from two parent families, single mother homes
due to death, and single mother homes due to divorce demonstrated
dramatically different modes of interpersonal behavior in an interview
with a male. The adolescents of divorcees were actively seductive,
whereas the adolescents of widows were withdrawn and uncomfortable.
Girls from intact homes behaved in a manner between these two extremes.
The divorcees' group also reported greater amounts of heterosexual
activity. Hetherington's study begins to delimit the study of father
loss according to cause, to control for a number of confounding

variables, and to focus primarily on females.

Father Absence and Sibling Composition

Santrock (1970) used doll play and maternal interviews to
assess dependency, aggression, and masculinity of each preschool male
and female. He found father-absent (FA) females with only other male
siblings to be more aggressive than those FA females with only older
female siblings.

Wohlford, Santrock, Berger and Liberman (1971), using
father-absent, "impoverished," Black preschoolers as subjects, found
that children with older male siblings were more aggressive on the
maternal interview, aggression scale. They also were less intensely
and less frequently dependent on two dependency measures than those

children without older brothers.

38

Sutton-Smith, Rosenberg, and Landy (1968) found the depressive
effect of father absence on the college entrance scores on the ACT
to be only slightly modified for females by sibling composition.
Women with a younger brother had more depressed scores than women
without a younger brother. Only females were more affected (depressed
scores) than only males.

Summary of Father Absence and
Sibling Composition

 

 

Studies were cited that lend support to the possibility that
the presence of an older brother may change the perception of father.
In the case of father loss, having an older brother may modify a
tendency to overly idealize or devalue the father. The writer would
like to emphasize the small number of studies conducted on sibling
composition and its relationship to any factors. The studies were
cited to suggest that sibling composition may be an important factor

to explore for purposes of this study.

Time of Father Loss

 

Although examination of differential impact of time of loss
has been heavily endorsed in the literature (Jacobson & Rider, 1969;
Pederson, 1975; Brandwein, et al., 1974; Herzog & Sudia, 1968;
Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976a, 1976b), very little actual research has
taken time of loss into account.

Hetherington, at the Wheelock College Symposium on Children
and Divorce (1978), summarized findings from her research on families

observed at home, in school, in interview, and in play during the

39

first two years of divorce. The most dramatic, general, and longlasting
effect of paternal loss occurred for little boys experiencing
paternal loss before the age of five. It would appear, according to
Hetherington, that five for boys is a "magic cutoff point." Any
setbacks in mathematical cognitive reasoning after age five are
regained in a two year period. Little boys with paternal loss under
the age of five do not regain such setbacks. Hetherington found no
such differences between age of loss and girls but cautioned that
such effects may not show up until the girl is in adolescence.
Wallerstein and Kelly (1976a, 1976b) found very different
reactions to loss immediately following separation and one and two
years after separation, depending on the child's age. No sex
differences were noted. The population sampled was from a white
upper middle class area of California. In the preschool group, they
report the children's reactions after the age of one included:
regression, fretfulness, cognitive bewilderment, and neediness. The
most enduring symptom was pervasive neediness (1975). The single
most distinguishable feeling was anger for the later latency group
(Wallerstein & Kelly, 1976). This was variously displayed as temper
tantrums, scolding, dictatorial attitudes, and diffuse demandingness.
A year later even for children whose difficulties had mostly subsided,
the anger and hostility engendered at the time of separation lingered
on longer and more tenaciously than other affective responses. At
one year follwoing separation, 44% of the preschool group, 38% of the

early latency group, and 50% of the later latency group either displayed

40

a consolidation of the troubled behaviors observed in the earlier
interview or were judged to be in worsened or deteriorated psycho-
logical condition (Kelly & Wallerstein, 1976; Wallerstein 8 Kelly,
1975, 1976).

Effects of time of loss can be examined from the point of
view of ability to grieve, ability to resolve feelings of loss, and
cognitive ability to understand the loss. These areas appear to be
related. A number of theoretical positions deal with these issues as
does a study by Nagy (1948) which delimits developmental differences
in ability to understand death. There is no general theory which
comprehensively examines the impact that time of loss might have on
an individual's later development or on the phenomenological image
of a lost parent.

Piaget describes a process beginning at approximately age 11
or 12 and ending at about age 14 or 15 in which the adolescent is
capable of thought that is detached from concrete objects themselves
and can function on verbal and symbolic levels without support. In
other words, the adolescent is capable of building or understanding
concepts or theories. S/he is capable of projects for the future,
of non-present interests, etc. Inhelder and Piaget's (1958) view of
the most important general property of the formal-operational thought
capability of the adolescent concerns the real versus the possible.
Children experiencing loss under the age of 12 are unable at the time
of loss to strive for a sense of the "real" versus the "possible" in

fostering useful reality testing about the parting parents.

41

Freudian theory would suggest that paternal loss before
resolution of Oedipal strivings (ages 4-7), could lead to a continuation
of an idealized, striven-for image by the daughter (Biller, 1976).
Tessman (1978) found in her work with children of parting parents
that when the child was quite young at the time of loss or phsyically
inneture, the images of the parent were imbued with "highly exaggerated
potential power to gratify or to deprive, reflected in the ego
ideal" (p. 87). She found the child later in the pubescence to be
particularly vulnerable to idealization of an absent parent. At an
age where there is a graudal detachment and devaluation of the parent
to achieve autonomy and redirect intensely sexual needs to love objects,
the child with parental loss does not begin gradual inner detachment.
Rather, Tessman reports, this detachment is so threatening that it is
defended against with a split in the ego ideal. "The child continues
to idealize the absent parent, either consciously or unconsciously,
while devaluing self." Laufer (1966) concurs that the death of a
parent during adolescence can interfere with normal development:

The detachment from the oedi pal object is a normal develop-
mental task in adolescence, which may be greatly complicated
by the actual loss of the object. The oedipal ambivalence

to the object which is normally re-experienced in adolescence
may be kept under repression by the idealization of the loss
object (p. 34).

In addition to the preceding theory that loss at different
times will have different impact on development, Nagy (1948) found
that perception of death changed as children matured. In the first

stage, children from the age of 3 to 6 saw death as a departure or as

42

sleep. Death was denied as a final or regular process. After the
age of 6, these kinds of explanations for death disappear from the
consciousness, although they can be seen in common usage in such terms
as the "dear departed" or the "sleep of death." Children age 5 or 6
most often held an animalistic conception of death. For example,
death was personified as a "death man," as happening to someone to
whom some agency (death) selects to carry off, as opposed to a process
that happens to everyone. Tessman (1978), in discussing the process
of grief, states:

Judging from the clinical material of children and adults

still yearning for a lost, wanted person or for the

affective interaction associated with that person, there is

often a regression to early modes of thinking and problem-
solving associated with the quest (p. 94).

Summary of Time of Father Loss

 

Some research on the impact of paternal loss through divorce
has shown that there are different outcomes as the result of time of
loss. These findings confirm the recommendations that time of loss
be considered in examining the impact of father loss (Herzog & Sudia,
1968; Pederson, 1975; Brandwein, et al., 1974). Wallerstein and
Kelly (1976a, 1976b; Kelly & Wallerstein, 1975) found differences in
initial reaction to parental separation and enduring affect to differ
for preschool and latency children. Hetherington (1978) reported
the lasting effects of paternal loss on preschool boys' cognitive
functioning.

Psychoanalytic theory predicts the lack of resolution of

Oedipal strivings with a loss during the Oedipal conflict and the

43

resultant idealized opposite sex parent image (Biller, 1976). Tessman
(1978) found that individuals with parental loss as very young or
pubescent children held images of the parent with highly exaggerated
abilities to gratify or deprive. Laufer (1966) concurs with Tessman's
assessment of the damage of parental loss during adolescence when the
individual should be gradually more realistic in assessing the

parent and breaking away to become more autonomous. Loss at this time
causes great difficulty in breaking away from a continued overly
idealized image of the lost parent.

Piaget's delimitation of different levels of cognitive devel-
opment suggests that before the age of 12 to 14 the child' ability
to reason abstractly is limited and affects his/her ability to draw
realistic conclusions about the persons and circumstances surrounding
parental loss. Nagy (1948) also delimited different abilities to
assess loss and found that children between the ages of 3 and 6
characterize death as departure or sleep in order to deny its
permanence. Between 6 and 9, children describe death animalistically,
as something outside the self that makes a decision and comes. Again,
they are unable to conceptualize that death is an inevitable part of
the processing of living for everyone.

Although there is no one overall unifying theory about how
different developmental stages interact with loss, it would appear
that there are developmental differences in reaction to loss, and
also that these differences could affect later reports of the lost

person as well as affecting psychosocial development.

44

Marital Relationship and Intactness
of the Home

 

 

It is of interest to this investigation to understand how the
parents' marital relationship affects the daughter's relationship
with her father. In support of such an inquiry, Benson (1968) states:

The expressive relationship that parents have with their
children is always conditioned by the nature of the asso-
ciation with one another (p. 68).
But, he adds, that perhaps
. .children who get on well with their parents cannot
help but think their parents live in harmony with each
other (p. 117).

Few studies specifially explore the daughters' perceptions
of their fathers' relationship to them and their parents' marital
relationship. Therefore, along with those few studies, more general
theories and research on the impact of the marital relationship on
the psychological development of the child will be reviewed.

Particularly relevant here are the findings of Wallin and
Vollemer (1953), who used data from three sources. Included in the
analysis were data from the Burgess and Wallin studies of white
volunteer engaged couples (1,000) and married couples (600), Vollemer's
study of 335 Black and 624 white college students, and 162 college
students enrolled in a criminology course. Two to five questions
were used inquiring into parent-child and parental-marital relation-
ships. Their most relevant finding in this investigation was a pattern
for males and females that was

. . .clear and consistent: "very strong attachment" to

father is far more likely to be reported when parents'
marriage is rated "very happy" than when it is rated

45

"unhappy." "Mild attachment" on the other hand tends to

be characteristic of persons who rate their parents' marriage

as "unhappy" (p. 427).
Wallin and Vollemer suggest several possible reasons for their results,
such as marital happiness of husbands and wives is correlated with
their attitude toward children, regardless of whether they have them.
Or, unhappily married couples are more likely than happily married
couples to express negative attitudes toward children, as well as
exhibit such an attitude toward their own children.

Another possible explanation suggested by Wallin and Vollemar
is that an unhappily married mother may use the greater attachment
and accessibility that her children have to her to convey herself as
the aggrieved party in an unhappy marriage. She, thereby, alienates
her children from their father.

In a similiar vein, Baxter, Horton, and Wiley (1964) tested
hypotheses based on Adlerian theory that it is the mother who shifts
the child's interest to the father. If mother is disinterested in
father, then no father identification takes place. They used three
items to assess parental relationship as it relates to sibling compo-
sition and perceived similiarity between self and father on ten
attributes. Although not statistically significant, there was a
tendency for greater father identification when there was less
reported marital conflict. No relationship for females was found
between sibling composition, report of parental marital relationship,

and father identification.

46

Including subjects from single parent homes, Landis (1962)
used a questionnaire with one question rating the happiness of
parents' marital relationship, four questions on closeness to parents,
six on dating relationships, and two on sexual attitudes. He
compared 3,000 college students from divorced homes, unhappy intact
homes, and happy intact homes. Women from divorced marriages reported
closer relationships with their mothers and more distant relationships
with their fathers before the age of 15 and also at the time of the
study (in college) than those from unhappy and happy unbroken homes.
No significant differences were found between groups on dating
practices or on five items designed to measure self concept.

Comparing adolescents in three high schools, Nye (1957)
contrasted those from unhappy intact homes with those from broken
homes. One-sixth of the intact homes were included in the unhappy
category. The unhappy category was determined by anonymous question-
naires using two criteria. One criterion was whether the family fell
into the worst adjusted tercile based on a parental interaction
score from the questionnaire computed from the amount of parental
arguing, lack of mutual activities, etc., and an overall happiness
evaluation of parents' marriage made by the student. As a group,
adolescents from broken homes showed less psychosomatic illness, less
delinquent behavior, and better adjustment to parents than those from
intact, unhappy homes. No significant difference was found for

school adjustment, church, or delinquent companions.

47

In considering the quality of the marital relationship as it
affects the child, Antony (1974) in his review of children and divorce
describes four potentially harmful parental relationships which may
.be part of predivorce stress or of continuing impact in an intact
home. One type of marriage he describes is the one in which the
marital relationship has become devitalized. This is a family in
which there is nothing to complain about, but nothing to enjoy. The
prevailing mood is one of boredom and tedium. He suggests that the
child of such a relationship is affectionless, knowing little of

warm and compelling relationships. Other types of marriages include

 

skewed marriages which lead to dominant or dependent children; neurotic
marriages leading to the child with unconsciously transferred feelings,
where the child can do little to change the way in which s/he is

treated; and obsessional relationships where the children are

 

participant observers to petty squabbles and often used as spies,

informers, and allies.

Summary of Marital Relationship
and Intactness of the Home

 

Perception of father and parents' marital relationship has
been theorized to be important and connected. Besides social
network, Adlerian and family therapy theory cited in Chapter I,
Benson suggests that the expressive relationship between parents
colors their relationship with their child. However, he does caution
that if a child gets along with his parents it would be hard for that

child to imagine his parents do not. Using a broad survey, a number

48

of researchers have examined the relation between reports of parental
marital happiness and child-parent closeness. Wallin and Vollemer
found that a report of a "very strong attachment" to father was more
likely to be reported if parent's marriage was rated as I'very happy"
than if it was rated "unhappy." "Mild attachment“ was related to
reports of parent's marriage as being unhappy. Wallin and Vollemer
suggest that since research shows that marital happiness is correlated
to attitude towards children, in an unhappy marriage this would

affect feelings toward their own children. Baxter, Horton, and Wiley
(1964) found no relationship between father identification and report
of marital conflict. Landis (1962) found women from divorced homes
reported closer relationships with their mothers and more distant
relationships with their fathers than women from unhappy and broken
homes. Nye (1957) found adolescents from broken homes to show less
psychosomatic illness, less delinquent behavior, and better adjustment
to parents than adolescents from unbroken, unhappy homes. There is
some evidence that parents' marital relationship is related to

parent-child relationship and general adjustment.

Summary

Until recently, researchers in the field of child development
have largely ignored the role the father plays with his maturing
child, particularly in the area of father-daughter relationships.
Studies cited in the review indicate that a perception of father as

punitive and rejecting is related to poor adjustment in college

49

women (Fish & Biller, 1973) depression in hospitalized women (Raskin,
et al., 1971), and introversion in college women (Siegelman, 1965).

A father who is overly warm and protective fosters the devel-
opment of a little girl who does not demonstrate leadership and
responsibility qualities in the classroom (Bronfenbrenner, in Petrullo
& Bass, 1961), young women who become extremely anxious in the face
of a potential natural disaster (Stabler & Goodrich, 1966), and who
are less able to support themselves as they become mature women
(Walstedt, 1977). Additionally, there is a relationship between an
overly affectionate, nurturant fathering stance and women who do not
support the women's liberation movement. These women also are more
cautious and inflexible and less curious, exploring and analytical in
problem-solving situations than their counterparts supporting the
movement (Worell & Worell, 1971).

It is theorized (Adler, in Baxter, Horton & Wiley, 1964;
Lewis & Weinraub, 1976; Benson, 1968) that the marital relationship
influences the child's perception of the father. Wallin and Vollmer
(1953) found that subjects who reported their parents' marital
relationship was happy also reported a much closer relationship to
their fathers in contrast to those who reported a less happy paternal
marital relationship. Social systems theory addresses this property
of the child's social network as transitive, i.e., the mother transmits
the type and quality of feelings she has for the father to the child
(Lewis & Weinraub, 1976). Antony (1974) described three types of

marriages he theorizes produce harmful effects in children.

50

It is possible, therefore, that when paternal loss occurs,
how the mother feels toward the father affects what she transmits
about him to her child. Hetherington (1972, 1973) found divorced
mothers to be quite bitter toward their ex-spouses. However, she
did not investigate how the young girls she studied perceived their
fathers.

Additionally, the few studies on sibling composition were
reviewed. These studies indicate, given the limitations on generali-
zation already mentioned, that an older brother modifies the impact
of father absence. Age of loss was also reviewed. There would
appear to be some age differences in initial reactions to parental
separation as well as enduring affective stances. Theories around
the formation of an overly idealized parental figure due to loss
were presented along with evidence for developmental differences in

understanding loss of parent.

Discussion

Because of the general lack of research and theoretical
interest inainumber of the areas involved in this study, a brief
discussion of some of the shortcomings and strengths in the litera-
ture may serve to assist the reader in assimilating the second chapter.
The most striking shortcoming of father-daughter relationship
theory is its vagueness and lack of comprehensiveness. For example,
how does the father aid and encourage his little girl in resolving
her Oedipal conflict? Also of concern is that while there is some

social learning theory along similiar lines to Freudian theory cited,

51

i.e. speculation about the importance of the father in "feminine"
identification, such approaches do not go beyond sex role development
to other areas in the daughter's personality. There is some
indication that an overemphasis by the father on his daughter's
traditionally feminine attributes can be destructive.

Review of the small body of research on father-daughter
relationship finds studies with an overemphasis on measuring
"femininity" or traditional appropriate sex role behavior and an
exclusion of father-absent-home females.

There are a number of studies linking father absence with
numerous variables as mentioned in the section on fathering. (Remember
that father-absent subjects are heavily drawn onirlstudies purporting
to measure fathering (Pederson, 1975).) In particular a large amount
of literature has linked father absence to scholastic performance,
sex-role identification, and aggression and delinquency problems in
ppyg (Biller, 1971, 1975, 1976; Lamb, 1976).

Studies which have included girls are rare. Those studies
including girls often do not separate the results for males and
females. When this separation is done, the results have shown no
significant differences little girls with fathers in the home and
those without. The outstanding exception is the Hetherington study
(1975, 1976) on adolescents cited in this chapter. Hetherington's
study was the only investigation which begins to delimit the study
of father loss according to cause, to control for a number of confounding

variables, and to focus primarily on females. For purposes of the

52

present study, it would have also been instructive to know the type
of father the daughters had, the possible impact of male siblings
(remember none of the females in her study had brothers), and the
parental marital relationship.

In studies cited to examine the possible impact of older
male siblings on perception of father, the predominant use of Black
children and tests for aggression limits the generalizability of
their findings to other types of subjects and personality character—
istics. This area also suffers from a great paucity of theory and
research.

Beyond the lack of research and the connection between
parents' marriage and parent-child relationship, caution in interpreting
the results of such research should be exercised. These studies are
particularly flawed because of instrumentation. Their use of a very
small number of items to measure unhappiness or happiness of the
parental marital relationship adversely affects the reliability of
the instruments. Also, the usecfl’totally transparent items increases
the likelihood of answers being biased towards social acceptability.
Furthermore, it is hard to know what the subject meant by an evaluation
of his parent's marriage as happy or unhappy, and finally, a very
limited number of potential responses (very often yes-no or a three-
response answer including "do not know" or "maybe") contributes to the

researcher's difficulty in measuring differences between groups.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this investigation is to compare young women's
reports of their phenomenological sense of their fathers on a number
of dimensions, and to see how this sense is affected by the loss of
the father, manner of loss, the women's age at time of loss, presence
of an older brother, and perception of the parental marital relation-
ship. In order to test the hypotheses related to this purpose, the

following design and procedures were formulated.

Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis 1: No differences will be found among women who
have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's homes
on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form
and the Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
pate;nal form and the Phenomenological Fathering Scale

PFS .

 

Null hypothesis 2: No differences will be found among women who
have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's homes
on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psychological
Autonomy) of the CRPBI paternal form.

 

Alternativeppypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on Factor 11 (Psychological Control versus Psychological
Autonomy) of the CRPBI paternal form.

 

53

54

Null hypothesis 3: No differences will be found among women who
have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's homes
on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of the
paternal form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of
the paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 4: No differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on the perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMPS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on the perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMPS).

 

Null hypothesis 5: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
paternal form and the Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Children's Report of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
pateynal form and the Phenomenological Fathering Scale

PFS .

 

Null hypothesis 6: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psy-
chological Autonomy) of the CRPBI paternal form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psycho-
logical Autonomy) of the CRPBI paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 7: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of
the CRPBI parental form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
whoThave'been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of the
CRPBI parental form.

 

55

Null hypothesis 8: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMRS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have been raised in homes with or without an
older brother on the Perception of Parental Marital Rela-
tionship Scale (PPMRS).

 

Null hypothesis 9: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor I
(Acceptance versus Rejection) on the Children's Report of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form and the
Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
whoThavé_lost their father early or late on Factor I (Accep-
tance versus Rejection) of the Children's Report of Parental
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form and the Phenomeno-
logical Fathering Scale (PFS).

 

Null hypothesis 10: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor II
(Psychological Control versus Psychological Autonomy) of
the CRPBI paternal form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor 11 (Psy-
chological Control versus Psychological Autonomy), of the
CRPBI paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 11: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor II (Lax
Control versus Firm Control) of the Children's Reports of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI), paternal form.

 

Alternative Hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
whoThave lost their father early or late on Factor III (Lax
Control versus Firm Control) of the Children's Reports of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI), paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 12: No differences will be found between women
who'have lost their father early or late on the Perception
of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women thThave lost their father early or late on the Per-
ception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS).

56

Null hypothesis 13: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and PPMRS for college-age
women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and PPMRS for college-age
women.

 

Null hypothesis 14: No relationships will be found between each
of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control versus
Psychological Autonomy) on the Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological
Fathering Scale (PFS), and Perception of Parental Marital
Relationship Scale (PPMRS) for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control versus
Psychological Autonomy) on the Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological
Fathering Scale (PFS), and Perception of Parental Marital
Relationship Scale (PPMRS) for college-age women.

 

Null hypothesis 15: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and the PPMRS,
for college-age women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and the PPMRS,
for college-age women.

 

Null hypothesis 16: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and Perception of
Parental Death Scale, for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and Perception of
Parental Death Scale, for college-age women.

Null hypothesis 17: No relationships will be found between
eaEh of the scales of Factor 11 (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the Children's Report of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomeno-
logical Fathering Scale (PFS) Perception of Parental Marital
Relationship Scale (PPMRS), and Perception of Parental
Death Scale, for college-age women.

 

57

Alternativephypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each—of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the Children's Report of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomeno-
logical Fathering Scale (PFS) Perception of Parental Marital
Relationship Scale (PPMRS), and Perception of Parental
Death Scale, for college-age women.

Nullphypothesis 18: No relationships will be found between each
of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and Perception of Parental
Death Scale for college-age women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between each
of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control)
of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, and Perception of Parental
Death Scale for college-age women.

Null hypothesis 19: No relationships will be found between each
of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering Scale
(PFS), Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale
(PPMRS), and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for
college-age women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering Scale
(PFS), Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale
(PPMRS), and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for
college-age women.

Null hypothesis 20: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor II (Psycholoigcal Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI paternal form,
PFS, PPMRS, and recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS),
for college-age women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI paternal form,
PFS, PPMRS, and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS), for
college-age women.

58

Null hypothesis 21: No relationships will be found between each
Bfithe scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control)
on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering Scale
IPFS), Perception of Parental Marital Relationships (PPMRS),
and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for college-
age women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI) paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering
Scale (PFS), Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
(PPMRS), and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for
college-age women.

 

Data Analysis

 

In order to test the hypotheses through the use of two differ-

ent procedures, the data was analyzed as follows:

1. The hypotheses addressing relationships between groups
were tested using women randomly selected from the intact group,
and all subjects in the death and divorce groups. Twenty-five women
from the intact group were used along with twenty women from widowed
homes and 28 from the divorcees' group. Hypotheses 1 through 3 were
tested by one-way analyses of variance for intactness (Intact, Widowed,
or Divorced Home). Hypothesis 4 was tested by univariate analysis.
Hypotheses 5 through 12 for older brother and time of loss effect
were tested by two one-way multivariate analyses of variance, hypo-
theses 5 through 8 for older brother effect, and hypotheses 9
through 12 for cause of paternal loss effect. An alpha level of .05
or less would be considered significant in determining group differ-

ences for hypotheses one through twelve. Because of the large

59

number of tests and the additive nature of alphas, concerns for sta-
tistical rigor would suggest a more conservative alpha level of .004
(.05 divided by 12). An argument for such a stance would emphasize
the increased potential for finding significance by chance due to the
large number of tests. However;. given that the purpose of this
study is primarily exploratory and therefore, protective against the
possibility of judging no differences against groups when there are
(Type 11 error). In other words, a choice was made between placing

a limitation on meaningfulness versus statistical rigor. Because

of the exploratory nature of this study, and the lack of important
decisions dependent on the results, meaningfulness was chosen as

more important. Therefore, mislabeling differences as no differences
was avoided and a significance level of .05 was chosen.

In the event that Multivariate Analysis of Variance would
result in significance at the .05 alpha level, a univariate analysis
of variance for each subscale of the factor was conducted to deter-
mine on which subscale the groups' differences occurred. Signifi-
cance for the univariates was determined by dividing the .05 alpha
level by the number of univariates composing the factor. Thus, for
hypotheses examining the differences on Factor I (Hypothesis 1, 5,
and 19) and the PFS, an alpha level of .0051 or less would be sig-
nificant. For Factor II (Hypothesis 2, 6, and 10), .0083 or less,
and for Factor III (Hypothesis 3, 7, and 11), .01 or less would be
significant.

2. The hypotheses addressing relationships between scales

were tested using data from 181 subjects, who had completed at least

60

9 % of the scales. A Pearson correlation matrix was completed.

Correlations of .8 to 1.0 were considered strong.

Design Hypotheses 1 through 13

 

Three causal-comparative designs, each with one independent
and twenty dependent variables were used. The twenty dependent vari-
ables used were the 18 scales of the CRPBI, the Discrepancy form of
the PPMRS, and the Discrepancy form of the PFS. The independent vari-
ables were types of family (intact, widows', and divorcee's homes),
presence of an older brother, and time of loss. Cell sizes are

shown in Table 3.20.

TABLE 3.1.--Causa1-Comparative Design

 

Dependent Variables

 

 

 

Cell (Size) CRPBI Factor PFS PPMRS
Discrep- Discrep-
I II III ancy ancy

Loss (48)

Death (20)

Divorce (28)

Early (18)

Late (25)

No Loss (25)
Older Brother (27)
No Older Brother (46)

 

CRPBI, Factor I--Acceptance versus Rejection, Schaffer's Children's
Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory

61
CRPBI, Factor II--Psychologica1 Control versus Autonomy, Schaffer's
Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory

CRPBI, Factor III--Firm Control versus Lax Control, Schaffer's
Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory

PFS, Discrepancy--Discrepancy Score of the Darlington Phenomenological
Fathering Scale

PPMRS, Discrepancy--Discrepancy Score of the Darlington Perception of
Parental Marital Relationship Scale

Early loss was defined as paternal loss between the ages of 4 and 7,
late loss included women with paternal loss between the ages of 8

and 12. The groups were divided according to psychoanalytic psycho-
sexual developmental stages. Women in the early group were considered
to have been in the process of Oedipal strivings and resolution when
the paternal loss took place. How such a loss at this stage would
effect perception of father is discussed in Chapter II's section on
time of loss. The late group was considered to have been in the
latency stage of development when their paternal loss took place.
There is a possibility according to Tessman's theory (1978) cited in
Chapter II, that during the ages of 10 to 12 idealization due to loss
may occur. Tessman states that in preparation for puberty there is

a need to de-idealize a parent in order to become more autonomous.
With paternal loss this process stops and leads to exaggerated
idealized images. While this may be so, the literature on adolescence
typically delimits the end of latency at approximately the age of 12,

therefore the cutoff of age 12 was chosen.

Upon examination the reader will note that the number of the

Early and Late loss subjects is not equal to the total number in the

62

Loss group. Included in the Loss group are subjects who had paternal
loss before age 4 (2 through divorce and 1 through death at age 3
years) and 4 after the age of 12 (1 through death at age 13 3, 1
each at ages 14, 15, and 16 by divorce). A decision was made to
include these subjects in the family type analyses (intact, widows'
and divorcees' homes) to increase the tests' power (or ability

to detect differences). However, a cautionary note should be added
that such a decision may have voided differences between the two
loss groups by giving the divorce group a sample that had loss much
later and consequently a loss that was more recent and depending on
interpretation morecn~less likely to affect the results than early
loss. That is, some may argue these women had less time to resolve
grief while others may argue they had more emotional and cognitive
development at time of loss than would be conducive to understanding

and resolution.

Design Hypotheses 10 through 18

 

A correlational design with 18 Schaffer CRPBI subscales,
three PFS scales, three PPMRS scales, three RPDS factors and the
whole RPDS scale, and two PPDS forms were used to examine the rela-
tionships between scales (26 by 26 correlation matrix). The cell
sizes are shown in Table 3.22. One hundred of these subjects had an

older brother, 81 did not.

63

TABLE 3.2.--Cell Size in Correlational Design

 

 

Scales and Subscales Cell Size (N =181)
Schaffer Subscales 181
PPMRS Scale 181
PFS Scale 181

RPD Factors and Scale
PPDS

 

Eppulation and Selection and Description of the Sample
M99

The p0pulation studied consisted of Caucasian women between
the ages of 18 and 22, who were enrolled in a college or university.
All subjects were required to have had a father in the home until
they were at least 4 years old. Women with paternal loss under the
age of four were eliminated because it was assumed with the limited
language development and therefore memory, that the subject with an
earlier loss would not have enough sense of her father, her parent's
marriage, or the loss to fill out the questionnaires.

In addition, no subjects were inclued who had undergone
psychotherapy. The rationale for exclusion of women with psycho-
therapy experience was the perception of the writer and other clinicians
that very often there is a progressive shift in feelings and percep-
tions of parents during and after therapy. Often clients who

characterize parents as ideal begin to examine that notion and may go

64

through a period of time being quite critical. Tessman (1978)
reports that during the process of childhood loss resolution, the
client lets go of overidealized images of the lost parent and inte-

grates the image of the parent to be both bad and good.

Selection of Sample

 

Subjects who participated in this study consisted of 203
Caucasian women between the ages of 18 and 22 from four colleges and
universities: Illinois State University; Michigan State University;
Central Michigan University; and State University of New York,
College at Brockport.

The Illinois State University volunteer group consisted of
20 student advisors (paraprofessionals trained by the Counseling
Center), and 20 students from a course on helping relations and a
course on the psychology of women. Illinois State University stu—
dents who took the questionnaire for credit included 68 Introduction
to Psychology students. In addition, 45 students from a course in
Special Education and a course in Statistics were required to com-
plete the scales. Illinois students were surveyed during the
period May to August, 1977.

Six Michigan State University subjects were solicited from
a Psychology of Women course in July, 1977, and received points
toward their final grade for their cooperation. Additionally, 30
women were solicited for the Loss groups by advertisements placed in
the Michigan State News in September, 1977. Women in this group

were paid $4 to complete the scales.

65

Ten volunteers from Central Michigan University were recruited
from a course on Human Sexuality and a course on Marriage and Family.
These scales were completed in September, 1977.

Four Counseling Center work-study students at the State
University of New York, College at Brockport. completed the question-
naire in November, 1977, as part of their work assignment.

Students were requested to take the questionniare only if
they had had no intensive psychotherapy experience and had had
their father in the home until they were atleast 4 years old.
Enclosed in each packet of questionnaires was a letter emphasizing
the type of subject required. The letter also clearly indicated
that there were no "correct" answers (see Appendix A).

Those subjects with more than 5% data missing on any of the
scales were dropped from the study, leaving a total of 181 subjects.
These women were drawn on to establish the reliability of the five
scales and to test those hypotheses dealing with the relationships
among them.

A different sample was drawn from the 181 women to test
hypotheses about differences between women from intact, widows',
and divorcees' homes. Twenty-five women were randomly selected
from the 133 women who came from intact homes while all 20 widows'
daughters and 28 divorcees' daughters were included for a total of
73 subjects for testing differences between groups. Examination
of the amount of missing data on scales and subscales showed an
even distribution with no particular scale containing more missing

data than others.

66

Sample Description

 

Hypothesis testing around the instrumentation (Hypotheses
13 - 21) and reliabilities used all 181 subjects. These subjects
consisted of 133 (73.5%) women raised in intact homes, 20 (11%)
raised in widowed homes, and 28 (15.5%) raised in divorcee's homes.

There is some difference between these subjects and subjects
used previously in the development of Schaffer's CRPBI. None of
Schaffer's subjects used for determining norms were from single
parent homes. The section on Children's Reports of Parental Behavior
Inventory (CRPBI) discusses previous studies and norms on the CRPBI
more fully and compares reliabilities and factor analyses on his
research with this study's.

One hundred (55.2%) of these subjects did not have an older
brother, versus 81 (44.8%) who did. Two measures were taken for socio-
economic level of both parents. Some differences between groups for
both parents, on occupational and educational level, can be noted
in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. As shown in Table 3.1 the highest percent
of divorced fathers (50%) and deceased fathers (35%) fell into the
professional, independent managerial category, while the highest
percentage of intact-home fathers fell into the semi-professional,
small business, etc., category. The next highest category for the
intact group was professional (28%), while for the paternal death
group the semi-professional category (25%) was next. In contrast,
the divorce group's next highest categroy was at the skilled worker,
foreman level (25%). The divorce group had the smallest percentages

falling in the semi-skilled and skilled levels.

67

TABLE 3.3.--Father's Occupational Level and Intactness of the Family

 

Intactness of Family

 

OCCUPatlona1 Level Paternal Loss Paternal Loss
No Loss Death

 

Divorce
Professional, independent, 28% 35% 50%
managerial n=38 n=7 n=l4
Semi—professional, small 36% 25% 14.3%
business, semi-independent n=49 n=5 n=4
managerial, proprietor,
official, manager
Skilled worker and 18% 15% 25%
foreman n=24 n=3 n=7
Semi-skilled 9.8% 5% 3.6%
n=13 n=1 n=1
Unskilled .8% 10% 7.1%
n=1 n=2 n=2
Other 5.3% 10% 0%
n=7 n=2 n=0
N=133 N=20 N=28
73% 11% 15 5%
Total N=188
100%

 

Mothers' occupational level across groups in contained in
Table 3.2. Differences between the intact-home mothers and the
paternal loss mothers can be noted. The highest proportion of the
No-Loss mothers falls at the Other (24.8%) and Semi-Skilled (20%)
levels. In the process of testing, it became apparent that young

women whose mothers were homemakers placed them at Other and

68

TABLE 3.4.--Mother's Occupational Level and Intactness of the Family

 

Intactness of Family

 

Occupational Level
No loss Paternal Loss Paternal Loss

 

Death Divorce
Professional, independent 15% 25% 21.4%
managerial n=20 n=5 n=6
Semi-independent profes- 12% 20% 28.6%

sional, small business, n=16 n=4 n=8
semi-managerial: proprie-
tor, official, manager

Skilled worker and 17.3% 15% 21.4%
foreman n=23 n=3 n=6
Semi-skilled 23.3% 10% 10.7%
n—31 n=2 n=2
Unskilled 5.3% 10% 7.1%
n=7 n=2 n=2
Other 24.8% 20% 7.1%
n=33 n=4 n=2

 

Semi-Skilled levels. It would appear that No-loss mothers work at
lower level jobs, possibly part-time or temporary, than their Loss
counterparts. Widowed women, if not working at higher level, pro-
fessional jobs, stay home in a similar proportion (20%) to their
no-loss counterparts. By contrast, the divorce group were very
rarely found in the Other category (7.1%). The divorced group's
highest proportion of women were in the semi-professional and

semi-independent managerial level (28.6%), followed by professional

69

(21.4%) and skilled worker (21.4%). Widowed women's highest per-
centage falls into the Professional category (25%), followed equally
by Semi-professional, Semi-independent managerial (20%) and the pre-
viously discussed Other (20%).

Father's completed level of education is presented in
Table 3.3. The proportion of deceased fathers in the Under Twelfth
Grade (20%) and having completed One year of Graduate Work (20%)
categories is the same. The highest percentage of divorced fathers
completed four years of college (28%), with the next highest per-
centage completing high school (21.4%). The highest proportion of
the intact home fathers completed high school (32.3%) with the next
highest proportion completing four years of college (18%)- Generally
speaking, the divorced fathers have the most formal education of the
three comparison groups, the intact-home fathers, the least.

Finally, an examination of the mother's completed education
level, presented in Table 3.4, shows that a large proportion of
no-loss mothers fall into the Completed High School category (42.1%),
with the next largest group (18%) having completed four years of
college. Very few went beyond four years of college. Similarly,
the highest proportion of widowed (25%) and divorced (29%) mothers
finished high school. However, they differ in completion of college
and graduate work. While the next highest proportion of divorced
women finished college (14.3%), an equally high percentage completed
a Master's degree. The highest proportion of widows after those
completing high school, completed only two years of college or trade
school, and yet they have a higher proportion then the intact group

of mothers who did some graduate work.

70

TABLE 3.5.--Father's Completed Educational Level and Intactness
of Family

 

Intactness of Family

 

ComPIEtEd Eduat1on Paternal Loss Paternal Loss

 

No LOSS Death Divorce
Under Sixth Grade .8% 0% 0%
n=1 n=0 n=0
Under Ninth Grade 5.3% 5% 0%
n=7 n=1 n=O
Under Twelfth Grade 4.5% 20% 14.3%
n=6 n=4 n=4
Completed High School 32.3% 15% 21.4%
n=43 n=3 n=6
One Year College or 7.5% 0% 3.6%
Trade School n=10 n=0 n=1
Two Years College or 15% 10% 3.6%
Trade School n=20 n=2 n=1
Three Years College 1.5% 0% 7.1%
n=2 n=0 n=2
Four Years College 18% 10% 28%
n=24 n=2 n=8
One Year Graduate Work .8% 20% 0%
n=1 n=4 n=O
Two Years Graduate Work 5.3% 5% 3.6%
n=7 n=1 n=1
M.A. Degree 4.5% 5% 14.3%
n=6 n=1 n=4
Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D. 3.0% 10% 3.6%
n=4 n=2 n=1

 

71

TABLE 3.6.--Mother's Completed Educational Level and Intactness

of Family

 

Completed Education

Intactness of Family

 

Paternal Loss

Paternal Loss

 

NO LOSS Death Divorce
Under Sixth Grade 2 3% 0% 0%
n=3 n=O n=0
Under Ninth Grade 2 3% 0% 0%
n=3 n=O n=O
Under Twelfth Grade 5 3% 10% 7.1%
n=7 n=2 n=2
Completed High School 42.1% 25% 39%
n=56 n=5 n=1l
One Year College or 9.8% 5% 7.1%
Trade School n=13 n=1 n=2
Two Years College or 12% 25% 14.3%
Trade School n=16 n=5 n=4
Three Years College 2.3% 0% 3.6%
n=3 n=O n=1
Four Years College 18.8% 15% 7.1%
n=25 n=3 n=2
One Year Graduate School 1.5% 10% 0%
n=2 n=2 n=2
Two Years Graduate School 0% 5% 0%
n=0 n=1 n=0
Master's Degree 3.8% 5% 14.3%
n=5 n=1 n=4
Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D. O 0 0

 

72

There does seem to be some indication of basic social and
economic differences between the groups. Based on fathers' and
mothers' education and occupation, it would appear that the loss
group, particularly the divorce group, may be more upper-middle
class than the intact group. Various explanations for this may be
entertained. It may be harder for a single-mother family to send a
child to college, given the disparity between men's and women's
salaries (Bane, 1976). Therefore lower economic class single parent
subjects may have been elminated simply because college was not
financially possible for them. Perhaps with somewhat higher occu-
pational and educational levels, awareness of the alternatives to a
less than satisfactory marriage increase and lead to divorce (Tessman,
1978). For whatever reasons, the reader may want to be aware of the
possibility of slight class differences influencing the perceptions
these three groups of women have of their parents, and that there are
class differences in parenting practices of mothers and fathers
(Tessman, 1978). It was thought that such differences would have
been controlled for by the selection of college women from state
universities. Matched subjects or a more careful control of subjects
during selection may have given additional control against possible

socioeconomic class differences.

Instrumentation

 

This section will include a general overview of the use and

development of retrospective paper and pencil scales dealing with

73

parental behavior and attitudes. Following such an overview will be

a description of each instrument.

Overview of Retrospective
Parenting Scales

 

 

In the light of current factor-analytic findings, Goldin
(1969) thoroughly reviewed children's reports of parental behaviors
and attitudes conducted from 1931 to 1965. To make a clear presenta-
tion of his findings, he compared two recent factor-analytic instru-
ments, Schaffer's Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI) [Schaffer, 1965a, 1975b with Seigelman's Parent-Child Rela-
tions Questionnaire (PCR) (Roe 8 Seigelman: Seigelman, 1965)]. While
concluding that the differences between the orthogonal factors of
the two scales were "more apparent than real," Goldin found that
Seigelman's factors better explained the results of the reviewed
studies.

Goldin found Schaffer's factor of Acceptance versus Rejection
(A-R) to be almost identical to Seigelman's factor of Love (L).
Schaffer's factor A-R referred to praise, affection, sharing, support,
positive evaluation and egalitarian treatment at one pole of a con-
tinuum, and detached, hostile treatment at the other pole. Seigel-
man's L factor indicates support, affection, praise, and participation.

A close similarity also existed between Seigelman's Demanding
(D) and Schaffer's factor: Psychological Control (PC) versus Psycho-
logical Autonomy (PA). Schaffer's PC-PA referred to behaviors that

tend to facilitate or damage a child's individuation from his/her

74

parents. Seigelman's D denoted parental behaviors that were intrus-
ive, demanding, controlling, and protective. Goldin points out one
difference: the 0 also refers to strictness.

Schaffer's factors of Firm Control (FC) versus (LC) do differ
with Seigelman's factor Punishment (P). P refers to arbitrary use of
physical and nonphysical punishment, whereas FC-LC refers to setting
and enforcing rules. Goldin's review of studies of perceptions of
parental behavior with a comparison of reviewed factors to Seigelman
and Schaffer's factors is in Table 3.5. The similarity between the
various factors and to Seigelman and Schaffer is striking, given the
theoretical rather than statistical basis for the earlier studies.

Goldin proceeded to test a number of hypotheses about retro-
spective parenting scales, using the reviewed studies as data. He
then made recommendations for further research which are relevant to
this study. His hypotheses, conclusions, and suggestions will,
therefore, be reviewed.

Hypothesis 1: Children perceive both parents favorably but
perceive mothers as more loving and fathers as more punishing. This
hypothesis is supported by ten studies reviewed by Goldin (1969).

Hypothesis 2: Girls perceive their parents as less control-
ling, punishing, and demanding and as more accepting and loving than
boys. This hypothesis is supported by twenty-one studies and dis-
puted by two discussed by Goldin.

Hypothesis 3: The amount of control and punishment demon-

strated by the father in comparison to the mother is differentially

75

r

 

3:239... ”:82.
--o—oum co.u~:p~>u “coca;

Aoa.an~.v mavogu van we. vooa
-uopaum :o_u-:—o>u ucosaa

«moco>.uoouocnuro5om

»u_p_umo= .co—umocouo--osom

A—o.v co*uoapo>o
ovmcvcuc.-u.mc.cuxonuolom

mcvua-cnuusam

oc_souc. o>vuooo=ouusam

oc.—n_um.vu-valm

3:33.793

8: 3:33:82 2288..
.A—~.v nee—uuvcuuos pa—uom

mop-um so...n_ncoauo¢
u_ogomaoz we. co.uu.cu.o¢ _..uom

aco_uu_camoc-uasaw .o

3a.. 22
agomuouocc: we. acovuu.cumog
use ace—unpaoog--o—ouu uc.uo¢

3:33.. :32 cc.
_a_uou uc.vcouoc In.u.u.uu
we. mmocuuvcumtuuc*accc.uuo:o

cocoa—ave.--oeam

»u_cosuauu-osum

“so.v oucoc*noo-.oeam
co.m.>coa:muuugvoccopamoao

3 735:.
--umou o>_uuoaocn o>.»nougoaa<

.8; £3... 8:28
5...: .83 £8» 26..

opoum
co.mmogou »—.uau .o—aum use;

.o~.V co—mogou
38.12.28.325 .5
o>opnuncovunoac
ccoucoao can ou.oguuo—n.u—:x .o

Ammo n gouogcouccvuuoI-m

83 8:82:
32 28.33..
:xosuea 5 .3 353.

Am... ocogunolan
use; o.u-Luosoo--os—-::o_uuo:o

uc.-ouc. o>.u.uoa
--umou o>_uaougoaaa o>¢uuonogg

=c_uuo»v~ .co.uon.u.uc-a
--Aom..c Lou-Lgouc.. uo_m-u=-
cages; xepa-._on yo no.couou-u

so;
co_uuonoauoucauaouucluupoua nc.u-¢
so.uuowouuoucauaouu<

.na.:u=o.uapoc —oco.uuoeva
-uoL.-cco.uuo:a was no.>cou=_

LN: S:8t.:2.28§25

n as;

N as...

_ :53

A—wopv League a xou
~ :53
. avaum Awoa—v xou

83: .5; . 8.88

88: L.238

A~mo_v Juan

:3: .2 a... 58..

Ammo—v goo—n

:3: 223 . 28

Ga: 58

“emu—v .—o u0 panana<

Asmo—V ast=<

N as;
_ as; 88: 8885.

a~mapv Lone-x-p<

 

.650

~— - _

 

acuflzmwcam .~—~

 

pocucou-»:ocoa=<
peueoopoguxua .u=.ucgnuo ._H

 

co_uuuno¢uouccanouu< .uc—soa .—

 

 

nco_u:ospa couuou

 

.352

 

mco_mcus.o Lagos; we macaw c. co+>ogom _oucocaa uo mucoaox “.cuLu—vgu eo co.uou—e,mm-pu--.s.n m4m<h

76

 

ma—oc xmm-—~0oomuuo5om

-uoEem

._~_

._~ 00 0uomro0=00 pat0cou

002.3 .038 £2058
008:3: .0..o>ouio§m

momaoo can co.mmchxo
Fucov0oeo--0mo0 o>00omnocu

neop>~gon a:_gosco0=_
a:.0.0...u.c--¢e.m

--chm

x0.__n.0.tr_--oe.m

:000uo0ocaco>o-102ow

co0mmocuoo ea Lou»--usam

co0cnc00a00006--0co_0mo=o

0:»20manu. ou=0_00u--ue.m

0coezm0caq--aeum

0cuszm0canluu5am

Log0oe co Aucuvcoaovuuulum
:mmoa.--co00moao

Amm.v 0:60000L0moc a mav0=m 0°
a00pouvaau a :0Fom;--o_oou poc0cou

A0_Log0:u--oaom

300Log0aan-usum
=o00uoc0v .o:_v:0000o

.Losoa--com0eoolou 6050a;

cwzoau-com.cuaaou voc0ua

--oEom

oc.uuoc .xsoco0ao oeoc0xo--03om

A-.0 aaaog
co manoe:=--:o_0o—nlou ogao0u

oucampavc_--mo0co0m o>_0uonoca

hugs—0:—
50;» :o0mapoxo--0mo0 0,00uonosa

«No.0 »0__.a.0.asou:_ 0....0
--oc.occo_0no:a aeo0co>c0 A—0aau

«c000-poc
a—0ea» 000-guanon110o—ouu
u:.0oc a :600o—nuou ouco0com

Aso.0
n=o00~0uc a003¢0 —~co00uoepo
.000ocooeuualo—uun 9:00.:

Aso0ocuo0c— no..oo..
«0930000. 0as0auc .o>_0aoo=
.o>000nona-co00opglo ouco0cow

use—1-0co00uoao

:0009000ouuco00uoaa
.A~—a _—ou .ao_>su0c0 pa—Lo0u0a

.Nm.0 «mocmmopa-og--ug0acco00mo=a

nou0uuocn 000ocooluu
-uxouc0 cue-000a —o_oom

Ace. - L cavvolvununum
Ann. . g eu0uoav 0uo_ooc

.ac—cocu0 .053: .:o_0uu~0a
.osop--asa0=o>:~ c60>~go¢ 0coL-a

800.. c0..u.a
:8: A8...: 0 3:.
“m000 Argo:

Ammo—0 otozxqz

.nema_0 ._. 0o uo0xa:
0.50000 ._. 0o mosxax

Amen—0 .a.0 a 0mtsga.>.=

.Nmo_0 mean» a "0.0.:

05.0.. Locus-u

Anna—v suc0u

Apes—v :o—Lunla

33: 50.335
Awmopv na0—u

Reno—0 o__.>=o
~ au=0m

_ Aua0m Anon—v
nova-gum a canupaoosc

:8: 5! 0 3.08
.0n000 c3009; 0 0toaaoo

Nam.. mug..:=u

 

Lasso

6...“.44 hi 1.. is n IUII .ullll‘gu FEE”. glad E..fl-lfl.fi

 

00 -—

 

0caazm0=3a .___

 

_og0:ouixraco0a<
.o00oopoguAma .u:_v:onoa .0—

 

:000uowuxnouc-0aouu< .uc0>o0 .0

 

 

mco0mcospa c00uau

I F .r L: It! “I L1... .nzfil in. . II.§..II"IIII :EnHUII I. “I I I Fungi I n u .u Mil“ '15:”. a" H II .I. I DIP. I

Log0=<

toac00couuu.n.n wand»

77

 

 

co00oaoc u>0mcuuou
m.gog0oei-o>00uonoca

000; now 0o0uom--92sm

uozo0maeou--ue~m 000

.00o .unocvcaz 0o
c000aoucou 000oAIxm--ainm

uc0xcanm--uaam oc0ocaeuuuuusom

co00a=00m 0:03
-zm0can c0 covmuocmou
0occo0otuuo>00uoqoca

0:00a0om0o--usam

manm «new mean

0:00n0uu0u o>000can
--co00o0QEoo ouc~0com

mnuc0u0g0mnnosam

Auwov Eocene» «.600gu
mc0a0LUmssuc0uLu>oucxn0>Lo0c0

occasa0gac
--co00o0n:ou os=0u0a 0~0
have 06 005360
woe.c=0c:c--oaam 000 .nmocos000caa--mco00moao 000

uneco>000caa yo
c600noucoo 00090-00--anam

‘0ocog0u 0o
co00nuucou 00000-00--o0~um mc00~¢

oucoca0cac 0o
co00aoucou 000oaemmu-uuam

0252881030 2:80.95 80

A00Loz0aa 0cac0eoouacog0u0
wen 00:09: uc0gonnou aco00noaa 000

0523:3193 :0
unwau oc—sm0canuuosam .00

mmocu>000csn .0a¢gg0--u§om cue-c0soo--ouam

cue-5:00.05 .0comaou .a0og
1-0:600o0naou 0:000 .000: 0009

ocogamosau 000-Lualoo
12.2083 3.888 :0

08.0 22.395. 6:688
12.8 009...... 5...: 0:

ouco0aouuu .oco0 u=00oo0
--mco00a0uomna oosv o>00uonosu

:80 £20803 0 80 83
12.8 3583.0». 220-05....

um0osanucux0om
we. cwg0oe oc0cunsou «co00noac

unoc00uco000
-lcog0~0 veg Log0ol 0o coa0L-n-ou

? 08
. 032:2: 0:30 8 08330.
neg 09:00o00--co00o0nuou ouco0com

33: 5:3 0 53::

A0oa00 ecu—0: a rogue:

:3: =5 .0 589..

33: .28 a Spa:
:8: .3508.
038: «853..
$8: 0033 a £3
88: :85 a 5.3.

88: 38: a :8.

88: £13 0 =83.

A0wo0. .0. 0o :ooax

000000 eaoox

000000 =~aa0

Nmm0. cancha

 

rogue

0os0ccuiuruco0=<
08.8.2.6»: 85288 .:

 

00 1 0 0:05:00cnn .000

 

 

c000uoao¢-ouca0aouu< .uc0so0 .0

 

0co0mcoe0a Lo0uau

 

gogua<

 

 

vw::.0:09an.m.n ugn<h

78

 

Lo0>~con

6:: 0009:: 0~:Omso:

0:0:ocea 0° Im0u000cu
--u:o00mo:a vcorcoao

00.00:.--maeog0
0,00uonoca :0 moc.0.x 000

0000
-00 0uomcw0:00 0oc0ccu
xo0-0os0:ou :c0unooe~m

x00sauom
.uoco0onsou-uoEum

mc00oo0om:
uc00oo0osn--oeom 000

0mm. - 0:.0 0co::M0=::--o:.m

0:92:00::: 00 :o00o0uonxu
--mueo:0 0,00uonocn yo 00:00:: 000

0coezm0::n 0uonoo-0uoc0v

.0:~£:u0::: o>o0-u00oaexm

. 386.. 0839.002 0:
.ucoxoc o>o0-u00oAIxm--~Eom 000

:o00on00acae 0o
mmoco>00uouuo vco ou:oa0v:0uuunum

m00cog0aan-onum

00:. - o:.0 u:.u=..u:--usam
0g Lo0occo0:0 umm0

n:o00~=00m 00 «95:00::
v:~ :0ucoc0m--og0a::o00noaa 0N0

080895803193

no. 0oc0cou
000.0 00:0:00 0 ac. aroco0aoulolam

m:0u:oeoo-0o:mau--o0uom L000»: 0N0

oc0ucaeou-0~=m:u--a2am 000

0:o::u~00:
--:o00o0nuuu 05:00 us00uonocm

0uoo . ;
su0nccu0:00 o>o0-uu:00:¢

vomaaaaosnnco00o0nuou usa0u0:

:0006 :0 n0cotca 0: «:30000.
--.oo.0 o0.um neo00._o: 0cutaa-u0_gu

un0gmco00~0os 000:.» 0-0coa:0u
--0_m.0 «0.90 0:00.: ~00: a..:.:

00o. . n0.0 o:0>o0--o0oum co0uom

Aomo0 .comcasm 0000
--o0.um a0gu:o_0.0o: 0cot.a-u00:0

:o00uonoauouc-0aoou<-ao0uum 5000::
00:.0 00.0.0ao: .0.o.0 «.00

0,601-»:00:o>:0 so0>~gou 0:0:o:

ou:a0:ouu: .0coananuno0:90 0:00ux

0m:.0 unusansnea0qa a00-a.
--o=c0:guo0 a v:: 0L0~::o00mo:o

o:00uono¢-o:0>o0--mo0auu 5609-0 0N0
u:00uonoc

5530108. - 3.0 :3...
0:00.: a.:.co_0.0o¢ :0_:u-0:o..: 000

33: .3093

88: 2.2:;
0.0:00 can: . u_::o0

0000.0 cameos:

00.000 00°00

ego—0 00°00
38: 5.08.8

:0000 or.:.:w

:3: 5,80 a 023.

088: 6:23.
038: .5on0
:8: 63¢

00nm00 “toga:

Anoa00 c.:_oo.om . «a:

 

svguo

 

 

unassm0cza .000

 

0oc0couuazo:60=<
0oo0mo0o:uxm: .ac0vcaeoo .00

 

:000uunuauou:o0uauu< .o:0>o0 .0

 

 

III rnl'luvwhhfllhll«II-DundonLaniuIEIINt

mco0mcoe0o Lo0oou

..r : ..I.Uul.uh - u I.’ I-Iqinu IhL.."III.Iin‘qu-§'a41'

Log0=¢

 

voac—0coutn.n.n u0m<h

79

perceived during development. Age and sex of the perceiver has a
complex and often inconsistent influence on the perception of parental
acceptance and therefore needs further investigation. The contra-
dictory results of six studies were cited to confirm this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4: Parents from lower socio-economic levels are
perceived as less accepting and possibly more controlling. Goldin

cites nine studies supporting and two opposing this hypothesis. This

may have relevance to the previous discussion in the section on
sample description.

Hypothesis 5: Maladjusted normals, mental health center
patients, and delinquents perceive their mothers as more loving and
their fathers as more rejecting than other groups. Mental health
patients and maladjusted normals see their parents as excessively
demanding while delinquents perceive their parents as low on control.
Punitiveness does not differentiate these groups. Goldin cites
forty-eight studies to support the above multi-faceted hypothesis and
one in disagreement. In summary, he emphasizes that perception of
parents is related to some behaviors.

Finally, Goldin (1969) suggests the following additional area
of research in the area of parental behavior scales. The reader is
asked to consider these as she/he examines the scales and design
of this study.

1. The relationship between perception of parental behavior
and age of the child needs further exploration.

2. The interaction of sex by age on reports of parental

behavior is confusing and requires further investigation.

80

3. Further study of the relation between report of parental
behavior and child behavior is needed, particularly in concrete,
specific, Operational behavioral terms.

4. Parental characteristics and behaviors such as education,
age, intelligence, and child rearing practices should be related to
Childrens' reports of parental behavior.

5. The conditions which elicit the various parental behavior
measures should be compared. Goldin suggests that maladjusted normals,
clinic children, and delinquents may differ in the kinds of situations
that lead to what they experience as rejection.

While some of the suggestions are directly meaningful for
this study, they also have relevance to suggestions for future
research in Chapter V.

A discussion of each scale used in this study follows.
Appendix A contains a copy of each scale used and the instructions
included in the test packet.

Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)

Schaffer's scale (1965a, 1965b) is a paper and pencil test
consisting of seventy-two items. These items are statements about
parental behavior that are responded to for the mother and again for
the father. For this study's purposes only the paternal section was
used. Examples of behavioral statements are "Doesn't show that he
loves me," "Enjoys talking things over with me," and "Can't say no to

anything] want." The testee responds to each statement with either

81

"Like," "Somewhat Like," or "Not Like." The responses are scored 3,
2, and 1 respectively, and summed to yield scores on individual scales
within the test. Test time for the paternal half of the CRPBI
averaged thirty minutes.

The form of the CRPBI used consists of 18 scales, six that
are based on sixteen items and twelve that are based on eight items.
Schaffer's scales were devised to represent concepts such as child-
centeredness, acceptance of individuation, and ignoring. Examples of
items developed from each concept (revised edition) are in Table 3.6.
Appendix C contains the complete scoring and items for each scale.
These scales originated from twenty-six concepts he initially hypo-
thesized to cover all aspects of parental behavior. From those twent-
six concepts he developed twenty items for each concept. Three psy-
chologists then rated each item for its difference from items devised
to measure other concepts, its relevance to the concept,andits abil-
to measure a specific behavior. Ten items for each concept were
selected from the ratings. This inventory was then administered to
eighty females and eighty-five males, all white seventh grade students
and eighty-one institutionalized delinquent boys both black and white
(Schaffer, 1965a). All subjects were from unbroken homes. Three
replicated factors, Acceptance versus Rejection, Psychological Auton-
omy versus Psychological Control, and Firm Control versus Lax Control,
were identified for four correlational matrices. Internal consistency
reliabilities were computed with the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 for

each of the 26 scales. The median reliabilities of items chosen to

82

TABLE 3.8.--Concepts and Sample Items of the Revised Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory

 

Concepts

Sample Items from Scales

 

1. Acceptance

2. Childcentered-
ness

3. Possessiveness

4. Rejection

5. Control

6. Enforcement

7. Positive
Involvement

8. Intrusiveness

9. Control through
Guilt

Makes me feel better after talking over my
worries with him.

Cheers me up when I feel sad.

Isn't interested in changing me, but likes me as
I am.

Is always thinking of things that will please
me.

Makes me feel like the most important person
in his life.

Makes his whole life center about his children.

Seems to regret that I am growing up and am
spending more time away from home.

Usually makes me the center of his attention at
home.

Wishes I would stay at home where he could
take care of me.

Isn't very patient with me.
Forgets to help me when I need it.
Gets cross and angry about little things I do.

Believes that all my bad behavior should be
punished in some way.

Insists I must do exactly as I'm told.

I have certain jobs to do and am not allowed
to do anything else until they are done.

Is very strict with me.
Gives hard punishment.
Sees to it that I obey when he tells me something.

Tells me I'm good looking.
Likes to talk about what he has read with me.
Encourages me to read.

Is always checking on what I've been doing at
school or at play.

Keeps a careful check on me to make sure I have
the right kind of friends.

Asks other people what I do away from home.

Feels hurt when I don't follow advice.

Feels hurt by the things I do.

When I don't do the things he wants, says I'm
not grateful for all he has done for me.

TABLE 3.8.--Continued

83

 

Concepts

Sample Items from Scales

 

10. Hostile Control

11. Inconsistent
Discipline

12. Nonenforcement

13. Acceptance of
Individuation

14. Lax Discipline

15. Instilling
Persistent
Anxiety

16. Hostile
Detachment

17. Withdrawal
of Relations

18. Extreme
Autonomy

Is always telling me how I should behave.

Doesn't forget very quickly the things I do
wrong.

Gets cross and nervous when I'm noisy around
the house.

Soon forgets a rule he had made.

Depends upon his mood whether a rule is
enforced or not.

Insists I follow a rule one day and then for-
gets about it the next.

Usually doesn't find out about my misbehavior.
Doesn't pay much attention to my misbehavior.
Seldom insists that I do anything.

Enjoys it when I bring friends home.

Allows me to tell him if I think my ideas are
better than his.

Is easy to talk to.

Is easy with me.
Can't say no to anything I want.
Does not insist I obey if I complain or protest.

If I break a promise, doesn't trust me again
for a long time.

Says some day I'll be punished for my bad
behavior.

Will talk to me again and again about anything
bad I do.

Doesn't talk to me much.
Almost never brings me a surprise or present.
Doesn't share many activities with me.

Will not talk to me when I displease him.

Is less friendly with me if I don't see things
his way.

If I've hurt his feelings, stops talking to me
until I please him again.

Allows me to go out as often as I please.

Doesn't tell me what time to be home when I
go out.

Lets me dress in any way I please.

 

Source: Appendix B

84

sample molar dimensions were: Love, .84; Hostility, .78; Autonomy,
.69; and Control, .66. Appendix 8 contains the internal-consistency
reliabilities for the CRPBI for that sample.

Schaffer concluded that although the two groups of boys were
not matched on a number of factors, differences were found between
the groups' reports on parental behavior. Using the Mann-Whitney
test, of 52 differences, 26 were significant beyond the .05 level and
11 beyond the .01 level. Using a more rigorous test of significance
for such a large number of dependent variables in which the level of
significance is divided by the number of dependent variables might
put Schaffer's findings of differences between groups in a question-
able light. The more rigorous test would require an alpha level of
.00092 instead of .05 to assume true differences between groups.

In the Journal of ConsultingpPpychology (1965b) Schaffer

 

presents more information about the inventory and presents additional
data about two samples of Army personnel. One group consisted of 154
Army hospital personnel with a median age of 23.5 and a median educa-
tional level of 12.4. The second group of 108 consisted of 100
patients and 8 personnel with a median age of 29.9 and a median
education of 11.3 years. A factor analysis using the principal com-
ponents method was done. Three orthogonal factors extracted signifi-
cant amounts of variance. These factors extracted an average of 66% of
the total variance, which is estimated at approximately 90% of the

reliability variance.

85

Coefficients of congruence for Factor I ranged from .97
to .99; for Factor 11, from .95 to .99; and for Factor III, from
.73 to .95 for the independent sample of children and adults for
mother and father taken separately (see Appendix 3). Coefficients
of congruence between different factors for Factor I and II ranged
from .12 to -.l7, for Factors I and II from .07 to .20 and for
Factors II and III the range was from -.14 to .31. Table 3.8 presents
a more detailed explanation of the orthogonally rotated factor
matrices. These coefficients suggest very similar factor structures
for the independent samples analyzed.

Scales designed to measure qualities of the Love versus Hate
dimension loaded high on Factor I. The positive pole of this dimen-
sion is best defined by Sharing, Expression of Affection, Positive
Evaluation, and absence of Negative Treatment; the negative pole, by
Neglect, Rejection, and Ignoring. Schaffer chose to label this dimen-
sion Acceptance versus Rejection because the heaviest negative load-
ings were for scales that indicated a more detached type of hostile
reaction.

The second major factor is most clearly defined by the scales
Control through Guilt, Intrusiveness, and Parental Direction. Signifi-
cant loadings were found for Possessiveness and Protection that also
had loadings on Acceptance; for Nagging and Negative Evaluation, which
also have loadings on Rejection; and for Strictness and Punishment
that also have loadings on the third factor of Firm Control versus

Lax Control. Schaffer suggested the label of Psychological Autonomy

86

versus Psychological Control for this factor because the defining
scales describe covert, psychological methods of keeping the child
from developing as an individual apart from the parent.

Factor III is best defined by Lax Discipline and Extreme
Autonomy at one end of the pole and Punishment and Strictness at the
other. Schaffer suggests the label Firm Control versus Lax Control
to indicate that this dimension is concerned with the degree to which
the parent makes rules and regulations, sets limits, and enforces
those rules and limits.

Renson, Schaffer, and Levy (1968) administered a French
translation of the revised CRPBI to 182 students from four public
high schools in Leige, Belgium. Factor analysis revealed five
principal components. Only three of which had mean eigen values
greater than one and were orthogonally rotated by the varimax method.
A relatively high congruence in the factors calculated for the girls
and the boys was used to justify the calculation of a single corre-
lation matrix of boys' and girls' reports of maternal and paternal
behavior. The first factor was very similar to the Acceptance versus
Rejection that Schaffer reported for American subjects and, there-
fore, the name was kept for this factor. Factor II was very similar
to the American factor of Psychological Control versus Psychological
Autonomy and was likewise similarly named. Schaffer's factor Lax
Control versus Firm Control was similar to the Belgium Factor III
and, therefore, the same name was used. The authors concluded that
in both countries, only three dimensions accounted for a major amount

of the common variance of the parent behavior scale.

87

Using a sample similar to the one in this study, college
students, Cross (1969) did a factor analysis on the revised CRPBI.
His sample consisted of 119 females and 99 males, mostly freshmen and
SOphomores from the University of Connecticut. Four factor analyses
were done, on reports by females and males of father and mother
separately. Again, similar structures produced the.same three
factors corresponding to Schaffer's dimensions of Acceptance versus
rejection, Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control, and
Firm Control versus Lax Control.

In support of the preceding results, Burger and Armentrout
did a factor analysis of the CRBPI. They used 64 male and 83 female
fifth graders and 54 male and 59 female sixth graders in a middle-
class suburb of Minneapolis. Although they changed the answering
format to Yes-No from Like, Somewhat Like, and Not Like, they obtained
a replication of the factorial structure of the inventory found by
Cross (1969) and Benson, Schaffer, and Levy (1968).

Finally, studies cited previously, Chapter II, show the
results of this scale to be related to other factors, Fish and
Biller (1973) found perception of father to be related to personal
adjustment, Jenning (1977) found it related to the Altruistic Other
Orientation Scale and women's ability to be self-supporting, and
Schaffer (1965a) found that it differentiated black and white delin-
quent children from a white high school group. Also demonstrating
the scale's concurrent validity, Raskin, Boothe, Reatig, Schulter-

brandt and Odle (1971) compared hospitalized depressed patients to

88

normal persons and found significant differences in how the groups
reported their perceptions of their parents. The depressed group
reported their parents' behavior as being much more negative than
the normal group did. Another factor analysis replicated this one.

Table 3.9 presents the results of the factor analysis of
the CRPBI for those 181 young women participating in this study.
Subjects with more than 5% missing data on any scale were eliminated
from analysis and hypothesis testing connected to the measures. The
subjects are listed in order of their highest loadings for the factor
in which they are included.

The first factor had high positive loadings on Acceptance,
Positive Involvement, Acceptance of Individuation, and Child-
centeredness, and high negative loadings on Hostile Detachment and
Rejection. This factor is similar to the factor of Acceptance versus
Rejection which Schaffer (1965b) and Renson (1968) report for
American adult and young males and females and for Belgian young
males and females. (See previously cited literature in Chapter II.
For the purposecfi illumination the results from this study's factor
analysis of the CRPBI will be contrasted with Renson's.) The name
was, therefore, kept for this population of young adult women.

The second factor had its highest positive loadings on Con-
trol through Instilling Persistent Anxiety, Hostile Control (Control
through Guilt, Possessiveness and Intrusiveness). A factor that
resembles this one, also used by Renson, Schaffer labelled Psycho-

logical Control versus Psychological Autonomy.

89

TABLE 3.9.--Orthogonally Rotated Composite Factor Matrix for Young
Woman's Reports of Paternal Behavior

 

I II III

 

Factor I

Acceptance .94 .05 .08
Hostile detachment -.88 .16 .15
Positive involvement .86 .05 -.O4
Rejection —.88 .35 .00
Acceptance of individuation .81 -.13 .23
Child-centeredness .81 .35 .02
Factor II

.38 .75 -.05

Control through instilling persistent anxiety

Hostile control -.43 .10 -.23
Control through guilt -.45 .67 .07
Possessiveness .31 .65 -.07
Intrusiveness .12 .62 -.27
Inconsistent discipline -.41 .44 .37

Factor III

Lax Discipline .07 .ll .85
Nonenforcement -.27 .Ol .82
Extreme autonomy .05 -.22 .72
Control .01 .53 -.6O
Enforcement -.10 .47 -.59

Control through withdrawal of relationship .57 .47 .81

90

TABLE 3.9.--Continued

 

I

II

III

 

Orthogonally Rotated Composite Factor Matrix for Boys' and Girls'
Reports of Maternal and Paternal Behavior (Renson, 1968, p. 1231)

 

 

Factor I

Acceptance .91
Positive involvement .89
Child-centeredness .85
Acceptance of individuation .81
Hostile detachment -.74
Possessiveness .54
Factor II

Hostile control .06
Control through guilt .06
Control through instilling persistent anxiety .12
Enforcement .34
Intrusiveness -.20
Rejection -.56
Control through withdrawal of relationship .38
Control .14
Inconsistent discipline -.20
Factor III

Nonenforcement -.21
Lax discipline .45

Extreme autonomy .05

.22
.07
.17
.22
.42
.52

.86
.83
.76
.67
.68
.64
.63
.60
.50

.07
.07
.22

.15
.16
.11
.15
.28
.05

.15
.07
.09
.16
.39
.26
.16
.51
.48

.72
.63
.61

 

91

The third factor had high positive loadings in Lax Discipline,
Nonenforcement, and Autonomy, and high negative loadings on Control
and Enforcement. The corresponding factor labelled by Schaffer and
affirmed by Renson is Lax Control versus Firm Control.

Some dissimilarities between Renson's factor analysis and the
one used in this study can be noted (see Table 3.9). Schaffer's
factor matrix was not included in his articles; however, his second
authorship of the Renson study would suggest agreement with Renson's
statements that her factors are very similar to Schaffer's. Of
interest is the placement of Rejection with high loadings only in
Factor I in this study, in comparison to Renson's analysis placing
Rejection in Factor II with an almost equally high loading in
Factor 1.

Additionally, Possessiveness, while loaded heavily in
Factor I in Renson's study is loaded in Factor II of this study.

The higher loading of Rejection and placement of Possessiveness in
Factor II suggests that for this study, Factor I may be closer to
expressing the dimension of Acceptance versus Rejection than Renson's
Factor I. Similarly, the label Psychological Control for Factor II
seems more fitting in this study with the inclusion of Possessive-
ness and the exclusion of Rejection than in the case of the Renson
study.

Reliability of the CRPBI from
Sample Data

 

 

Reliabilities for each of the parenting characteristics

delineated by Schaffer were computed across the 181 subjects

92

described previously, using Hoyt's (1967) analysis of variance pro-
cedure. The results for Schaffer's subtests are presented in

Table 3.10. Acceptance was overall the most reliable subtest with

a Hoyt coefficient of reliability of .93. The subtests comprising
Factor I are among the most reliable, ranging from .93 to .84.
Factor II's subtests are among the least reliable, ranging from .85
for Hostile Control to the lowest reliability of all the subtests,
Possessiveness at .63. Factor III reliabilities ranged from .80 for
Nonenforcement, Extreme Autonomy, and Lax Discipline to .72 for

Control and Enforcement.

Phenomenological Fathering
Scaleg(PF§)

 

 

The Darlington scale on fathering, Phenomenological Father-
ing Scale (PFS) is a paper and pencil, 142-item test. A copy of the
scale in Appendix A labelled as Experiences With and Attitudes Toward
Fathers. It consists of 71 statements about father, his behavior,
and the respondent's feelings about his behavior. Each statement is
responded to twice: first, according to how the respondent saw her
father during childhood in the situation described; second, how she
would have liked that situation to have been different during child-
hood. Responses are on a six-point scale ranging from Always (6)
to Never (1). A discrepancy score is then calculated for each of
the statements and for the scale. Test time for a pilot group of
young women was between 30 and 60 minutes; the median was 45 minutes.

Because of the inconclusive theory and research on the role
of the father in raising his daughters and subsequent questions about

what his loss might mean, items were developed by interviewing

93

TABLE 3.10.--Internal-Consistency Reliabilities for the Children's
Report of Parental Behavior Inventory Scales (Sample

 

 

Subjects)
Scale
Factor I
Acceptance .93
Acceptance of Individuation .91
Hostile Detachment .90
Rejection .88
Positive Involvement .88
Child-Centeredness .85
Factor II
Hostile Control .85
Control Through Guilt .80
Control Through Instilling Persistent Anxiety .79
Inconsistent discipline .77
Intrusiveness .76
Possessiveness .63
factor III
Nonenforcement .80
Extreme Autonomy .80
Lax Discipline .80
Control .72
Enforcement .72

Control Through Withdrawal of the Relationship .84

 

94

interviewing females. This method of test construction was an attempt
to establish content validity, according to Lennon's interpretation
of the APA Committee on Tests and Standards' useage of the term
(Lennon, Mehrens, ed., 1976). Lennons' interpretation is as follows:
. .the extent to which a subject's responses to the items
of a test may be considered to be a representative sample
of his responses to a real or hypothetical universe of
situations which together constitute the area of concern
to the person interpreting the test (p. 46).
The writer reasoned, that given broadly asked questions, the order
and predominance of certain material in the answers, over a number of
respondants, would produce items that would be a representative
sample of the universe of reports of perception of father behaviors.
Additionally, it was decided that because the tests being developed
would go through a number of revisions, and that initially the goal
of a large pool of items, on which statistical analyses could be
performed would assist examination of validity and reliability
(Wesman; ed. Mehrens, 1976) from an empirical-quantitative approach.
Specifically in examining the validity of a new scale measuring
perception of paternal behavior, demonstrating concurrent validity
with the paternal form of the Schaffer Children's Reports of Parental
Behavior Inventory and in ability to differentiate groups was
considered worthwhile.
Females interviewed ranged in age from women in the 505 to
4 year old girls, and came from a variety of familial backgrounds.

They were asked to talk about their father, about what they liked,
what they did not like, and what they wished he would have done.

95

The questions were asked in a casual, inquisitive fashion. Notes
from the interview were written down after the interview. Although
quite unstructured, the interview always started with an explanation
that little is known about fathers and daughters and that the inter-
viewer was interested in learning about fathers and daughters.
Because so little was known, they were the expert, that how father
was to them is important and of interest. The first question was,
"Tell me about your father?" (For older subjects the questions were
qualified with, "when you were a child.") Secondly, the interviewee
was asked, "What did/do you like about him?" Then the women were
asked what they did not like. Finally, the interview closed with
"What things do you wish he would have done--more or less of, or
differently?"

Attention was paid to areas of parenting that were not
mentioned, after the interviewee was finished in answering. Often
inquiries were made into the unmentioned areas. An inquiry for
subjects with responses filled with descriptions of unavailability,
might be, "I'm struck by how important his not being around to you
was, but how about when he was around, what sorts of things about
your relationship do you remember?" Subjects that spoke at length
about how their father included them in decision-making were questioned
about other areas--"How about limit setting; how about affection; how
did you know he loved you?" There are many biases built into such
a method of interviewing and item construction. First, the author

was the interviewer. Limitations due to the interviewer's educational

96

and personal history, the input of only one interviewer's ideas on
areas of interest, and nonverbal cues during interviewing nay have
biased the kind of information gathered for item construction. Second,
no attempt was made to formalize the interview, so that it is
conceivable that some interviews dwelled more heavily on certain

areas than other interviews. Finally, the method for selecting
females to interview was done casually. Many of the females were
friends and acquaintances of the interviewer-~possibly inhibiting

or increasing candor. The limiting input of need for social
desirability is continually of concern in constructing measures and
this method of item construction very possibly has such contamination.
This sample was composed of white females from college educated
backgrounds, parents who had some college, or women who had some
college education themselves. Therefore the universe of reports of
perceptions of fathers may not include those reports of women from
different backgrounds. The danger in such a method of test construc-
tion is the possible lack of thorough sampling of the universe of
reports of perceptions of father and the subsequent loss of items
that might delimit differences between groups.

Areas of importance to those females interviewed, represented
in items on the PFS, in order of frequency and intensity of discussion
are: discipline, communication, availability, affection/nurturance,
encouragement, inclusion in decision making, general acceptance,
protection, and identification with father. These labels were

devised and applied by the researcher in consultation with Robert

97

Wilson, at the time statistical consultant in the Michigan State
University's Office of Educational Research. Again the writer
acknowledges the biases and limitations of such subjective judgments--
see previous discussion in this section. Examples of items comprising
each subset are in the following Table 3.11.

Reliability analysis of the originallytproposed PFS sub—
gggle§,--A Homogeneity Reliability was performed for the items within
each of the proposed areas of fathering. A coefficient of relia-
bility computed by Hoyt's (1941) analysis of variance method gives
the percentage of obtained variance in the distribution of scores
for the items within an area that may be regarded as true variance
(not due to error) or variance that is not the result of item unre-
liability. Such homogeneity reliabilities are considered to be
coefficients of equivalence, indicating how closely the items in an
area vary together or measure the same thing.

Analysis was done on subject responses in which there was no
missing data. A negative homogeneity coefficient was labeled
indeterminate; a coefficient of O - .40 was considered extremely poor;
.40 - .60 was poor; .60 - .80 fair to good; and .80 - 1.00 was good
to excellent. High reliability coefficients reflect greater simi-
larity between items in an area. Within an area, items estimated
to have a homogeneity coefficient of .40 or less were considered to
be lacking in homogeneity. Items within the eight areas for real or
actual Phenomenological Fathering Scale received reliability coeffi-
cients greater than .40 when a less homogeneous item was deleted;

the area Availabilty received a coefficient less than .40 even with

98

TABLE 3.11.--Concepts and Sample Items for the Phenomenal Fathering
Scale (PFS)

 

Discipline

Communication

Availability

Affection/Nurturance

Encouragement

Inclusion in decision
making

General Acceptance

Protection

Identification with
Father

I was afraid of him.

He did most of the punishing.

It was hard to know at times what he would be
angered by and punish.

He shared humorous stories about his childhood
with me.
He really listened to me.

He was out of town.
Even when he was around, he was too preoccupied
to spend much time with me.

He gave me piggyback rides, tickled me,
teased me, etc.
He was warm and snuggly.

He took an active interest in my schooling.
He believed I could do anything I put my
mind to.

He included me in discussions about vacation
plans.

When he went shopping, he took me along and
got my opinion.

When I was discouraged or failing in school
or an activity, he became angry and
critical.

He enjoyed having me around.

It didn't matter to him where I went or at
what time I came in at night.
He always picked me up on time.

I was closer to him than my mother.
I was proud of him.
I respected him as a person.

 

99

an item deletion (.08 to .24). Six of the areas for ideal or wished-
for Phenomenological Fathering Scale received reliability coefficients
greater than .40 when a less homogeneous item was deleted; three areas
had coefficients less than .40 even with an item deletion (Discipline,
.39; Availability, .12; and General Acceptance, .25). Items within
the Protection (.72), Discipline (.77), and Father Identification
(.74) on the Real test received the highest homogeneity coefficients
and were considered to have a greater degree of homogeneity than
items for other areas on both Real and Ideal tests.

Although the homogeneity coefficients for areas within the
Real test were higher than homogeneity coefficients for the Ideal
test, coefficients for both tests indicated that the items within
each area on both tests were generally not measuring unidimensional,
unrelated constructs. The Hoyt Homogeneity Reliability Coefficients

for both tests are reported in Table 3.12.

TABLE 3.12.--Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Revised Real and
Ideal Tests of the Phenomenological Fathering Scale

 

—-fi ‘*

 

Area # Items Real (N) Ideal (N)

Discipline 1O .77 (190) .39 (189)
Communication .65 (191) .57 (188)
Availability .24 (191) .12 (191)
Affection/Nurturance .68 (189) .65 (185)
Encouragement .68 (191) .52 (188)

.68 (195) .48 (194)
.55 (195) .25 (190)
.72 (180) .44 (184)
.74 (199) .42 (197)

Decision Making
General Acceptance
Protection

Father Identification

NO‘b-DVVNKO

 

100

Because the homogeneity coefficients for areas within the Real
and Ideal form of the Phenomenological Fathering Scale werelow, a factor
analysis was done to determine ifthere were other possible groups of
items with higher reliabilities thatwould provide meaningful factors

to this study.

Factor analysis of the PFS.--A factor analysis was performed to
explore and detect the patterning of relationships between items within
both forms, Real and Ideal, of the Phenomenological Fathering Scale.

A two-part process for each form was performed. First, a principle
components factor analysis with no assumptions about the expected
structure was performed. Secondly, a varimax rotation setting the
number of factors to 12 for the Real form and 14 for the Ideal form.
Factors were then compared for match between the Ideal and Real forms.

In the first attempt, the number of factors rotated to vari-
max criteria was determined by the eigen value threshhold set at 1.00.
Seventeen factors emerged for the Real form and 22 emerged for the
Ideal form. Eigen values and percentage of variance for both forms
are presented in Tables 3.13 and 3.14.

Both forms produced a large number of factors which accounted
for approximately 70% of the variance when analyzed with no assump-
tions about the expected structure. Each had only one factor capable
of explaining over 10% of the total variance criterion used for
determining the importance of a factor. Because of the small per-
centage of variance accounted for by the factors, a second analysis
was done, setting the number of factors at 12 for the Real form and

14 for the Ideal form. Tables 3.15 and 3.16 present the results of

101

TABLE 3.13.--Real Factors Determined by an Eigen Value of 1.00

 

 

52:3: teats“ 3:29:23?“
1 19.61 27.6 27.6
2 5.74 8.1 35.7
3 2.68 3.8 39.5
4 2.56 3.6 43,]
5 2.40 3.4 46.5
6 1.97 2.8 49.2
7 1.81 2.5 51.8
8 1.65 2.3 54.1
9 1.59 2.2 55.3
10 1.44 2.0 58.4
11 1.39 2.0 60.3
12 1.30 1.8 62.2
13 1.20 1.7 63.9
14 1.15 1.6 55.5
15 1.10 1.6 67.5
16 1.06 1.5 68.5
17 1.02 1.4 70.0

 

102

TABLE 3.14.--Ideal Factors Determined by an Eigen Value of 1.00

 

 

52::2' 52:223.? Semi“:
1 12.80 18.0 18.0
2 4.30 5.1 24.1
3 3.08 4.3 28.4
4 2.58 3.6 32.1
5 2.44 3.4 35.1

2.27 3.2 38.7

7 2.06 2.9 41.6
8 1.93 2.7 44.3
9 1.70 2.4 46.7
10 1.70 2.4 49.1
11 1.59 2.2 51.3
12 1.54 2.2 53.5
13 1.51 2.1 55.6
14 1.46 2.1 57.7
15 1.35 1.9 59.6
16 1.25 1.8 61.3
17 1.24 1.7 63.1
18 1.20 1.7 64.8
19 1.16 1.6 66.4
20 1.12 1.6 68.0
21 1.06 1.5 69.5
22 1.03 1.5 70.9

 

103

TABLE 3.15.--Real Factors Determined by a Varimax Rotation Setting

 

 

of Twelve
53:3: 5mm“ 33:82:":

1 19.20 49.7 49.7
2 5.28 13.7 63.4
3 2.23 5.8 69.1
4 2.09 5.4 74.6
5 1.95 5.1 79.6
1.49 3.9 83.5

7 1.38 3.6 87.0
8 1.18 3.1 90.1
9 1.13 2.9 93.0
10 .97 2.5 95.5
11 .91 2.4 97.9

12 .82 2.1 100.0

 

104

TABLE 3.16.—-Idea1 Factors Determined by a Varimax Rotation Setting
of Fourteen

 

 

5332- 53:23.2" 3:21:22?“
1 8.29 19.3 19.3
2 3.11 7.2 26.5
3 2.43 5.6 32.1
4 1.92 4.5 36.6
5 1.78 4.1 40.8
6 1.60 3.7 44.5
7 1.45 3.4 47.0
8 1.35 3.1 51.0
9 1.24 2.9 53.9
10 1.19 2.8 56.7
11 1.16 2.7 59.3
12 1.10 2.5 61.9
13 1.07 2.5 64.4

14 1.02 2.4 66.7

 

105

this analysis. Appendix 0 contains item content for the more homo-
geneous Real Form (see Table 3.12).

Again, each analysis produced only one factor capable of
explaining more than 10% of the variance. Comparison of the items
in Real factors and Ideal factors showed little relationship between
the two forms (see Figure 3.1). The factors sharing the largest
number of items in common was Real factor 3 and Ideal factor 1.
Items shared by these factors could be labeled Positive Interest,
including items such as:

39. He encouraged me to try new things.

63. I talked with him about my interests.

59. He talked things over with me when I got in trouble.

28. He was warm and snuggly.

15. When I was sad or afraid he was a good person to go to.
While there appeared to be adequate similarity between the items
shared by Real 3 and Ideal 1, other items showed little consistent
relationship between Real and Idea1 factors. Therefore, it was
concluded that the two forms were measuring different factors from

each other.

Reliability analysis of each form of the PFS.--Based on the

 

discrepancies between the factors of each form and the small amount
of variance explained by each factor a homogeneity (reliability)
analysis was computed for the Real form, Ideal form, and Discrepancy
score. An identical analysis was conducted as that described on

page 78 with this exception: instead of producing a coefficient of

106

mwmxpmc< Levon; cmuzcmm Pmmum
new _mom to comwgmasou--mcopumu cmmzumm AmsmuH Papopv mamuH szuaz we smaszz--.P.m mxswmm

AS A: A3 3v 2: A2 A2 A2 SE A: A3 A3 A3 8:

 

E P :
E P

E _
E _

 

 

 

 

 

 

LDONQO‘O

 

 

A
C".
V
F
P
F
me-

 

E P _ N N

 

 

>Hx HHHx HHx Hx x xH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H mgouumm
zmou 4<moH

N305 1V38

107

equivalence for proposed subscales, the coefficient was for each
form. The same criteria for evaluation were used. Reliabilities
for all three forms were good to excellent. The reliability for the
Discrepancy score was the highest at .97. Ideal form reliability
was the lowest, still within an evaluation of “good" at .82, while
the Real form's reliability was .88 (Table 3.17). The size of the
reliabilities suggested that variance found between subjects on
these forms might be regarded as true variance. Therefore, it was
determined that hypothesis testing around differences between groups
(see Chapter IV) should be done with entire forms rather than with

less reliable subtests.

TABLE 3.17.--Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Real, Ideal, and
Discrepancy Forms of the Phenomenological Fathering

 

 

Scale
-— Form # Items Reliability (n=159)
Real 71 .88
Idea1 71 .82
Discrepancy 71 .97

 

Phenomenological Parent Marital
Relationship Scale 1PPMRS)

The marital relationship scale is a 40-item paper and pencil
test. It contains 20 statements about the parents' behavior within
the marital relationship. Each of these statements is responded to

twice. The first reSponse is the subject's perception of her

108

parents' behavior toward one another. The second response is how
she would have liked her parents to have behaved. Responses are on
a six-point scale ranging from Always (6) to Never (1). A discrep—
ancy score is calculated for each item and for the total scale.
Average test time was ten minutes (Scale in Appendix A, labelled as
Experiences With andAmtitudes Towards Both Parents).

Very little has been investigated beyond questions of happi-
ness versus unhappiness of the parental marriage and its effect on
fathering. What specifically a happy or unhappy marriage is, is
rarely defined when the resoondent is questioned about his/her par-
ents' marital happiness. In this study, beyond being asked to
evaluate her parents' happiness, the respondent was asked if her
father and mother fought a lot or had similar interests and beliefs.
These areas are covered by very few items in most tests (see Chapter
11, Parental Marital Relationship, for a more thorough discussion of
the problems in this type of research). As a result of the lack of
specifics in the existing scales, concerning what constitutes a good
marital relationship in the eyes of the child, a decision was made
to use a discrepancy score for the basis of the evaluation rather
than theory and/or research.

Items were devised by questioning the same group of women
that were interviewed about their fathers and influenced by the
literature on family and marital therapy (Satir, 1967; Haley &
Hoffman, 1967). There was a similiar rationale and emphasis on content
validity for this process of item generation as for the PFS. Conse-

quently there are similar flaws. See the previous section on the PFS.

109

Reliability Analysis of the PPMRS.--A Homogeneity Reliability
was performed for the items within the Ideal, Real, and Discrepancy
of the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS).
The highest reliability, .95, was for the Discrepancy scores . The
Ideal Score's reliability followed the PFS's Ideal form in being
the lowest at .61. In the fair to good range, the Real Score's
reliability was .77 (see Table 3.18). Although the reliabilities
were not as good as the PFS's, the reliabilities were high enough
to suggest that a fair portion of the variance was due to true vari-
ance, and that the items in each score vary together. Thus, addi-
tional factor analytic work was ruled out. Table 3.18 contains
reliability coefficients for the Discrepancy, Real, and Ideal Forms

of the PPMRS. The Discrepancy Form items had good reliability.

TABLE 3.18.--Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Real, Ideal,
and Discrepancy Forms of the Perception of Parental
Marital Relationship Scale

 

 

Form # Items Reliability (n=l46)
Real 20 .77
Ideal 20 .61
Discrepancy 20 .95

 

Perception of Parental Death
Scale‘(PPD§)

 

 

There are ten items in this pencil and paper test. The items
consist of statements about the child's perception of incidents and

relationships before and after the parents' death. As in the

110

previous tests, there is a six-point scale for responding, ranging
from Always to Never. This scale's average time was five minutes.
Items were devised to measure idealization and "presence" of the

dead father during childhood and relationship with the surviving
parent. These are factors that Hetherington (1971) and Leonard (l966)
hypothesize as having a large influence on girls whose fathers have
died, particularly in how they view men. Two items (62, 66) are
taken from a scale devised by Virginia Nulf (1976). (Scale in
Appendix A labelled as Experience with Death.) Beyond construct
validity, originally this scale was planned for comparison with other
scales in the study and hence to have concurrent validity. However,
because of a small number of subjects with paternal death this idea
had to be abandoned. Therefore issues around validity are still in
question.

Reliability Analysis of the PPDS.-~A Homogeneity Reliability
was performed for the items of the Perception of Parental Death
Scale. Reliability for the Death Scale was .50. After deleting
two items, reliability was .76. An N of 22 was used to determine
reliability. All 22 came from the original l81 described previously

under subject selection.

Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS)

 

Average time for taking this scale is eight minutes. The
RPDS is a 31-item paper and pencil test. Thirty-three subjects
responded to statements asking about parental behavior before,

during. and after the divorce and childhoos experiences with their

111

parents. The subjects responded to each item once, on a six-

point scale from Never to Always. Ideas for the items were taken
from the research on divorce mentioned in the literature review in
Chapter 11. Those factors in the literature which were shown to be
indicative of further adjustment problems for the child were par-
ticularly emphasized in the development.ofthe items. Special atten-
tion was given to a Philadelphia study by Tuckman (1966), which
showed a higher incidence of mental health referrals for children
whose parents continued to battle over custody, visitation, and
support. (A copy of the RPDS labelled Experience with Divorce is
in Appendix A.)

Reliability analysis and factor analysis of the RPDS.—-A
Homogeneity Reliability was performed for the items of the Recall of
Parental Divorce Scale. Reliability for the Divorce scale, with one
item deleted, was .64. A factor analysis was also performed to
explore and detect the patterning of relationships between items
within the scale. The number of factors rotated to varimax criteria
was determined by the eigen value threshold set at 1.00. Three of
the variability factors emerged that accounted for at least 10% of
the variance. Reliabilities of items that made up the first factor,
-.05, were indeterminate. Eigen values and percentages of variance
for all factors are presented in Table 3.19. With one itenndeleted
for Factor I, the reliability was .24 and poor. The second factor

with one item deleted was .64 and the third factor with one item

112

deleted was .59. Because of the small percent of variability accounted
for by the three factors, and the fair reliability, especially of the
first factor, further use of these factors was abandoned and the

scale was used as a whole. Questions composing these factors are

in Appendix E-

TABLE 3.19.--Divorce Factors Determined by an Eigen Value ofl.00 (n=33)

 

Eigen Percent of Cumulative Number of

 

 

Factor Value Variance Percent Items Reliability
1 5.36 16.7 16.7 5 .24
2 4.75 l4.9 31.6 3 .64
3 3.66 ll.4 43.0 3 .59
Summary

Two hundred and three undergraduate women from four colleges
and universities completed scales on their memories of their rela-
tionship with their father; perception of their parents' marital
relationship; and, when applicable, memories associated with the
loss of their father, either by divorce or by death. Data from
subjects completing a minimum of 95% of the items were retained to
test hypotheses about how women report their fathers, given different
home situations. Home situations of interest in the hypotheses were

those in which there had been no paternal loss, loss due to death,

113

and loss due to divorce. In the widows' and divorcees' homes, time
of loss was of interest. Finally, the effect of the presence of an
older brother on report of father was examined. One-way ANCOVAS were
pr0posed for the analysis of the differences and/or similarities
between the womens' reports of their father and their parents' mari-
tal relationship.

Hypotheses were offered about the possible relationships
among the various tests. The development and rationale for retro-
spective parenting scales was reviewed. Tests used in this study
were described. A correlational matrix was proposed for the analysis

of the relationship between the scales.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

This chapter presents an analysis of the research data. Each
hypothesis is restated and the relevant research data and result are
discussed. The hypotheses are grouped by design; those hypotheses
associated with the analysis of differences in women's perception of
parental relationships will be presented first, followed by the
hypotheses dealing with the relationship between instruments. Lastly,

supplementary analyses of data related to the problem are given.

Causal-Comparative Hypotheses

 

Father-Family Effect (Tested
by Multivariate Analysis),

 

 

Null hypothesis 1: No differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
-paternal form and the Phenomenological Scale (PFS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcee's
homes on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Children's Reprots of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
-paternal form and the Phenomenological Scale (PFS).

 

Null hypothesis 2: No differences will be found among women
who have’been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'
homes on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of
the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

114

115

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'
homes on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psychologi-
cal Autonomy) of the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 3: No differences will be found among women
who'have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'
homes on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of
the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'
homes on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of
the CRPBI-paternal form.

Hypothesis l. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of no differences between the three groups on Factor I indicated
no significant differences (F = 2.l0, p §_.219). Null not rejected,
alternative not supported.

Hypothesis 2. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of no differences between the three groups on Factor II indicated
no significant differences (F = 1.69, p.: .07). Null not rejected,
alternative not supported.

Hypothesis 3. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of no differences between the three groups on Factor III indi-
cated no significant differences (F = 1.67, p §_.09). Null not
rejected, alternative not supported.

Father-Family Effect (Tested by
Analysis of Variance)

Null hypothesis 4: No differences will be found among women

who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'

homes on the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMRS).

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found among women
who have been raised in intact, widowed, and divorcees'
homes on the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMRS).

116

Hypothesis 4. The father-family effect (tested by Analysis
of Variance) test of the hypothesis of no differences between the
three groups on the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scale indicated there was a significant difference (F = 8.04,

p §_.0072). lhfll was rejected. Alternative was accepted.

Further analysis of this difference between groups shows a
mean similarity between the intact and death group in report of
parental marital relationship, and a dissimilarity to the divorce
group mean. See Table 4.1. Scores were derived by subtracting the
Real rating per question (rating of one to six possible points)
from the Ideal (also a rating from one to six possible points).
Question discrepancy scores were added for a total scale discrepancy
score. Therefore, the higher the mean for a group, the higher the

dissatisfaction with how mother and father related during marriage.

TABLE 4.1.--Mean and Standard Deviation on the PPMRS of Three Groups

 

 

Family Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Intact 12.46 9.46 25
Widowed-Home 13.38 15.39 20
Divorce 25.55 14.26 28

 

The differences between the women in means from intact homes, widows',
and divorcees' homes is striking with the divorcee home group report-
ing on the average twice as much dissatisfaction with the way their

parents related.

117

Older Brother Effect (Tested by
Multivariate Analysis)

 

Null hypothesis 5: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection) of the
Childrens' Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI)
Zpaternal form and the Phenomenological Fathering Scale

PFS .

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have been raised in homes with or without an
older brother on Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
of the Childrens' Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI)-paternal form and the Phenomenological Fathering
Scale (PFS).

 

Null hypothesis 6: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psycho-
logical Autonomy) of the CRPBI-paternal form.

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor II (Psychological Control versus Psy-
chological Autonomy) of the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Null hypothesis 7: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control)
of the CRPBI-paternal form.

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have been raised in homes with or without an
older brother on Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) of the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Hypothesis 5. The overall multivariate test of the hypothesis
of no differences on Factor I between two groups of women was not
rejected (F = .81, p.: .61), alternative not supported.

Hypothesis 6. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of no differences between the two groups of women on Factor 11

was not rejected (F = .30, p j .93), alternative not supported.

118

Hypothesis 7. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of differences between the two groups of women on Factor III indi-
cated no differences (F = 1.211, p §_.3l), alternative not supported.

Older Brother Effect (Analysis
of Variance)

 

 

Null hypothesis 8: No differences will be found between women
who have been raised in homes with or without an older
brother on the Perception of Marital Relationship Scale
(PPMRS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have been raised in homes with or without an
older brother on the Perception of Marital Relationship
Scale (PPMRS).

 

Hypothesis 8. The overall univariate test of the hypothesis
of no differences between the groups of women on the Perception of
Parental Marital Relationship Scale was not rejected (F = .83,

p_: .36), alternative not supported.

Time of Loss Effect (Tested by
Multivariate Analyses of

Variance)

Null hypothesis 9: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor I
(Acceptance versus Rejection) of the CRPBI-paternal
form and the PFS.

 

 

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have lost their father early or late on Factor I
(Acceptance versus Rejection) of the CRPBI-paternal form
and the PFS.

 

Null hypothesis 10: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor 11 (Psy-
chological Control versus Psychological Autonomy) of the
CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Alternative hyppthesis: Differences will be found between women
who—have’last their father early or late on Factor 11 (Psy-
chological Control versus Psychological Autonomy) of the
CRPBI-paternal form.

 

119

Null hypothesis 11: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on Factor III (Lax
Control versus Firm Control) of the CRPBI-paternal form.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have lost their father early or late on Factor
III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of the CRPBI—
paternal form.

 

Hypothesis 9. The overall multivariate test of the hypothesis
of no differences between two groups of women on Factor I was not
rejected (F = .74, p.: .56).

Hypothesis 10. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of differences between two groups<rfwomen on Factor II indicated
no differences (F - 1.87, p_: .11).

Hypothesis 11. The overall multivariate test of the hypothe-
sis of differences between two groups of women on Factor III indi-
cated no differences (F - .76, p.: .58).

Time of Loss Effect (Tested by
Analysis of Variance)—

 

 

Null hypothesis 12: No differences will be found between women
who have lost their father early or late on the Perception
of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS).

 

Alternative hypothesis: Differences will be found between
women who have'lost their father early or late on the
Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS).

 

Hypothesis 12. The overall univariate test of the hypothe-
sis of no differences between two groups of women on the Perception
of Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS) was not rejected (F = .79,
p.: .38).

120

Summary of Causal-Comparative
Hypotheses' Tests

 

 

A summary of detected group differences is presented in
Table 4.2. Hypothesis four was rejected. Differences between groups
were found on a measure of satisfaction with parents' marital rela-
tionships. Women from divorcees' homes reported almost twice as
much discrepancy between their ideal marriage and the way their
parents behaved toward each other. Trends in the hypotheses testing
results for nonsignificant differences will be presented in the
section Univariate Analyses of Multivariates Used in Testing Hypo-

theses later in this chapter.

Correlational Hypotheses

 

A Pearson's correlation was done between the Children's
Reports of Parental Behavior, subscales one through eighteen; the
Phenomenological Fathering Scale, Ideal, Real, and Discrepancy form;
the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale, Discrepancy
scale; the Recall of Parental Divorce Scale, Factors I through III;
and the Perception of Parental Death Scale, eight and ten item
forms. One hundred and eighty-one subjects' data described pre-
viously in this chapter were used.

A correlation represents the degree to which two variables
vary together. A positive correlation indicates that as one variable
increases, the other does likewise. A negative correlation indi-
cates that as one variable's value increases, the other's decreases.
The square of the correlation represents the true variance or the

percent of variance that is accounted for by the relationship

121

TABLE 4,2,.mAnalysis of Co-Variance of Group Differences' Results

 

 

Hypothesis F p Null Rejected
1 2.10 2.19 No
2 1.69 .07 No
3 1.67 .09 No
4 8.04 .0072 Yes
5 .81 .61 No
6 .30 .93 No
7 1.21 .31 No
8 .83 .36 No
9 .74 .56 No

10 1.87 .11 No
11 .76 .58 No
12 .79 .38 No

 

122

between the two factors. Thus, while a correlation of .6 may be
considered significant, the relationship between the factors
accounts for only 36% of the variance between them.

Thus, a correlation of 0 indicates that no relationship
between the factors exists, a correlation of O to + or - .39 was
labeled extremely poor; .4 to .59 + or - was considered weak or
poor; .6 to .79 + or - was considered fair to good; and .8 to 1.0
+ or - was considered good to excellent or strong.

The correlation matrix is in Appendix F. Item composition,
title and factor placement of each of Schaffer's scales one through
eighteen follows in Appendix C.

Hypotheses 13 thropgh 15--Relation-

ship Between the CRPBI, PPMRS,
and PFS

 

 

Null hypothesis 13: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor [(Acceptance versus Rejection)
on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI)-paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering Scale
(PFS), and Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scales (PPMRS) for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejection)
on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior Inventory
(CRPBI)-paternal form, Phenomenological Fathering Scale
(PFS), and Perception of Parental Marital Relationship
Scales (PPMRS) for college-age women.

 

Null hypothesis 14: No relationships will be found between
each othhe scales of Factor II (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI-paternal
form, PFS, and PPMRS for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI-paternal
form, PFS, and PPMRS for college-age women.

 

123

Null hypothesis 15: No relationships will be found between
each 6f the scales Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) of the CRPBI-paternal form, PFS, and the PPMRS.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) of the CRPBI-paternal form, PFS, and the PPMRS.

 

Hypothesis 13. The results reported are by scales comprising
Schaffer's Factor I. As reported in Table 4.3 the relationships
between each of six variables of Factor I and the Real form of the
PFS and Factor I are significant (P f .001) but fair to good. The
alpha for significance was set at .008 or less by dividing .05
by 6 (the number of variables in the relevant factor, 6 in the case
of Factor I). See previous discussion in Chapter III on the addi-
tive nature of alpha levels in the case of multiple tests. Accept-
ance, Positive Involvement, Acceptance of Individuation, and Hostile
Detachment were more strongly correlated to the Real form of the
PFS than were other Schaffer scales. These correlations were nega-
tive and moderate.

As reported in Table 4.4 the relationship between scales of
Factor I and the Discrepancy form of the PFS are significant
(P §_.001) and fair to good. Schaffer's scales, Acceptance, Posi-
tive Involvement, Acceptance of Individuation, and Hostile Detachment
were most strongly correlated to the Discrepancy form of the PFS.
These correlations were good and positive, except for Acceptance
which was moderate.

The relationship between scales of Factor I and the Ideal

form of the PFS is very poor and not significant. See Appendix E.

124

TABLE 4.3.--Significant Relationships Between Each of the Scales of
Schaffer's Factor I and the Real Form of the PFS

 

 

Schaffer's Scale Correlation Relationship
Schaffer 1

(Acceptance) -.77* Good
Schaffer 2

(Child Centeredness) -.59* Weak
Schaffer 4

(Rejection) .52* Weak
Schaffer 7

(Positive Involvement) -.68* Moderate
Schaffer 3

(Acceptance of Individuation) -.66* Moderate

Schaffer l6

(Hostile Detachment) .67* Moderate

 

*Significant at the .001 level.

TABLE 4.4.--Significant Relationships Between each of the Scales of
Schaffer's Factor I and the Discrepancy Form PFS

 

 

Schaffer's Scale Correlation Relationship
Schaffer 1

(Acceptance) .77* Moderate
Schaffer 2

(Child Centeredness) .60* Fair
Schaffer 4

(Rejection) -.67* Fair
Schaffer 7

(Positive Involvement) .81* Good
Schaffer 3

(Acceptance of Individuation) .83* Good
Schaffer l6

(Hostile Detachment) -.69* Good

 

*Significant at the .001 level.

125

In summary, the Real and Discrepancy forms of the PFS are
related to the scales of Factor I of the CRPBI. The Discrepancy
form of the PFS was most strongly and positively related, particularly
to Positive Involvement and Acceptance of Individuation. The null
is rejected for the relationship between the Real and Discrepancy
forms of the PFS and the scales of CRPBI Factor I, and the alterna-
tive accepted.

Hypothesis 14. In Table 4.5 results are reported by scales
comprising Scaffer's Factor 11. Significance was determined by an
alpha level of .01 or less (5 scales divided into .05). Four of the
scales composing Factor 11 are significantly related to the Dis-
crepancy form of the PFS. Control through Guilt is strongly nega-
tively correlated to the PFS. The correlation between the scale
measuring possessiveness and the Discrepancy form of the PFS is very
weak. All other correlations between the scales comprising the
CRPBI Factor 11 and the Discrepancy form of the PFS, the Ideal and
Real form of the PFS and the PPMRS are insignificant and very poor
to poor. No relationship exists between the whole Factor 11 and the
PFS and the PPMRS. There is a negative relationship between Factor
II's Control through Guilt, Control through Instilling Persistent
Anxiety, Hostile Control, and the Discrepancy PFS. The null is
rejected for parts of the relationship between the Discrepancy form
of the PFS and Factor II. Relationships between the Ideal and Real
PFS were insignificant and poor to very poor. The null is partially

rejected, alternative partially accepted.

126

TABLE 4.5.--Relationships Between Schaffer's Factor II and the
Discrepancy Form PFS

 

Schaffer's Scale Correlation Relationship

 

Schaffer 10

(Hostile Control -.69* moderate
Schaffer 9
(Control through Guilt) -.83* good

Schaffer 15
(Control through instilling

persistent anxiety) -.72* moderate
Schaffer ll

(Inconsistent Discipline) -.42** weak
Schaffer 3

(Possessiveness) .12 very weak

 

*Significant at the .001 level

**Significant at the .01 level

Hypothesis 15. In Table 4.6 the results are reported by
scales comprising Schaffer's Factor III. An alpha level of .008
or less was considered significant (.05 divided by 6). There is a
fair to weak significant relationship between two of the scales
comprising Factor III and the Discrepancy form of the PFS. No
relation between all of the scales and factor III exists; however,
a weak relationship exists for some of the scales comprising Factor

III. The null hypothesis was retained.

127

TABLE 4.6.—-Re1ationships between Schaffer's Factor III and the
Discrepancy Form PFS

 

 

Schaffer's Scale Correlation Relationship
Schaffer 6

(Enforcement) -.51** weak
Schaffer 17

(Withdrawal of Relations) -.62* fair
Schaffer 18

(Extreme Autonomy) -.59 fair
Schaffer 5

(Control) -.42 weak

Schaffer 12
(Nonenforcement) .25 very weak

Schaffer l4
(Lax Discipline) .19 very weak

 

*Significant at the .001 level.

**Significant at the .01 level.

Hypotheses 16 through 18--Re1ation-
shipyBetween the CRPBI,—PFS,_PPMRS,
and the Perception of Parental
Death Scale_(PPDS)

 

 

 

 

Null hypothesis 16: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejec-
tion) of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and Per-
ception of Parental Death Scale for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor 1 (Acceptance versus Rejec-
tion) of the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and Per-
ception of Parental Death Scale for college-age women.

 

Null hypothesis 17: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor II (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI paternal form,
PFS, PPMRS, and Perception of Parental Death Scale for
college-age women.

 

128

Null hypothesis 18: No relationship will be found between each
of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Con-
trol) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and Percep-
tion of Parental Death Scale PPDS) for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and
Perception of Parental Death Scale PPDS) for college-age
women.

 

Hypothesis 16. The correlations between all the scales that
make up Schaffer's Factor I, the Phenomenological Fathering Scale
(CPFS), Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS)
and the Perception of Parental Death Scale, eight and ten item
versions, were extremely poor to poor and not significant. The null
hypothesis is not rejected.

Hypothesis 17. The correlation between all the scales that
make up Schaffer's Factor II, the PFS, PPMRS, and the Perception of
Parental Death Scale (PPDS) both the eight and ten item versions were
extremely poor to poor and not significant. The null hypothesis is
not rejected, alternative not accepted.

Hypothesis 18. The correlation between all the scales that
make up Schaffer's Factor III, the PFS, PPMRS, and the PPDS both
eight and ten item versions were extremely poor to poor and not
significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected, the alternative
not accepted.

Hypothesis 19 through 21--Re1ation-
ship Between the CRPBI, PFS, PPMRS,

god the Recalled Parental Divorce
Scale (RPDS)

 

 

 

 

Null hypothesis 19: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus Rejec-
tion) on the Children's Reports of Parental Behavior,

 

129

(CRPBI), paternal form, the Perception of Parental
Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS), and the Recalled
Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for college women.

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor I (Acceptance versus
Rejection) on the Children's Reports of Parental Behav-
ior, (CRPBI), paternal form, the Perception of Parental
Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS), and the Recalled
Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS) for college women.

 

Null hypothesis 20: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor 11 (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI paternal
form, PFS, PPMRS, and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale
(RPDS), for college-age women.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor 11 (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) on the CRPBI paternal form,
PFS, PPMRS, and Recalled Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS),
for college-age women.

 

Nullhypothesis 21: No relationships will be found between
each of the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm
Control) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and RPDS.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Relationships will be found between
each of—the scales of Factor III (Lax Control versus
Firm Control) on the CRPBI paternal form, PFS, PPMRS, and
RPDS.

 

Hypothesis 19. The correlation between all the scales that
compose Schaffer's Factor I, the PFS, PPMRS, and scales of the
Recalled Parental Divorce Scale were extremely poor to poor and not
significant. The null hypothesis is not rejected, alternative not
accepted.

Hypothesis 20. The correlation between all the scales that
compose Schaffer's Factor II, the PFS, PPMRS, and scale of the RPDS
were extremely poor to poor and not significant. The null hypothesis

is not rejected, alternative not accepted.

130

Hypothesis 21. The correlation between all the scales that
compose Schaffer's Factor III, the PFS, PPMRS, and the scales of the
RPDS were extremely poor to poor and not significant. The null

hypothesis is not rejected, alternative not accepted.

Summary of Correlational Hypothesis Testing

A summary of scale relationships is presented in Table 4.7.
There were no relationships between the death, divorce, or parental
marital relationship scales. There was no relationship between
the Ideal form of the PFS and any other scales. There were
relationships between the Real form of the PFS and CRPBI-Factor II
but to no other scales used in the study. The Discrepancy form of
the PFS correlated to Factor I well and partially to Factors II and
III of the CRPBI

Summary of Hypothesis Testing

 

The hypothesis tests supported eighteen null hypotheses,
failed to support one null hypothesis and partially failed to support
three null hypotheses. Analysis of variance techniques were used to
test differences between groups stated in null hypotheses one through
twelve. One hypothesis, stating no difference between women from
intact, widowed, and divorced homes on Perception of Parental Marital
Relationship Scale was rejected. Women from divorced homes expressed
much greater dissatisfaction with their parents' marital relationships.

A Pearson Correlational matrix was used to test the remaining

null hypothesis, thirteen through twenty-one. These hypotheses

131

 

 

oz oz Loom zgo>ugooo mwmozuooxz cw __< Fm oz
oz oz Loon zeo>ugooo mwmocuoozz cw FP< om o:
oz oz goon Ago>-gooo mwmmzpoozz ow PP< mp o:
oz oz Loom zgo>icooo mwmozuooz: c_ FP< mp o:
oz oz Loom zgm>ucooo mwmwzuooaz cw FF< up o:
oz oz goo; zgo>ugooo mmmozpoo»: cw __< op o:
oz Looo zeo>ugooo moo PoooH oco pooz op HHH gouooz
mo> ,
oz mopoom oEom goo Lwomuxooz moo zooooogomwo o“ HHH gouoom
oz Loom zgm>-cooo who oco HHH gopoom op mmzoo mp o:
oouoonom mm” Loom aco>ueooo moo Egon PoooH oco Fooz op HH gmwmoz
zPFoproo moFoom msom com ooom op Lwom zooooogomwo oco Foam ou HH Louooz
oz Loom zeo>-eooa mum new HH coouaa co magma a_ 0:
oouoowmz oz Loom zeo>ngooo moo Ego; PoooH ow H gouoom
>F_owucoo mo> ooowigwou who zocoomgomwo ooo Fooz ou H gouooz
oz L8a zeo>-eooa man can H Loooma oo mmzaa mp 0:
mwmozooozz F—oz acoowmwcowm :owpo_mggou momozuooxz ow mopoom mmmoguoozz

 

mawnmcowpmpwm w—mum we cowHGCwmem PocowumprLOU $0 mH—zmmmul.n .¢ m4m<._.

132

examined the relationships between the instruments. A null hypothe-
sis stating no relationship between the scales comprising Factor I
of the CRPBI, the PFS, and the PPMRS, found three good, one moderate,
and two fair significant correlations between Schaffer's scales and
the Discrepancy form of the PFS. Also, there were one good, three
moderate, and three weak significant correlations between Schaffer's
Factor I scales and the Real form of the PFS. The aspects of that
hypothesis that involved the relationship between the Real and Dis-
crepancy forms of the PFS to the Schaffer were rejected. No other
aspects of the expected no relationships were rejected.
Additionally, two scales in Schaffer's Factor II correlated
good to moderate with the Discrepancy form of the PFS. All other

aspects of the hypothesis were not rejected.

Supplementary Analyses

 

The following analyses were done to further clarify data.
These analyses were not part of the stated hypotheses tests but were
relevant to the area of interest addressed in this study.

Multivariate Analysis of Differences
Between Two Loss Groups

 

 

A multivariate analysis was done to determine if there were
any differences between the ways in which the women from widowed
homes and the women from divorcees' homes responded to Schaffer's
scales, the Phenomenological Fathering Scale and the Perception of
Parental Marital Relationship Scale. The multivariate on all twenty

factors indicated significant differences between the two groups when

133

all factors were considered together (F = 2.08, p §_.O38). With a
more rigorous level of significance (.05 divided by 20, i.e., .0025),
no univariates were significant. Given the significance of the
multivariate done on all the scales, further analyses of variance
were done to determine where differences might be across Schaffer's
factors, the Phenomenological Fathering Scale, and the Perception

of Parental Marital Relationship Scale.

Factor I multivariate analysis results were not significant,
no differences (F - 1.83, p.: .09) between groups. Factor II multi-
variate analysis also indicated no differences, paralleling pre-
vious multivariates done to test hypotheses dealing with differences
between three groups (F = 1.88, p §_.ll). Both do, however, suggest
trends.

In contrast to similarity in outcome of the two group multi-
variates to the three group multivariates in finding no differences
on Factor I and II, the multivariates comparing the two groups on
report of Lax Control versus Firm Control, Factor III, a significant
difference (F = 3.34, p.: .01) was found.

Outcome of the univariate analysis of the scales composing
Factor III are in Table 4.8.

Rigorous standards require that the level of significance be
.01 (.05 divided by the number of univariates, 5). The women signifi-
cantly differ on the scale measuring Extreme Autonomy. Responses to
items on the Schaffer were scored 0 for like, 1 for somewhat like,

and 2 for not like, thus the higher the score the least like, and

134

TABLE 4.8.--Univariate An313’sis of Factor III Multivariate Test of
Differences Between Two Groups

 

 

Variate F Significance of F (p < .01)
Schaffer 5

(Control) 4.53 .039

Schaffer 6

(Enforcement) 3.20 .080

Schaffer 12
(Nonenforcement) 6.35 .015

Schaffer l4
(Lax Discipline) .82 .37

Schaffer 18
(Extreme Autonomy) 10.03 .003

 

the lower the score, the more like the particular factor is seen to
be relevant to father. As seen in Table 4.9, the death group women
reported significantly fewer paternal behaviors giving them Extreme

Autonomy than the divorce group women.

TABLE 4.9.--Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee
Homes on Rating of Paternal Extreme Autonomy
(Number of scale items is 8)

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Death 11.85 4.00 20
Divorce 7.75 4.70 28

 

Scales not meeting the more rigorous standards of significance but

of interest in pointing to trends are scales 12 (p §_.015) and

135

5 (p_: .04). As seen in Table 4.10, women from divorcee's homes
report more, though not significant, paternal nonenforcement than

those from widowed homes.

TABLE 4.lO.-—Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee's
Homes on Rating of Paternal Nonenforcement
(Number of scale items is eight)

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Death 12.9 3.39 20
Divorce 10.5 3.16 28

 

Women from widowed homes scored higher though not signifi-
cantly on paternal control than those women from divorcee's homes.

See Table 4.11.

TABLE 4.11.--Differences Between Women from Widowed and Divorcee's
Homes on Rating of Paternal Control (Number of scale

 

 

items is 8)
Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Death 8.8 2.67 20
Divorce 10.93 3.85 28

 

Finally, as in the results of the hypothesis testing, the
two groups of women differed significantly from one another on the
PPMRS (F = 7.17, p.: .007). Referral to hypothesis 4 will explain

the differences further.

136

Multivariate Analysis of Differences
Between Two Groups, Loss and No Loss

 

 

A multivariate analysis was done to determine if there were
any differences between the ways in which the women from fatherless
homes (wodows' and divorcees' daughters combined) and the women from
father present homes responded to Schaffer's Children's Reports of
Parental Behavior, the Phenomenological Fathering Scale, and the
Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale. The multivariate
on all twenty factors indicated significant differences between the
two groups when all factors were considered together (F = 1.92,

p < .03). Again, with a more rigorous test, the significance level
was .0025, and no univariates were significant. Further analysis of
Schaffer's three factors, the Phenomenological Fathering Scale and
the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale were done.

Schaffer's Factor I multivariate analysis results were not
significant; no differences between groups (F - 2.03, p §_.16).
Factor II multivariate analysis also indicated no differences
(F - 1.33, p_: .26). Finally, Factor III also was insignificant,
no differences (F - .63, 9.: .67). Differences between the two
groups on the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale were
significant (F - 5.41, p §_.02). For further examination, refer to
hypothesis 4 results, cited previously.

Univariate Analyses of Multivariates
Used for Testipg Hypotheses

 

 

Although only one null hypothesis examining differences

between groups was not rejected, trends within the univariate of

137

analyses are of interest. In particular, scales comprising Schaffer's
Factor II (Psychological Control versus Autonomy) and Factor III (Lax
versus Firm Control) are suggestive of trends in differences in per-
ception of father between women from divorcee's homes, widowed, and
intact homes. The univariates for both factors, used to test hypo-

theses 2 and 3 are presented in Tables 4.12 and 4.13.

TABLE 4.12.--Univariate Tests for Family-Father Effect Differences
Between Three Groups on the CRPBI Factor II

 

 

Variate F Significance of F
Scale 3 3.45 .037
(Possessiveness)

Scale 8 2.80 .067

(Intrusiveness)

Scale 9 .33 .721
(Control through Guilt)

Scale 10 .96 .386
(Hostile Control)

Scale 11 .92 .404
(Inconsistent Discipline)

Scale 15 .36 .696
(Instilling Persistent Anxiety)

 

138

TABLE 4.13.--Univariate Test for Family-Father Effect Differences
Between Three Groups on the CRPBI Factor III

 

 

Variate F Significance of F
Scale 5 2.82 .067
(Control)

Scale 6 1.71 .189
(Enforcement)

Scale 12 2.93 .059
(Nonenforcement)

Scale 14 .49 .612

(Lax Discipline)

Scale 18 5.32 .007
(Extreme Autonomy)

 

The following three are of special interest--18 because of
its significance under rigorous standards and 3 and 12 giving their

significance under less rigorous criteria.

Schaffer 3l(Possessiveness).-—There is a trend for women
whose fathers left because of divorce to rate their fathers as less
possessive than the similarly responding intact and death group
(F - 3.45, p §_.037). See Table 4.14. The biggest difference again

was between the widows' and divorcees' daughters.

Schaffer 18(Extreme Autonomy).--There is a trend for women
who have lost their fathers by death to report that their fathers
were less granting and encouraging of autonomy than the intact and
divorce group (F = 5.33, p §_.OO7). See Table 4.15. While the
intact group and the divorce group have more similar means and dis-

tributions than the death and divorce groups, the divorce group is

139

TABLE 4.14.--Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
Scale 3 (Possessiveness)

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Intact 9.84 3.42 25
Death 9.20 2.31 20
Divorce 11.39 3.07 28
Whole

Sample 10.26 3.12 73

 

TABLE 4.15.--Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
CRPBI Factor III Scale 18 (Extreme Autonomy)

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Intact 9.28 4.06 25
Death 11.85 4.00 20
Divorce 7.75 4.70 28
Whole

Sample 9.40 4.55 73

 

140

significantly more likely to agree that father allowed them autonomy

compared to the whole sample.

Schaffer 12 (Nonenforcement).--There is a trend for the

 

divorce group to indicate that their fathers were more nonenforcing
than women from widowed and intact homes (F = 2.94, p §_.059).
See Table 4.16. Again, the biggest difference was between the

widows' and divorcees' daughters.

TABLE 4.16. Differences Between Three Groups' Means on Schaffer's
Scale 12 (Nonenforcement)

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation 95% Confidence Interval N
Intact 11.24 3.69 9.72 - 12.76 25
Death 12.90 3.39 11.32 - 14.48 20
Divorce 10.50 3.16 9.27 - 11.72 28
Whole

Sample 11.41 3.5 10.60 - 12.23 73

 

Schaffer 5 (Control, F = 2.82, p < .O7),Schaffer 2(Child -

 

Centeredness, F = 2.76, p < .07), Schaffer 17 (Withdrawal of Rela-

 

tions, F = 2.45, py< .O9).--There is a trend found in examination

 

of the means for scales for divorcees' daughters to report their
fathers less controlling than intact and widowed home women. See
Tables 4.12 and 4.13. Widowed home women indicated a slightly more

controlling father than intact home women.

141

Fathers with a high degree of child centeredness were indi-
cated most by women whose fathers had died, the least by those women
who had lost their father by divorce when comparison of the means
was made. Intact home women tended to fall in between these scores
with more overlap with the divorce groups.

Comparisons of the means found Withdrawal of Relations as a
form of control was rated as more likely to be used by fathers of
women from intact homes, and not as likely from women from widowed
or divorcee's homes.

Univariate of Interest in Exam-

Thing Difference in Time
of Loss

 

 

Although the multivariates examining time of loss were not
significant, one univariate, given the rigorous test of significance,
suggests a trend of interest. See Tables 4.17. The Discrepancy
Score of the Phenomenological Father Scale suggests some differences,
though not significant (F - 3.91, p.: .055) with women who had
experienced an early loss reporting more satisfaction with their
fathers. See Table 4.18.

No univariates connected with hypotheses about theiimpact
of the absence or presence of an older brother suggested any differ-

ence.

Supplementary Analysis:
Summary

The multivariate analysis of differences between two groups

of women differing on cause of paternal loss paralleled with one

142

TABLE 4.17.--Univariate Tests for Time of Loss Effect Difference

Between Two Groups on the Discrepancy Score of the
PFS and CRPBI Factor I

 

 

Variate F Significance of F
Scale 1 .58 .451

Scale 2 .002 .966

Scale 4 .59 .446

Scale 7 .51 .478

Scale 13 1.57 .220

Scale 16 .06 .810

Scale 17 2.13 .15
Discrepancy PFS 3.19 .055

 

TABLE 4.18.--Differences Between Women with Early and Late Paternal
Loss on the Discrepancy Score of the Phenomenological
Fathering Scale

 

 

Group Mean Standard Deviation (N)
Late 71.98 47.76 22
(Loss between

7 and 11)
Early 45.22 35.15 18

(Loss between
4 and 7)

 

143

exception the findings of multivariates analysis of the three groups
discussed previously in hypothesis testing. Although multivariate
hypothesis testing results examining differences on Factor III, Lax
versus Firm Control, were not sufficient when done on three groups,
with the intact group eliminated, differences were significant. In
particular, univariate analysis showed the scale Extreme Autonomy to
be highly significant in pointing up differences between the widowed
and divorcee's home daughters. Divorcee's daughters reported their
fathers granting extreme autonomy significantly more than their
widows' daughters' counterparts. Additionally, trends, though not
significant due to rigorous standards for determining significance,
suggest daughters from divorcee's homes report their fathers more
nonenforcing, and less controlling, possessive, and enforcing than
daughters from widowed homes.

Multivariate tests performed for hypothesis testing that
were not significant provided univariates that suggested trends. In
particular, women whose fathers had died indicated that their fathers
were less encouraging of extreme autonomy. While the intact and
divorcee's home daughters were similar in portraying father as more
extreme autonomy granting, the divorcees' daughters' fathers were
reported as more so. Women with paternal loss again demonstrate the
most difference when reporting paternal nonenforcement. Divorcee's
home women tend to indicate father was more nonenforcing than the
widow's daughters, while intact home daughters portray father in the

middle. Paternal control and child centeredness were similarly

144

divided, with intact women reporting their father's behavior in
between the reports of the women with paternal loss. Women from
widowed homes perceive their fathers as more child centered and
controlling than women from divorcee's homes. In contrast, the trend
in withdrawal of relations is that women with paternal loss report
much less of this tactic than intact home women. The Discrepancy
Score of the Phenomenological Fathering Score suggests a trend for
women with an early loss to score much lower, i.e., that their
fathers were closer to their ideal father concept, than those with

a later paternal loss.

Summary

Multivariate tests were performed to test differences between
women. Independent factors hypothesized about and tested were intact-
ness (three groups of women), those from father present, widowed,
and divorcee's homes; presence of an older brother (two groups),
those with an older brother and those without; and time of loss
(two groups), those whose fathers were lost early (ages 4 through 7)
and late (ages 7 through 11). Group differences were tested on the
following dependent variables: Schaffer's Children's Reports of
Parental Behavior Inventory (CRPBI), paternal form, each of the
eighteen scales comprising three factors derived from a factor
analysis: the Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS), Discrepancy
Score; the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale; dis-
crepancy Score, Perception of Parental Death Scale (PPDS); and Recall

of Parental Divorce Scale (RPDS).

145

Each comparison was tested by multivariate test at the .05
alpha level. Alpha level for the univariates was determined by the
number of scales making up the factor of interest. There were no
significant differences between the groups on the dependent variables
except in how women from intact, divorcee's and widowed homes responded
to the Perception of Parental Marital Relationship Scale. While
women from intact and widowed homes responded similarly, women from
divorced homes scored dramatically higher, reporting much more dis-
similarity between their view of an ideal marriage and their parents

A Pearson Correlational matrix was used to examine the rela-
tionship of the dependent variables. One hypothesis stating no
relationship between Factor I of Schaffer's CRPBI and the PFS, and
the PPMRS was partially rejected. All six of the scales composing
Factor I were significantly correlated to the iscrepancy form of
the PFS, three were good, one moderate, and two fair. Rea1 form
correlations with Factor I paralleled though less strongly.

Supplementary analysis of differences between women whose
fathers died and those whose fathers divorced found significant dif-
ferences on the PPMRS and Factor III (Lax versus Firm Control).
Women from divorcee's homes indicated more lax paternal control
while women from widowed homes indicated more firm control. Trends
in the univariate analysis agreed that the divorced fathers were
more autonomy granting and less child centered than the fathers of
intact and widowed homes. In their report of paternal use of with-
drawal of relations as a method of control, there was a trend for

the loss group to similarly indicate less paternal use of such a

146

method than girls from intact homes. This is the one incidence in

the study where the loss groups appeared more similar to each other

in contrast to the intact home group.

The hypothesis testing supported seventeen null hypotheses

and failed to support one. Two hypotheses were partially supported.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary
The Problem

 

An increasing rate of divorce in this country has given rise
to a growing concern about the effects of father absence on child
development. Numerous studies have been done with conflicting
results about the possible adverse effects of paternal absence on the
developing child. A large problem in the literature is the failure
to consider the type of father lost. Often there is a confounding
effect of the single mother with father absence. Additionally, little
research has addressed the importance of the father-daughter relation-
ship. A few recent studies examining the father-daughter relation-
ship suggest that the father has a significant impact on his daughter
even in absentia. No research on retrospective reports of father
has been published comparing and contrasting women from intact,
widowed, and divorcee's homes. Finally, little has been done to
extensively examine Childrens' reports of parental marital relation-

ship and its relationship to recall of fathering practice.

Design and Method
The purpose of this investigation was to compare young

women's reports of their fathers on a number of dimensions, and to

147

148

see how this sense of their father is affected by the loss of father,

manner of loss, the woman's age at time of loss, presence of an

older brother, and perception of the parental marital relationship.
Dependent variables used in this study were created to

assess differences in sense of father, parents'marital relationship,

relationship with the dead parent and events occurring around the

divorce. Additionally, the dependent variables were measured by the

eighteen scales of Schaffer's Childrens'Reports of Parental Behavior

Inventory (CRPBI). A factor analysis on the Schaffer scales was

done. Three factors with eigen values greater than one emerged and

were similar to previous analyses. These factors were very similar to

Schaffer's and, therefore, given labels Schaffer had already devised.

Hoyt reliability coefficients for the measures used and created were:

Schaffer's Children's Reports of Parents Behavior Inventory (CRPBI),

scales comprising Factor I ranging from .93 to .84, Factor 11 .85 to

.84, and Factor III .80 to .72; Phenomenological Fathering Scale (PFS);

Real Form .88, Ideal Form .82 and Discrepancy Form .97; Perception

of Parental Marital Relationship Scale (PPMRS), Rea1 Form .77,

Idea1 Form .61, and Discrepancy Form .95; Perception of Parental

Death Scale, eight-item version .76; Recalled Parental Divorce

Scale .64, Factor I .59, Factor'II.45, and Factor III .43.

Results
Analyses of variance, multiple univariates, with comparisons
between women on a number of independent factors, and a Pearson

Correlational Matrix, with examination of the relationship among

149

the dependent variables were the statistical models used to analyze
the data and test the hypotheses. Supplementary analyses were per-
formed to explore multivariate effects and other possible group
differences.

The analyses of variance supported eleven out of twelve null
hypotheses. No differences were found between women on all but one
independent (intactness of home) and one dependent variable (PPMRS).
Women from intact, widowed, and divorcee's homes report different
perceptions of their parent's marital relationship, the most sig-
nificant difference being that widowed home females see their
parent's relationship as much closer to an ideal relationship than
do women from divorcee's homes.

The Correlational Matrix supported six of the null hypothe-
ses (13 through 21). That is, no relationship was found between
tests, except for two. There were weak to good significant corre-
lations between the scales of Schaffers' Factor I and the Real and
Discrepancy Forms of the Phenomenological Fathering scale. Also,
there were weak to good significant relations between some of the
scales comprising Factor II and the Discrepancy Form of the Phenomeno-
logical Fathering Scale.

Further, supplementary multivariate analyses demonstrated no
differences between women whose fathers had died and those whose
fathers had divorced on Schaffer's Factors I and Factor II. However,
there was a significant difference in the report of father on Factor

III (Lax versus Firm Discipline). On the scale measuring Extreme

150

Autonomy, divorcees' daughters perceived their fathers as granting
them more than widows' daughters. Trends, though not significant,
suggested by univariate analyses of this multivariate suggest
divorcees' daughters report father as being more lax in his control
than do widows' daughters. Differences similar to those found pre-
viously occurred around perception of parental marital re1ationship.

Another supplementary multivariate was done to compare loss
with no loss women. No significant differences were found between
the women except similar differences found previously around the
issue of perception of parental relationship.

Finally, trends suggested in univariates, though not signifi-
cant, were reported. There seemed to be a general trend for women
from divorcee's homes to see their fathers as more separate from them
and less controlling especially in contrast to the reports of women
from widowed homes. Women from intact homes saw their father as
almost as involved as women from widowed homes. Women from intact
homes usually scored either in between the extremes represented by
the loss groups' paternal evaluation or closer to the widowed home
women, except on the scale measuring autonomy. In that instance
they were close to divorcees' daughters.

No differences were found between early and late paternal
loss groups, although there was a trend for early loss women to
report a more idealized perCeption of their father than late loss

women .

151

Limitations

 

Three major areas of limitation were considered relevant to
understanding this research. These limitations concern the char-

acteristics of the subjects, design, and the nature of the measures.

Subjects

Since it was not possible to gather a large enough loss
group by collecting data from the general college population
samples, 75% of the women comprising the loss group were found by
the Michigan State University newspaper's classified advertisement
section. These were the only women to be paid or solicited in this
fashion. Also, these women were primarily from Michigan State
University in contrast to the other no loss group of women coming
primarily from Illinois State University. These factors suggest
possible subject differences other than simple father loss and the
effects of loss. It may well be that paid Michigan State subjects
gathered from a newspaper and volunteer, or college credit subjects
from Illinois State University, Central Michigan University and Suny
College at Brockport would respond differently to a lengthy, somewhat
repetitive questionnaire regardless of loss.

Secondly, the selection of women from the four universities
and the means by which they were recruited was not random and cannot
be generalized to women in the four universities, or university women
or women in the general population. A cautionary note must also be
added that all the women were Caucasion, had not had intensive psy-

chotherapy, were 18 to 22 and had had a father in the home until age 4.

152

By applying the Cornfield-Tukey (1956) bridge arguments concerning
the similarity of the study sample and general population, the reader
may generalize these findings to other populations with similar charac-
teristics.

Thirdly, differences between the three groups in perception
of parents' marriages may be partially due to the differences in socio-
economic levels indicated in Chapter III. Given the higher education
level of the divorced mothers, there could be an increase in sophisti-
cation contributing to the de-idealization of parental marital rela-
tionship. There is evidence (Hess & Torney, 1962; Kohn & Caroll, 1960)
in the literature that as socio-economic level lowers, parental sex role
expectations become more stereotyped and rigid. Additionally, discipline
practices change from talk and withdrawal of love to physical punishment.
However, socio-economic differences are not that great; all subjects
in the sample were in college.

Lastly, the small number of loss subjects nay have contrib-
uted to imprecision and a decrease in the power of the analysis of
variance to show significant differences. This possibility is par—
ticularly likely given the trends, especially among the univariates.
Also, the more rigorous standards of significance given the large
number of univariates in conjunction with the small number in each
group suggests insufficient power. Discussion of the effects of

too small a sample size will be addressed further in the next section.

Design and Methodology

 

Some limitations are inherent in correlational research and

causal-comparative research. While the correlational approach to the

153

instruments permitted the measurement of several variables and their
interrelationships simultaneously and got at the degrees of the
relationship between the scales, there were several limitations.

The most important limitation was the inability to prove causation;
that although as one measure changes, another changes, it is impossi-
ble to assess if or how the factors measured have caused one of the
other. Also, even in the strongest correlations, there was some
variance unexplained by the relationship between variables.

The limitations surrounding the use of causal-comparative
research include the same inability to study cause and effect
relations directly and the importance, therefore, of caution in
interpreting causation. Limitations connected to this type of
research are the following (Issac & Michael, 1971):

(1) Within the limits of selection, facts must be taken
where they are found, there are no opportunities to
arrange conditions or manipulate variables that influ-
enced facts in the first place.

The occurrence of death and divorce in these women's lives
was not random; initial factors leading to these occurrences could
not be controlled; other explanations can account for the results
obtained.

(2) There is difficulty in being certain that the relevant
factor is actually being included among factors included
in the study.

Thus, information about the availability and closeness of
other male figures in the different loss groups' homes, the amount
of change in standard of living with the paternal loss, change in

maternal role following the loss and other factors not included also

could account for group differences.

154

(3) Complication in understanding results due to no single
factor being causative in the outcome but rather some com-
bination and interaction of factors that go together under
certain conditions.

In other words, a number of factors may account for the dif-
ferences between the women, such as parental educational and occupa-
tional level, presence of an older brother, time of loss, and those
possibilities not accounted for in this design and suggested in
Number 2. All could possibly interact differently under varying

conditions.

(4) A phenomenon may result from one cause in one condition,
and another cause in another condition.

Women with paternal loss where their mother was happy in her
occupation, and the family income did not dr0p suddenly, may have
very different paternal perceptions than similar women with mothers
who have been forced to return to work at a job they disliked, etc.

(5) When a relationship between two variables is discovered
determining cause and effect is difficult.

In contrasting the differences in perception of paternal
behavior, it is difficult to know in the case of the divorcees'
daughters whether the perception of father as more distant, and more
irregular in his discipline was caused by the divorce situation, the
lessening of exposure to him or a part of his interpersonal style
responsible for the parental divorce. The untangling of the cause
and effect knot is more complicated when examining the differences
in mother and father economic and educational level across groups
and how these differences may have caused or been the effect of
differences in reporting father behavior and parental marital

relationship.

155

(6) Classifying subjects into mutually exclusive groups [like
Intact, Death, and Divorce] is fraught with problems since
such a classification may be variable and transitory. Such
investigations may not yield useful findings about other
groups [like earlier loss, step parent homes, etc.].

In an attempt to avoid confounding variables, the researcher
decided to look at differences between mutually exclusive groups.
Cases of remarriage, divorce, and subsequent death of father, older
and younger age of loss women are not included, and could be examined
in future modified studies.

(7) Comparative studies in natural situations do not permit
the random selection of subjects to different situations,
making it difficult to have groups who are similar in all
respects except their exposure to one variable.

This is a flaw examined previously, that more than the simple
factor of father presence, death, or divorce accounts for differ-
ences, but that previous situations leading to loss and preceding

loss which cannot be controlled might account for differences.

Measures

The dependent variables in this investigation also had spe-
cific limitations. The scales were designed to measure perception
of parental behaviors in retrospect. Differences in the way the
groups responded may not necessarily reflect the way parents actu-
ally behaved. In fact, research has shown that when parents and
children take retrospective parenting scales, they differ widely in
what they report (see Chapter 11).

Additionally, the scales may not reflect differences in memory
or perception, but different ideas in what an ideal father is or

personality differences in needs to be evaluation as socially

156

acceptable, i.e., having a good father. Therefore, there are validity
issues. These issues are modified by the fact that researchers

cited previously have found group differences in responding to retro-
spective parenting scales, especially Schaffer, suggesting some con-
current validity in those instances. Additionally, Wiess, Waller-
stein, and Hetherington's (1978 Symposium on Children of Divorce)
research on the relationship of the visiting father based on inter-
views and observation of children and their noncustodial parent
suggests that such a parent assumes a much less involved role. This
research reflects the results of this study, suggesting that the
scales may be measuring at least partially what they say they are
measuring.

The lack of shared items between the Ideal form and Real
forms factors that were evolved from factor analyses suggests that
the Ideal form may have been measuring a construct very different
from the other forms of the PFS and the CRPBI.

Issues involving reliability are relevant to some of the
scales. While the reliability of the Discrepancy form of the PFS
was good and the scale demonstrated an ability to discriminate dif-
ferences, the other forms, particularly the Ideal form of the PFS
may have been unable to discriminate because of their poorer relia-
bility.

The limitations of this study include possible threats to
validity and reliability as well as possible problems connected to

subjects and design. These limitations have resulted in lowered power

157

and precision, causing some of the multivariates' and univariates'

inability to reach statistical significance.

Discussion of the Results

 

Group Differences

 

The results indicated that there were differences between
the three groups on the PPMRS. While women from intact and widowed
homes tended to respond similarly, women from divorcees' homes had
much higher discrepancy scores between how they saw their parents
relating and what they felt was an ideal way for parents to relate.
Although the intact and widowed homes'daughters responded similarly,
there was a tendency for widows' daughters to report their parents'
relationship as being closest to their ideal, to have the lowest
discrepancy score.

These results are in contrast to a study by Landis (1960)
who found a majority of high school students of divorced parents
indicated that they thought their parents had been happily married,
and wished for a reconciliation. Interestingly, there were no dif-
ferences detected between the three groups on the PFS, suggesting
that while the groups differed in approving perception of parental
marital relationship, it did not follow that these differences were
reflected in approving perception of father. This runs contrary to
the notion presented in the literature cited in Chapter II, that a
satisfactory or unsatisfactory marital relationship would be

paralleled in the quality of the parenting re1ationship.

158

The lack of parallel between attitude toward parents' mar-
riage and father in the results lends credence to results presented

by Marvis Hetherington and Judith Wallerstein at the Wheelock College

-—-~‘——-:w-w.-"

1978 Symposium on Children of Divorce. Both researchers found that
the custodial parent-child relationship over time after divorce did
not often reflect the relationship preceding. Thus, the researchers
found instances where pre-divorce high quality father-child relation-
ships were replaced by poor and often non-existent post-divorce rela-
tionships, and vice versa. Also relevant, they found that often the
parenting relationship had nothing to do with the spouse relationship.
Frequently, they found situations where the parents related in very
negative, destructive ways with each other, but in close encouraging,
loving ways with their children.

The results indicated that no differences were detected
between a number of groups on the PPMRS, PFS, and CRPBI. Thus,
the results supported the hypotheses of no differences between
older brother/no older brother, and no differences between early
loss/no loss groups. An additional comparison with closeness and
importance of older brother may have produced an effect.

However, hypothesis testing concerning differences between
groups did suggest a trend, although not significant, for differ-
ences between groups on Schaffer's Factor 11 (Psychological Control
versus Psychological Autonomy) and Factor III (Firm versus Lax Con-
trol)of the CRPBI. In particular, each factor had a univariate that
pointed toward a difference, and in the case of a univariate of

Factor III, a significant difference. There was a trend for

159

divorcees to report their fathers as less possessive than intact
homes' and widows' daughters (a scale of Factor 111). Also, there
was a significantly higher report of Extreme Autonomy granting behav-
ior attributed to father by divorcees' daughters than by widows'
daughters. These results suggest that widows' daughters may have a
memory that their fathers were more protective and involved than the
way the divorcees' daughters perceived their living, separate fathers.
The former's report may in fact be a wish for the return for the
permanently lost father, in an exaggerated, idealized form (Tessman,
1978), and is reminiscent of Wallerstein's (1978) findings of an
image of the lost parent as being very involved in contrast to an
opposite reality. These results are also similar to case studies
of children whose fathers had died during World War II, cited in
Chapter II, in which children described their fathers as more giving
and available then they had been while alive. More simply, the
less autonomy granting and more possessiveness reported by widows'
daughters may reflect age appropriate fathering at the time of his
death. In contrast, those women whose fathers remained alive may
have continued to be increasingly autonomy granting and less posses-
sive as his daughter matured. Either explanation might plausibly
explain the trend for early loss women to report a more ideal father
than later loss women.

Finally, supplementary analysis between the widows' and
divorcees' daughters groups shows a significant difference on
Factor III (Lax Control versus Firm Control) of the CRPBI. Women

with divorced fathers reported him as significantly more granting

160

of extreme autonomy than did daughters with deceased fathers. There
also was a nonsignificant trend for widows' daughters to report their
fathers as more enforcing and controlling. Again, it would appear
that young women with deceased fathers may report him as more
involved, perhaps intrusively so, in contrast to the women with
divorced fathers who may appear almost neglectfully uninvolved in
limit setting and protectiveness. This latter perception could in
part be the outcome of the limited contact and noncustodial aspect of
the divorced father's relationship with his daughter (Hetherington,

1978).

Scale Relationships

 

The results indicated that there were limited significant
relationships between some of the scales. No significant relation-
ships existed between the CRPBI, and Idea1 factor of the PFS, PPMRS,
RPDS, and the PPDS. Neither was there a relationship between the
Discrepancy and Real forms of the PFS, PPMRS, RPDS, and the PPDS.
There were, however, limited relationships between the Discrepancy
and Real forms of the PFS and the scales of the CRPBI. The Discrep-
ancy form of the PFS correlated to scales of Factor I (Acceptance
versus Rejection) well and partially fair to good to factors of
Factors II (Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control) and

III (Firm versus Lax Control) of the CRPBI.

Implications for Future Research

 

A number of implications can be drawn from this research.

First, it is clear that young women who have experienced paternal

161
loss by death have a different image of their father and parents'
marriage than do the daughters of divorced fathers. A number of
changes in the methods and design could add to future studies'
ability to detect differences. One factor to be considered is an
increase in the number of subjects. Although subjects with paternal
loss were difficult to locate, particularly those with deceased
fathers, a larger number of subjects for each group, motivated in a
more similar manner to reduce alternative explanations for differ-
ences, would add power necessary to detect differences. Additionally,
a decrease in the number of dependent variables, selected according
to those scales that suggested trends, would increase the ability of
the tests to detect differences. The elimination of those scales
that could not significantly demonstrate differences would lower the
standards for determining the significance of a univariate to a less
severely rigorous standard. It would appear that the PFS is not in
its present form capable of discriminating differences, except for
time of loss effects, and is correlated enough with parts of the
CRPBI that it would be inefficient to use.

The above suggestions are relevant to the investigation of
differences due to time of loss. An increase in the number of sub-
jects would also allow an investigation of the effect of time across
the effect of cause of loss. It may be possible that young women
whose fathers have died while they were very young differ from those
daughters with late loss in their reports of paternal behavior and
parents' marriage, and that one group of these women may be more

similar to a late or early divorce group, etc.

162

It is also possible that the use of a factor anlaysis of the
discrepancy form of the PFS would have produced factors that paral-
leled those produced by the factor analysis of the Real form, in con-
trast to the lack of parallel between the Ideal and Real forms. Use
of scales produced by such a factor analysis might have given the PFS
the ability to detect differences, and possibly have added some
dimensions to the spectrum of parental behaviors measured by the CRPBI.

Additionally, continued analysis of the Recalled Parental
Divorce Scale (RPDS), forcing the number of factors into a smaller
number, might produce a scale that would produce reliable and valid
results. Differences in responding among women could be compared
with their responses to the CRPBI and the PPMRS. Effects of time
of loss could also be examined with a refined version of the scale.

Finally, a more detailed analysis of differences between
groups on individual items could provide interesting results, using
selected items that are especially sensitive, and could aid in pick-
ing up group differences.

Such instrument and method refinements could add to the inves-
tigation of how the phenomenological sense of father and parents'
marital relationship translate to behavior. Are there women within
each group that respond very differently than their peers to situa-
tions, and if so, what is their report of their fathers and parents'
marital relationship? In other words, in the striking results of
Mavis Hetherington's study cited in Chapter II, there were 15% of

each group who did not fit the pattern of relating to the male

163

interviewer. How were these women different in perception of their
fathers and parents' marital relationship?

Finally, some suggestions for future research come from the
desire of the women who experienced paternal loss to communicate
before or after taking the questionnaire. A large proportion of
women answering the advertismeent were emotional, expressing con-
tinued sadness at the loss of their father, eagerness in knowing if
the researcher had gotten any other responses, whether there were
others who had experienced loss and had these others talked with me
and if so, what these other women had shared, etc. Women who were
not eligible because the time of loss was either too early or too
late, but especially those with early loss, were interested in
taking the scale anyway, without pay. There were a number of women
whose fathers had died at very early ages who adamantly communicated
that although their father had died when they were 2, they vividly
remembered him. Clearly, there seemed to be some needs to try to
resolve their losses. The possibility of more in-depth interviews
of such women or the formation of a group of women with similar
losses could be enlightening for potential areas of research and of
possible psychological benefit to such women. Additionally, a
number of women who called and were not used had experience first
of a parental divorce and then, in a period of a few years, a
paternal death. It was assumed that not enough of these women could
be gathered, but at the end of data collection, it.was evident that

enough had reSponded that a separate group could have been formed.

164

Some of the comments that were written to the researcher are
in Appendix F and demonstrate both the need to communicate and pro-
tect paternal image.

The area of study concerned with the later impact of child-
hood paternal 1055 on women's feelings and memories would appear to
be important and fertile ground for continued investigation. Ques-
tions arise from this study about how such perceptions of father
might change as these women mature. More relevant practically are
issues about how these perceptions affect daily living and how this
information might be of use when working with children and families

of parting parents.

LIST OF REFERENCES

165

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alexander, T. The Adult-Child Interaction Test: A projective test
for use in research. Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment Monograph Series, 1952, 115 No. 2’TSeria1 No. 55).

 

 

Anderson, J. P. A study of the relationships between certain
aspects of parental behavior and attitudes and the behavior
of junior high school pupils. Teachers College Contribution
to Education, 1940, No. 809.

 

 

Andry, R. G. Faulty paternal- and maternal-child relationships,
affection and delinquency. British Journal of Delinguency,
1957, 8, 34-48.

Antony, D. J., & Koupernik, C. (eds). The child in his family:
children at psychiatric risk, Vol. III. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1974.

 

Ausubel, D. P., Balthazar, E. E., Rosenthal, I., Blackman, L. S.,
Schpoont, S. N., & Welkowitz, J. Perceived parent attitudes
as determinants of children's ego structure. Child Devel-
opment, 1954, 25, 173-183.

Bach, G. R. Father-fantasies and father-typing in father separated
children. Child Development, 1946, ll, 63-80.

 

Bane, M. J. Marital disruption and the lives of children. Journal
of Social Issues, 1976, 22(1).

 

Baxter, J. C., Horton, D. L., & Wiley, R. E. Father identification
as a function of the mother-father re1ationship. Journal of
Individual Psychology, 1964, 29, 167-171.

 

 

Bene, E., & Anthony, J. Manual for the Family Relations Test.
London, W. I. (79 Wimpole St.): National Foundation for
Educational Research in England and Wales, 1957.

 

Benson, L. Fatherhood: A Sociological Perspective. New York:
Random House,hl968.

166

167

Biller, H. B. Father, child and sex role: lpaternal determinants of
personality development. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books,
1971.

. Paternal deprivation: family, school, sexuality and
society. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976.

, & Meredith, D. Father power. Garden City, N. Y.: Anchor
Press/Doubleday, 1976.

 

Block, V. L. Conflicts of adolescents with their mother. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1937, 22, 193-206.

 

Brandwein, R. A., Brown, C. A., & Fox, E. M. Woman and children
last: the social situation of divorced mothers and their
families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1974, l2(3),
213-221.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Freudian theories of identification and their
derivatives. Child Development, 1960, 21, 15-40.

 

. Some familial antecedents of responsibility and leader-
ship in adolescents. In L. Petrullo & B. M. Bass (Eds.),
Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt,
'Rinehart, and Winston, 239-271.

Brown, A. W., Morrison, J. & Couch, G. B. Influence of affectional
family relationships on character development. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947, 42, 422-428.

 

Burger, G. K., & Armentrout, J. A. A factor analysis of fifth and
sixth grader's reports of parental childrearing behavior.
Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 483.

Burlingham, 0., & Freud, A. Infants without families. London:
George Allen and Unwire, 1944.

Cass, L. K. Parent-child relationships and delinquency. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 42, 101-104.

 

Cooper, J. B. Parent evaluation and social ideology. Psyghological
Reports, 1960, Z, 414.

 

Cooper, J. B., & Blair, M. A. Parent evaluation as a determiner of
ideology. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1959, 94, 93-100.

Cox, F. N. An assessment of children's attitudes towards parent
figures. Child Development, 1962, 22, 821-830.

 

Cox, F. N., & Leaper, P. Assessing some aspeCts of the parent-child
relationship. Child Development, 1961, 22, 637-649.

 

168

Cranbach, L. J. Test "reliability": its meaning and determination.
Psychometrika, 1947, l2(i), l-16.

 

Cross, H. J. College students' memories of their parents: a factor
analysis of the CRPBI. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1969, 22, 275-278.

 

Cummings, J. D. Family pictures: A projection test for children.
British Journal of Psychology, 1952, 42, 53-60.

 

Despert, J. L. Children of divorce. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday,
1962. ‘ '

 

Despert, L., & Potter, H. W. Technical approaches used in the study
and treatment of emotional problems in children. Psychiatry

Quarterly, 1936, lg, 619-638.

Deutsch, H. The psychology of women (Vol. I). New York: Grune and
Stratten, 1944.

 

Dorkey, M., & Amen, E. W. A continuation study of anxiety reactions
in young children by means of a projective technique. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1947, 22, 139-183.

 

Droppleman, L., & Schaffer, E. S. Boys' and girls' reports of
maternal and paternal behavior. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1963, 22, 648-654.

 

De Valle, E. W. Child-parent social distance. Sociology Society
Research, 1937, 24, 458-463.

Elias, G. A measure of "homelessness." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1952, 42, 62-66.

 

Emmerich, W. Young children's discriminations of parent and child
roles. Child Development, 1959, 29, 403-419.

 

Emmerich, W. Family role concepts of children ages six to ten.
Child Development, 1961, 22, 609-624.

 

Finch, H. M. Young children's concepts of parent roles. Journal of
Home Economics, 1955, 41, 99-103.

 

Fish, K. D., & Biller, H. B. Perceived childhood paternal relation-
ships and college females' personal adjustment. Adolescence.
Fall 1973.

Freud, S. The standard edition (Vol. XX). London: Hogarth, 1961.
(Originally published, 1926).

 

169

Gardner, L. P. An analysis of children's attitudes toward fathers.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1947, 22, 3-28.

Goldin, P. C. A review of children's reports of parent behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 21(3), 222-236.

 

Goodenough, E. W. Interest in persons as an aspect of sex difference
in the early years. Psychology Monographs, 1957, 22, 287-323.

 

Green, M. Fathering. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.

Haley, J., & Hoffman, L. Techniques of family therapy: five thera-
pists reveal their working styles, stratagies and approaches.
New York: Basic Books Inc., 1967.

 

 

Harris, 0. B., & Tseng, S. C. Children's attitudes toward peers and
parents as revealed by sentence completions. Child Develop-
ment, 1957, 22, 401-411.

 

Havighurst, R., & Tara, H. Adolescent character and personality.
New York: Wiley, 1949.

 

Hawkes, G. R., Burchinal, L. G., & Gardner, 8. Measurement of pre-
adolescents' views of family control of behavior. Child
Development, 1957, 22, 387-392. (a)

 

Hawkes, G. R., Burchinal, L. G., & Gardner, B. Pre-adolescents'
views of some of their relations with their parents. Child
Development, 1957, 22, 393-399. (b)

 

Hayward, R. S. The child's report of psychological factors in the
family. Archives of Psychology,_New York, 1935, No. 189.

 

Helson, R. Woman mathematicians and the creative personality.
Journal of Consultiog and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 2_(2),
210-222.

Heilburn, A. B., Jr., Harrell, S. N., & Gillard, B. J. Perceived
childrearing attitudes of fathers and cognitive control in
daughters. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1967, lll(l),
29-40.

 

Henry, A. F. Sibling structure and perception of the disciplinary
roles of parents. Sociometry, 1957, 29, 67-74.

 

Herzog, E., & Sudia, C. Fatherless homes: a review of research.
Children, 1968, l4, 177-182.

170

Hess, R. D., 8 Torney, J. V. Religion, age, and sex in children's
perception of family authority. Child Development, 1962,
33, 781-789.

Hetherington, M. E. Effects of father absence on personality
development in adolescent daughters. Developmental Psychol-
ogy_(Vol. VII), 1972, 2, 313-326.

 

. Girls without fathers. Psychology Today, Feb. 1972, 2(3),
47-52.

The effects of divorce on the social and cognitive devel-
opment of children. Paper presented at the Wheelock College
Center for Parenting Studies' Symposium on children and
divorce at Boston, 1978.

, Cox, M, & Cox, R. Beyond father absence: conceptization
of effects of divorce, presented at the meeting of the Society
for Research in Child Development at Denver, 1975.

. Divorced fathers. The Family Coordinator, 1976, 22(4),
417-428.

Hoyt, C. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psycho-
metrika, 1941, 2(3), 153-160.

Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Child-
hood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books,Tl958.

Jackson, L. Emotional attitudes towards the family of normal,
neurotic, and delinquent children, Part I. British Journal
of Psychology, 1950, 41, 35-51.

 

 

Jacobson, G., & Ryder, R. G. Paternal loss and some characteristics
of early marriage re1ationship. American Journal of Ortho-
psychiatry, 1969, 22(5), 779-787.

 

Johnson, M. M. Sex role learning in the nuclear family. Child
Development, 1963, 24, 319-333.

Johnson, T. F. Conceptions of parents held by adolescents. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 41, 783-789.

Kagan, J. The child's perception of the parent. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1956,_22, 257-258.

 

Kagan, J., & Lemkin, J. The child's differential perception of
parental attributes. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1960, 21, 440-447.

 

171

Kell, L., & Aldous, J. The relations between mother's child-rearing
ideologies and their children's perceptions of maternal
control. Child Development, 1960, 21, 145-156.

Kelly, J., & Wallerstein, J. The effects of parental divorce: Exper-
iences of the child in early latency. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 42, 20-32.

Kohn, B. L., 8 Carroll, E. E. Social class and the allocation of
parental responsibilities. Sociometry, 1960, 22, 372-392.

 

Kohn, M. L. Social class and the exercise of parental authority.
American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 252-266.

 

Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). The role of the father in child development.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

 

Lamb, M.E. The effects of divorce on children's personality develop-
ment. Journal of Divorce, Winter 1977, 2, 1968-174.

 

Landis, J. T. A comparison of children from divorced and nondivorced
unhappy marriages. The Family Life Coordinator, 1962, 11,
61-65.

Lang, 0. M., Papenfuhs, R., & Walters, J. Delinquent females'
pezcgptions of their fathers. The Family Coordinator, 1976,
25 4 .

Laufer, M. Object loss and mourning in adolescence. Psychoanalytic
Studylof the Child, 1966,,§£. 31-37.

 

Leonard, M. R. Fathers and daughters. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 1966, 42, 325-333.

 

 

Lewis, M., & Weinraub, M. The father's role in the child's social
network. In Michael E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father
in child development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

 

Lidez, T., Parker, N., & Cornelision, H. R. The role of the father
in the family environment of the schizophrenic patient.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1956, 12, 126-132.

 

Lynn, 0. B. The father: his role in child development. Monterey,
Calif.: Brooks/Call, 1974.

 

Lyle, W. H., & Levitt, E. E. Punitiveness, authoritarianism and
parental discipline of grade school children. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 21, 42-46.

 

 

172

Machtlinger, V. L. Psychoanalytic ‘theory: pre-oedipal and oedipal
phases, with special reference to the father. In M. E.
Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development.
New York: John Wiley and Sons,ll976, pp. 277-305.

Medinnus, C. Delinquent's perceptions of their parents. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1965, 22, 592-593.

 

Mehrens, W.A. (Ed.). Readings in Measurement and Evaluation in Edu-
cation and Psychology. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1976.

 

Meltzer, H. Sex differences in children's attitudes to parents.
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1943, 22, 311-326.

Milton, G. A. The effects of sex role identification upon problem
solving skills. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1957, 22, 208-212.

Morgan, P. K., & Gaier, E. D. The direction of aggression in the
mother-child punishment situation. Child Development, 1956,
.21, 446-457.

Morgan, P. K., & Gaier, E. 0. Types of reactions in punishment
situations in the mother-child relationship. Child Devel-
ooment, 1957, 22, 161-166.

Morrow, W. R., & Wilson, R. C. Family relations of bright high-
achieving and under-achieving high school boys. Child
Development, 1961, 22, 501-510.

 

Mussen, P., & Distler, L. Masculinity, identification, and father-
son relationships. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1959, 22, 350-356.

Nelson, S. The relationship between social development and differ-
ential abilities on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Appendix
III of Macoby, E. E., and Rau, L. Differential cognitive
abilities. Final report, U. S. Office of EducatTOn, Cooper-
ative Research Project No. 1040, 1962.

Neubauer, P. B. The one-parent child and his oedipal development.
Psychoanalytic study of the child, 1960, 12, 286-309.

Nin, A. The diaryaof Anais Nin (Vol. I, 1931-1934). New York: The
swallowlPress anlearcourt Brace, 1967.

Nye, F. 1. Child adjustment in broken and unhappy unbroken homes.
Journal of Marriage and Family Living, 1957, 12, 356-361.

173
Pederson, F. A. Does research on children reared in father-absent

families yield information on father influences? The Family
Coordinator, 1976, 22(4), 459-464.

 

 

Raskin, A., Boothe, H. H., Reatig, N. A., & Schulterbrandt, F. Factor
analysis of normal and depressed patients' memories of
paternal behavior. Psychological Reports, 1971, 22, 871-879.

Renson, G. J., Schaffer, E. S., & Levy, 8. I. Cross-national validity
of sperical conceptual model for parent behavior. Child
Development, 1968, 22, 1229-1235.

 

Roe, A., & Siegelman, M. A. A parent-child relations questionnaire.
Child Development, 1963, 24, 355-369.

 

Rogers, C. Measuring personality adjustment in children nine to
thirteen years of age. Teachers College Contribution to
Education, 1931, No. 458.

 

Rosen, B. C. Social class and the child's perception of the parent.
Child Development, 1964, 22, 1147-1153.

 

Rosenfeld, J., & Rosenstein, E. Toward a conceptual framework for
the study of parent absent families. Journal of Marriage and
the Family. 1973, 131-135.

 

 

Santock, J. W. Paternal absence, sextyping, and identification.
Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 264-272.

 

Satir, V. Conjoint Family Therapy. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and
Behavior Books, Inc., 1964.

 

Schaffer, E. Children's reports of parental behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 1965, 22, 413-424. (a)

 

. A configurational analysis of children's reports of
parental behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965,
22, 522-557. (b)

 

Shapiro, E. Perceptions of significant family and environmental
relationships in aggressive and withdrawn children. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 381-385.

 

Siegelman, M. College student personality correlates of early parent
relationships. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 1965, 22(6),
558-564.

 

Siegelman, M. Evaluation of Bronfenbrenner's questionnaire for
children concerning parental behavior. Child Development,
1965, 22, 164-174.

174

Serot, N. M., & Teevan, R. C. Perceptions of the parent-child
relationship and its relation to child adjustment. Child
Development, 1961, 22, 373-378.

 

Stabler, J. R., & Goodreich, A. H. Personality and family background
correlates of students' response to physical danger. Journal
of Psychology, 1967, 21(2), 313-318.

 

Stott, L. H. Adolescents' dislikes regarding parental behavior and
their significance. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1940, 21,
393-414.

Parent-adolescent adjustment: Its measurement and
significance. Character and Personality, 1941, 12, 140-150.

Sutton-Smith, B., Rosenber, B. G., & Landy, F. Father-absence effects
in families of different sibling compositions. Child Devel-
ogment, 1968, 22, 1212-1222.

Swanson, G. E. The development of an instrument for rating child-
parent relationships. Social Forces, 1950, 22, 84-90.

Tausch, R. J. The role of the father in the family. Journal of
Experimental Education, 1952, 22, 319-361.

Temple, R., & Amen, E. W. A study of anxiety reactions in young
children by means of a projective technique. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 1944, 22, 59-114.

Tessman, L. H. Children of parting parents. New York: Jason Aaron-
son, Inc., 1978.

Tuckman, J., & Regan, R. A. Intactness of the home and behavioral
problems in children. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 1966, 1, 225-233.

 

Wallerstein, J. The effects of divorce on the parent-child rela-
tionship. Paper presented at the Wheelock College Center for
Parenting Studies' Symposium on Children and Divorce at
Boston, 1978.

. The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the child
in later latency. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 42,
256-269.

. The effects of parental divorce: Experiences of the
preschool child. Journal of the American Academylof Child
Psychiatry, 1975.

175

Wallin, P., & Vollmer, H. M. Marital happiness of parents and their
children's attitudes to them. American Sociological Review,
1953, 12, 424-431.

Walstedt, J. J. The altruistic other orientations: an exploration
of female powerlessness. To appear in the Psychology of
Woman Quarterly, in press, 1977.

 

Weiss, R. Growing up a little faster: the experience of children
in a single-parent household. Paper presented at the Wheelock
College Center for Parenting Studies' Symposium on Children
and Divorce at Boston, 1978.

Williams, W. C. The PALS Tests: A technique for children to evaluate
both parents. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22,
487-495.

 

Wolfenstein, M. The image of the lost parent. Psychiatry Stuoy_of
the Child, 1973, 22, 433.

Worell, J. P., & Worell, L. Supporters and opposers of woman's
liberation: some personality correlates. Paper presented at
the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.,
September 1971.

Wulf, V. Parental death in childhood and later psychological adjust-
ment. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1976.

Zucker, H. The emotional attachment of children to their parents as
related to standards of behavior and delinquency. Journal of
Psychology, 1943, 12, 31-40.

APPENDICES

176

APPENDIX A

TEST PACKET MATERIALS

177

Dear Woman,

I would like to stress a few points before you begin filling out the
questionnaire. I would like to emphasize the importance of these
points in insuring that after your time and effort your responses are
not thrown out because they are unusable.

Finally I

The questionnaire is in two parts. Each part has separate
answer sheets tucked in it. Do not use the wrong sheet for
the wrong part. You will not use all of the answer sheets
fully.

BE SURE AND ANSWER Att_THE QUESTIONS. Each question on
"Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Fathers" requires
two responses about your father and your parents' marital
relationship. One response will be as you saw them as a
child and a second response concerns how you would

have liked them to have been.

The "Experiences With and Attitudes Toward Fathers" has
questions concerning your family backgroud. Your answers
go into the blocks designated for your last and first
name on the sheet.

When you are finished please send it back immediately.
If you decide not to fill it out, send it back quickly so
that someone else may use it.

You must be between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two.
Your father must have been in the home until you were

at least four years old. After four if there was a
paternal loss, your response will be as useful as those of
women who did not lose their father.

If you have had long term psychotherapy please do not take
this questionnaire.

If you have comments write them at the top of the answer
sheet.

would like to say that so little is known about the father-

daughter relationship that there are no right or good answers. There-
fore, please be as honest as you can be when filling this out. Thank
you very much!

Susan Darlington

655-2060

178

179

EXPERIENCES WITH AND ATTITUDES TOWARD FATHERS

Before beginning this scale, please give us the following information
about yourself. First please fill in your social security number,
your birthdate and sex on your first answer sheet.

In the boxes on the answer sheet that are provided for filling in
your name, please fill it out according to the following questions.

First column of "your last name" (pink).
Race:

(A) Caucasian
(B) Afro—American
(C) American Indian

Second column (white).
Father's completed level of education:

(A) Under sixth grade

(B) Under ninth grade

(C) Under twelfth grade

(0) Completed high school

(E) 1 year college or trade school
(F) 2 years college or trade school

Third column (pink).
Mother's completed level of education:

(A) Under sixth grade
(8) Under ninth grade
(C) Under twelfth grade
(0) Completed high school
(E) 1 year college or trade school
(F) 2 years college or trade school

Fourth column (white).

Father's occupation:

Oriental
Spanish surname
Other

3 years college

4 years college

1 year graduate work
2 years graduate work
Master's degree, plus
Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D.

3 years college

4 years college

1 year graduate work
2 years graduate work
Master's degree, plus
Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D.

(A) Professional and independent managerial
(B) Semi-professional, small business and semi-independent
managerial: proprietor, manager, official

(C) Skilled worker and foreman
(D) Semi-skilled

(E) Unskilled

(F) Other

180

Fifth column (pink).
Mother's occupation:

(A) Professional and independent managerial

(B) Semi-professional, small business and semi-independent
managerial: proprietor, manager, official

(C) Skilled worker and forewoman or superviser

(D) Semi-skilled

(E) Unskilled

(F) Other

Sixth column (white).

How many older brothers?

(A) Zero (0) 3
(B) 1 (E) 4
(C) 2 (F) 5 or over
Seventh column (pink).
How many older sisters?
(A) Zero (0) 3
(B) 1 (E) 4
(C) 2 (F) 5 or over
Eighth column (white).
The oldest child in my family was:
(A) Myself (8) Male (C) Female

Ninth column (pink).

If you had an older brother, how much older was he?

(A) 1 year (E) 5 years
(B) 2 years (F) 6 to 10
C) 3 years (G) over 10

(D) 4 years

Please fill in the boxes labeled "your first name" in response to these
final questions.

181

First column (white).

Were you raised by both parents through your entire childhood and
adolescence?

(A) Yes (B) No

Second column (pink).

Was there:
(A) Parents living together the (F) Separation
entire time, through (G) Divorce
adolescence (H) Father in hospital
(B) Death of father (I) Mother in hospital
(C) Death of mother (J) Other (please note
(0) Desertion by mother at top of your
(E) Desertion by father answer sheet)

Third column (white).

If there was a separation, divorce or loss, how old were you?

(A) Under one year (I) 8 (Q) 16
(B) l-year old (J) 9 (R) 17
(C) 2 (K) 10 (S) 18
(O) 3 (L) 11 (T) 19
(E) 4 (M) 12 (U) 20
(F) 5 (N) 13 (V) 21
(G) 6 (O) 14 (W) 22
(H) 7 (P) 15 (X) Over 22

Fourth column (pink).

If death, divorce, or separation, did: (more than one blank
may apply)

(A) Dad raise you or get custody (G) A parent and a rela-
(8) Mom raise you or get custody tive raise you

(C) Grandparents raise you (H) Dad remarry

(D) A grandmother raise you (I) Mom remarry

(E) A grandfather raise you (J) Other

(F) Other relative raise you

CONTINUE ON YOUR FIRST ANSWER SHEET WITH THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE.

182

EXPERIENCES WITH AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS FATHERS

Part A
Please mark your social security number on each answer sheet.

This part of the questionnaire concerns childhood experiences with
your father. Please fill in your answers on the corresponding answer
sheets.

For each statement first fill in the appropriate following number
that most clearly reflects your feelings about your father as you
experienced him during your childhood. Second, respond to the state-
ment by filling in the number that reflects howlyou would have liked
him to have been.

 

always
usually
often
occasionally
rarely

never

dung->010»

For example, on statement 1-2, your father may have never taken you
shopping. 50, for question 1 you would fill in number 1 on your
answer sheet. However, you may have wanted to go often. So you
would fill in number 4 on your answer sheet for question 2.
1-2 When he went shopping, he took me along and got my opinion.
3-4 He was proud of me.
5-6 He was strict with me and set many limits.
7-8 He was out of town.
9-lO He was not affectionately demonstrative.
ll-12 I was afraid of him.
13-14 He shared humorous stories about his childhood with me.
15-16 I was proud of him.
17-18 He spanked me.

19-20 He let me make decisions that influenced the family.

21-22

23-24
25-26
27-28
29-30
31-32
33-34
35-36
37-38
39-40

41-42
43-44
45-46
47-48
49-50
51-52
53-54
55-56
57-58

59-60
61-62
63-64
65-66
67-68

183

When I was discouraged or failing in school or an activity,
he became angry and critical.

He took an interest in my friends.

He liked to take us places.

I felt like he did not love me.

When I was sad or afraid he was a good person to go to.
When I was out in public with him I felt embarrassed.
He was basically happy.

I told him I loved him.

I felt uncomfortable with him.

It was hard to know what would make him angry at times, what
I would be punished for.

He included me in discussions about vacation plans.
He took an active interest in my schooling.

He always picked me up on time.

When a problem arose, he asked for my opinion.

No matter how busy he was he could make time for me.
He disliked crying.

He was active in my upbringing.

He was warm and snuggly.

He felt there was a logical reasonable way of living, and
let me know if I was not behaving in that way.

He really listened to me.

I respected him as a person.

He shared sad stories about his childhood.
It was hard to know what he was feeling.

I was closer to him than my mother.

69-70
71-72
73-74
75-76
77-78
79-80

184

He tried to interest me in his interests.
He told me he loved me.

I felt like he was not around enough.

It was important to him to know with whom I was playing.
He encouraged me to try new things.

He was disappointed in me.

Please
social

1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8

9-10
11-12
13-14
15-16

17-18
19—20
21-22
23-24

25-26
27-28
29-30
31-32
33-34

35-36
37-38
39-40
41-42
43-44

185

continue on another answer sheet. Please don't forget your

security number.

He was protective of me.

He took in my opinions on major purchases that affected me.
He believed I could do anything I put my mind to.

It didn't matter to him where I went or at what time I came
in at night.

He had so much work to do there was little time for me.
He gave me piggyback rides, tickled me, teased me, etc.
He shared things that happened during the day with us.

He made important decisions himself even when they had
important effects on me.

He was responsive to and supportive of my interests.
He wanted to know where I was going to play.
He was on my side when I got in trouble.

Even when he was around he was too preoccupied to spend much
time with me.

He brought me treats and surprises he knew I would like.
He included me in adult conversation.

He did most of the punishing.

He enjoyed having me around.

When he was present, if I was hurt he was concerned and made
sure I was all right.

If I had a problem, he would solve it for me.

He talked things over with me when I got in trouble.

He was busy with outside activities.

He was so talkative it was hard to get a word in edgewise.

He was critical of my table manners and eating habits.

45-46
47-48
49-50
51-52
53-54
55-56

57-58
59-60
61-62

Please

63

186

I talked with him about my interests.

He was grouchy.

Mostly he complained about our behavior rather than punish us.
I talked problems over with him.

He yelled at me.

It was hard to know at times what he would be angered by and
punish.

He did not understand me.
He wanted me to do things better than other kids.

Some things I could not tell him.

indicate the basis on which you filled this out:

based on experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 based on conveyed
I remember memories of others
who knew him

PLEASE CONTINUE TO FILL THIS ANSWER SHEET OUT WITH THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONNAIRE.

187

EXPERIENCES WITH AND ATTITUDES
WITH BOTH PARENTS

Part B

This part of the questionnaire concerns childhood experiences with
your parents. Your answers may be based solely on what your surviv-
ing or custodial parent (relatives, etc.) has conveyed to you, or
your own memory or a mixture. Please indicate that below before
beginning. There are special additional questions to be filled out
by you if there was a divorce or death.

Please indicate on what basis you are filling this section out in
column one of the box for 1.0. number on your answer sheet.

experience conveyed memories
1 2 3 4 5 6

First respond to these statements with the number which most closely
reflects your feelings about this statement based on the following:

always
usually
often
occasionally
rarely

never

amen-9mm

Second respond again filling in the number that reflects how you
would have liked him to have been.

65-66 My parents were very close.
67-68 My parents fought.

69-70 If there was a family problem, both could agree on a solution.
71-72 My parents were very happy together.
73-74 My parents depended on each other.

75-76 My parents disagreed.

77-78 My parents expressed physical affection.
79-80 My parents went out together alone.

Begin new answer sheet. Please fill in your social security number.

1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
9-10

11-12

13-14

15-16

17-18

19-20

21-22

23-24

My parents
My parents
My parents
My parents
My parents

My parents

188

went out with groups of friends.

were concerned with how the other's day went.
shared common interests.

had similar political beliefs.

had similar religious beliefs.

fought over everyday incidents.

When they fought, my parents spoke quietly.

When my parents fought, one would leave the house.

My mother was very close to her family.

My father was very close to his family.

My parents

My parents

fought in front of us.

enjoyed each other.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO FILL THIS ANSWER SHEET OUT WITH THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONNAIRE.

189

EXPERIENCE WITH DIVORCE

Skip if not applicable in your case and go to the next section.
Please continue on the answer sheet you have been using.

Respond to these statements with the number which most closely
reflects your feelings about this statement using the previous
numerical scale.

25
26
27

28

29
30
31
32

33
34
35
36
37

38
39
4o
41
42

I had a clear understanding of why my parents divorced.
One of my parents was clearly to blame for the divorce.

My parents have gone to court after the divorce to readjust
child support.

My parents have gone to court after the divorce to change
visitation rights.

My non-custodial parent was denied visitation rights.
My non-custodial parent never made child support payments.
There was a court fight over custody.

After the divorce, my parents disagreed about how I should be
raised.

I wished my parents would remarry.

I felt responsible for the divorce.

I wish I could have seen my non-custodial parent more often.
I wished I could have lived with my other parent.

When they divorced, I believed it was the best for all
concerned. '

When they divorced, I was happy.

When my parents divorced, I was worried about my future.
My parents ta1ked after the divorce.

My parents argued after the divorce.

My parents made plans for me together after the divorce.

43
44
45
46
47
48
49
so

51
52
53
54
55

56

190

My parents were friends after the divorce.

I was happier after the divorce.

My mother was happier after the divorce.

My father was happier after the divorce.

One parent told me untrue things about the other.
One parent gave me messages to give to the other.
One parent asked me for information about the other.

My custodial parent cooperated with visitation and encouraged
the visits.

My relationship with Dad before the divorce was close.
My relationship with Mom before the divorce was close.
My relationship with Dad after the divorce was close.
My relationship with Mom after the divorce was close.

My non-custodial parent paid child support regularly, his
checks were on time.

The child support was adequate in providing us with an
accustomed standard of living.

PLEASE CONTINUE TO FILL THIS ANSWER SHEET OUT WITH THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONNAIRE.

191

EXPERIENCE WITH DEATH

Skip if not relevant and go to the next section. Continue to answer
on the answer sheet you have been using.

Please be sure to start with number 57 on your answer sheet, fill in
with the corresponding number previously used.

57
58
59
60

61
62
63
64
65
66

I was close with the surviving parent before the death.
I was close with the surviving parent after the death.
My surviving parent speaks only highly of my dead parent.

My surviving parent sees characteristics of my dead parent in
me.

My surviving parent talks of my dead parent's childhood.
We visit my dead parent's grave.

Friends and relatives compare me to my dead parent.

My surviving parent never mentions my dead parent.

I was close to my dead parent.

My surviving parent's reactions to the death scared me a great
deal.

192

ILLINOIS S

1. d r .

TATE

.3

UNIVERSITY

       

   

 

‘ VOI. -“-1

II III IV

STUDENT AI!!!"
'0. PART:
I
IOCIAl SICUIIW
NUMIII

"ACNEI ONLV:

[\

 

 

 

 

O
C.
O
8 s
n E :1
a g:
0
C.
=
O
o d
a -
O
\%%%%%%%fiw \«k%«~h~~m \%%%H%%%~% k%k%%~%%~%
1 2 3 4
\%%%%%%%~% \%%%%%%M\% \%%%%%%%HW \%%%H%%MW%
5 6 7 8
\Mk%h~%h~% sukwwwnqu \%k%fihhwfiw \%%%~~%wwm
9 10 11 w
\ukwwsmw~m \%k%hhhkfi% \%k%%~%%~% \«%%~9%~~w
n u w n
\Mk%~~h~~m \%k%%%hk~% \%%%%~%%~W khkwhfikkfiw
n w w m
\%k%%~%%~% unkwauwwww \%%%H~h%fl% unkww~m~mw
w 21 22 23 24
C
2 \%%%M~%N~% \%&%~~mw~w unkwwuowaw kukww~mmww
§ 25 26 27 28
3 \«kwu~quw uawwnumwwe \%%%%9%%~% \%k%%~%%w%
5 w w m n
2 nukwwsquw \%%%%%%N~W \%%%M%MMR% uu¥wa~quw
5 33 34 35 34
E \kk%fi~h%~% \Mk%%~%%fi% \%&%%~hw~w nuzwuuhwww
5 37 38 39 4o
* \%%%%%h%~% \kk%%~hk~% \%%%%~hwfiw uhkmuxmwsw
u a a «
unkmuuquw \%x%~~mw~w \%%%M%%NHW uukwwuhwuw
4s 44 47 48
\M&%~~%wqw unkwwxsqu \«k%u~b~~w \%k%k~%%n%
n m m n
unkwuumw~w \Mk%h%h%~% \ukwuuhwqw k%k%h~%Nw%
a u fi %
\%%%K~MNNW \Mk%fi~h%fi% k%%%%%%%~% uukwushwww
57 58 59 so
\%%%%~%%NW sukwauhm~w uukwnuhwqw \«kwwumyaw
u u n M
\%k%%~b%§% \%%%~~uw~w \ukwuuwwqw \«kmu~mwm%
45 66 b7 68
\%k%%~%%~% \Mxmuuhqu \%%%%~h%~% uuxw~~h~ww
S 69 7o 71 72 .
w 5 unzw~~h~~w unkwhxhwww nuzwwuhwww \%k%«~h~m%
g 2 73 74 75 76
3 g \kk%h~h%fi% \%k%%~h%~% nukwxuhwqw \%¥%H~h~w%
77 78 79 80

O( .757 “m_.ut,

193

PARENT BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

Instructions

 

We are interested in learning more about the different experiences
people have had in their families. We are, therefore, asking a
number of people to report their experiences during childhood. If
you are under sixteen and have lived at home up to this time, answer
the questions as they describe what happens there. If you left home
before the age of sixteen, answer as you would have before you left
home. If you are over sixteen and have always lived at home up to
that time, answer as you would have around the age of sixteen. If
you did not grow up with your real father, answer the way you believe
he would have behaved. Read each item on the following pages and
fill in the number on the answer sheet that most closely describes
the way your father behaves toward you. BE SURE TO MARK EACH ITEM
and to put your social security number on all the answer sheets.

If you think the item is LIKE your father, darken 1.
If you think the item is SOMEWHAT LIKE your father, darken 2.

 

If you think the item is NOT LIKE your father, darken 3.

SOMEWHAT NOT
LIKE LIKE LIKE

 

1. Makes me feel better after talking over 1 2 3
my worries with him.

2. Likes to talk to me and be with me much 1 2 3
of the time.

3. Isn't very patient with me. 1 2 3

4. Sees to it that I know exactly what I 1 2 3
may or may not do.

5. Says I'm very good natured. l 2 3

6. Wants to know exactly where I am and l 2 3
what I am doing.

7. Decides what friends I can go around with. 1 2 3

8. Soon forgets a rule he has made. 1 2 3

9. Doesn't mind if I kid him about things. 1 2 3

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.
25.

26.

27.
28.

194

Is easy with me.

Doesn't talk with me very much.

Will not talk to me when I displease him.

Seems to see my good points more than
my faults.

Doesn't let me go places because
something might happen to me.

Thinks my ideas are silly.
Is very strict with me.
Tells me I'm good looking.

Feels hurt when I don't follow advice.

Is always telling me how I should behave.

Usually doesn't find out about my
misbehavior.

Enjoys it when I bring friends to my
home.

Worries about how I will turn out,
because he takes anything bad I do
seriously.

Spends very little time with me.

Allows me to go out as often as I please.

Almost always speaks to me with a warm
and friendly voice.

Is always thinking of things that will
please me.

Says I'm a big problem.

Believes in having a lot of rules and
sticking to them.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

29.
30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.
44.

45.

195

Tells me how much he loves me.

Is always checking on what I've been
doing at school or at play.

Keeps reminding me about things I am
not allowed to do.

Punishes me for doing something one
day, but ignores it the next.

Allows me to tell him if I think my ideas
are better than his.

Let's me off easy when I do something
wrong.

Almost never brings me a surprise or
present.

Sometimes when he disapproves, doesn't
say anything but is cold and distant
for a while.

Understands my problems and my worries.
Seems to regret that I am growing up
and am spending more time away from
home.

Forgets to help me when I need it.

Sticks to a rule instead of allowing
a lot of exceptions.

Likes to talk about what he has read
with me.

Thinks I'm not grateful when I don't
obey.

Tells me exactly how to do my work.

Doesn't pay much attention to my
misbehavior.

Likes me to choose my own way to do
things.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

46.

47.
48.

49.
50.
51.

52.

53.
54.

55.

56.

57.

58.
59.

60.

61.

62.
63.
64.

196

If I break a promise, doesn't trust me
again for a long time.

Doesn't seem to think of me very often.

Doesn't tell me what time to be home
when I go out.

Enjoys talking things over with me.
Gives me a lot of care and attention.

Sometimes wishes he didn't have any
children.

Believes that all my bad behavior should
be punished in some way.

Hugs and kisses me often.

Asks me to tell everything that happens
when I'm away from home.

Doesn't forget very quickly the things
I do wrong.

Sometimes allows me to do things that he
says are wrong.

Wants me to tell him about it if I don't
like the way he treats me.

Can't say no to anything I want.

Thinks I am just someone to "put up
with."

Speaks to me in a cold, matter-of-fact
voice when I offend him.

Enjoys going on drives, trips or
visits with me.

Worries about me when I'm away.
Forgets to get me things I need.

Gives hard punishments.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
l 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

65.
66.
67.
68.
69.

70.

71.

72.
73.
74.

75.
76.

77.
78.

79.
80.

81.
82.
83.
84.

197

Believes in showing his love for me.
Feels hurt by the things I do.

Tells me how to spend my free time.
Doesn't insist that I do my homework.

Let's me help to decide how to do things
we're working on.

Says some day I'll be punished for my
bad behavior.

Doesn't seem to enjoy doing things
with me.

Gives me as much freedom as I want.
Smiles at me very often.

Often gives up something to get some-
thing for me.

Is always getting after me.

Sees to it that I'm on time coming
home from school or for meals.

Tries to treat me as an equal.

Keeps a careful check on me to make
sure I have the right kind of friends.

Keeps after me about finishing my work.

Depends upon his mood whether a rule
is enforced or not.

Makes me feel free when I'm with him.
Excuses my bad conduct.
Doesn't show that he loves me.

Is less friendly with me if I don't
see things his way.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

92.

93.

94.

95.
96.

97.
98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

198

Is able to make me feel better when I
am upset.

Becomes very involved in my life.
Almost always complains about what I do.
Punishes me when I don't obey.

Always listens to my ideas and opinions.

Tells me how much he has suffered for me.

Would like to be able to tell me what
to do all the time.

Doesn't check up to see whether I have
done what he told me.

Asks me what I think about how we should
do things.

Thinks and talks about my misbehavior
long after it's over.

Doesn't share many activities with me.

Let's me go any place I please without
asking.

Enjoys doing things with me.

Makes me feel like the most important
person in his life.

Gets cross and angry about little
things I do.

Believes in punishing me to correct and
improve my manners.

Often has long talks with me about the
causes and reasons for things.

Wants to know with whom I've been when
I've been out.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

103.

104.
105.

106.
107.

108.

109.

110.

111.
112.

113.
114.

115.

116.
117.
118.

119.
120.

199

Is unhappy that I'm not better in
school than I am.

Only keeps rules when it suits him.

Really wants me to tell him just how
I feel about things.

Let's me stay up late if I keep asking.

Almost never goes on Sunday drives
or picnics with me.

Will avoid looking at me when I've
disappointed him.

Enjoys working with me in the house
or yard.

Usually makes me the center of his
attention at home.

Often blows his top when I bother him.

Almost always punishes me in some way
when I am bad.

Often praises me.

Says if I loved him, I'd do what he
wants me to do.

Gets cross and nervous when I'm noisy
around the house.

Seldom insists that I do anything.
Tries to understand how I see things.

Says that some day I'll be sorry that
I wasn't better.

Complains that I get on his nerves.

Let's me dress in any way I please.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

200

CONTINUE ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET USING THE SECTION
MARKED "MATCHING EXERCISE"

1.
2.

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

Comforts me when I'm afraid.

Enjoys staying at home with me more
than going out with friends.

Doesn't work with me.

Insists that I must do exactly as I'm
told.

Encourages me to read.

Asks other people what I do away from
home.

Loses his temper with me when I don't
help around the house.

Frequently changes the rules I am
supposed to follow.

Allows me to have friends at my home
often.

Does not insist I obey if I complain
or protest.

Hardly notices when I am good at home or
at school.

If I take someone else's side in an
argument, is cold and distant to me.

Cheers me up when I am sad.

Does not approve of my spending a lot
of time away from home.

Doesn't get me things unless I ask over
and over again.

Sees to it that I obey when he tells me
something.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

201

SOMEWHAT NOT
LIKE LIKE LIKE

 

l7. Tells me where to find out more about 1 2 3
things I want to know.

18. Tells me of all the things he has done 1 2 3
for me.

19. Wants to control whatever I do. 1 2 3

20. Does not bother to enforce rules. 1 2 3

BEGIN YOUR SECOND ANSWER SHEET. MAKE SURE YOUR SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER IS MARKED IN.

1. Makes me feel at ease when I'm with him. 1 2 3
2. Thinks that any misbehavior is very l 2 3
serious and will have future conse—
quences.
3. Is always finding fault with me. 1 2 3
4. Allows me to spend my money in any 1 2 3
way I like.
5. Often speaks of the good things I do. 1 2 3
6. Makes his whole life center about his 1 2 3
children.
7. Doesn't seem'UJknow what I need or want. 1 2 3
8. Sees to it that I keep my clothes neat, l 2 3

clean, and in order.

9. Is happy to see me when I come from 1 2 3
school or play.

10. Questions me in detail about what my 1 2 3
friends and I discuss.

ll. Doesn't give me any peace until I do 1 2 3
what he says.

12. Insists I follow a rule one day and then 1 2 3
forgets about it the next.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.
20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.
29.
30.

202

Gives me the choice of what to do when-
ever possible.

I can talk him out of an order, if I
complain.

Often makes fun of me.

If I've hurt his feelings, stops
talking to me until I please him
again.

Has a good time at home with me.

Worries that I can't take care of
myself unless he is around.

Acts as though I'm in the way.

If I do the least little thing that
I shouldn't, he punishes me.

Hugged and kissed me good night when
I was small.

Says if I really cared for him, I would
not do things that cause him to worry.

Is always trying to change me.

Let's me get away without doing work
I had been given to do.

Is easy to talk to.

Says that sooner or later we always
pay for bad behavior.

Wishes I were a different kind of
person.

Let's me go out any evening I want.
Seems proud of the things I do.

Spends almost all of his free time with
his children.

 

SOMEWHAT NOT
LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.
36.

37.

38.
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.
44.

45.
46.

47.

203

Tells me to quit "hanging around the
house" and go somewhere.

I have certain jobs to do and am not
allowed to do anything else until they
are done.

Is very interested in what I am learning
at school.

Almost always wants to know who phoned
me or wrote to me and what they said.

Doesn't like the way I act at home.

Changes his mind to make things
easier for himself.

Let's me do things that other children
my age do.

Can be talked into things easily.

Often seems glad to get away from me
for a while.

When I upset him, won't have anything
to do with me until I find a way to
make up.

Isn't interested in changing me, but
likes me as I am.

Wishes I would stay at home where he
could take care of me.

Makes me feel I'm not loved.

Has more rules than I can remember,
so is often punishing me.

Says I make him happy.

When I don't do as he wants, says I'm
not grateful for all he has done for me.

Doesn't let me decide things for myself.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3

48.
49.
50.

51.

52.

204

Let's me get away with a lot of things.
Tries to be a friend rather than a boss.

Will talk to me again and again about
anything bad I do.

Is never interested in meeting or
talking with my friends.

Let's me do anything I like to do.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

205

II)

II

888352”

H

l

U

 

 

 

 

 

 

. s '0 s 8 .5 s... a a so 5 '0 a a a '0
c on. can «to can 9:. no. 9% no. can can con can 03 can can an .m... .mu an
n a a z a a a a a a ‘i a a x a a I a '0 a
a IZIz'g'g'n-t.'g'g'zvz'ziz'g',uvlu'lcu E a E a
.n. 'E'TU'GIU'YU'E7'0'2'x'YUYYU'YU'YU'YUV'vau z z z z
7 5 .l o .I .I . C. 0
q . ' 1. n a w 7 .I n ~01. D 1 .I I l 2 8... an... 2... D...
II 0' cl cl 1|
. DD 5 s s g. S 5.. 2 a g 2 g a 3 so 5 alr- ~5.. s
\ n‘u 20 as a 3‘.- nl . a 9‘» 2U 20 20 2U 29 Flu 3‘0 0‘0 28 n‘.. 20
p a 90 a 93 n1... 5.. SH 2 a a an 3 a so an a a a}. s.
.. 'qz'gfg'g'nu‘.'2.’2'g'g'2'g'g'2'3'3 a 5.. g in
in.v..Icv..iuv.iuv?c1.f.1ranIuvTu'nfuvriuvnYuITuI-Y.7.7.. «in .9. 7.. 9..
1| 2 3 R «I 3 5 1| 2 3 4 9...
II «I ‘l cl- 10
at... g. .1: as. no... «I: .2 g. .3“ .I... g a... s. .3. g.
(“'33: P‘. .‘s .l. .C. .4. .‘u 2.. P‘. .‘h n‘. .‘u P‘. 2. a. 2. . b . . . . I. ‘9
>r.....uuu .(.00a
1 . . . . .1 . . .1 .3. .4: .3. .1: .1: .3. .1: .3. .n... .1.. .3. :. I. .5. .7.
I '.2.'~2.'.2 7.1.7.1272... I 87...: 7.2.7.1.. 7.1. '.1.'..¢.sz. '2‘. I. .8. .2. .0... .I.
( Y. .Y.o.-u. .f. V. .1. .74.7.1U'.‘§'7..'.1.Ts¢..f-..'.Y.T.. .7. .. .. .7. :10
.l 4 L. . I. 6 r .6 g a
7. 1. . . «7.. 3 “ .C 0.“ w m on 0 O .0 1 .6. E. I .6. 29.
1 1‘ 1| II 1|
.bl‘t COt 32.2.; c. .I. u I .I. I .5. 5. .3. .5. .3. .5. I . .I. 0.. I. a
b2Un3< waoapm < "a.
">420 IUIU<UF ._<. anh $.35. .4. .4 4 4 4 A. 4. . .l. .4. .4. .l. .4. ... . l i. a. .. . .
. (UhnUSUn .50 3305
.. . .3. 1 c o .3. I. «1.. .3. I. .3. .1... .3. .1. .1... 1.. a
s . . I . . . . .. . '..(.'n.t. 7.2. P.,: 0.8.. ISL I 1. '3‘. '3...- '.2. '5. 753,5... '3‘. P.,: 1r. .
Yr.Tni.v.lu?.1.77.fpvuf.i.7..v.uYVutrlu'TufnYuvrlyt.T.—YV.. r1. 7. .. ..
1 7. 1. a 1 .. 3 4 5 1 7. 3 .4 r) l . . .
u . . . . . . . 2 2 Z 2 2 b L 6 6 5 .07 O O O O l l U L
Cl 'I- all ‘I
c a c c. c. .3 t 5 .5. .5. .3. g. .5. .3. .3. .3 N
4 4 A : c. a 4 .1. .l. l. .l. .1. .4 I, £.H.
.a. | .. 1 .14. 1.. .3. .1... r3 1: .... I. ”I 4
'.Z.Pn2.t . P 2 I P . I 37.2.7.1 7.2.! 2.7.2.!2.'..4.'.Z U .. a 0. a.
7.1.71.1. 1 .u. .7 f .1.1.7.1....1.7.1.Y.I.Y.I.Y.I.Y.f. .... 7 .7 .,
6 .I 5.. 5 a. c 6 .I 8 Q. r.\
.I 1 1 i . r; 5 £1 6 0.. 9 0.. 9 w .3... 6 I. x.
.1... g 5. .5 .3. 2... .IC 5. 3. a... n5. g. g. g. a... I... S .5 .5.
n‘u a . 4.. r44 .4. 9‘. ply n3 2» r4. 2.. 2M film an r‘ L r‘ 4 . I 4
s S a). F15 F3. .3. .1... «a 9.. 9‘... s. a 3.. S. .3. 3. .1 .3 .1.
'g'g'z'né'wz.0:50.3727208Parglaurn5924. 2.. s. .2 ,2.
Tnlhvgv.c..1ql.f..!.731.7..-97rlutrluY7L 794.761.774.783711. 7... .1 .v .
1 .I. 1.. A. 5 I 7. 3 5 l 2 3 L. a J
I 1 v 1 1 5 5 5 W 5 9 9 a. M. a. 5 .I r
«I... RI: .5. .I: .5. .5. .5. .3 .3. .5. .5. .3. .3. 5 .3.
rl‘. «I. .4. .4. .4. .4. .49. Pl. .‘. pl. r9. oi. n4. 9‘... pl. 1. . ti. 4
no... .1: .3. .3. .3. .3. .3 n3. .1... new. 930 s. .3. .3. .3. 9. .9. .v. .9.
7.3'o2.'.2 n.2.'.2.I.2.O.Z.t..1.00¢.'.2. 'n1.'p2.'.1..'_2.'..2. I. .I l .I.
Ynl.1fi1.v....f.i.f.1.1.1.7...YrI.?.I.Y.I.VrI.?pI.V.I.1.l.1.q. .7. .7. . .1.
.I .6 n; .7 8 9 o 6 7 8 9 fl.
5 n... .1 u 4 4 4 5 a 8 .5. 3 0.. I. .6. .1. .Q.
.In. .1... .5. .3. .5. .5. .5. .5. .5. .3. .3. .5. .5. .5. C., I: .5. I 5.
r5. 9‘. .4. .4. .4. P‘. .4. P‘- .‘L r‘. 56. .‘. .4. .4. .l. “I. 4 l 4.
a... r). .J. .J. .3. n3. .3. .1. .3. .3. .3. .3. .3. .J. .3. .3. .3 2.
v.1...1.'.2.v.2.'.2. v.2.r.1.'.2.'.2.'.l.v.2.r.1.r.1.'.1.'.2_ .2. .1. 2
7.1.1.3.? ..1....1....1....7....f.1.?.1.'.1.1.1.?.v..1...Y.9.'... .
a. .. .o v... 1 .6 3 S 1 2 3 '4 o. .
l . .. 4 on u 4 8 3 E 8 um . .
:z 5.; 25.—(20.» p.233; CObUDKhmz.

ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

 

2°..P0wa wacboo

20

DC I 756

APPENDIX B

INTERNAL-CONSISTENCY RELIABILITIES AND ORTHOGONALLY
ROTATED FACTOR MATRICES FOR THE
CHILDREN'S REPORT OF PARENTAL
BEHAVIOR INVENTORY SCALES

206

207

 

00. .0. 00. m0. ... .0. .0000...00.o..
00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 000=m>.mmmmmo.
.0. 0.. 00. ... 0.. .0. mmmcumgm.=mo-0..00
0.. N0. .0. .0. N0. .0. se....zs..m .0=.um..m.=.
N0. 00. 00. .0. .0. .0. .cms.00.. 00......0300
.0. 00. 0.. N0. .0. .0. .angam .0:o..os0
00. ... 0.. 0.. ~.. 0.. 0.....0. .cmucmamuc. 00.00.3000.
.0. 00. 00. .0. .0. 00. =0..00..0 .0 00.000LQX0
00. 00. 00. .0. 00. mm. 0:..000
0.. 00. 00. .0. 0.. 00. =0..0=.0>0 0....00.
... 0.. 00. N.. ... 00. .....00.000 0:..0.=ou=0
00. .0. N.. .0. 0.. ... .soco.=0 0.0.0002
.0. 00. 00. 0.. 0.. 0.. 00....um.0 x0.
00. 00. ... ... 00. .0. .soco.=0 050..X0
omnz 00nz .0uz 00": 00uz .mnz
m...u 0xom mxom m...w mxom 0.0m

.05.02 .05.02 .cmscc..mo .megoz .megoz .cmzcc..mo m.0um

 

.00.oz

 

II III‘II' I-

.00...

mm.0om x.o.:m>:.

gow>mzmm —0u:mgma .0 ugoawm m.u..:u ms. .0. mmwp..wnm._mm Xucmumwmcounpmcgmucmnu.—am m4m<p

208

.¢N¢ .0 .0000. .00000gum ”mumzom

 

 

0.. 00. 0.. 00. 00. 00. 00.0000.
0.. 00. 0.. 00. 0.. 00. 000.002
00. 0.. 0.. .0. 00. .0. 00.000000
00. 00. 0.. 00. 00. 00. 00...000.00.
0.. ... 00. 00. 0.. .0. 00.000.0>0 0>.00002
0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. ... 00.0002
00. .0. 0.. 00. 00. 0.. 00.0000.0 .0000000
... ... 00. 0.. 00. 00. 0..:0 0000000 .000000
00. 0.. 00. 00. 0.. 00. 000000.000
... 0.. 0.. 0.. 00. 00. 000000.000
00. .0. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00.0000000 .0 00.00000000
00. 0.. 00. .0. 0.. ... 00000>.00000.
0002 0002 .0u2 00n2 00n2 .0u2
0.0.0 0000 0000 0.0.0 0000 0000
.02002 .0500: 00000:..00 .00002 .0500: 00000:..00 0.000

 

000000

 

000000

 

 

 

003:.ucoouu..u0 040<0

2H39

.vmuu.50 «00 0.05.000 00002
.000 .0 ..00000. .00000000 "000000

 

 

 

 

 

0. 0. 0. 0. 0. .. .0 0. 0.- .0- .0- 00- 00.0000.
00- 0. 0. 0. 00 00 .0 00 00- 00- 00- 0.- 000.002
.0 00- 0. 00- 00 0. 00 00 00- 0.- 0.- ..- 00.000000
00 0. 00 0. 00 00 00 00 00- 0.- .0- 0.- .0...000.00.
00- 0. 00- 00 0. 00 00 00 00- ..- .0- 0.- 00.000.000 00.00002
0.- 00- .0- 00- 00 00 0. 00 00- 00- 00- .0- 00.0002
00- 00- ..- 0. 0. .. 0. 00 0.- 00- .0- .0- 00.0000.0 .0000000
00 .0- .0- 00- 00 0. 0. 00 00- ..- 00- 00- 0..00 0000000 .000000
00- .0- .0- 00- 00 00 00 00 00 00- .. 0. 000000.000
00- 00- 00- 00- 0. .0 00 00 0. 00- 0. 00 000000.000
0. 00- 0.- 00- .0 00 .0 00 0. 0. 00 00 00.0000000 .0 00.00000000
00- 0.- 00- 00- 0. 0. 00 .. 00 0. 0. .0 000000.00000.
0. 0.- 00- 0.- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 .0 000000.0000000
00 0. 00 .0 00 .0 0. 00 .0 00 00 00 000000.0000000
0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. 0. 0. 000000000000-0..00
0.- 00 .0- 00 .. .. 00 0. 0. 00 00 00 00.00.00.00 .00000..000.
0. 00 00 .0 00- 0. ..- .0 0. 00 00 00 000000000 00.000..0000
.0 .0 0.- 00 00 0. 00 .0 .0 00 00 00 0000000 .000.0000
0. 00 0. 00- 0.- .. 0.- 00 .. 00 0. 00 00.00.00

0000000000. 0000000000
0. .0- 0. .0 00 0. 0. 0. 0. .0 00 00 00.000000 .0 00.000000.
0.- 00 00- .0 00 0. 00 .. .0 00 .0 00 00.0000
.0 0. 00 00 0. 00 0. 0. .0 00 0. 0. 00.000.000 00.0.000
0. 00 0. .0 00- 0.- 00- 00- 00 0. 00 00 .0...00.000 00.00000000
.. 00 00 .0 00- 0.- 00- 0.- 00 0. .0 00 00000000 0000000:
00 .0 00 00 00 .0- 0. 00 00 0. 00 .. 00..0.00.0 x00
0. 0. .. 00 0.- 00- 0.- 00- 00- .0 00- 00 00000000 0000000

cm... .00.. :00 :00 :90 .00..
00.000 -0..00 00.000 -0..00 00.000 -0..00 00.000 -0..00 00.000 -0..00 00.000 -0..00
0.000
000000 00000: 000000 000000 000000 00000:
... 000000 .. 000000 . 000000

 

00.=0< 000 0000..00 00 00.>0000 .0000000 000 .0000002 .0 0000000 00. 000.000: 000000 0000000 0..00000;u0o--.~-0 000<.

APPENDIX C

SCORING AND SCALE FACTOR PLACEMENT FOR
SCHAFFER'S CHILDREN'S REPORTS OF
PARENTAL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

210

PARENT BEHAVIOR INVENTORY

Instructions

 

We are interested in learning more about the different experiences
people have had in their families. We are, therefore, asking a
number of pe0ple to report their experiences during childhood. If
you are under sixteen and have lived at home up to this time, answer
the questions as they describe what happends there. If you left
home before the age of sixteen, answer as you would have before you
left home. If you are over sixteen and have always lived at home up
to that time, answer as youwould have around the age of sixteen. If
you did not grow I”) with your real father, answer the way you
believe he would have behaved. Read each item on the following
pages and fill in the number on the answer sheet that most closely
describes the way your father behaves toward you. BE SURE TO MARK
EACH ITEM and to put your social security number on all the answer
sheets.

If you think the item is LIKE you father, darken l.
If you think the item is SOMEWHAT LIKE your father, darken 2.

 

If you think the item is NOT LIKE your father, darken 3.

SOMEWHAT NOT
LIKE LIKE LIKE

 

 

l. Makes me feel better after talking l 2 3
over my worries with him.

2. Likes to talk to me and be with me 1 2 3
much of the time.

3. Isn't very patient with me. l 2 3

4. Sees to it that I know exactly l 2 3
what I may or may not do.

5. Says I'm very good natured. l 2 3

6. Wants to know exactly where I am l 2 3

and what I am doing.

7. Decides what friends I can go 1 2 3
around with.

8. Soon forgets a rule he has made. l 2 3

211

IO.
II.
I2.

I3.

I4.

I5.
I6.
I7.
18.

I9.

20.

2I.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

212

Doesn't mind if I kid him about
things.

Is easy with me.
Doesn't talk with me very much.

Will not talk to me when I displease
him.

Seems to see my good points more than
my faults.

Doesn't let me go places because
something might happen to me.

Thinks my ideas are silly.
Is very strict with me.
Tells me I'm good looking.

Feels hurt when I don't follow
advice.

Is always telling me how I should
behave.

Usually doesn't find out about my
misbehavior.

Enjoys it when I bring friends to
my home.

Worries about how I will turn out,
because he takes anything bad I

do seriously.

Spends very little time with me.

Allows me to go out as often as I
please.

Almost always speaks to me with a
warm and friendly voice.

Is always thinking of things that
will please me.

 

 

SOMEWHAT NOT
LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3

27.
28.

29.
30.

3I.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.
38.

39.

40.

4I.

42.

213

Says I'm a big problem.

Believes in having a lot of rules and
sticking to them.

Tells me how much he loves me.

Is always checking on what I've been
doing at school or at play.

Keeps reminding me about things I am
not allowed to do.

Punishes me for doing something one day,
but ignores it the next.

Allows me to tell him if I think my
ideas are better than his.

Let's me off easy when I do something
wrong.

Almost never brings me a surprise or
present.

Sometimes when he disapproves, doesn't
say anything but is cold and distant
for a while.

Understands my problems and my worries.
Seems to regret that I am growing up
and am spending more time away from
home.

Forgets to help me when I need it.

Sticks to a rule instead of allowing
a lot of exceptions.

Likes to talk about what he has read
with me.

Thinks I'm not grateful when I don't
obey.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3

43.
44.

45.

46.

47.
48.

49.
50.
SI.

52.

53.
54.

55.

56.

57.

58.
59.

60.

2I4

Tells me exactly how to do my work.

Doesn't pay much attention to my
misbehavior.

Likes me to choose my own way to do
things.

If I break a promise, doesn't trust me
again for a long time.

Doesn't seem to think of me very often.

Doesn't tell me what time to be home
when I go out.

Enjoys talking things over with me.
Gives me a lot of care and attention.

Sometimes wishes he didn't have any
children.

Believes that all my bad behavior should
be punished in some way.

Hugs and kisses me often.

Asks me to tell everything that
happens when I'm away from home.

Doesn't forget very quickly the
things I do wrong.

Sometimes allows me to do things that
he says are wrong.

Nants me to tell him about it if I don't
like the way he treats me.

Can't say no to anything I want.

Thinks I am just someone to "put
up with."

Speaks to me in a cold, matter-of-fact
voice when I offend him.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3

61.

62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.

70.

71.

72.
73.
74.

75.
76.

77.
78.

79.
80.

215

Enjoys going on drives, trips or
visits with me.

Worries about me when I'm away.
Forgets to get me things I need.
Gives hard punishments.

Believes in showing his love for me.
Feels hurt by the things I do.

Tells me how to spend my free time.
Doesn't insist that I do my homework.

Let's me help to decide how to do
things we're working on.

Says some day I'll be punished for my
bad behavior.

Doesn't seem to enjoy doing things
with me.

Gives me as much freedom as I want.
Smiles at me very often.

Often gives up something to get
something for me.

Is always getting after me.

Sees to it that I'm on time coming
home from school or for meals.

Tries to treat me as an equal.

Keeps a careful check on me to make
sure I have the right kind of friends.

Keeps after me about finishing my work.

Depends upon his mood whether a rule
is enforced or not.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3

81.
82.
83.
84.

85.

86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.

92.

93.

94.

95.
96.

97.
98.

99.

216

Makes me feel free when I'm with him.
Excuses my bad conduct.
Doesn't show that he loves me.

Is less friendly with me if I don't
see things his way.

Is able to make me feel better when I
am upset.

Becomes very involved in my life.
Almost always complains about what I do.
Punishes me when I don't obey.

Always listens to my ideas and opinions.

Tells me how much he has suffered for me.

Would like to be able to tell me what
to do all the time.

Doesn't check up to see whether I have
done what he told me.

Asks me what I think about how we should
do things.

Thinks and talks about my misbehavior
long after it's over.

Doesn't share many activities with me.

Let's me go any place I please without
asking.

Enjoys doing things with me.

Makes me feel like the most important
person in his life.

Gets cross and angry about little things
I do.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.
105.

106.
107.

108.

109.

110.

111.
112.

113.
114.

115.

116.
117.

217

Believes in punishing me to correct and
improve my manners.

Often has long talks with me about the
causes and reasons for things.

Wants to know with whom I've been when
I've been out.

Is unhappy that I'm not better in school
than I am.

Only keeps rules when it suits him.

Really wants me to tell him just how I
feel about things.

Let's me stay up late if I keep asking.

Almost never goes on Sunday drives or
picnics with me.

Will avoid looking at me when I've
disappointed him.

Enjoys working with me in the house
or yard.

Usually makes me the center of his
attention at home.

Often blows his top when I bother him.

Almost always punishes me in some way
when I am bad.

Often praises me.

Says if I loved him, I'd do what he
wants me to do.

Gets cross and nervous when I'm noisy
around the house.

Seldom insists that I do anything.

Tries to understand how I see things.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3

[Scoring]

[A]
[A]

[A]
[A]

[A]
[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

[A]

118.

119.
120.

218

Says that some day I'll be sorry that I
wan't better as a child.

Complains that I get on his nerves.

Let's me dress in any way I please.

CONTINUE ON YOUR ANSWER SHEET USING THE SECTION
MARKED "MATCHING EXERCISE"

1.
2.

IO.

11.

12.

13.

[A] 14.

Comforts me when I'm afraid.

Enjoys staying at home with me more
than going out with friends.

Doesn't work with me.

Insists that I must do exactly as
I'm told.

Encourages me to read.

Asks other people what I do away
from home.

Loses his temper with me when I don't
help around the house.

Frequently changes the rules I am
supposed to follow.

Allows me to have friends at my
home often.

Does not insist I obey if I complain
or protest.

Hardly notices when I am good at home
or at school.

If I take someone else's side in an
argument, is cold and distant to me.

Cheers me up when I am sad.

Does not approve of my spending a lot
of time away from home.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3

219

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

[Scoring] LIKE LIKE LIKE

[A] 15. Doesn't get me things unless I ask l 2 3
over and over again.

[A] 16. Sees to it that I obey when he tells l 2 3
me something.

[A] l7. Tells me where to find out more about 1 2 3
things I want to know.

[A] 18. Tells me of all the things he has 1 2 3
done for me.

[A] 19. Wants to control whatever I do. l 2 3

[A] 20. Does not bother to enforce rules. 1 2 3

BEGIN YOUR SECOND ANSWER SHEET. MAKE SURE YOUR
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS MARKED IN.

[B] 1. Makes me feel at ease when I'm with him. 1 2 3
[B] 2. Thinks that any misbehavior is very l 2 3
serious and will have future
consequences.
[B] 3. Is aIways finding fault with me. l 2 3
[B] 4. Allows me to spend my money in any l 2 3
way I like.
[B] 5. Often speaks of the good things I do. l 2 3
[B] 6. Makes his whole life center about his l 2 3
children.
[B] 7. Doesn't seem to know what I need or want. 1 2 3
[B] 8. Sees to it that I keep my clothes neat, l 2 3

clean, and in order.

[B] 9. Is happy to see me when I come from T 2 3
school or play.

[B] 10. Questions me in detail about what my 1 2 3
friends and I discuss.

220

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

[Scoring] LIKE LIKE LIKE

[3] ll. Doesn't give me any peace until I do 1 2 3
what he says.

[3] 12. Insists I follow a rule one day and l 2 3
then forgets about it the next.

[3] 13. Gives me the choice of what to do 1 2 3
whenever possible.

[8] 14. I can talk him out of an order, if I l 2 3
complain.

[B] 15. Often makes fun of me. l 2 3

[B] 16. If I've hurt his feelings, stops 1 2 3
talking to me until I please him
again.

[B] 17. Has a good time at home with me. 1 2 3

[B] 18. Worries that I can't take care of l 2 3
myself unless he is around.

[B] 19. Acts as though I'm in the way. 1 2 3

[B] 20. If I do the least little thing that I l 2 3
shouldn't, he punishes me.

[B] 21. Hugged and kissed me good night when l 2 3
I was small.

[B] 22. Says if I really cared for him, I l 2 3
would not do things that cause him
to worry.

[B] 23. Is always trying to change me. l 2 3

[B] 24. Let's me get away without doing work l 2 3
I had been given to do.

[B] 25. 15 easy to talk to. l 2 3

[B] 26. Says that sooner or later we always 1 2 3

pay for bad behavior.

[B] 27. Wishes I were a different kind of l 2 3
person.

221

[Scoring]

[B] 28.
[B] 29.
[B] 30.

[B] 31.

[B] 32.

[B] 33.
[B] 34.

[B] 35.
[B] 36.

[B] 37.

[B] 38.
[B] 39.

[B] 40.

[B] 41.

[B] 42.

[B] 43.
[B] 44.

Let's me go out any evening I want.
Seems proud of the things I do.

Spends almost all of his free time
with his children.

Tells me to quit "hanging around the
house" and go somewhere.

I have certain jobs to do and am not
allowed to do anything else until
they are done.

Is very interested in what I am learn-
ing at school.

Almost always wants to know who phoned
me or wrote to me and what they said.

Doesn't like the way I act at home.

Changes his mind to make things
easier for himself.

Let's me do things that other
children my age do.

Can be talked into things easily.

Often seems glad to get away from me
for a while.

When I upset him, won't have anything
to do with me until I find a way to
make up.

Isn't interested in changing me, but
likes me as I am.

Wishes I would stay at home where he
could take care of me.

Makes me feel I'm not loved.

Has more rules than I can remember,
so is often punishing me.

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3

[Scoring]

[B] 45. Says I make him happy.

[B] 46. When I don't do as he wants, says I'm
not grateful for all he has done for me.

[B] 47. Doesn't let me decide things for myself.

[B] 48. Let's me get away with a lot of things.

[B] 49. Tries to be a friend rather than a
boss.

[B] 50. Will talk to me again and again about
anything bad I do.

[B] 51. Is never interested in meeting or
talking with my friends.

[B] 52. Let's me do anything I like to do.

222

SOMEWHAT NOT

 

LIKE LIKE LIKE
I 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
I 2 3
I 2 3
1 2 3

223

ITEM COMPOSITION OF THE CHILD'S REPORT OF
PARENT BEHAVIOR INVENTORY'S SUBTESTS

 

Factor Schaffer Scale

Item Numbers

 

1-Acceptance

2-Child Centeredness
3-Possessiveness
4-Rejection

1, 13, 25, 27, 49, 61, 73, 85, 97,
109, BI, 813, 85, 817, 829, 841

2, 26, 50, 74, 98, 82, 86, 830
14, 38, 62, 86, 110, 814, 818, 842

3, 15, 27, 39, 51, 63, 75, 87, 99,
111, B3, 815, B7, 819, 831, 843

 

(III) 5-C0ntr01 4, 28, 52, 76, 100, B4, 88, 832
(III) 6-Enforcement 16, 40, 64, 88, 112, B16, 820, B44
(1) 7-Positive Involvement 5, 17, 29, 41, 53, 65, 77, 89, 101,
113, 85, 817, B9, 821, B33, 845
(II) 8-Intrusiveness 6, 30, 54, 78, 102, B6, 810, 834,
18, 42, 66, 90, 114, 818, B22, 846
(II) 9-Control through 18, 42, 66, 90, 114, 818, 822, 846
Guilt
(II) lO-Hostile Control 7, 19, 31, 43, 55, 67, 79, 91, 103,
115, 87, 819, 811, 823, 835, 847
(II) ll-Inconsistent 8, 32, 56, 80, 104, 88, 812, 836
Discipline
(III) lZ-Nonenforcement 20, 44, 68, 92, 116, 820, 824, 848
(I) 13-Acceptance of 9, 21, 33, 45, 577, 69, 81, 93,
Individuation 105, 117, 89, 81, 813, 825, 837,
849
(III) l4-Lax Discipline 10, 34, 58, 82, 106, 810, 814, 838
(II) lS-Instilling Persistent 22, 46, 70, 94, 118, 82, 826, 850
Anxiety
(I) 16-Hosti1e Detachment ll, 23, 35, 47, 59, 71, 83, 95, 107,
119, 811, 83, 815, 827, 839, 851
(III) 17-Withdrawa1 Relations 12, 36, 60, 84, 108, 812, 816, 840
(III) 18-Extreme Autonomy 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 84, 828, 852
Note: Score by assigning the value of 3 to Like, 2 to Somewhat Like,

and 1 to Not Like

APPENDIX D

TWELVE FACTORS FROM SECOND FACTOR ANALYSIS
OF THE REAL FORM OF THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL
FATHERING SCALE

224

TWELVE FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE REAL FORM OF
PHENOMENOLOGICAL FATHERING SCALE

Items listed in order of highest to lowest loading within factor.

FACTOR I

56

P3

)
)
)
)
)

4l He was protective of me.
49 He was responsive to and supportive of my interests.
57 When he was present, if I was hurt he was concerned and made
sure I was all right.
23) He always picked me up on time.
43) He believed I could do anything I put my mind to.
51) He was on my side when I got in trouble.
loaded higher on another factor--28 He was warm and snuggly.
46) He gave me piggyback rides, tickled me, tossed me, etc.
loaded higher on other factors--13 He liked to take me 913C95-
58) If I had a problem, he would solve it for me.
FACTOR II
3) He was proud of me. (negative)
9) He spanked me.
67) He yelled at me.
62) He was critical of my table manners and eating habits.
55) He did most of the punishing.

He enjoyed having me around.

He was proud of me.

225

226

11) When I was discouraged or failing in school or an activity, he
became angry and critical.

6) I was afraid of him.

68) It was hard to know at times what he would be angered by and
punish.

64) He was grouchy.

29) He felt there was a logical reasonable way of living, and let
me know if I was not behaving in that way.

very weak--26) he disliked crying.

FACTOR III

24) When a problem arose, he asked for my opinion.

FACTOR V

31) I respected him as a person.

16) When I was out in public with him I felt embarrassed. (negative)
17) He was basically happy.

8) I was proud of him.

14) I felt like he did not love me. (negative)

FACTOR VI

50) He wanted to know where I was going to play.

38) It was important to him to know with whom I was playing.
loaded higher on another factor--4l He was protective of me.

53) He brought me treats and suprises he knew I would like.

FACTOR VII
60) He was busy with outside activities.

4) He was out of town.

227

Loaded higher elsewhere--37 I felt like he was not around enough.

61) He was so talkative it was hard to get a word in edgewise.

FACTOR VIII

20) It was hard to know what would make him angry at times, what
I would be punished for.

5) He was not affectionately demonstrative.

loaded higher on another factor--68 It was hard to know what
he would be angered by and punish.

FACTOR IX
36) He told me he loved me.
18) I toId him I loved him.

28) He was warm and snuggly.

FACTOR X
45) He had so much work to do there was little time for me.
37) I felt like he was not around enough.

52) Even when he was around he was too preoccupied to spend much
time with me.

44) Very weak - It didn't matter to him where I went or at what time
I came in at night.
FACTOR XI
7) He shared humorous stories about his childhood with me.
32) He shared sad stories about his childhood.

33) It was hard to know what he was feeling. (negative)

FACTOR XII
70) He wanted me to do things better than other kids.

APPENDIX E

FOUR FACTORS FROM FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE
RECALLED PARENTAL DIVORCE SCALE (RPDS)

228

QUESTIONS COMPRISING THE FOUR DIVORCE FACTORS

Divorce I--Parent-Child Divorce Adjustment

27)
29)
13)

12)
21)
9)

My relationship with Dad before divorce was close.
My relationship with Dad after divorce was close.

When they divorced I believed it was best for all concerned.
(negative)

I wished I could've lived with the other parent.
My mother was happier after the divorce. (negative)

I wished my parents would remarry.

Divorce II--Hostile Parental Involvement

 

25)
23)
26)

15)

One parent asked me for information about the other.
One parent told me untrue things about the other.

My custodial parent cooperated with visitation and encouraged
visits. (negative)

When my parents divorced I was worried about my future.

Divorce III--Resolution

22)
24)
17)
20)

My father was happier after the divorce.
One parent gave me messages to give to the other. (negative)
My parents argued after divorce. (negative)

I was happier after the divorce.

Divorce IV--Parental Cooperative Involvement

19)
18)
16)

8)

My parents were friends after the divorce.

My parents made plans for me together after the divorce.

My parents ta1ked after the divorce.

After the divorce my parents disagreed about how I should be
raised. (negative)

229

APPENDIX F

CORRELATIONAL MATRIX

230

2531

0.0000..0.0¢ .00.00: .0000000 .0 00.000000. 0:» .0 300. 00000 900000000.0
.900. 0.000 90.000000 30.90.000.802... 05 0.0 0.00.. 00000 00000000003
.000. 0.000 00.000000 .00.00.000000000 000 00 000. .000.
.900. 0.009 90.000000 .00.90.000§00000 000 .0 200. .000
.9900. 0.009 00000 .0.:0000 .0 00.000000. 0:0 .0 00.000> :00. :0.
.9000. 0.009 00000 .0000000 .0 00.000000. 000 .0 00.000> 000. 009.9 :

.9999090
...9.99
...9.9.
...9.9¢
9.3.990

92.999

..0000. 0...00.....;._. 00.00000 .0000000 .0 0000000 0.0000..00 0.00000000 00 0. 0000000 . 00.000 - 0. 0000000 . 00200
.0000. 0.000 00000.0 .0000000 00 ..0000 000 .0 ... 000000 -

.9909. 0.009 00.0».9 .0000... .0 ..009: 0:» .0 .. .0000. :
.9999. 0.009 00009.9 .oucosam .0 ..0009 0:0 .0 . sauna. :

.00000200 00 000000 000.0...000 0 .. 9000.00 0. 9999.99.

.99. 0.. .92—9.9 : 0:0.

9>.0
99.0
.>.0

.9. 0. ...:9.9 : c

 

 

9999.9 999..9 9999.9 999..9 .999.9: 9..9.9: 9999.9: ..99.9 999..9: 99.9.9 .9.¢<099
«09999.9 «..99.9: 99.9.9: c.9999.9: .999.9: 049999.9 «09.9..9 9....9 9999.9 9999.9 ...9.99
9999.9: 9999.9 99.9.9 9999.9 9.99.9: 09999.9: 9999.9: 9999.9: 9999.9: .999.9 ...9.9.
0.99.9.9: .9...9 9999.9 .9..9.9 .99..9: 00.999.9: 00.99..9: 999..9: 9999.9: 9.9..9 ...9.99
9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 99.9.9 .999.9 ..99.9 99.—.9 99.9.9 9.9..9 9.99.9 9.2.999
9999.9 9999.9 9999.9 99.9.9 .999.9 ..99.9 99.—.9 99.9.9 9.9..9 9.99.9 99.999
9999.9 c0999..9: .0999..9: 00.9...9: 9.99.9: «9999.9 c.9999.9 .999.9 9.9..9 .99..9 9.99199
09.99.99 ..99.9 09999.9 0.9.99.9 «9999.9: 9999.9: «9999.9: 99.9.9 9999.9: 9..9.9: ...(299
.09999.9: 99.9.9 9999.9 c.9999.9 9999.9. 009999.9: ca.999.9: 9999.9: .999.9: 9.9..9: 9.99999
«9999.9: «c.999.9 .099...9 009999.9 «09999.9 9999.9: «99.9.9: .99..9: 9999.9: 99.9.9: 9.99199
9999.9 09999.9: 9999.9: 9999.9: 999..9 9.99.9 .999.9 99.9.9 99.9.9 9999.9 9.99:99
009999.9 09999.9: ..999.9: c.9999.9: 9999.9: 00999..9 0.99.9.9 999..9 99.9.9 999..9 9.09:99
999..9 9999.9: 9999.9: 999..9: 9999.9 999..9 .999.9 9999.9 9.99.9: 99...9 9.99:99
9999.9: 9999.9 .9.9.9 «09999.9 ..99.9 .99..9: .999.9: 9999.9 99.—.9: 9999.9: ...9399
«9999.9: «09.9..9 0:999..9 «099...9 09..9.9 .999.9: #09..9.9: 99.9.9: 999..9: .999.9 9.99199
0.9.99.9: «99.9.9 00.999.9 ct999..9 9999.9 9999.9: 009999.9: 99.9.9 .999.9: .9.9.9: 9.9199
999..9: cc9999.9 «c..9..9 09..9.9 c.999..9 .999.9: 999..9: 9999.9 9999.9: ..9..9 909999
009999.. .999.9: .9.9.9: 0c999..9: 9999.9: 00.9...9 0c9999.9 999..9 9999.9 9.9..9 ..(199
.999.9: «09999.. 0.99.9.9 ¢9999.9 09999.9 .999.9: 9999.9: 9.99.9 9..9.9: 99.9.9 909199
.9.9.9: 0.99.9.9 009999.. 009999.9 «.999.9 999..9: ..99.9: 9.99.9 99.9.9: 9999.9 9.9199
c0999..9: 09999.9 c.9999.9 009999.. .999.9 «09999.9: «#999..9: 999..9: 9999.9: 999..9: 9.9199
9999.9: «9999.9 ..999.9 .999.9 009999.. .999.9 .9.9.9: 9.9..9 9999.9: 9999.9 9.9299
«0.9...9 .999.9: 999..9: c.9999.9: .999.9 009999.. «099...9 999..9 9.99.: 999..9 9.9199
ca9999.9 9999.9: ..99.9: cc999..9: .9.9.9: 0099...9 009999.. 9999.9 .999.9 .99..9 .u9zum
999..9 9.99.9 9.99.9 999..9: 9.9..9 999..9 9999.9 009999.. 9999.9: 09.99.9 9>.0.
9999.9 9..9.9: 99.9.9: 9999.9: 9999.9: 9.99.9 .999.9 9999.9: 009999.. .99..9: 99.9.
9.9..9 99.9.9 9999.9 999..9: 9999.9 999..9 .99..9 c9.99.9 .99..9: 009999.. .>.9
.0<:99 Immmmum 90¢:99 9.9999 9.9999 .99999 9>.9. 9>.9. .>.9

9.9999

1!].

 

:l: IvIIQ. Mil

0.0002020: .0300: .0000000 .0 00.0000000 000 .0 0.00. 00000 ...00000000... : 0.9.2.9099

.900. 0.000 00.000000 .00.00.0000.00000 000 .0 .000. 00000 000000000... : ......00

.000. 0.000 00.000000 ..00.00.000§0000 000 n.0 0:00 .000. - ......0.

.000. 0.000 00.000000 .00.00.000000000 000 .0 000. .000 - ...0.00

.0000. 0.000 00000 .0000000 00 00.000000. 000 00 00.0000 000. 00. - 0.0.000

.0000. 0.000 00000 .0000000 00 00.000000. 000 00 00.000, 000. 000.0 - 00.000

..0000. 00000000. 00.00000 .0000000 00 0000000 0.0000..00 0.00.00000 00 0. 0000000 . 00.000 - 0. 0000000 . 00000

.00000000 00 000000 000.0...000 0 0. 0000.00 0. 0000.00.

.9909. 0.009 00000.9 .0000000 .0 ..0009 000 .0 ... 000000 : 9>.9
.9909. 0.009 00000.9 .0000000 .0 ..0009 000 .0 .. 000000 : 99.9
.9901. 0.009 0000>.9 .0000000 .0 ..0009 000 .0 . 000000 : .>.9

.8. 0.. 0.00.0 - ....

.0. 00 ...00.0 - 0

 

232

 

99.9.9: 9999.9 9.99.9 9999.9: 99...9: 999..9 999..9: 9999.9: 9999.9 99.9.9: .9.99099
««9999.9: ««9999.9: ««99...9: 9990.9 ««9.99.9 9999.9 «9999.9: ««9999.9: ««.999.9: .999.9: ...9.99
9.99.9 «9999.9 9999.9 9....9: .9.9.9: .....9 9999.9: 9999.9 9999.9: .999.9: ...9.9.
9.99.9 ««...9.9 .999.9 999..9: ««9999.9: 9999.9: 999..9 99.9.9 9999.9 ..99.9 ...9h91
999..9 .999.9 .999.9 9.99.9 9999.9 9999.9 999..9 9999.9 ..99.9: 9999.9 9.1.999
999..9 .999.9 .999.9 9.99.9 9999.9 9999.9 999..: 9999.9 ..99.9: 9999.9 91.999
«9.99.9: ««9999.9: ««9.99.9: «9999.9 ««999..9 «9999.9 99.9.9: ««.....9: ««9.99.9: «9999.9: 9.09199
««9999.. «9.99.9 ««9999.9 .99..9 ««.9...9: 9.99.9 ««9999.9 «099.9.9 ««.9.9.9 ««99.9.9 ..09199
«9.99.9 ««9999.. ««9999.9 9.99.9: ««99.9.9: 999..9: .999.9 ««.999.9 ««.999.9 99.9.9 9.09199
««9999.9 ««9999.9 ««9999.. .999.9: ««999..9: 9.9..9: ««9..9.9 ««.9.9.9 ««.999.9 ««999..9 9.09199
.99..9 9.99.9: .999.9: ««9999.. 9999.9 ««9.9..9 99.9.9 999..9: 9....9: 9999.9 9.09199
««.9...9: ««99.9.9: ««999..9: 9999.9 ««9999.. 9999.9 «99.9.9: ««999..9: ««9999.9: 99.9.9: 9.09199
9.99.9 999..9: 9.9..9: ««9.9..9 9999.9 ««9999.. 9.9..9 99...9: 99...9: .999.9: 9.09199
««9999.9 .999.9 ««9..9.9 99.9.9 «99.9.9: 9.9..9 ««9999.. ««9999.9 ««9..9.9 «9999.9 ..09199
««99.9.9 ««.999.9 ««.9.9.9 999..9: ««999..9: 99...9: ««9999.9 ««9999.. ««.999.9 ««..9..9 9.09199
««.9.9.9 ««.999.9 ««.999.9 9....9: ««9999.9: 99...9: ««9..9.9 ««.999.9 ««9999.. «9.99.9 909199
««99.9.9 99.9.9 ««999..9 9999.9 99.9.9: .999.9: «9999.9 ««..9..9 «9.99.9 ««9999.. 909199
«9.99.9: ««9999.9: «9999.9: 9999.9 ««9999.9 999..9 9999.9: «9999.9: ««9.99.9: 999..9: .09199
..99.9 99.9.9 ««.999.9 «9999.9: «9999.9: 9999.9: 9999.9 ««9.9..9 «99.9.9 ««9999.9 909199
«9999.9 9999.9 ««99...9 9999.9: «.999.9: 9999.9: .9.9.9 ««999..9 ««.999.9 ««..9..9 909199
««9.99.9 ««9999.9 ««9999.9 9999.9: ««9999.9: 999..9: ««9999.9 ««99...9 ««999..9 «9..9.9 909199
«9999.9 9999.9: ««9999.9 999..9 9999.9: 9999.9 ..99.9 «9..9.9 9999.9 ««999..9 909199
9999.9: ««9999.9: 9999.9: 9.99.9 ««999..9 999..9 .99..9: .999.9: 9999.9: .999.9: 909199
«9999.9: ««.999.9: «99.9.9: .999.9 ««99.9.9 .999.9 .999.9: ««9..9.9: ««9999.9: 999..9: .09199
99.9.9 9999.9: .99..9: 99.9.9 999..9 9999.9 9999.9 99.9.9: 99.9.9 9999.9 9>.9.
9999.9: .999.9: 9999.9: 99.9.9 99.9.9 9.99.9: 99...9: 999..9: .999.9: 9999.9: 90.9.
9..9.9: 9.9..9: 99.9.9: 9999.9 999..9 99.—.9 9999.9: .999.9 .9.9.9: ..9..9 .>.9
..09199 9.09199 9.09199 9.09199 9.09199 9.09199 ..09199 9.09199 909199 909199

 

I III-I'. Ifluur. III. r:l.:l III!

II .I...|.I IV.‘ E]

I." I III I Fl:hllk

 

n_;m:o.uopo¢ —~u.sox —aucogaa ma =o.anousua vs» mo ago; «Loom mucoaugum—a . hohztamn

.muav opaum 9:.5osuau puu9oopoco-ocoga osu we snow «Loom aucaaoguu.a . .spOpma

“many o_aum u:_goguou —~u_uo_o=usoco;m ogu ‘o sgau .aoo~ - pshopou

Amuav o_.um u:.gugu.u ..u.uo_ocoso=~g¢ as» ‘9 Eco; ..az - .Nhohug

Amaaa. upaum saga: _oa=ogan ‘0 =o_unuugug ogu *0 co_mgu> suu_ cm» - o—:h<ua

Amagg. upaum suave ..a:og.¢ *o =o_uaougoa agu yo covmgu> any. “gm.” - czh<ua

Apomxuv abouco>=. so.>acwo .aucosaa mo museum“ m.=ogu—_gu m.go»»ogum be m— gaaogsa p mo—uum - op gaaogsu — m<um
Anomav o—oum ouso>.o poucuL-a we ppauuz 0:» ho -~ sauna; - m>~o

.mozav «Faun ougo>_c paucugoa mo ppauox cg» *9 __ souuou . ~’_a

Among. opoum ouso>.a .aacagaa mo ppuuux as» *9 _ Logos; - p>~o

.uouageou on «ocgou u:o.u.;‘uou . w. sous..a “— oeco.ao. .oo. 04 .~.=a.m - .. .o. «a ...:u.m - .

233

 

 

.coooo.— own—.0 Nonn.o Dem—.5 opmo.o c—mc.o owoo.o- hohz<mma
awn—.0 «.oooo.— ovoo.o ¢oaOm.on pnvc.c pnvo.o c¢-om.c —~hchmo
mamm.o mvwo.o c¢cooo.— cceo~o.o omoo.oa ammo.cu paw—.cn pupa»:—
cvo—.o coacm.co cav¢—o.o c¢oooo.— v—vo.o v—vc.c N~NM.Oc —~hchu¢
cpmo.o pncc.c amoo.c- cpvo.c ¢coooo.— ¢¢cooc.p m~——.o cpzh<uo
c—mc.o pnvo.o ammo.Ou v—«o.c .coooc.— ccoooo.— mwp—.o ¢=h<ua
o~oo.cn ccwnmm.o paw—.ci ssmn.0u mwpp.o m~——.o .¢oooo.— m—uczum
nopo.0u ccvvww.9u cswo.o n—nn.o ova—.0 uva—.o «o—Nm.o- upu¢zum
moo~.o a.vuam.cn .vnov.c ccs—sc.o pnco.c —noo.c ¢¢omom.OI opu¢zum
vsmo.o ucmmps.°u munc.o p~o~.o seoc.c ucmo.o «cmsmo.co m—mczum
vooo.cu nvmp.c esp—.9- °¢¢—.cu anvn.c escn.o .oamm.o v—u<=um
ou——.cu tcn—nm.o pv—n.cc «.vuom.cu vmoo.o cmoo.o can~¢~.o n—u<=um
woe—.o onm~.c —n——.o mana.o: wwmm.o owmn.o «mmw¢.o ~—u¢=um
mac—.c- ¢o~ov.o- memo.0c moo—.6 mNm—.c mwnp.o nc—0.0n p—m¢:uw
anno.cu tcnamc.c- mmoo.o cann.o onn~.c ann~.o «cu—p~.On c—u¢=um
~o~o.o cc—owo.cu m~m°.on noon.o pswo.cu pswo.on .cm—no.¢u mu¢zum
an~.on pmuv.cu pmoc.0n ppoo.c wov~.c oo¢~.o «cemv.9n om<=um
cvwo.o ..oaom.c o~m~.cn ccmvso.on vmvc.o vovo.c ccnom.° ~m<=um
comp.o c-om.oa mavo.o nm——.o ammc.o mmmc.c camm~N.Ou ou¢=um
ovno.o mv—v.cn mm—c.c camo.° oovc.o coeo.o ccmvm~.cu mu¢=um
mum—.0 ¢¢omco.o- womm.o .nnpm.o copo.o ou—o.o c¢nvps.0o vu¢zum
pm-.ou ~mw~.cu cpvn.on now—.c- smm~.o smm~.o o~v~.o- nu<=um
upso.ou tcam¢m.c «onoc.oa cc—nmm.cu ——m~.o p—m~.o ¢°~w¢.o ~a<zum
camo.o- ¢cv~w~.o Naon.ou cc~mu~.o- ~n——.o Nap—.c .coeom.o pm<=um
nn-.c amp—.c mmm°.c- non—.on oa—c.c ow~o.o uwmc.o n>~o~
non—.cu vo¢~.o cm-.cn ~ecn.cu w—~—.o o—~—.o a—u—.o ~>~a~
wm—N.c mmcc.c sumo.o o—o—.o m—~¢.c m—Nv.c amt—.0 —>~a
hob¢<amo pxhchma puho»a_ o—=h<mo wzh<wo mpu<zum

—~howm¢

 

H'IPI

APPENDIX G

WRITTEN SUBJECTS' COMMENTS

234

COMMENTS

My real father was a Municipal Court Judge and a Detroit Recorder's
Ct. Visiting Judge. He had 7 children between ages 6 and 14 then
he died; consequently we rarely received individualized attention.
I think I had the best relationship with him out of all my brothers
and sisters, though. He often took me to work, concerns, driving
in parades, etc.

 

I was the youngest of three children. I had two older brothers who
were 4 and 8 years older than me. My father treated the two boys
very differently than me. They were punished more often and more
severely than 1. He almost never punished me and it was very rare

if he really ever got angry at me. I was my fathers "little girl,"
his "little princess." He catered to me as much as he possibly could.
He did however try not to spoil me too much. He also tried to instill
in me a sense of appreciation. Although he did not punish me often
he would try and talk to me when I did something wrong and teach

me a sense of "right and wrong." 0n the whole he was a very loving
and understanding man and we had a very good relationship as father
and daughter. That is basically what stands out in my mind about

him, even though I was only 9 when he died.

235

236

While answering some of these questions I found it difficult to do

so in the way that I thought would be right and in a way fair to my
father. You seem to have failed to take into consideration the number
of children in a family. Since I am from a "large" family (nine
brothers and sisters) I found it awkward answering questions that
seemed directed to females with fewer brothers and sisters.

Questions such as "Usually makes me the center of his attention" led
me Unbelieve that I should answer 'not like my father' because he
could not spend all his time making me the center of his attention--
there were nine others that needed his attention. Yet I answered it
was like my father because he paid attention to me when he could.
Has that the correct response?--I don't know.

Overall, I hope my survey helps in your research. Thanks for listening
to my comments.

Good luck,
396-80-736l

 

Thank you for making up such a neat survey--I never had a chance to
express my true feelings and thoughts about my father before. He
wasn't/isn't a bad father, but he never has time for any of his
children--all daughters. Many times I have felt like I am a
disappointment to him because I wasn't a boy. I know he wanted one.