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 Valueu “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 m4mouio§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~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 u0mHx HHHx HHx Hx x xH HHH> HH> H> > >H HHH HH H mgouumm zmou 4ugooo 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.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

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 any. “gm.” - czh=. so.>acwo .aucosaa mo museum“ m.=ogu—_gu m.go»»ogum be m— gaaogsa p mo—uum - op gaaogsu — m.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~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¢