ANXIETY AND NEGATIVE FEELING:
CHILDREN’S PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY MEMBERS

THESIS FUR THE DEGREE 0F MB
MECHEGAN STATE UNWEBSHY

sums: ELszasm mm
1.959

MNN\\\\\\\\\\\\1\N\\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\N LIBRARY

MlChlgdla ‘If 3C0

University

 

This is to certify that the

 

thesis entitled

ANXIETY AND NEGATIVE FEELING:
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY MEMBERS

presented by
Suzanne Elizabeth Barnett
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph°D° degree in_Y_PS chology

8W3? KO, 5/

Major professor

.DateT/(f vac/VG?

0-169

ABSTRACT
ANXIETY AND NEGATIVE FEELING:
CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY MEMBERS
By

Suzanne Elizabeth Barnett

This study involved an assessment of negative feelings in the
family as perceived by relatively normal children who showed unusually
high and unusually low anxiety levels. The 298 fourth-grade, public
school students were selected from.Midwestern, small towns on the basis
of geographical proximity, and the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale was
administered to them on a group basis. 0f the 298 children, 56 85 were
identified who scored in the tOp and bottom 20% of the boys' and girls'
distributions on the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale; furthermore, the
families of these 56 83 were of approximately middle-class status and
were living in intact units, i.e., father and mother and at least one
sibling within five years of each subject's age. These 56 Ss consti-
tuted the following four sex-by-anxiety groups: high anxiety boys, low
anxiety boys, high anxiety girls, and low anxiety girls; on an individual
basis, each of these 56 88 was given the Bene-Anthony Family Relations
Test, a Structured play situation in which the child assigned 86 statements
of feeling to cardboard figures representing himself, his family members,
and "nobody," i.e., a figure to whom the child might assign statements he
regarded as inapprOpriate to anyone in his family.

In this study, data available on positive feeling statements were

not used. Group mean scores of the amount of negative feeling assigned to

self, parents, siblings, and
puted for the four sex-by-anxiety groups.

two patterns of differences among the four groups; one of the patterns was

compatible

pattern was compatible with a behavioristic theory of conscious hostility.

Other hypotheses were concerned with the effect of sex alone regardless of

Suzanne Elizabeth Barnett

"nobody" (interpreted as denial) were com-

with the Freudian theory of unconscious defenses, and the other

anxiety level and the effect of basic role in the family, i.e., being a

parent or a sibling.

Several analysis of variance designs were utilized to test these

hypotheses.

l.

The following were the major findings:
Anxiety level did affect the amount of negative feeling
perceptions which were associated with the family,
esPecially with parents; anxiety level might or might not
affect negative feeling perceptions associated with
siblings.
The differences between the perception of negative feel-
ing by high and low anxiety children were compatible with
a theory of conscious hostility rather than with a theory
of unconscious defenses. In comparison with low anxiety
children, high anxiety children showed less denial of
negative feeling within the family and more conscious
negative feeling associated with their parents as a united
pair and with their fathers alone. This corre3pondence
between anxiety and negative feeling was demonstrated

without the necessity of invoking the notion of defense

One major hypothesis dealt with

Suzanne Elizabeth Barnett

mechanisms; high anxiety tended to accompany higher
negative feeling, and low anxiety tended to accompany
lower negative feeling.

In comparison with low anxiety girls, high anxiety
girls showed more conscious negative feeling
associated with their mothers alone; high anxiety boys
did not show more negative feeling associated with
their mothers alone than low anxiety boys. However,
there was no evidence that the sex of the child £23 £3
affected the amount of negative feeling perceptions
associated with family members.

Basic role of the object in the family, i.e., being a
parent or a sibling, did affect the amount of negative
feeling perceptions associated with family members.
Children, regardless of sex or anxiety level, showed
more negative feeling associated with siblings than

with parents.

ANXIETY AND NEGATIVE FEELING:

CHILDREN'S PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY MEMBERS

By

Suzanne Elizabeth Barnett

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The investigator wishes to thank the teachers and adminis-
trators of the public schools of Macomb, Adair, Bushnell, and Prairie
City, Illinois for allowing the use of fourth grade classes in this
study.

The writer is deeply appreciative of the assistance in
administering tests given by Dr. Elizabeth KasPar, Patricia Hutinger,
and Sandra Nelson.

The investigator is indebted to Dr. Lucy Rau Ferguson,

Dr. Bertram Karon, and Dr. John McKinney for their thoughtful criti-
cism. She is especially grateful to Dr. Bill Kell, the supervisor of

this study, for his helpful suggestions and unfailing encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Background of the problem
The problem

Statement of hypotheses
Previous research

II. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The subjects
The instruments

Phase I: Administration of the Children's Manifest

Anxiety Scale

Instructions
Scoring

Phase II: Administration of the Family Relations
Test

Instructions
Scoring
Treatment of the data
III. THE RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Discussion

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

APPENDIX A I O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O I O O O O 0

Description of Study for School Personnel

Letter to Parents

Instruments: Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale
Family Relations Test

iii

Page

ii

18

3O

43

46

Page
APPENDIX B O O O O O O O O I I 0 O O Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 58
Raw Data from Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale
Raw Data from Family Relations Test

Non-significant Analysis of Variance Tables

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Diagram of 2 X 2 Analysis of Variance Design . . . . . . . 28
2. Diagram of l X 6 Analysis of Variance Design . . . . . . . 28

3. Diagram of 1 X 2 Analysis of Variance Design . . . . . . . 29

4. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Parents . . . . . . . . . . 32

5. Group Mean Scores of Negative Feeling Perceptions
Associated with Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

6. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Father. . . . . . . . . . . 33

7. Group Mean Scores of Negative Feeling Perceptions
Associated with Father. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

8. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with the "Nobody" Figure . . . . 34

9. Group Mean Scores of Negative Feeling Perceptions
Associated with the "Nobody" Figure . . . . . . . . . . 35

10. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Mother. . . . . . . . . . . 36

11. Group Mean Scores of Negative Feeling Perceptions
Associated with Mother. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

12. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Parents or
all Siblings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

13. Diagram of the Amount in Ordinal Form of Negative
Feeling Associated with Each of Nine Figures
by the Four Sex-by-Anxiety Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 39

14. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Self. . . . . . . . . . . . 67

15. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Important Sibling . . . . . 67

16. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Important Sibling
Brother 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 0 68

Page

17. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Other Siblings. . . . . . . 68

18. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Total Siblings. . . . . . . 69

19. Analysis of Variance of Negative Feeling
Perceptions Associated with Mother or
Father or "Nobody" or Self or Important
Sibling or Other Siblings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Problem

 

 

The present study examines certain aspects of the relationship
of anxiety to negative feeling in children. Anxiety has been described
by Freud as ". . . an affective state . . . of most obviously
unpleasurable character" (1936, p. 69), and ". . . as a signal indi-
cating the presence of a danger situation (1933, p. 119).” Although he
differentiates between fear, or objective anxiety, and neurotic anxiety
on the basis of whether the source of the danger was from the external
world or from internal impulse, the description of anxiety as a sub-
jective eXperience of apprehension or dread seems indistinguishable
from fear.

Probably the most striking description of the hypothetical
origin of anxiety as a frightening, aversive experience is given by
Otto Fenichel.

The biological helplessness of the human infant brings him
necessarily into states of painful high tension. States in
which the organism is flooded by amounts of excitation beyond
its capacity to master are called traumatic states . . . .
The sensations of this 'primary anxiety' can be looked upon
partly as the way in which the tension makes itself felt and
partly as the perception of involuntary vegetative emergency
discharges. . . . Certainly this primary anxiety is in no
way created actively by the ego; it is created by external
and internal stimuli, still unmastered, and insofar as it is
experienced as a conscious painful feeling, it is experienced

passively, as something that occurs to the ego and has to be
endured (1945, p. 42).

Harry Stack Sullivan, generally considered to be a nee-Freudian,
also regards anxiety as an intensely unpleasant state, but he

/

emphasizes that anxiety is usually eXperienced in interpersonal re-
lations (1953). The term "negative feeling" is not a technical term
with a precise meaning, but usage indicates that the term means an
emotion of angry dislike or hatred. In this study, anxiety will refer
to fear in an interpersonal context, and negative feeling will refer to
hostility coming from or directed to pe0ple.

Many theories of personality (Freud, 1936; Dollard and Miller,
1950; Rogers, 1959) have focused on the fundamental role of anxiety in
maladaptive personality development and have assumed that a key step in
the process links anxiety and negative feeling. In these deve10pmental
theories, the family is generally viewed as the social environment in
which the individual has his first, crucial eXperiences with anxiety
and negative feeling, and the parents are seen as the chief agents who
produce anxiety and negative feeling in children. In the case of mal-
adaptive personality development, abnormally high anxiety may lead to
unusually large amounts of negative feeling, or unusually large amounts
of negative feeling may lead to abnormally high anxiety.

Freudian theorists have generally seen the connections between
anxiety and negative feeling as a consequence of the infant's helpless-
ness to gratify his own basic needs and his assumed capacity for
animistic thinking. The helpless infant must depend upon his parents
to gratify his needs. Inevitably, even when the parents are most
attentive to his needs, the infant, to some extent, exPeriences delay
of gratification which results in frustration. Frustration due to

delay of gratification generates feelings of hostility toward the

parents. In the infant, of course, feelings of need and feelings of

hostility involve primitive, animistic thinking. Fenichel writes of the

very young child who ". . . fantasies devouring his environment" and

then ". . . fantasies that he might be eaten by the parents (1945, p.
44)." Melanie Klein, in particular, focuses on the connection in
infantile thinking between this unrealistic anxiety about being eaten
by the parents and sadistic fantasies of excluding and destroying his
parental objects, i.e., the infant's primitive ideas or images of the
parents. It cannot be assumed, she writes

. . . that the child's fear of being devoured, cut up and
killed by its parents is a reality fear. But if we suppose
that this excessive anxiety can only be an effect of intra-
psychic processes we shall not be so far from the theory
put forward in these pages that early anxiety proceeds from
the pressure of the super-ego . . . . In this stage of the
develOpment of the individual his methods of defense are
pr0portionate to the pressure of anxiety in him and are
violent in the extreme. We know that in the early anal-
sadistic stage what he is ejecting is his [parental] object,
which he perceives as something hostile to him . . . . In
my view, what he is also already ejecting is his terrifying
super-ego which he has introjected in the oral-sadistic
stage of his development. Thus his act of ejection is a
means of defense employed by his fear-ridden ego against
his super-ego; it exPels his internalized [parental] objects
and projects them into the outer world (1954, pp. 198-200).

Parental objects are perceived by the child as hostile because
they are associated with the frustration of his needs; the child then
responds with feelings of hostility toward the parents. In his ani-
mistic world, the child does not distinguish between his feelings and
thoughts on the one hand and actual events on the other hand.
Consequently, from the child's viewpoint, his own feelings of hostility

toward his parents involve actual destruction of the parents. The child

becomes anxious over his own destructiveness for two reasons; he fears
the loss of his desperately needed parental objects, and at the same
time he fears the retaliatory anger of his parents. In summary, the
following connections are hypothesized between frustration and anxiety:
the helpless condition of the very young child leads to frustration and
concomitant hostility directed at parents who care for the child's
needs. However, the child's hostile feelings lead to anxiety over the
loss of the parents as well as fear of reciprocal hostility by the
parents.

Some investigators, esPecially Sigmund Freud and Anna Freud,
have elaborated a theory of unconscious defenses against anxiety in
which awareness of the concomitant negative feeling is supposed to be
selectively altered in terms of the objects toward which the negative
feeling is directed. Part of the negative feeling may be directed away
from parental objects and toward safer objects. The parents should be
the objects of the anxious child's negative feeling. However, the
child's negative feeling threatens the loss of the parental object
which he needs; moreover, the child's negative feeling is likely to
evoke the exercise of parental sanctions against the child. Conse-
quently, the anxious child selectively overlooks the parents as objects
of hostility and turns his negative feeling toward safer objects, such
as other children. However, a residue of negative feeling is presumably
directed toward the self, and the ensuing personality maladjustment is
predicated on the unfortunate effects of low self-esteem and self-

hatred. Possibly the most eXplicit theoretical statement of the notion

of seeking safer, substitute objects for negative feeling is contained
in Anna Freud's The Ego and the Mechanisms 2f Defense (1946). In her
View, the highly anxious child is particularly concerned with defending
himself against the dangerous awareness of negative feeling associated
with powerful parent figures, and the available defenses include turn-
ing negative feeling against the self, displacing negative feeling to
others, e.g., siblings, and denial of negative feeling.

The Freudian formulation of a theory of unconscious defenses
appears to beg an important question. Does the anxious child really
defend himself against the conscious awareness of negative feelings, or
does he merely learn to desist from direct, aggressive expressions of
those negative feelings of which he remains consciously aware?

Bandura and Walters (1963) make a distinction between aggressive
behavior which results from a change in the level of aggressive drive
and aggressive behavior which results from habit or discrimination
learning, independent of change in drive level. They seem to be dis-
tinguishing between aggression as a consequence of an internal variable,
i.e., drive, and aggression as a consequence of external variables,
i.e., stimuli.

Dollard and Miller make a distinction between partial and total
inhibition of aggression. They suggest that aggressive eXpressions are
less tolerated in children than in adults and that the anxious child
generally learns to deal with the "anger-anxiety" conflict by resorting
to "indirect modes of angry reaction."

Living in the present and being unable to reassure themselves
about the future, young children resort to anger at inevitable

frustrations. Adults eXperience the hostile or destructive
behavior of young children as a nuisance, do not understand
its inevitability, and frequently punish aggressive responses.
If anger must be abandoned as a response to a frustrating
situation, other reSponses will be tried out. . . . .

Devious forms of aggression are particularly likely to occur
in this case (1950, p. 151).

If, as Dollard and Miller indicate, the typical anxious child has simply

learned to channel his hostility indirectly in the form of covert,
expressed aggression or fantasied aggression, then the child remains
consciously aware of his negative feelings and does not shift his
antagonisms to other objects.1 Therefore, in attempting to explain
typical cases, Dollard and Miller imply an uncomplicated theory of
conscious association between anxiety and negative feeling without the
assumption of unconscious defense mechanisms; such a theory may be re-
garded as a theory of conscious hostility.

Clinical evidence abounds that, as children, troubled peeple
have frequently experienced chronic states of high anxiety associated
with family relationships and that they have accumulated large amounts
of negative feeling. Nevertheless, systematic investigations of the
relationship between parent-child interaction and childhood adjustment
have often produced contradictory or confusing results. After an

exhaustive review of forty years of research, Frank concluded:

 

10m p. 152 of Personality and Psychotherapy, Dollard and Miller
hypothesize that inhibition of conscious hostility may occur in two
different degrees. Partial inhibition affects only the direct mode of
expression and is more common among children; complete inhibition is
comparable to the Freudian defense mechanisms and is much rarer among
children.

. . . we have not been able to find any unique factors in the
family of the schiZOphrenic which distinguishes it from the
family of the neurotic or from the family of controls, who are
ostensibly free from evidence of patterns of gross psycho-
pathology. In short, we end by stating that the assumption
that the family is thg factor in the deve10pment of personality
has not been validated (1965, p. 201).

One reason why research in this area has been inconclusive is
that investigators have focused on different parent-child interaction
variables, e.g., parental acceptance of the child (Monkman, 1958), self-
acceptance by the child (Carlson, 1958).

Another reason for the inconclusive research picture has been
the wide variety of measuring instruments utilized. Projective
instruments, such as the Rorschach (Baxter, Becker, and Hooks, 1963)
and the TAT (Cox, 1962), have been used and scored for conventional
signs of disturbance or according to a variety of scoring systems.
Specially devised variants of the TAT type of picture stimulus have been
used with or without storytelling (Kagan, Hosken, and Watson, 1961;
Monkman, 1958). Direct observation of parent-child interaction in a
laboratory situation has also been employed as an assessment procedure
(Hatfield, Ferguson, and Alpert, 1967; Zunich, 1966). Probably the most
popular assessment technique has been the attitude questionnaire, which
is often combined with the interview, administered to parents (Schaefer
and Bell, 1958; Shoben, 1949), to children (Williams, 1958; Schaefer,
1965), or to both in parallel forms (Serot and Teevan, 1961).

Since such widely divergent instruments have been used, genuine

comparability across research studies has seldom existed, and few con-

clusions have been consistently confirmed. However, in Spite of the

confusion, a few conclusions seem at least more probable than others.

In his review, Frank (1965) noted that the child's perception of the
family members may be more important in determining his reactions than
the "reality" of the family. Furthermore, studies by Ausubel (1954) and
by Serot and Teevan (1961) have suggested that childhood adjustment is
related to the child's perception of the familial environment rather
than to parental attitudes.

It seems evident that the relationship between family interaction
and childhood adjustment is actually a complex and still obscure chain
of relationships, but a central position in the chain is occupied by the
child's own perception. [As it will be used in the current investi-
gation, the child's perception of his familial environment refers to his
conscious awareness of the feelings, particularly the negative feelings,
he associates with family members. These feelings may be perceived by
the child as feelings which emanate from himself and are directed
toward a family member, or as feelings which emanate from a family
member and are directed toward himself, or both. It is assumed that the
perceptions are private, but accessible and that they may be revealed if
the child is placed in a situation where such revelation occurs
Spontaneously.

Psychological theory and clinical practice suggest that the child
who shows high anxiety is likely to have accumulated a high level of
hostile feelings. In his need to idealize his parents and protect him-
self from unpleasant experience, does he avoid the perception of nega-

tive feelings associated with his parents and turn these feelings

against himself, his siblings, and into denial, i.e., the theory of
defenses? Does he consciously perceive that negative feelings are
associated with all family members, i.e., the theory of conscious

hostility?

The Problem

 

If anxiety and negative feeling are related as has been assumed
by Sigmund Freud, Dollard and Miller, and Rogers, then anxiety and nega-
tive feeling should be associated in meaningful patterns. If high
anxiety increases the tendency to cope with negative feeling through
defenses, as Anna Freud has assumed, then children with high and low
anxiety levels should show differences in their perceptions of negative
feeling which reflect the Operation of defense mechanisms. Alterna-
tively, if high anxiety is simply associated with conscious negative
feeling, as Dollard and Miller imply, then children with high and low
anxiety levels should show correSponding differences in their
perceptions of negative feeling.

Although in this study, the major interest is in the relation of
anxiety to negative feeling, in addition it is pertinent to hold
constant differences in anxiety level and only consider sex differences,
i.e., boys and girls may show differences in their perceptions of
negative feeling (Linton, Berle, Grossi, and Jackson, 1961). Further-
more, the interaction between sex and anxiety may affect negative
feeling perceptions, i.e., the four sex-by-anxiety combinations may show

differences in perceptions of negative feeling.

10

It is also relevant to hold constant differences in anxiety level
and sex and only consider differences among the family figures in terms
of all children's attributions of negative feeling to various family
members. There is evidence (Kagan, Hosken, and Watson, 1961), that
most children perceive a mother figure as nurturant and a father figure
as powerful. Such a finding suggests that children perceive a mother
figure and father figure differently and that, regardless of sex or
anxiety level, children may differ in the amount of negative feeling

associated with each.

Statement gf Hypotheses

 

This study involves an assessment of negative feelings in the
family as perceived by relatively normal children who show unusually
high or low anxiety levels. In view of what is implied or assumed about
the effect of anxiety on children and the perception of negative feel-

ings by children, one hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis I: Children with high and low anxiety levels

 

will show differences in their negative feeling per-

ceptions associated with significant figures.

A. In comparison with low anxiety children, high
anxiety children will show fewer negative
feeling perceptions associated with their
fathers and mothers but more negative feel-
ing perceptions associated with themselves,

their siblings, and "nobody."

11

(Confirmation of hypothesis I-A would be evidence compatible with a

theory of unconscious defenses.)

B. In comparison with low anxiety children, high
anxiety children will show more negative feel-
ing perceptions associated with all figures.2
(Confirmation of hypothesis I-B would be evidence compatible with a
theory of conscious hostility.)
Furthermore, since there is evidence (Linton, Berle, Grossi, and
Jackson, 1961) of sex differences in children's perceptions of negative

feeling, a second hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis II: Regardless of anxiety level, boys and girls
will show differences in their negative feeling perceptions
associated with father, mother, self, sibling, and "nobody."
Moreover, since there is also evidence (Kagan, Hosken, and
Watson, 1961) that children perceive family members differently, a

third hypothesis will be tested.

Hypothesis III: Regardless of anxiety level or sex, children
will show differences in their negative feeling perceptions

associated with father, mother, self, sibling, and "nobody."

 

2The "nobody" figure is an exception, i.e., to be consistent
with a theory of conscious hostility, high anxiety children will
acknowledge more negative feeling within the family so that they will
show less denial and less negative feeling perceptions involving the
"nobody" figure.

12

Previous Research

The Opportunity for the generation of negative feeling and
anxiety in children is particularly likely to occur when parents attempt
to socialize children to certain standards. One of the most important
standards is the learning of an appr0priate sex role. Generally, sex-
role learning has been explained simply as a matter of identification
with the parent of the same sex. Two recent studies (Hetherington,
1965; Hetherington and Frankie, 1967) have shown that sex-typing,
e8pecially for boys, cannot be attributed only to the modeling of the
overt behavior of the parent of the same sex. Parental dominance and
warmth are important in facilitating the imitation and identification
of children with their parents. However, for boys, paternal dominance
is critical for appr0priate1y masculine sex-typing; maternal dominance
encourages mother-son imitation and mother-son similarity. For girls,
the parental dominance pattern seems to have little effect on sex-role
preference or on mother-daughter similarity; paternal dominance does
increase the father-daughter similarity, which suggests that parental
dominance does affect the girl's feminine role-playing. Maternal warmth
has a greater effect on the apprOpriate identification for girls; the
warmth variable seems to be less important for boys and their fathers.

The effects of parental discipline upon the socialization of
children has long been the subject of investigation. Becker (1964)
reviews a large number of recent studies concerned with discipline and
its consequences, and he concludes that generally parents tend to use

either love~oriented or power-assertive types of discipline.

13

Love-oriented techniques, e.g., praise, showing disappointment, seem to
be associated with developing a child who is morally re8ponsible, non-
aggressive, and cooperative. Power-assertive techniques, e.g., physical
punishment, verbal threats, appear to be correlated with producing a
child who is aggressive, uncooperative, and lacking in the internalized
controls of conscience. Nevertheless, the aggressive behavior of
typical delinquents does not seem to be the result merely of the appli-
cation of power-assertive techniques. Recent studies of delinquents
(McCord, McCord and Zola, 1959; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Andry, 1960)
indicate that characteristically lax discipline is coupled with parental
rejection or that extremely inconsistent and contradictory disciplinary
practices are followed by the parents.

Many studies of non-delinquents show that one consequence of
power-assertive discipline by the mother (Sears, Whiting, Nowlis, and
Sears, 1953; Lefkowitz, walder, and Eron, 1963) or by the father
(Bandura, 1960) is aggression in the child. However, aggression is a
complex phenomenon which cannot be subsumed under simple generali-
zations. In a follow-up of his previously cited 1953 study, which em-
ployed kindergarten children, Sears (1961) has found little relationship
between parental punitiveness in the child's early years and aggression
at age 12. In a series of experiments, Bandura and his collaborators
(Bandura and Walters, 1959; Bandura and Welters, 1963; Bandura and
Huston, 1961) have demonstrated the importance of modeling in the pro-
cess of mediating aggression. Nevertheless, although children tend to

imitate the aggressive behavior of adults, the effectiveness of the

14

modeling seems to depend, in part, on the sex of the model and the sex
of the child (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 1961; 1963); male subjects give
more aggressive reSponses to male models. Unless the aggressive
behavior is verbal rather than physical, most studies of the aggressive
behavior of boys and girls indicate that boys are more aggressive than
girls in both doll-play and real-life situations (Bandura and Walters,
1963).

The question of the relationship of fantasy aggression and overt
aggression has not been satisfactorily resolved. Sears (1950, 1951)
compared pre-school children on aggression in school activities and
doll-play aggression. The children whose mothers were low or moderate
in punitiveness showed about equal amounts of overt and fantasy
aggression; children whose mothers were high in punitiveness demon-
strated little overt aggression in school but much fantasy aggression
in doll-play. However, Lesser (1957) compared boys on their overt
aggression and their fantasy aggression measured by aggressive acts in
stories stimulated by projective pictures; no relationship between
fantasy aggression and overt aggression was found. .A number of the
subjects who were high on overt aggression and low on fantasy aggression
had mothers who discouraged aggression. To explain this finding, Lesser
suggested that these subjects showed little fantasy aggression to the
pictures presented by the adult experimenter because they have learned
that adults disapprove of aggression. These studies by Sears (1950,
1951) and by Lesser (1957), of course, differed in many ways, e.g., age

and sex of subjects, measures of both fantasy and overt aggression;

15

furthermore, Lesser's mothers who discouraged aggression might or might
not have been high in punitiveness.

Some previous research has been aimed specifically at the
development of instruments to assess children's anxiety level and their
negative and positive feelings about others, especially family members.

In order to investigate the perception of negative feeling in
the family by children who differ in anxiety level, it is necessary to
select instruments which assess children's anxiety and perceived feel-
ing involving family members. Although many personality tests may
yield some information about anxiety level, very few instruments have
been Specifically designed to estimate the amount of anxiety in
children. Sarason and his associates (1958) have devised a question-
naire called the General Anxiety Test which they are using in a large
scale study of the develOpment and correlates of anxiety in children.
Probably the best known questionnaire and the one to be used in this
study is the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS), an adaptation by
Castaneda, McCandless, and Palermo (1956) of the Taylor Manifest
Anxiety Scale. In the thirteen years it has been available, the CMAS
has been extensively used in the investigation of diverse variables
ranging from school achievement (McCandless and Castaneda, 1956) to sex
differences in daydreaming (L'abate, 1960).

Of consequence for the present investigation, two studies
(Levitt, 1959; Hafner, Quast, Speer, and Grams, 1964) using the CMAS
with children referred for psychiatric treatment have failed to find a

significant degree of agreement between the parents' evaluations of

16

their children's anxiety and the children's evaluations of their own
anxiety. This finding suggests that children do not perceive themselves
in the same way that their parents do. TWO other studies concern the
relationship of anxiety to self-acceptance and self-concept. Bruce
(1958) found that normal, sixth grade children with lower self-
acceptance scores tended to have higher scores on the CMAS and a
security scale. For fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children assessed

by Lipsitt (1958), CMAS scores and self-concept were negatively
correlated. These conclusions indicate that highly anxious children
have unfavorable perceptions of themselves. Furthermore, perceptual
rigidity appears to be associated with high anxiety, as measured by the
CMAS, according to Smock (1958) who compared fifth graders with high and
low anxiety scores on measures of cognitive-perceptual closure and
rigidity.

Along with the CMAS, the current investigation will employ an
instrument for estimating perceived feeling among family members. In
addition to the projective tests and the more objective questionnaires,
which have already been discussed, a relatively new and little used
technique is available and will be employed in this study. The Family
Relations Test (FRT) devised by Bene and Anthony (1957) is a structured
play situation in which the child clearly indicates the positive and
negative feelings he associates with different family members. Because
the FRT is perceived as a game-like situation, the test appears to be
less tranSparent and more enjoyable than questionnaires; nevertheless,

the FRT is designed for unambiguous, quantitative scoring and

17

consequently is much simpler to interpret than projective tests.

The FRT was first reported in Britain in 1957 by its authors,
Bene and Anthony (1957), who described the instrument and discussed test
results from several Small groups of clinical patients. Certain test
syndromes or profiles associated with types of clinical disorders, e.g.,
paranoid, are explored. No data on normal children are presented.
From the viewpoint of the present research, the most interesting results
are those from a group of children described as phobic, insecure,
inhibited, and rigid; these pathologically anxious children tend to
deny negative feelings and idealize their parents according to the
Bene-Anthony report. The only other study using the FRT is an investi-
gation by Linton, Berle, Grossi, and Jackson (1961). They found that
the perceptions of their group of predominantly Puerto Rican and
American Negro Slum children were related to certain social factors.
In families where fathers were inadequate providers, the daughters per-
ceived them negatively, but the sons directed their negative feelings at
younger male siblings. In families where the marriage was inadequate,
older girls tended to perceive their fathers negatively, but older boys
did not, and younger children did not seem to be significantly affected.
The Linton gt _1. study (1961) suggests the existence of important sex
differences in the perception of parental behavior by children.

The FRT has been used with atypical children. In Spite of the
test's potential for quantitative assessment of family relations,

amazingly, it seems not to have been used in a published study on that

ubiquitous subject, namely the normal, American, white child of middle-

class antecedents.

CHAPTER II

METHOD

The Subjects

 

The Ss were fourth grade Students attending the public schools
of Illinois. Public school Students had been chosen because presumably
they were reasonably normal children who were free from extreme
psychiatric symptoms; it was assumed that these students were fairly
representative Of the pOpulation Of children approximately nine years
of age living in one area of Illinois. Fourth grade students were
selected because they generally were articulate and knowledgeable about
their own feelings and Showed better verbal skills than younger
elementary school students; these characteristics were relevant to the
current study. However, generally, nine-year-Olds have been regarded
as children and have not yet reached physical puberty nor have they been
confronted with many Specifically adolescent problems and experiences
which might affect their perceptions of family members. Moreover, in
terms of psychosexual stages, nine-year-old children Should certainly
have made the transition to the latency stage. At this age, from a
Freudian vieWpoint, it could be assumed that repression and defense
mechanisms were well established; such an assumption was necessary in
order to test the Operation of defense mechanisms. Consequently, this
age group seemed to have distinct advantages for the present research.

Since absence Of one or both parents or absence Of any siblings

would affect a child's perceptions Of his family, fourth grade students

/8

19

who did not live with both parents and at least one Sibling within five
years of their own age, i.e., between 4 and 14 years, were excluded
from Phase II (administration of the FRT).

While no attempt was made to select a sample on the basis of
exacting criteria of socio-economic class, a class indicator based on
information provided by the children, i.e., father's occupation and
father's educational level, was employed in order to indicate socio-
economic class for all 53 included in Phase II. Previous research on
child-rearing (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957) has suggested that the
experience Of anxiety is affected by the socio-economic class Of the
family. Furthermore, theories of anxiety in children appear to fit
middle-class families better than lower-class families. Consequently,
in this study, children who appeared to come from lower-class families
were excluded from the sample before statistical analysis of the data
from the Family Relations Test (FRT).

Fourth grade classes from the public schools Of Illinois were
used on the basis of geographical proximity. The 12 classes in Macomb,
Adair, Bushnell, and Prairie City, totaling 298 Students, were given the
Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS), i.e., Phase I of the study.
On the basis Of Smock's (1959) study, which used the CMAS to Obtain the
top 20% and bottom 20% of the Scores as high and low anxiety 83, it was
estimated that fewer than one-fifth of the high and low scoring
protocols would have tO be discarded because of incomplete forms or lie
scale violations. tActually, out of the 298 fourth graders, only 14

violated the lie scale and only four failed to complete all items of

20

the CMAS. The remaining 280 protocols were contributed by 138 boys and
142 girls. For both distributions of scores (boys' and girls'), 20% of
the total was 28. Therefore, technically 56 high (28 from boys and 28
from girls) and 56 low (28 from boys and 28 from girls) anxiety scores
would have been suitable for Phase II, i.e., the individually
administered FRT. However, according to their teachers, 31 of the 56
high and 56 low anxiety SS came from homes in which one parent was
missing, or there were no siblings within five years Of the subject's
age. Consequently, the following unequal subgroups took part in Phase
II: 19 high anxiety boys, 20 high anxiety girls, 23 low anxiety boys,
and 19 low anxiety girls. After administration Of the FRT, the four
sex-by-anxiety groups were reduced to 14 88 each by eliminating the
children who seemed to come from lower-class families and by randomly

discarding.

The Instruments

The index Of anxiety level for this study has been derived from
scores on the CMAS. The reported test-retest reliability Of the CMAS
has ranged from .70 to .94 depending on the age and sex of the SS; for
fourth grade boys, a correlation of .88 has been given and for fourth
grade girls, a correlation Of .70. The CMAS is a questionnaire which
contains 42 anxiety items; eleven additional items have been included as

a lie scale in order to provide an index of the subject's tendency

 

3Of these 31 children, 19 were high anxiety subjects, and 12
were low anxiety subjects.

21

to falsify his reSponses to the anxiety items (Castaneda, McCandless,
and Palermo, 1956).

The FRT is a Structured play Situation in which the child is
permitted to assign Statements Of feeling to the figures he regards as
apprOpriate. The test materials consist Of 86 cards bearing individual
statements of feeling and 20 cardboard figures, "representing peOple of
various ages, Shapes, and sizes, sufficiently stereotyped to stand for
members of any child's family, yet ambiguous enough to become under
suggestion, a specific family (Anthony and Bene, 1957, p. 542)." Each
figure is attached to a cardboard box into which can be inserted the
cards which bear individual statements of feeling.

The following five types of Statements have been included in the
set Of 86 cards: 34 statements of negative feeling, 34 statements of
positive feeling, eight Statements involving maternal overprotection,
five Statements involving maternal overindulgence, and five Statements
involving paternal overindulgence. Although all 86 cards have been used
in testing the child, scores have been derived only from the 34 state-
ments of negative feeling. Of these 34 statements Of negative feeling,
18 have been phrased as though emanating from the child toward family
figures, e.g., "This person in the family sometimes gets too angry,"
or, "Sometimes I feel like hitting this person in the family." The re-
maining 16 statements of negative feeling have been phrased as though
emanating from family figures toward the child, e.g., "This person in
the family likes to tease me," or, "This person in the family makes me

feel afraid."

22

The indices Of the perception of negative feeling associated
with family members have been obtained from certain scores on the FRT.
Split-half reliabilities for combinations Of affect categories have
been reported to vary from .68 to .90; the following correlations have
been provided for categories to be used in the current investigation:
.83 for negative feelings associated with father, .78 for negative feel-
ings associated with mother, and .68 for negative feelings associated

with Sibling (Anthony and Bene, 1957).

Phase I: Administration 2; the CMAS

 

Instructions

The CMAS was administered to the fourth grade classes on a group
basis by E or E's assistants. The only instructions given were those
which appeared on the test itself and which were read to the class.
These instructions were: "Read each question carefully. Put a circle
around the word YES if you think it is true about you. Put a circle
around the word NO if you think it is not true about you (Castaneda,
McCandless, and Palermo, 1956, p. 319)." The SS were also asked to
identify themselves by name, grade, sex, and school in Space provided

on the test.

Scoring

For each S, the index of the level Of anxiety was obtained by
summing the number answered "yes" out Of the 42 anxiety items. SS who

lived with both parents and at least one sibling of Suitable age and who

23

also scored in the tOp or bottom 20% of the male or female distributions
Of Scores on the CMAS were considered to be apprOpriate SS for Phase II
unless their CMAS lie Scale (L scale) scores were extremely high. Of
the 11 items on the L scale, two Of them (Items #10 and #49 on the
CMAS), if answered "NO," contributed to the L scale score as did the
rest of the nine items if answered "Yes." The index Of the subject's
tendency to falsify his reSponseS to the anxiety items, therefore, was
the sum of these L scale items answered in the prescribed manner. Using
the L scale means and Standard deviations reported by Castaneda,
McCandless, and Palermo (1956), girls' L scale scores Of 6.56 or higher
and boys' L Scale scores of 6.36 or higher were considered extremely
high. Protocols with such extreme L scale scores, which were more than
two standard deviations above their reSpective means, were discarded.
After discarding the protocols which were incomplete or showed L scale
violations, the split-half reliability for this administration of the

CMAS was .86.

Phase II: Administration gf the FRT

 

Instructions

 

The FRT was administered on an individual basis by E or E's
assistants to SS from appropriate families who were identified as high
anxiety and low anxiety SS by their scores on the CMAS. Each subject
was asked to choose from the 20 cardboard figures a figure to represent

each member of his family including himself. Another figure, "nobody,"

24

was introduced by E to receive those statements Of feeling which the
child did not assign to any member Of the family.

The manual of the FRT has provided the following instructions
for E to tell each subject: "We are going to play a game of pretense.
DO you see all those figures standing there? We are going to pretend
that some Of them are the people in your family (Bene and Anthony,
1957, pp. 11-12)5."

E pointed at the four female figures and asked, "Which one of
these do you think would make the best mother?" E encouraged the child
to make his choice and then asked him to put the chosen figure on the
table where the testing would take place. E then pointed to the group
Of male figures and asked the child, "Now which one do you think would
be the best one for father?" E again had the selected figure placed on
the table and then pointed to the boy or girl figures, depending on the
sex of the subject, and asked, "Now which one would you like to be
yourself?" E continued in this manner until the child had a figure at
the testing table for father, mother, all Siblings, and himself. If
the child wanted to make any changes, he was permitted to do so.

When the family circle had been completed, E said, "Now we have
all the members of the family together, but we are also going to have

someone else in the game." E brought over "nobody" and put him next to

 

In this Study, the Simpler term, make-believe, was substituted
for the word, pretense.

5Succeeding quotations were taken from the same pages.

25

the family members, and said, "The name Of this person is Nobody. He
will also be in the game. I shall tell you in a minute what he will be
doing."
The child was seated at the table with his figures in easy reach.
6

E placed the 86 cards in front of the child and said,

Here are a lot of little cards with messages written on them.

I Shall read you what they say and you put each card into the

person whom you think it fits best. If the message on a card

doesn't fit anybody, you put it into Nobody. See what I mean?

Sometimes you may find that a message fits several people. If

it does, then tell me about it and give the card to me. Now

remember! If what a card says fits one person best, you put

the card into that person. If it doesn't fit anybody, you put

it into Nobody. If it fits several peOple, you give the card

to me.
If a child chose to assign a statement Of feeling to more than one
person, that Statement was counted into the total for each person to
whom it was assigned. For example, if a child assigned three of the 34
statements Of negative feeling to two persons, and he ascribed the
remaining 29 negative feeling statements to only one person, then his
total negative feeling score was 37.

Bene and Anthony indicated that the order in which the items were

read needed some control by E. They suggested the following four items

 

6A set of 40 different cards has been used with children under
eight years. The set of 86 cards was intended for children between
eight and fifteen years.

7Exactly half Of the sample, 28 SS, assigned a few of the nega-
tive feeling statements to more than one person; the median number Of
such Split assignments was three, i.e., the child assigned 3 Statements
out of the 34 to more than one person. Interestingly, 17 of the 28 83
who assigned a few negative feelings to more than one person were girls,
and 10 Of the 28 were high anxiety girls.

26

as the initial statements in the series Of 86:

00 This person in the family is very nice.

40 This person in the family is kind to me.

20 This person in the family is sometimes a bit too fussy.

10 I like to cuddle this person in the family.
The authors also recommended that the last two statements be any items
Of a positive nature; therefore, the last two items were the following
ones:

45 This person in the family likes to play with me.

47 This person in the family listens to what I have to say.
In order to carry out the authors' intention and Standardize the test
further, the remaining 80 cards were presented tO each subject in the

same predetermined random order.

Scoring

Scoring of the FRT for each subject meant summing the number of
9
negative feeling items that were assigned tO each Of nine figures;
these totals showed how many negative feelings the child associated

with mother (M), father (F), parents (P), self (S), "nobody" (N),

 

8This procedure was followed instead of having E simply shuffle
the cards before administration to each subject, as the manual
instructions suggested. In the Appendix all items of the FRT have been
listed in the random order which was used.

91n the present study, Statistical analysis was applied to
negative scores only.

27

10 ll
important Sibling (IS), important sibling brother (ISB), other

Siblings (OS), and total Siblings (TS).

Treatment 2£.£hE Data

For each subject, nine scores of negative feeling were available.
Group mean scores Of the amount of negative feeling associated with
each Of the nine figures were computed for the four sex-by—anxiety
combinations. In order tO test hypotheses I and II, a separate,
double-classification, fixed-effect analysis of variance design was em-
ployed for each Of the nine figures; one Of the nine has been Shown in

Table I.

 

1OAccording to Linton, Berle, Grossi, and Jackson (1961), most
children assigned sibling items almost entirely to one important
sibling. Therefore, in this study, "important Sibling" referred only
to the one important Sibling to whom the subject assigned the most items
out of the set Of 86.

11After insPection of the raw data but before statistical
analysis, it seemed possible that the presence of a male as the
important sibling might be consistently associated with higher negative
feeling scores; consequently the ISB category was added. However, the
Statistical test for the ISB category was not Significant.

 

28

TABLE 1

DIAGRAM OF 2 X 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DESIGN

L

 

(A) Anxiety Dimension

 

(B) Sex Dimension High (Al) Anxiety Low (A2) Anxiety

 

Boys (B1)

 

Girls (B2)

 

 

 

 

 

Group mean scores of the amount of negative feeling associated
with each of the nine figures were also computed for all children

regardless of sex or anxiety level. In order to test hypothesis III,

one Single—classification, fixed-effect analysis of variance design for

Six figures (See Table 2) and another Similar design for two figures

(see Table 3) were used.

TABLE 2

DIAGRAM.OF 1 X 6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DESIGN

 

(C) Figures Associated with Negative Feeling

 

M (C1) F (C2) N (C3) S (C4) IS (C5) OS (C6)

 

All SS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

TABLE 3

DIAGRAM.OF l X 2 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DESIGN

 

 

A11 SS

(C) Combined Figures Associated with Negative Feeling

 

P (07)

TS (c8)

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

THE RESULTS

Hypothesis I predicted that children with high and low anxiety
levels would Show differences in their negative feeling perceptions
associated with important figures. Two meaningful patterns Of
differences were stipulated. Hypothesis I-A predicted that in
comparison with low anxiety children, high anxiety children would Show
fewer negative feeling perceptions associated with their fathers and
mothers but more negative feeling perceptions associated with
themselves, their Siblings, and ”nobody;" confirmation of this pattern
would be evidence compatible with a theory Of unconscious defenses.
Hypothesis I-B predicted that in comparison with low anxiety children,
high anxiety children would Show more negative feeling perceptions
associated with all family members and less negative feeling

perceptions associated with "nobody;"

confirmation Of this pattern
would be evidence compatible with a theory of conscious hostility.

A separate, double-classification, fixed-effect analysis Of
variance design was used for each of the following nine figures:
parents (P), father (F), mother (M), self (S), "nobody" (N), important
sibling (IS), important sibling brother (ISB), other Siblings (OS),
and total siblings (TS). These nine analyses of variance Simultaneously
tested both hypothesis I, which was concerned with possible differences

between anxiety levels, and hypothesis II, which was concerned with

possible sex differences.

31

The results of statistical analysis did not Show any confirmation
of hypothesis II, i.e., boys and girls did not differ significantly in
their negative feeling perceptions. The results did not provide total
confirmation of either hypothesis I-A or I-B, but of the four F tests
that were significant, three were evidence for I-B, and one was partial,
suggestive evidence for I-B.

The three Significant F tests which confirmed hypothesis I-B
involved negative feeling perceptions associated with parents, father,
and "nobody;" compared with low anxiety children, high anxiety children
demonstrated significantly more negative feeling perceptions associated
with parents and father and significantly less negative feeling
perceptions associated with "nobody."

Table 4 Shows that high and low anxiety levels do make a
Significant difference in the negative feeling perceptions associated

with parents.

32

TABLE 4

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH PARENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Of Variation S.S d.f M,S, F
Anxiety Group 141.45 1 141.45 6.09*
Sex 70.88 1 70.88 3.05
Interaction 66.45 1 66.45 2.86
Error 1208.35 52 23.24

Total 1487.12 55

 

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level

Table 5 indicates that high anxiety children Show more negative

feeling perceptions associated with their parents than low anxiety

 

 

 

 

children.
TABLE 5
GROUP MEAN SCORES OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH PARENTS
Anxiety Level
Sex High Low Total
Boys 5.00 4.00 9.00
Girls 9.42 4.07 13.49
Total 14.42 8.07 22.49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

Table 6 shows that high and low anxiety levels do make a Signifi-

cant difference in the negative feeling perceptions associated with

 

 

 

father.
TABLE 6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH FATHER
Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Anxiety Group 42.88 1 42.88 4.35*
Sex 15.02 1 15.02 1.52
Interaction 2.16 1 2.16 .22
Error 512.49 52 9.86
Total 572.55 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level
Table 7 demonstrates that high anxiety children Show more nega-
tive feeling perceptions associated with their fathers than low anxiety

children.

34

TABLE 7

GROUP MEAN SCORES OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH FATHER

 

Anxiety Level

 

 

 

Sex High Low Total
Boys 3.50 2.14 5.64
Girls 4.92 2.78 7.70
Total 8.42 4.92 13.34

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8 Shows that high and low anxiety levels do make a highly
significant difference in the negative feeling perceptions associated
with "nobody."

TABLE 8

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE "NOBODY" FIGURE

 

 

 

Source Of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Anxiety Group 451.45 1 451.45 7.65**
Sex 85.02 1 85.02 1.44
Interaction 147.88 1 147.88 2.50
Error 3070.64 52 59.05

Total 3754.98 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level

 

Table 9 indicates that high anxiety children Show less negative
feeling perceptions associated with the "nobody" figure, i.e., Show less

denial Of negative feeling within the family, than low anxiety children.

35

TABLE 9

GROUP MEAN SCORES OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE "NOBODY" FIGURE

 

Anxiety Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex High Low Total
Boys 9.57 12.00 21.57
Girls 8.78 17.71 26.49
Total 18.35 29.71 48.06

 

 

One Significant F test provides partial, suggestive evidence for
hypothesis I-B.
Table 10 indicates that high and low anxiety levels do make a

Significant difference in the negative feeling perceptions associated

with mother; however, the Significant interaction between sex and

anxiety seems more important.

 

36

TABLE 10

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHER

 

 

 

Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Anxiety Group 28.57 1 28.57 4.35*
Sex 20.64 1 20.64 3.14
Interaction 44.64 1 44.64 6.79*
Error 341.57 52 6.57

Total 435.43 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level
Table 11 demonstrates that high anxiety children Show more nega-
tive feeling perceptions associated with their mothers than low anxiety
children; nevertheless, the effect of either anxiety level on the nega-
tive feeling perceptions associated with mother depends on the sex of

the children.

37

TABLE 11

GROUP MEAN SCORES OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHER

W L M

 

 

 

 

Anxiety Level
Sex High Low Total
Boys 1.50 1.85 3.35
Girls 4.50 1.28 5.78
Total 6.00 3.13 9.13

 

 

 

 

 

 

For girls only, high anxiety is associated with Significantly more
negative feeling perceptions associated with mother. High anxiety boys
do not differ Significantly from low anxiety boys in their negative
feeling perceptions associated with mother.

Two separate, single-classification analysis Of variance designs
were employed in order to test hypothesis III which was concerned with
possible differences among important figures as these figures were
negatively perceived by all children regardless of sex or anxiety level.
The results of statistical analysis did not Show any confirmation Of
hypothesis III when each of the Six important figures was compared with
the others. However, Table 12 indicates that familial position as
either parents or Siblings does make a highly significant difference in
the negative feeling perceptions assigned by children regardless of sex
or anxiety level. More negative feelings were assigned to Siblings

than to parents.

38

TABLE 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH PARENTS OR ALL SIBLINGS

 

 

 

Source Of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Groups 4092.22 1 4092.22 31.60**
Error 14246.65 110 129.51

Total 18338.87 lll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level

Discussion

 

It is evident that the Significant findings from tests of
hypothesis I provide support for a theory Of conscious hositlity rather
than for a theory of unconscious defenses. Table 13 Shows a diagram of
the amount, in ordinal form, of negative feeling associated with each

of nine figures by the four sex-by-anxiety groups.

39

TABLE 13

DIAGRAM OF THE AMOUNT IN ORDINAL FORM OF NEGATIVE FEELING
ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF NINE FIGURES BY THE
FOUR SEX-BY-ANXIETY GROUPS

 

(C) Figures Associated with Negative Feeling

 

M* F* N** S IS OS P* TS ISB
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4) (C5) (C6) (C7) (C8) (C9)

 

 

Higher
egative HAG HAG LAG HAG HAB HAG HAG HAB HAB
eeling LAB HAB LAB LAB HAG LAB HAB HAG HAG

ower
egative HAB LAG HAB HAB LAB HAB LAG LAB LAG
eeling LAG LAB HAG LAG LAG LAG LAB LAG LAB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HAB = High Anxiety Boys HAG = High Anxiety Girls
LAB ' Low Anxiety Boys LAG = Low Anxiety Girls

* Significant at the 5% level
** Significant at the 1% level

For the group of children included in this Study, highly anxious girls
seemed to have more negative feelings about their parents as well as
their fathers and mothers as separate individuals; highly anxious boys,
with the perhaps notable exception Of their mothers, also appeared to
hold more negative feelings about their parents and their fathers alone.
The high anxiety children in this group were also more accepting, i.e.,
Showed less denial, than low anxiety children of the notion that nega-
tive feelings existed in their families. In other words, these highly
anxious children were more likely to perceive the presence within their

families Of feelings related to rejection, disappointment, and

40

resentment. From the viewPoint of the high anxiety children, these un-
pleasant feelings were a distinctive part of their subjective world.

Actually, these high anxiety children give evidence of living in
a threatening, subjective world in which negative feelings were
quantitatively greater and attached to all family members including
Siblings. In terms of negative feelings involving all siblings, high
anxiety children and low anxiety children did not differ significantly.
However, inSpection of the group means indicated that fairly intense
sibling rivalry was common; at least, the children in both anxiety
groups seemed to perceive their Siblings quite negatively. For
instance, averaged over the four sex-by-anxiety combinations, about half
Of the 34 negative Statements were assigned to siblings. Moreover, two
or three times as many negative Statements were assigned to the most
important Sibling as to either parent.

In contrast to the high anxiety children, the low anxiety
children were more likely to deny or to minimize the existence of nega-
tive feelings within their families. Low anxiety children appeared to
be living in a less threatening, subjective world in which unpleasant
negative feelings were excluded or focused mainly on Siblings. Since
low anxiety should obviate the need for defenses, it seems reasonable to
accept the perceptions Of the low anxiety children as relatively free
from distortion.

In summary, the high anxiety children generally did not appear
to defend themselves by repressing negative feelings; on the contrary,

when compared with low anxiety children, they Showed a greater

41

awareness Of negative feelings involving their interpersonal relation-
ships with family members.

Taken as a whole, evidence from tests of hypothesis I concerning
the theory of conscious hostility versus the theory of unconscious
defenses tended to favor the former. With the exception of boys in
relation to their mothers, these high anxiety children seemed to
consciously perceive the family environment as more generally hostile;
conversely, these low anxiety children seemed to consciously perceive
the family environment as less hostile and to focus the smaller amount
of negative feeling mainly on siblings. With the exception noted,
these findings suggested an uncomplicated relationship between anxiety
and conscious negative feeling in these relatively normal children; at
least, high anxiety accompanied high negative feeling, and low anxiety
accompanied low negative feeling.

The pattern of anxiety and negative feeling subsumed by a theory
of conscious hostility seems compatible with observations of normal and
abnormal children. While children are usually not articulate in
discussing their feelings, they are often more tranSparent and less
defensive than adults. Certainly, the law of parsimony would suggest
that a theory of unconscious defenses should not be invoked unless
Simpler explanations have failed to account for a particular pattern of
phenomena.

Hypothesis II concerning the effect of sex alone was not con-
firmed. Sex had a Significant effect upon negative feeling perceptions

only in interaction with anxiety.

42

Hypothesis III concerning the effect of position in the family
was confirmed only for Significant differences between parents and
siblings. All children, regardless of sex or anxiety level, held more
hostile feelings involving siblings than parents. AS indicated in the
discussion of the effects of anxiety levels upon the perception of sibé
lings, all these children tended to perceive their siblings much more
negatively than their parents. Parents may be viewed as the disPenserS
of rewards as well as punishments; siblings may be seen as competitors
in the attainment of those rewards and the avoidance Of those
punishments. Since the gratification of children's needs depends
primarily on their parents, it is therefore plausible that most of
these children Should view their sibling competitors more negatively

than their parental gratifiers.

.‘l 3")

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The fourth grade SS used in this Study were selected on the
basis of geographical proximity, and technically they do not constitute
a random sample. They are, however, probably representative of normal,
white12 children Of comparable age who reside in Midwestern Small towns
and come from families of approximately middle-class status. To the
extent that the children studied are representative of such a
pOpulation, the following conclusions are applicable:

1. Anxiety level does affect the amount of negative feeling
perceptions which are associated with the family, especially with
parents; anxiety level may or may not affect negative feeling per-

ceptions associated with Siblings.

2. The differences between the perception of negative feeling by
high and low anxiety children are compatible with a theory of conscious
hostility. In comparison with low anxiety children, high anxiety
children Show less denial of negative feeling within the family and
more conscious negative feeling associated with their parents as a
united pair and with their fathers alone. This correSpondence between
anxiety and negative feeling can be demonstrated without invoking the
notion of defense mechanisms; high anxiety tends to accompany higher
negative feeling, and low anxiety tends to accompany lower negative

feeling.

 

12The only exception is one ChineseeAmerican child.

44

3. In comparison with low anxiety girls, high anxiety girls
Show more conscious negative feeling associated with their mothers
alone; high anxiety boys do not Show more negative feeling associated
with their mothers alone than low anxiety boys. However, there is nO
evidence that the sex of the child pg£_§g affects the amount of negative

feeling perceptions associated with family members.

4. Basic role of the object in the family, i.e., being a parent
or a Sibling, does affect the amount of negative feeling perceptions
associated with family members. Children, regardless Of sex or anxiety
level, Show more negative feeling associated with siblings than with

parents.

The Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) can be employed to
identify two diSparate anxiety groups which differ significantly in
negative feelings associated with certain family members. Nevertheless,
as assessed by the CMAS, neither anxiety group is necessarily homo-
geneous in their eXpressions of anxiety. For example, a few children
identified by high CMAS scores as high anxiety children have given no
sign of anxiety during the individually administered Family Relations
Test (FRT) and have given every Sign of Openness and curiosity. Con-
versely, a somewhat larger number of children identified by low CMAS
scores as low anxiety children have reSponded to the FRT with many
physical manifestations of anxiety and with fearful, suSpicious
questions. It would be interesting to replicate the present study with

the addition of physiological measures of anxiety Obtained during the

45

administration of the FRT by means of portable polygraph equipment. Of
course, it would be essential to habituate each subject to the apparatus
before testing began. Another variation would involve replicating the
present study with the addition of independent measures Of defenses;
possible differences between defense groups could be assessed. Further-
more, Since the CMAS may not be the most adequate measure of anxiety in
a Freudian sense, the Rorschach could also be employed and scored for
conventional signs of anxiety.

As a research instrument for assessing negative feeling, the
potentialities of the FRT would seem to merit further investigation.
For instance, children with high and low negative feeling involving
their parents could be identified by FRT scores; subsequently, their
parents could be assessed by interview or questionnaire; assessment Of
the parents might be focused primarily on parental facilitation or
impedance Of apprOpriate identification. Moreover, children with high
and low negative feeling on the FRT might be expected to differ in peer
and teacher acceptance; this hypothesis could be investigated with
sociometric techniques.

Furthermore, the negative feeling statements Of the FRT
constitute less than half of the total set of 86 Statements. Each of
the subsets of Statements named by Bene and Anthony, e.g., positive
feelings, maternal overprotection, etc., could be combined with

additional independent measures in a variety of studies.

qt:

APPENDIX.A

Description of Study for School Personnel

Letter to Parents

Instruments: Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS)

Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test (FRT)

47

PUBLIC SCHOOL PROJECT WITH CHILDREN

This project will involve about 300 fourth grade students.
Public school children have been selected as a normal group so that
their attitudes can be used as a standard of normal attitudes. The
aim of the project is to compare more anxious and less anxious, normal
children in terms Of attitudes toward themselves (self-concept), their
brothers and Sisters, and their parents. Two tests will be given:
1. Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) to be given to about 10
fourth grade classes (300 children); 2. Bene-Anthony Test to be given
later on an individual basis to about 35 children who score relatively
high on the anxiety scale and to about 35 children who score
relatively low on the anxiety scale. Comparisons of the attitudes of
these two groups of children will be made.

Before testing begins, a letter will be sent to the parents of
all 300 children, explaining in general terms the nature of this
project. After testing is completed, information obtained from testing
will be shared with principals, guidance counselors, School
psychologists, and teachers; for example, high anxiety, as measured by
this anxiety scale, can be used to predict certain kinds Of academic
problems.

THE CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE

The Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale is a paper-and-pencil
test intended for group administration to whole classes. There are 53
statements related to children's anxiety, e.g., "It is hard to go to
sleep at night,” "I worry about how well I am doing in school."

The child is told to answer "yes" if an item is true about him
or to answer "no" if the item is not true about him. I shall give the
test, which takes 30-40 minutes, at the convenience of the teachers.

THE BENE-ANTHONY TEST

The Bene-Anthony Test is a game-like Situation in which the
child selects cardboard figures to represent himself, his brothers and
Sisters, and his parents. Each cardboard figure is attached to a
cardboard box with a Slot in the tOp so that cards can be placed in
the box.

The child is given a set of 86 cards, each bearing a statement
of attitude. Half Of the cards have positive statements of attitude,

48

e.g., "This person likes to play with me," "This person is kind to me."
The other half Of the cards have negative statements of attitude,

e.g., "This person likes to tease me," "This person sometimes gets too
angry."

The child is asked to put each card into the cardboard figure
which best fits the message on the card. A."Nobody" cardboard figure
is also provided for cards which don't seem to fit anybody. The test
is individually administered and takes about 20 minutes. Class time
will not be interrupted.

Suzanne Barnett

Assistant Professor Of Psychology
Western Illinois University
899-3332

49

December 7, 1967

Dear Parents:

Fourth grade students in Bushnell and Macomb Public Schools
have been selected to take part in a project concerned with children's
attitudes toward their environment. Public school children have been
chosen as a normal group so that their attitudes can be used as a
Standard of normal attitudes. A Similar project has already been done
with disturbed children living in urban Slum areas. The object of the
present project is to compare the attitudes of normal children
(Bushnell and Macomb groups) with the attitudes of disturbed children
(urban group).

The project will be divided into two parts which will be given
in the schools. The first part will be administered with pencil and
paper, and the second part will involve playing games.

If you have any questions about this project, please call me.

Cordially,

Suzanne Barnett

Assistant Professor of Psychology
Western Illinois University
899-3332

NAME

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

50

THE CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (CMAS)

GRADE

 

SEX

 

SCHOOL

 

 

Instructions

Read each question carefully. Put a circle around the word YES
if you think it is true about you. Put a circle around the word NO if
you think it is not true about you.

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

1.

2.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

It is hard for me to keep my mind on anything.

I

I

I

I

I

get nervous when someone watches me work.
feel I have to be best in everything.
blush easily.

like everyone I know.

notice my heart beats very fast sometimes.

At times I feel like shouting.

I wish I could be very far from here.

Others seem to do things easier than I can.

I would rather win than lose in a game.

I

I

am secretly afraid of a lot of things.

feel that others do not like the way I do things.
feel alone even when there are peOple around me.
have trouble making up my mind.

get nervous when things do not go the right way for
me.

worry most Of the time.
am always kind.

worry about what my parents will say to me.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.

42.

51

Often I have trouble getting my breath.

I get angry easily.

I always have good manners.

My hands feel sweaty.

I have to go to the toilet more than most peOple.
Other children are happier than I.

I worry about what other peOple think about me.

I have trouble swallowing.

I have worried about things that did not really make
any difference later.

My feelings get hurt easily.

I worry about doing the right things.

I am always good.

I worry about what is going to happen.

It is hard for me to go to Sleep at night.

I worry about how well I am doing in School.

I am always nice to everyone.

My feelings get hurt easily when I am scolded.
I tell the truth every Single time.

I often get lonesome when I am with peOple.

I feel someone will tell me I do things the wrong way.
I am afraid of the dark.

It is hard for me to keep my mind on my school work.
I never get angry.

Often I feel Sick in my stomach.

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

NO

43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.

53.

I

I

52

worry when I go to bed at night.

often do things I wish I had never done.
get headaches.

often worry about what could happen to my parents.
never say things I shouldn't.

get tired easily.

It is good to get high grades in school.

I

I

have bad dreams.
am nervous.
never lie.

often worry about something bad happening to me.

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST (FRT)

53

BENE - ANTHONY

l3

 

 

Item No. Item

00 This person in the family is very nice.

40 This person in the family is kind to me.

20 This person in the family is sometimes a bit too fussy.

10 I like to cuddle this person in the family.

43 This person in the family pays attention to me.

73 This person in the family makes me feel afraid.

86 Mother is afraid to let this person in the family play
with rough children.

36 Sometimes I want to do things just to annoy this person
in the family.

96 This is the person in the family mother pays too much
attention to.

61 This person in the family likes to tease me.

46 This person in the family really understands me.

98 This is the person in the family mother Spends too much
time with.

63 This person in the family won't play with me when I
like it.

71 This person in the family punishes me too often.

62 This person in the family sometimes tells me off.

33 Sometimes I feel like hitting this person in the family.

26 This person in the family is sometimes annoyed without
good reason.

13

order.

The items Of the FRT were presented to each child in this

54

 

Item No. Item
16 I like this person in the family to tickle me.
80 Mother worries that this person in the family might

catch cold.

97 This is the person in the family mother Spoils too much.

74 This person in the family is mean to me.

24 This person in the family is sometimes bad-tempered.

67 This person in the family is too busy to have time for
me.

42 This person in the family likes me very much.

81 Mother worries that this person in the family might
get ill.

14 I wish this person in the family would care for me more

than anybody else.

57 This person in the family cares more for me than for
anybody else.

53 This person in the family likes to help me with my bath.
32 Sometimes I hate this person in the family.

37 This person in the family can make me feel very angry.
22 This person in the family sometimes Spoils other

peOple's fun.

27 This person in the family sometimes grumbles too much.

07 This person in the family is a good Sport.

51 This person in the family likes to hug me.

76 This person in the family is always complaining about
me.

66 This person in the family sometimes gets angry with me.

56 This person in the family always wants to be with me.

55

 

Item No. Item

50 This person in the family likes to kiss me.

90 This is the person in the family father makes too big a
fuss about.

13 I wish I could keep this person near me always.

55 This person in the family likes to be in bed with me.

12 I sometimes wish I could sleep in the same bed with
this person in the family.

85 Mother is afraid to let this person in the family run
about too much.

99 This is the person in the family mother likes best.

31 Sometimes I wish this person in the family would go
away.

05 This person in the family is lots of fun.

03 This person in the family has the nicest ways.

72 This person in the family makes me feel Silly.

93 This is the person in the family father Spends too much
time with.

15 When I get married I want to marry somebody who is just
like this person in the family.

21 This person in the family nags sometimes.

35 Sometimes I am fed-up with this person in the family.

64 This person in the family won't always help me when I
am in trouble.

54 This person in the family likes to tickle me.

82 Mother worries that this person in the family might get
run over.

06 This person in the family deserves a nice present.

44 This person in the family likes to help me.

56

 

Item No. Item

77 This person in the family does not love me enough.

94 This is the person in the family father likes best.

17 I like to hug this person in the family.

23 This person in the family is sometimes quick-tempered.

87 Mother worries that this person in the family doesn't
eat enough.

84 Mother worries that something might happen to this
person in the family.

04 This person in the family never lets you down.

47 This person in the family listens to what I have to say.

25 This person in the family sometimes complains too much.

01 This person in the family is very jolly.

95 This is the person in the family mother makes too big a
fuss about.

75 This person in the family makes me feel unhappy.

34 Sometimes I think I would be happier if this person was
not in our family.

29 This person in the family sometimes gets too angry.

52 This person in the family likes to cuddle me.

60 This person in the family sometimes frowns at me.

09 This person in the family is very kind-hearted.

11 I like to be kissed by this person in the family.

92 This is the person in the family father Spoils too much.

83 Mother worries that this person in the family might get
hurt.

45 This person in the family likes to play with me.

Item No.

65

91

7O

28

3O

08

02

41

This person

This is the
attention

This person
This person

Sometimes I
family.

This person
This person

This person

57

in the family

person in the
t0.

in the family
in the family

would like to

in the family
in the family

in the family

Item
sometimes nags at me.

family father pays too much

hits me a lot.
is sometimes not very patient.

kill this person in the

is very nice to play with.
always helps the others.

is very nice to me.

APPENDIX B

Raw Data From Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS)

Raw Data From Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test (FRT)

Non-Significant Analysis of Variance Tables

59

RAW DATA FROM

CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (CMAS)

 

 

Subject's Anxiety Anxiety
Number Sex Group Score
1 B H 24
2 B H 27
3 B H 26
4 B H 25
5 B H 26
6 B H 25
7 B H 24
8 B H 26
9 B H 25
10 B H 28
11 B H 24
12 B H 24
13 B H 26

14 B H 27

60

RAW DATA FROM

CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (CMAS)

 

 

Subject's Anxiety Anxiety
Number Sex Group Score
15 B L 6
16 B L 8
17 B L 7
18 B L 10
19 B L 9
20 B L 8
21 B L 8
22 B L 7
23 B L 8
24 B L 4
25 B L 7
26 B L 7
27 B L 8

28 B L 6

61

RAW DATA FROM

CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (CMAS)

 

 

Subject' 8 Anxiety Anxiety
Number Sex Group Score
29 G H 30
30 G H 33
31 G H 27
32 G H 31
33 G H 28
34 G H 28
35 G H 26
36 G H 31
37 G H 26
38 G H 27
39 G H 35
40 G H 30
41 G H 26

42 G H 26

62

RAW DATA FROM

CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE (CMAS)

 

 

Subject's Anxiety Anxiety
Number Sex Group Score
43 G L 2
44 G L 5
45 G L 8
46 G L 1
47 G L 9
48 G L 5
49 G L l
50 G L 8
51 G L 7
52 G L 6
53 G L 9
54 G L 8
55 G L 1

56 G L 8

63

RAW DATA FROM BENE-ANTHONY

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST (FRT)

 

 

Subject's Anxiety

Number Sex Group M N IS ISB OS T3
1 B H 1 3 l6 l6 9 25

2 B H 0 19 12 O 0 12

3 B H 4 3 22 0 1 23

4 B H 5 15 6 6 8 l4

5 B H 0 ll 15 15 3 18

6 B H O 21 l l 10 ll

7 B H 0 3 19 19 2 21

8 B H 0 O 21 21 11 32

9 B H 3 2 24 24 0 24

10 B H 1 9 l 1 21 22
11 B H 5 15 13 O O 13
12 B H 1 17 10 10 4 l4
13 B H l 12 12 0 9 21
14 B H O 4 13 l3 13 26

64

RAW DATA FROM BENE-ANTHONY

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST (FRT)

 

 

—i1:__ ;=====
Subject's Anxiety

Number Sex Group P M N IS ISB OS T8

15 B L 1 1 3O 0 O 4 4

16 B L 3 2 10 14 O 8 22

17 B L 3 2 15 3 3 14 17

18 B L 8 3 8 10 10 8 18

19 B L 8 0 13 13 O 0 13

20 B L 1 0 8 3 3 19 22

21 B L 1 1 21 ll 11 O 11

22 B L 10 3 2 8 8 13 21

23 B L O 0 8 26 0 () 26

24 B L O O 21 2 2 12 14

25 B L 7 3 12 6 O O 6

26 B L o o 8 21 21 p 8 29

27 B L 1 O 10 18 O 5 23

28 B L 13 11 2 22 0 12 34

RAW DATA FROM BENE-ANTHONY

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST (FRT)

65

 

 

Subject's Anxiety
Number Sex Group F M F N IS ISB OS T3
29 G H 0 0 0 30 l l 2 3
30 G H 24 11 13 11 9 9 O 9
31 G H 12 5 7 4 3 O 25 28
32 G H 10 7 3 10 l4 l4 0 14
33 G H 14 9 5 9 8 8 7 15
34 G H 5 3 2 O 21 21 8 29
35 G H 6 3 3 4 22 22 5 27
36 G H 5 3 2 2 7 7 15 22
37 G H 25 9 l6 9 14 14 O 14
38 G H l 1 0 18 10 10 10 20
39 G H 10 2 8 5 4 4 14 18
40 G H 8 5 3 l 23 O 11 34
41 G H 3 O 3 16 15 0 O 15
42 G H 9 5 4 4 11 ll 12 23

It‘ll!
{El

11 Ill. 1 III

66

RAW DATA FROM BENE-ANTHONY

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST (FRT)

 

 

Subject's Anxiety
Number Sex Group P M F N S IS IS B OS T8
43 G L 6 3 3 l8 2 14 14 0 14
44 G L 4 3 l 17 0 8 8 5 13
45 G L 2 0 2 23 2 7 7 0 7
46 G L 1 O 1 24 0 9 9 0 9
47 G L 7 3 4 4 0 25 0 2 2 7
48 G L 10 2 8 21 O 3 0 0 3
49 G L 2 l l 26 l 1 0 6 7
50 G L 5 0 5 l4 0 15 15 0 15
51 G L 0 0 0 20 0 13 13 2 15
52 G L 8 2 6 6 0 22 O 0 22
53 G L 2 O 2 4 1 2 2 25 27
54 G L 0 O 0 22 1 10 10 1 ll
55 G L 6 4 2 24 0 4 O 5 9
56 G L 4 0 4 25 0 6 6 0 6

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH SELF

67

TABLE 14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Sex .00 l .00 .00
Anxiety Group 3.50 1 3.50 1.20
Interaction 4.57 1 4.57 1.57
Error 151.86 52 2.92
Total 159.92 55
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTANT SIBLING
Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Sex 30.02 1 30.02 .55
Anxiety Group 46.45 1 46.45 .85
Interaction .45 l .45 .008
Error 2851.06 52 54.83
Total 2927.98 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH IMPORTANT SIBLING BROTHER

68

TABLE 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation S.S. d.f M.S. F
Sex 7.88 1 7.88 .15
Anxiety Group 196.88 1 196.88 3.84
Interaction 17.16 1 17.16 .34
Error 2662.93 52 51.21
Total 2884.84 55
TABLE 17
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH OTHER SIBLINGS
Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Sex 27.16 1 27.16 .63
Anxiety Group 46.45 1 46.45 1.07
Interaction 100.45 1 100.45 2.31
Error 2257.92 52 43.42
Total 2431.98 55

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69

TABLE 18

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH TOTAL SIBLINGS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
D 5
Sex 114.29 1 114.29 1.91
Anxiety Group 185.79 1 185.79 3.11
Interaction 87.50 1 87.50 1.46
Error 3109.85 52 59.80
Total 3497.43 55
TABLE 19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF NEGATIVE FEELING PERCEPTIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH MOTHER OR FATHER OR "NOBODY"
OR SELF OR IMPORTANT SIBLING
OR OTHER SIBLINGS

Source of Variation S.S. d.f. M.S. F
Groups 6261.70 5 1252.34 1.06
Error 389993.65 330 1181.80

 

Total 396255.35 335

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Anthony, E. J., & Bene, E. A technique for the objective assessment
of the child's family relationships. Journal pf Mental Science,
1957, 103, 541-555.

 

Andry, R. G. Delinquency and parental pathology. London: Methuen,
1960.

Ausubel, D. P., Balthazar, E. E., Rosenthal, I., Blackman, L. S.,
Schpoont, S. H., & Welkowitz, J. Perceived parent attitudes as
determinants of children's ego Structure. Child DevelOpment,
1954, 25, 173-183.

Bandura, A. Relationship of family patterns to child behavior disorders.
Progress Report, U. S. P. H. Research Grant M-l734. Stanford
University, 1960.

Bandura, A., & Huston, A. C. Identification as a process of incidental
learning. Journal 2; Abnormal é Social Psychology, 1961, 63,
311-318.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression
through imitation of aggressive models. Journal pf Abnormal é
Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 575-582.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Imitation of filmrmediated
aggressive models. Journal 2; Abnormal é Social Psychology,
1963, 66, 3-11.

 

Bandura, A., & Halters, R. H. Adolescent aggression. New York:
Ronald Press, 1959.

Bandura, A., & Welters, R. H. Social learning and personality develop-
ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1963.

Baxter, J. C., Becker, J., & Hooks, W. Defensive Style in the families
of schizOphrenics and controls. Journal 2: Abnormal é Social
Psychology, 1963, 66, 512-518.

 

Becker, W. C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline.
In M. L. & L. W. Hoffman (Eds.), Child development research.
Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage, 1964.

Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Luria, Z., Shoemaker, D. L. & Hellmer,
L. A. Relations of factors derived from parent-interview ratings
to behavior problems of five-year-olds. Child DevelOpment,
1962, 33, 509-535.

71

Bene, E., & Anthony, J. Manual for the family relations test. London:
The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and
Wales, 1957.

Bing, E. The effect of childrearing practices on the deve10pment of
differential cognitive abilities. Child DevelOpment, 1963, 34,
631-648.

 

Bruce, P. Relationship of self-acceptance to other variables with Sixth
grade children oriented in self-understanding. Journal.gf
Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 229-238.

Carlson, B. R. Parent-child relationships and the self-concept pf
children. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan) Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1958. No. 58-7692.

 

Castaneda, A., McCandless, B. R., & Palermo, D. S. The children's form
of the manifest anxiety scale. Child DevelOpment, 1956, 27,
317-326.

 

Cox, F. N. An assessment of children's attitudes toward parent figures.
Child DevelOpment, 1962, 33, 821-830.

Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. Personality and psychotherapy. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1950.

Fenichel, O. The psyphoanalytic theory‘gf neurosis. New York: Norton,
1945.

Frank, G. H. The role of the family in the deve10pment of psycho-
pathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 191-205.

Freud, A. The ego and the mechanisms 2f defense. New York: Inter-
national Universities, 1946.

 

Freud, S. New introductory lectures ip psychoanalysis. New York:
Norton, 1933.

Freud, S. The problem 9f anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. Unraveligg juvenile delinquency. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1950.

Hafner, As J., Quast, W., Speer, D. C., & Grams, A. Children's anxiety
scales in relation to self, parental, and psychiatric ratings of
anxiety. Journal 2: Consulting Psyghology, 1964, 28, 555-558.

Hatfield, J. S., Ferguson, L. R., & Alpert, R. Mother-child interaction
and the socialization process. Child Development, 1967, 38,
365-414.

72

Hetherington, E. M. .A deve10pmental study of the effects of sex of the
dominant parent on sex-role preference, identification, and
imitation in children. Journal 2f Personality é Social Egy-
chology, 1965, 2, 188-194.

 

Hetherington, E. M., & Frankie, G. Effects of parental dominance,
warmth, and conflict on imitation in children. Journal pf
Personality é Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 118-125.

Kagan, J., Hosken, B., & Watson, S. Child's symbolic conceptualization
of parents. Child Development, 1961, 32, 625-636.

 

Klein, M. The psycho-analysis 2; children. London: Hogarth Press,
Ltd., 1954.

 

L'Abate, L. Personality correlates of manifest anxiety in children.
Journal 2f Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 342-348.

Lefkowitz, M. M., Walder, L. 0., & Eron, L. D. Punishment, identifica-
tion, and aggression. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 1963, 9,
159-174.

Lesser, G. S. The relationship between overt and fantasy aggression as
a function of maternal reSponse to aggression. Journal 2f
Abnormal a Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 218-221.

Levitt, E. E. A comparison of parental and self-evaluations of psycho-
pathology in children. Journal 2; Clinical Paychology, 1959,
15, 402-404.

Linton, H., Berle, B. B., Grossi, M. & Jackson, E. Reactions of
children within family groups as measured by the Bene-Anthony
tests. Journal 2f Mental Science, 1961, 107, 308-325.

Lipsitt, L. P. Self-concept scale for children and its relationship to
the children's form of the manifest anxiety scale. Child
Development, 1958, 29, 463-472.

 

McCandless, B. R., & Castaneda, A. Anxiety in children, School
achievement, and intelligence. Child DevelOpment, 1956, 27,
379-382.

McCord, W., McCord, J., & Zola, I. K. Origins 2f crime: A new evalu-

ation pf the Cambridge-Somerville youth study. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1959.

Monkman, J. A. The relationship between children's adjustment and
parental acceptance. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Illinois) Ann.Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1958.
No. 58-5463.

 

73

Peterson, D. R., Becker, W. C., Shoemaker, D. L., & Hellmer, L. A.
Child behavior problems and parental attitudes. Child DevelOp-
ment, 1961, 32, 151-162.

 

Rogers, C. R. A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal
relationships, as deveIOped in the client-centered framework.
In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A_study‘gf‘a science. Vol. 3.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.

Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., & Waite, R. R.
A test anxiety scale for children. Child Development, 1958, 29,
105-113.

 

Schaefer, E. S. A configurational analysis of children's reports of
parent behavior. Journal 9f Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29,
552-557.

Schaefer, E. S., & Bell, R. Q. Development of a parental attitude
research instrument. Child Develppment, 1958, 29, 339-361.

Sears, R. R. Relation of fantasy aggression to interpersonal
aggression. Child Development, 21, 1950, 5-6.

 

Sears, R. R. A theoretical framework for personality and social
behavior. American Psycholpgist, 1951, 6, 476-483.

Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization eXperiences to aggression
in middle childhood. Journal g§.Abnormal é Social Psychology,
1961, 63, 466-492.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns pf child rearing.
New York: Harper, 1957.

 

Sears, R. R., Whiting, J. W. M., Nowlis, V., & Sears, P. S. Some child-
rearing antecedents of aggression and dependency in young
children. Genetic Psychology Monographs,l953, 47, 135-234.

Serot, N. M., & Teevan, R. C. Perception of parent-child relationship
and its relation to child adjustment. Child Development, 1961,
32, 373-378.

Shoben, E. J. The assessment of parental attitudes in relation to child
adjustment. Genetic Psychology Monogpaphs, 1949, 39, 101-148.

 

Smock, C. D. Perceptual rigidity and closure phenomenon as a function
of manifest anxiety in children. Child Development, 1958, 29,
237-247.

 

Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory 2f psychiatry. New York:
Norton, 1953.

 

74

Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., & Eells, K. Social class 13 America.
Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949.

Williams, W. C. The PALS test: A technique for children to evaluate
both parents. Journal pf Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22,

487-495.

Zunich, M. Child behavior and parental attitudes. Journal 2f
Psychology, 1966, 62, 41-46.

IT. I

HICHIGRN STRT

312931

E UNIV. LIBRARIES
llllllHlllWIlVlllllllllllllllllll
02414020