»,4‘a|8_ This is to certify that the thesis entitled FATHERrABSENCE AND SEPARATION ANXIETY REATIONS IN COLLEGE FRESHMEN presented by Michael Scott Sherry has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . degree in Psychology WI— Major professor Date ' J’/’¢ 0-7 639 A mamas” : ‘mntnguw Unrvcnity OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per 60 per item momma LIBRARY MATERIAL§: Place in book return to ram charge from circulation recon ‘ ‘ 0-1. a _ - ‘ I l ‘ ' i m“ ' 4 {I \ ~ . . | ,_ “allh ‘ ‘ x-Ili‘ulll I .~ 1 ‘\ uh" ‘ 60 MAR 211995 ' mv17mm at?” FATHER-ABSENCE AND SEPARATION ANXIETY REACTIONS IN COLLEGE FRESHMEN By Michael Scott Sherry A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology August 1980 JlM\n\\\ mo ABSTRACT FATHER-ABSENCE AND SEPARATION ANXIETY REACTIONS IN COLLEGE FRESHMEN By Michael Scott Sherry This dissertation is an attempt to explore the central thesis that past real life losses have an effect on an individual's adjust- ment to present separations. It is also designed to subject to empirical testing Bowlby's observations that individuals react to separations in characteristic ways. These ways include renewed attachment seeking, individuation, hostility, and avoidance of the reality of the separation. Specifically, the present study hypothesized that subjects who had lost a father by death or divorce earlier in their lives would have greater difficulty adjusting to a present life separation than subjects from intact families. The present life separation was the move from home to college that the freshmen subjects had recently made. It was hypothesized that subjects from father-absent families would demonstrate more anxiety, more attachment-seeking, less indi- viduation, more hostility, and more reality avoidance following a separation than subjects from intact families. A sample of 90 freshmen, half of whom were male and half of whom were female, was drawn from the Michigan State University student Michael Scott Sherry body. The sample was divided into three equal sized groups: 1) those who had lost a father by death between the ages of 4 and I4; 2) those who had lost a father because of divorce between the ages of 4 and I4; and 3) those from intact families. Spielberger's (1970) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was used to measure anxiety. Hansburg's (l972) Separation Anxiety Test was used to measure each subject's characteristic manner of coping with separation experiences. Analyses of variance were employed to test Hypotheses I, II, III, and IV. T-tests were used to test Hypotheses V. In addition, chi squares were used to test Hypotheses II and IV. The results generally upheld the thesis that prior life loss predisposes an individual to react with difficulty to present separa- tions. Of the five major hypotheses, three were supported by the data. Subjects from father-absent families demonstrated more attach- ment-seeking, less individuation, and more reality avoidance than subjects from intact families. In addition, those who experienced father-absence earlier in their lives had greater difficulty adjust- ing to a new separation than those who experienced father-absence later in their lives. Furthermore, males who had experienced father- absence demonstrated more attachment-seeking than any other group in the study. In discussing the results, the difference between general anxiety and separation anxiety was considered. Also, the relationship between father-absence and problems adapting to separation was noted and discussed. The relationship between symbiotic behavior and reality avoidance was also explored. Possible causes for greater Michael Scott Sherry anxiety in subjects who experienced father absence earlier in their lives were entertained. Next, possible reasons for sex-differences were discussed. Finally, the need for future studies that explored the separation reactions of mother-absent subjects was made apparent. DEDICATION To my mother and my father. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS — To Dr. A. Rabin, for his wisdom, equity, and guidance throughout all the stages of the dissertation. His editorial assist- ance was invaluable. From the beginning to the end of my graduate life, his probity and thoughtfulness instructed me. - To D. H. Crano for his penetrating methodological.suggestions, - To Dr. A. Aniskiewicz for his support and respect. - To Dr. D. Miller for his insouciant thought-provoking challenges. - To Dale Dillavou, an ally in understanding the increasingly ambiguous and abstract world of academia, for his statistical help and, most importantly, his friendship. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . Separation Experiences and Separation Anxiety Theory . . Experimental and Naturalistic Studies . Adequate and Problem Responses to Separation Anxiety : Hostility and Reality Avoidance . . Attachment and Individuation in Object Relations Special Separation Experiences . . . Incidence of Parental Death and Divorce Parent Death and Personality Problems of Bereaved . Children. . . Parent Divorce and Personality Problems of the Children. Changes in Family Structure Following Father Loss : Prior Object Loss and Problem Responses to Present Separation . . . . . . Statement of Purposes and Hypotheses METHOD Description of Instruments. Personal Data Sheet. . . The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory The Separation Anxiety Test Hypotheses in Terms of Instruments . Subjects. Procedure STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA Results . . Additional Results iv Page vi Page DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 The Findings . . . . . . . . . . 53 Implications for Future Research. . . . . . . . . 65 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Personal Data Sheet. . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Trait Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . . . 73 State Anxiety Inventory . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Separation Anxiety Test. . . 77 Sample Statements, Associated Feelings, and Thematic Classification for Separation Anxiety Test. . . . 104 Separation Anxiety Test Answer Sheet . . . . . . TOS Separation Anxiety Test Tabulation Sheet. . . . . llO Separation Anxiety Text Pattern Summary Sheet . . . lll BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 .197.“ manna):- Table 10 ll LIST OF TABLES Number and Ages of Male and Female Subjects from Intact Family (IF), FatherDeath (FD) and Divorced Father (DF) Homes. Number of Early-Father Absent (EFA) and Late Father Absent (LFA) Subjects . . . Mean Scores F Ratios and Significance Levels for Anxiety Measures of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. . . . Means, F Ratios and Significance Levels for Percentage of Individuation (IND) and Attachment (ATT) Responses for Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. . . Means, F Ratios and Significance Levels for Per- centage of Realit Avoidant (RA) Responses for Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. Mean Scores, T-values and Significance Levels for Various Measures for "Early Father Absence" (EFA) and "Late Father Absence" (LFA) Subjects . Hansburg's Normative Range for Three Separation Anxiety Text Variables . . . . . . Chi Square for Number of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects Responding .Symbioti- cally. . . . Chi Square for Number of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects Avoiding the Reality of a Separation (RAVO). . . Chi Square for Number of Symbiotic Father-Absent (SFA) and Symbiotic Intact Family (SIF) Subjects Avoiding the Reality of a Separation . Means, T-values and Significance Levels for Male Subjects on the Separation Anxiety Test Variables . vi Page 35 37 39 4o 42 43 45 45 46 47 47 Table l2 T3 14 15 Means, T-values and Significance Levels for Female Subjects on the Separation Anxiety Test Variables . Mean Scores, T- values and Significance Levels for Various Measures of "Early Father Absent" (EFA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects . . . . Mean Scores, T-values and Significance Levels for Various Measures of "Late Father Absent" (LFA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects . . . . Mean Scores, T-values and Significance Levels of Father Death (Group A) and Father Divorce (Group B) Subjects on Various Separation Anxiety Test Vari- ables. . . . vii Page 49 50 50 52 INTRODUCTION Adolescence is a developmental stage in which the individual separates from his family and begins to construct his own life. It has been called the "second individuation process" (Blos, l967), for adolescents must disengage from their attachments to infantile love objects in order to pursue new, non-incestuous sexual attach- ments and to develop a new sense of identity. In the first individua- tion process, the young child develops a sense of his individual identity separate from the identity he shares with his mother (Mahler, l975). The young child's maturing locomotor abilities expedite the first individuation process. At the end of the "second individua- tion process," the move away from home is the external confirmation of the gradual separation-individuation begun in early adolescence. For many adolescents, going away to college is the first major physi- cal removal from the family harbor. Many adolescents negotiate this separation with little distress; for others, adjustment is a problem. Adequate adjustment has been viewed as depending upon a childhood in which family unity and availability of parental support were experienced (Hansburg, 1972). Past disturbances in the family, including repeated family illness, divorce, severe dissension and death, may disrupt the individual's capacity to adjust adequately. When an individual travels away to college, we might speculate that adjustment may be difficult if he was removed from a significant relationship with a parent earlier in his life. The present research examined the effect of past real life losses-either loss of father by death or separation from father due to parental divorce-on adolescents' adjustment to a major separa- tion. It is hypothesized that severe separations in the past will make more difficult adequate coping responses to a present separation. Severe separation experiences might include prolonged childhood illness, unavailability of parental figures because of illness, parental death, and marital separations and divorces. The separation in the past may have been of such intensity that the individual's attempts to master the situation by experiencing and articulating his feelings were doomed. Hence, the individual may be "sensitized" and distort a present separation by reacting to it in a manner developed to cope with an earlier, more severe separation. Since childhood bereavement has been shown to effect subse- quent psychological development (Brown, 196l; Birtchnell, 1970) and since divorce may similarly effect the development of the child from the disrupted family, this study will focus on the influence of childhood bereavement and divorce on late adolescents' responses to a present separation. Most broadly stated, the model suggests that feelings engendered by the previous separations and losses will make difficult the adjustment to a new separation. An adequate adjustment may include a complex of feeling-states including loss and a desire to be united with the lost significant figure, anger at the loss figure or at oneself, excitement at the new possibilities the separation opens up, and a feeling of detachment. An adequate adjustment would also include a recognition of some loss, a disruption in the individual's emotional equilibrium, and a sense of hope about a new life with new relationships. However, when one particular feeling state dominates an individual's emotional world, for example, loneliness or hostility or denial of any loss, a problem adjustment may be suspected. In particular, this study will examine the emotional reactions following separation of second term college freshmen who have left home to attend college. Specifically, the responses to separation of second term college freshmen who come from intact families, families in which death of the father occurred while the freshmen were between the ages of 4 and l4, and families in which parental divorce resulting in the father moving out of the home while the freshmen were between the ages of 4 and 14 will be compared. Atten- tion will be paid to circumstances which might lessen the childhood loss, such as remarriage or continued day-to-day interactions with a divorced father. This research attempts to determine: 1) whether death of the father in childhood is related to difficulties which may be highlighted by the separation of going away to college; 2) whether parental divorce in childhood resulting in father absence is related to difficulties highlighted by the separation of going away to college, and 3) whether family disruption in childhood due either to death or divorce is related to different modes of coping with separations. Answers to these specific questions may shed light on the relationship between family disruption and subsequent development of emotional problems by positing extreme sensitivity to separation experiences as a key variable in resulting problems. Before discussing these questions in more detail, a review of the literature will serve to acquaint the reader with the issues, problems and major findings relating separation experiences and family disruption. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Separation Experiences and Separation Anxiety .Ihggry.--Since the dawn of psychoanalysis, theorists have speculated on the tremendous significance of separation experiences and separation anxiety on the development of the personality (Freud, l9l7a; Freud, l9l7b; Rank, 1924; Klein, l952). Separation has been defined as the "inaccessibility of the subject's attachment figure" (Bowlby, 1973). Recent theorists have stressed the primacy of separa- tion anxiety, viewing it as a primary response to separation not reducible to other terms (Bowlby, 1973; Fairbairn, l954). Fairbairn (l963) viewed separation anxiety as the "earliest and original form of anxiety", while Ninnicott (1958) considered it the "earliest anxiety related to being insecurely held." For the infant, separation anxiety follows the physical removal of the infant from the mother. When the infant's attachment to the mother is frustrated, his state of being alone leads to an increased risk of danger. Fear following the inaccessibility of the mother may be regarded as a basic adaptive response, namely, one that during the course of evolution has become an intrinsic part of man's behavioral repertoire because of its contribution to species survival. As a result, when a child senses any prospect of separation, some measure of anxiety is aroused in him (Bowlby, 1973). It is important to differentiate between Bowlby's definition of separation and Mahler's (l975) in which separation refers not to physical separa- tion but to the child's psychological awareness of his own separate- ness. However, we may surmise that premature physical separation experiences may result in a child becoming aware of his separateness before he is able to master this awareness. Experimental and Naturalistic Studies.--It has been suggested that the separation experiences of an infant and his typical responses to the separation anxiety will reverberate throughout his life (Sternschein, 1973). For these reasons, studies of early separations will be briefly summarized. Spitz (l946) found that the earlier the separation, the more profound were the subsequent disturbances in personality development. In fact, the infant's reliance on con- tinuity in his sources of nourishment and security is so great that infantile death through loss of interest in life may occur due to discontinuity in attachment figures. Infants who have attained object permanency by the second half of the first year have been found to protest actively following brief separations from their mothers while younger infants without object permanency respond in a bewildered fashion to the separation (Schaffer, l958). Minia- ture brief separation experiments (Ainsworth and Bell, 1970; Maccoby and Feldman, 1972) have found that young children between 11 and 36 months react to the absence of their mothers with some measure of concern, often exhibiting intense anxiety and distress. Two- year-olds are usually as upset as 1 years olds following separations and unable to make rapid recoveries when reunited with their mothers. However, a child of 3 is able to understand that his absent mother will soon return and is less likely to be as upset as younger children by the separation. Older children, with greater cognitive abilities, have less intense reactions to the brief separations. Based on numerous naturalistic studies, Bowlby (1973) describes a three step sequence that follows separation. When a child, attached to a mother figure, is separated from her unwillingly, he will exper- ience distress. At first he protests and tries by any means available to recover his mother. Increased activity, which Parkes (1969) has called the "search for the lost object," begins. Next, the child despairs of recovering her if she does not return; nevertheless, the child remains preoccupied with her and is vigilant for her return. Later he seems to lose interest in his mother and to become emotionally detached from her. Provided the duration of the separation is not too long, the child, upon being reunited with the mother, will again attach to her. His attachment, however, may be anxious, and he may insist on staying close to her for days or weeks after the reunion. Behavior that clinicians label "dependent" Bowlby prefers to refer to as "anxiously attached." Children who have experienced many separations respond with "anticipatory dread" to situations that may lead to separation (Shirley, 1942). Alternately, if the separation is especially prolonged or repeated over and over during the first 3 years of life, detachment can persist indefinitely. Adequate and Problem Responses to Separation Anxiety Hostility and Reality Avoidance.--Hostility as a response to separation has been described by numerous authors (Bowlby, 1973; Heinicke and Westheimer, 1966; Wolfenstein, 1969). In its functional form, the anger is expressed as reproachful and punishing toward the abandoning attachment figure. Its expression is meant to "assist a reunion" (Parkes, 1973) and to discourage further separation. The most basic expression of hostility is the protesting screaming of the infant left alone which serves to call the mother back to his side. While the anger serves to promote the attachment bond, "dysfunctional anger," which is especially intense and persistent, may often weaken the attachment bond by alienating the attachment figure. The expression of the hostility is most pathological when it is in reaction to an intense separation experience and when it is unaccompanied by a desire for attachment (Hansburg, 1972). When the hostility also includes projective defenses, without the presence of an attachment need, a paranoid style of dealing with separation is indicated. A self-destructive response to separation has been described in which a Strong attachment need and a self-castigating tendency are coupled with a severe inner emotional turmoil consisting of pain and hostility (Hansburg, 1976). Various authors have noted that when the individual's ego cannot withstand the painful tension following separation and when the expression of hostility is unacceptable, the reality of the situation may be avoided (Hansburg, 1972; Rochlin, 1961; Wolfenstein, 1969). Working with adolescents and children who have lost a parent, Wolfenstein notes that a "split in the child's ego" occurred with the child maintaining two contradictory thoughts. The child acknow- ledges the loss but also denies its finality. Freud (1965) cites the following quote from a recently bereaved child: "I know father's dead, but what I can't understand is why he doesn't come home to supper." Reality may be avoided by withdrawal, fantasy, or evasion of one's real feelings (Hansburg, 1972). Rochlin (1965) points out that it is not possible to bear the burden of a sense of loss immediately and directly, and that it is necessary for all people at some time to escape from accepting the finality of loss. With- drawal and fantasy appear to be safety features that enable the individual to master the traumatic situation little by little and, as such, are not pathological unless they become predominant responses to separation. Evasion of one's real feeling, however, may result in the individual uncensciously recreating a loss-situation which he has been trying to deny (Rochlin, 1961). Attachment and Individuation in Object Relations.--Based on early separation experiences and availability and responsivity of attachment figures, the individual develops a working model of object relations which describes his need for relatedness and his need for separateness (Bowlby, 1973). The need for attachment has been seen as powerful, demanding, evolutionarily necessary, and persistent. Even in adults who have established the capacity for mature love and who have established a sense of identity, there still exists a wish to merge, to fuse, to lose one's separateness with another from time to time. This need may be seen as a develop- ment out of the original symbiotic matrix of infancy (Modell, 1968). On the other side of object-relatedness is the need to be separate in order to develop as an individual. Mahler's recent work (1975) has stressed the importance of the separation-individua- tion aspect of the young child's life to his future personality development. The rapprochement phase of the separation-individuation process is especially pertinent to this study for it is during this phase that the behavior of the 18 month old child expresses his continuous need for individuation as well as his continued reliance on the emotional support of the mother. It has been suggested that the attainment of a balance of activity between the drive for attach- ment and the drive toward individuation is necessary for the develop- ment of a healthy personality (Hansburg, 1972). Exaggerations of either attachment need or self-sufficient individuation constitute pathological responses to separation and may be best understood when compared to Bowlby's three stages of separation responses. "Anxious attachment," Bowlby's term for exces- sive dependency and help-seeking, results from the child's conviction that a traumatic separation from an attachment figure will repeat itself. People who show unusually frequent and urgent attachment lO behavior have had little confidence that their attachment figures will be accessible and responsive when they need them. Their strategy is to remain in close proximity to ensure the availability of the attachment figure. "Anxiously attached" people have experienced repeated separations or threats of separation in the past; as a result, rather than experience a separation which may lead to the three stage response-protest, despair, detachment-they cling to the attachment figure. Thus, they avoid any separation and the resulting anxiety that would propel them along the path of object- finding, object-relating, and continued self-development. The "anxiously attached" person sacrifices the development of autonomy in order to maintain his dependent security. The exaggeration of the normal drive toward individuation may be called "isolated self-sufficiency." Repeated separation of sufficient duration may result in the individual detaching himself from any reliance on another person (Hansburg, 1972). "Isolated self-sufficiency" may be understood as resulting from the intensity of the protest stage coupled with the inability of the young child to withstand the despair stage which normally keeps detachment in abeyance (Bowlby, 1961). When the protest is great, the child's anger toward the attachment figure is so intense that the bond between them is weakened rather than strengthened. The attachment figure's resulting alienation makes reliance on him less likely, and the young child detaches himself, becoming sullenly self-sufficient. This defensive self-sufficiency probably exacerbates the loneliness and deprivation that impeded identification with the attachment figure 11 in the first place (Schaffer, 1968). Furthermore, the defensive self-sufficiency retards and restricts the growth of new experiences and relations with the surrounding world. Hansburg (1972) describes an attachment-individuation balance for adolescents in which the drive for attachment and the drive for individuation alternate depending upon the degree to which the individual feels separation. He describes mild separations as those in which the separation is of a temporary nature and in which there is complete assurance of reunion. Included in mild separations are events such as spending a night at a neighbor's or leaving for school in the morning. Intense separations he describes as those in which the separation is of a more permanent nature and in which there is little assurance of reunion. Examples of intense separation would be a child removed from his natural home or a child who loses a parent by death. Healthy personalities will meet mild separation with little anxiety and, in time, welcome these opportunities to expand their social world; however, when faced with an intense separa- tion, their desire to individuate will be replaced by their seeking support from others. Excessive self-sufficiency, however, is found in those adolescents who meet intense as well as mild separations with the drive to individuate. These individuals are unable to utilize other people to help them through trying times. On the other extreme are those anxiously attached individuals who are unable to meet even the mildest separation experiences autonomously. They meet mild separations with feelings of anxiety and dread. Often, they attempt to avoid the separation entirely by maintaining proximity 12 with their attachment figures. These individuals do not rely upon themselves to handle a new situation but rely upon others. Special Separation Experiences Incidence of Parental Death and Divorce.--In contemporary American society, an alarming number of children experience separa- tion from one or both of their parents because of death or divorce (Bane, 1976). While the incidence of childhood bereavement has been decreasing, the incidence of marital disruption due to divorce is dramatically increasing. The percentage of persons under 16 who have experienced the loss of either one or both parents by death ranges from 12 to 19.5 (Brown, 1961; Munro and Griffiths, 1969). Parental death is more common than maternal death. By the sixteenth year, 12.4% of the population may anticipate the death of a father compared with 8.1% for maternal death (Munro, 1965). The figures for divorce are even higher. Since 1962, there has been an 135% increase in the number of divorces. In 1974, more than a million children in the United States below the age of 18 were affected by the divorce of their parents (Kelly and Wallerstein, 1976). Bane (1976) found that 14% of all children born in 1955 experienced paren- tal divorce before age 18. Following the increasing trend, the prediction is 23.4% of children born in 1970 will have their parents divorce. The totals for children affected by death and divorce are sobering. Bane estimates that 32 to 44% of the children growing up in the 19705 will be involved in a family disrupted by either death, divorce or prolonged separation. 13 As Kelly and Wallerstein (1976) point out, it is somewhat alarming that systematic and practical research regarding the impact of marital disruption on children is still in its infancy. Because of the incidence of these special separation experiences, the impact of parental death and divorce on subsequent adjustment problems will be attended to next. Parent Death and Personality Problems of Bereaved Children.-- Numerous authors have described a relationship between childhood bereavement and subsequent development of psychopathology. Childhood bereavement has been associated with psychosis, neurosis, depression and suicide (Barry and Bousfield, 1937; Birtchnell, 1970; Brown, 1961). Individuals, particularly females, who have lost their mothers in early childhood have been found to have a high risk for the develop- ment in adulthood of manic-depressive psychosis, schizophrenia, and neurosis (Barry and Lindemann, 1965; Dennehy, 1966). Bowlby (1961) contends that the loss of the mother during the child's first five years of life is a crucial antecedent of psychiatric illness. After the age of 5, the saliency of the father to the child increases to the point where his loss by death is of about equal importance to the loss of the mother as a predisposing factor in later emotional problems. Loss of the father when the child is between the ages of 5 and 14 has been seen as critical to the development of subsequent emotional difficulties (Bowlby, 1961). Pollock (1962) found that fatherless women run a greater risk of developing psychopathology than any other group of bereaved children. 14 Since loss of a parent is a special case of a separation experience marked by its permanence, numerous authors have pointed out the reverberations of the sudden and permanent separation. Barry and Lindemann (1965) suggest that if death removes the mother from an infant or a small child or if the mourning of the mother for her lost mate makes her unavailable to her child, dependency needs may go unattended. As a result, the need and craving for a mother's love may continue throughout life, often displaced onto mother- surrogates. Future mild separation experiences may be met by attempt- ing to find symbiotic figures to attach to. Beck and Sethi (1963) contend that early parental loss ”sensitizes" the bereaved to later loss situations. When faced with a current loss, either threatened or fantasied, the "sensitized" bereaved reacts in an extreme manner. The bereaved also appear to perceive loss in situations which others may not perceive as loss-threatening. Wolfenstein (1969) suggests that the bereaved may have a chronic sense of loss which leads to an unwillingness to commit themselves to a relationship. They Show an unwillingness to decathect the bereaved parent and thus attempt to hold on to a Simpler, more idyllic past. Cantalupo (1978) and Rutter (1971) suggest that the bereaved child suffers a "double loss" when one parent dies; the child loses not only the deceased parent but also, for a period of time, the surviving parent whose mourning may keep her from being supportive to the child. Furthermore, economic exigencies following a death of a father may require that the surviving mother forsake the home for employment. Archibald, Bell and Miller (1962) point out that intense separation anxiety 15 and problems with autonomy and assertiveness plague the bereaved in later life. Furthermore, men show patterns of being extremely dependent and hostile toward the person upon whom they rely. Signi- ficantly, the adolescent's difficulty in making a normal separation from his surviving parent has been noted, but the oedipal relationship between the son and the surviving mother has been stressed rather than the problem separation response (Hilgard, Newman and Fisk, 1960). Parent Divorce and Personality Problems of the Children.-— Research on the effects of divorce on children is not as well-docu- mented as that concerned with bereaved children; however, numerous authors have associated parental loss due to divorce with subsequent adjustment problems. Santrock and Wohlford (1970) found that suicide in adult life was associated with parental discord and parental separation during childhood, while bereavement during childhood was not related to adult suicide. Beck and Sethi (1963) viewed parental divorce as one of the marital disruption causes that "sensi- tized" the child to react in an extreme manner when faced with a real or an imagined loss in later life. A history of parental separa- tion and divorce has also been traced for children referred to school guidance counselors for acting-out and aggressive problems. Studies that did not differentiate divorced from bereaved children found that father-absent boys were more dependent (Hetherington, 1966), unable to delay gratification (Santrock and Wohlford, 1970), con- sidered delinquent (Herzog and Sudia, 1970) and more anxious, tense, immature and fearful (Santrock, 1970). 16 Changes in Family Structure Following Father Loss.-—It is apparent that the events surrounding family disruption due to death or divorce are sufficiently complex that it is difficult to single out the dominant disturbing theme engendered by the loss. Referring to the after-effects of parental death, Furman (1974) has pointed out that it is important to consider: 1) the age of the child and his development stage at the time of the loss; 2) the actual details of the death-whether it was sudden or the result of a prolonged deteriorating illness; and 3) whether external support was available to the child following the death. The following corollary considera- tions also appear significant regarding divorce: 1) the age of the child and his developmental stage at the time of the divorce, 2) the actual details of the family situation prior to the divorce which probably included chronic hostility, and 3) the quality of the child's relationship with both parents following the divorce. Along with the hypothesis that the bereaved child and the child of a divorcee are sensitized to possible separation situations in the future and the hypothesis that the grief of the remaining parent and economic uncertainties following the disruption lead to subsequent distress in the family of the child (Rutter, 1971), it is necessary to explore the changes in the family dynamics that follow the loss of a father. We may surmise that in a fatherless home, the children will develop an inordinately close relationship with their mother. The children may need assurance from their mother that she too will not abandon them (Rochlin, 1965). The mother 17 may also encourage dependency in her children to assure that she will not be abandoned. When the children reach adolescence, separa- tion difficulties may be exacerbated by the children's guilt at leaving their mother as well as by their uncertainty about their own autonomy. The excessive closeness may be most deleterious when the child is a male. Without the father to encourage the resolution of an oedipal situation, the son's attachment to his mother may become sexualized. The mother may transfer to her son feelings usually reserved for her husband. As a result, when separating from their mothers, adolescent males may be struggling against an attach- ment tie that has been incestuously sexualized. Girls also appear to develop excessively close relationships with their mothers. Hetherington (1972) found that daughters of widows as well as daughters of divorcees were excessively mother-dependent. The closeness of this tie may further exacerbate normal separation difficulties for the adolescent females. Four results that follow the sudden absence of a father are: 1) sensitization to separation experiences, 2) temporary mater- nal unavailability due to her own loss reaction, 3) economic uncertain- ties, and 4) excessive attachement to the surviving parent. Because of these consequences, the adolescent will face the separation of going away to school without the self-reliance Bowlby (1972) considers necessary for an adequate adaptation to separation. The excessive attachment developed following a death or a divorce may have discouraged the development of autonomy. The "abandonment" by the father and the reduced availability of the remaining parent probably discouraged 18 the child's faith in his parental support in time of need. In addi- tion, the child may feel increasingly anxious that a separation will re-occur. Thus, although it is not possible to single out the most disturbing aspect of father-loss, it is probable that the end result will be decreased self-reliance in the child or adolescent when faced with a new separation. Prior Object Loss and Problem Responses to Present Separation.-- Although the loss of a parent from a child's day-to-day life is not identical to the loss an adolescent feels upon leaving home and travelling away to school, both events may encourage similar feelings in the child and the adolescent. Feelings of loss, of being abandoned, of being on one's own, and of helplessness usually follow family disruption along with a less conscious feeling of rage. Although studies have not focused on freshmen's immediate reactions to leaving home, we might speculate that freshmen travelling away to school likewise may feel a state of loss, of being on one's own, and of helplessness. We may surmise that freshmen who have not lived through a family disruption in the past will experience anxiety upon going away to school and will be able to cope with their anxiety. For those who have lost a parent, however, the process of adaptation to the separation will differ. The difference will be: 1) in the intensity of the feelings following the separation, and 2) in the manner of reacting to the feelings. 19 Wolfenstein (1969) has pointed out that children and adoles- cents who have lost a parent by death are not able to mourn. Feelings of protracted grief are avoided, and the finality of the loss is denied. We might speculate that children from divorce-disrupted families also may have been unable to express the sadness and anger related to the loss of the father. We may surmise that when these adolescents encounter a situation, such as going away to school, which involves a loss, in this case the security of the home, the situation will elicit feelings similar to those feelings related to the loss of the parent. Feelings that were repressed or denied at the time of the original loss will return. Anxiety originating in the orginal loss which had been successfully defended against will suddenly surface. As a result, the adolescent from a disrupted family going away to college will experience not just the anxiety that other individuals feel upon going away to college but also the return of prior repressed overpowering feelings lingering from the loss of the parent. A second process working in the adolescents who have either lost or been separated from a parent is their manner of reacting to the present separation. Due to the immaturity of their egos when they initially lost or were separated from a parent, the adoles- cents, when children, will have developed and learned a manner of reacting to separations. According to Wolfenstein (1969), this style will include denial, rage, projection, and a desire to be dependent upon others. Other children who have not experienced such a devastating loss will not have had the need to develop these 20 defenses to counter the anxiety upon being alone. When adolescents exposed to loss in childhood encounter a loss in the present, we may surmise that their reaction will include defenses elaborated to counter the earlier traumatic loss. These defenses will have become habitual manners of reacting to loss and separation. They may not react to the present separation with the identical reactions that were used to master the earlier loss; time and experience hope- fully will have tempered the more primitive responses. However, for the most part, their original manner of adapting to the loss will have survived. Statement of Purposes and Hypotheses Conspicuous by their absence in the review of the literature are studies on separation anxiety and separation reactions of adoles- cents going away to college. Studies of normative as well as problem adjustments to this separation experience are lacking, partially due to the absence of an adequate separation anxiety measure. Hence, a major purpose of this study is to gather semi-projective data on the separation experience of college freshmen using Hansburg's Separation Anxiety Test (SAT). In particular, the object-relation responses of attachment and individuation will be examined along with the amount of hostility and reality avoidance projected. Since Beck and Sethi (1963) and Archibald, Bell and Miller (1962) suggest that early separation experiences may sensitize indi- viduals to later separation experiences, the second purpose of this study is to compare the college adjustment of adolescents who 21 experienced two special separation experiences—loss of father by death and separation of father due to divorce-with each other and with adolescents from intact families. An assumption here is that adolescents from intact families, on the whole, will have had parents who were more accessible and responsive to their needs than adoles- cents from disrupted families. A major theme of this study, that extreme early life separation experiences will predispose individuals to respond inadequately to future separations, will be explored here. Understanding the influence of marital disruption on the personality development of children has been obfuscated in past studies by the lack of differentiation of divorce and death as dis- ruptive factors. This study begins by making the distinction. How- ever, since the vast majority of children who experience a parental divorce live primarily with the mother and, therefore, are more or less separated from their father, it would be best, when comparing the influence of death with divorce, to control for the sex of the lost parent. Therefore, despite the greater attention given in the literature to the pathological consequences of early maternal bereavement, this study will consider only adolescents who have lost a father by death or divorce. Rochlin (1965) points out that while studies of the effects of parent loss during early childhood are abundant, those investigating the influence of parent loss during middle childhood and early adolescence are curiously lacking. Since the father in the traditional family does not become especially distinct to the child until some time after the child's second or 22 third birthday and since the literature (Bowlby, 1972; Hill and Price, 1967) suggest that the loss of the father by death has the most consequences when the child is between the ages of 4 and 14, this study will be concerned with adolescents from intact families, and adolescents from families in which the father has been absent due to either death or divorce during the years when the adolescent was between 4 and 14. The preceding discussion gave rise to a number of expected relationships. The hypotheses tested are listed below. The first hypothesis tested is: Hypothesis 1: College freshmen from father-absent families who left home to attend college are more anxious than those from intact families. "Father absent families" will be synonomous with families in which the death of the father or divorce resulting in father absence in the family occurred while the freshmen were between 4 and 14 years of age. Both trait and state anxiety will be measured. Trait anxiety has been defined by Spielberger (1972) as "relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness, that is, to differences in the disposition to perceive a wide range of stimulus situations as dangerous and threatening." State anxiety has been defined as "transitory emotional states or conditions of the human organism that vary in intensity and fluctuate over time." It is hypothesized that trait anxiety will be higher for those from a disrupted family because of the tension and strain in the household 23 in which they grew up while state anxiety will also be elevated because of the freshmen's anxiety over the current separation. The second hypothesis tested is: Hypothesis 11: College freshmen from father-absent families seek new attachments more often and are less self-sufficient following a new separa- tion than freshmen from intact families. The third hypothesis is: Hypothesis III: Freshmen from father-absent families respond with more hostility following separa- tion than those from intact families. This hypothesis stems from the oft-cited observation that hostility is often a reaction when there is anxiety over a separation. The fourth hypothesis is: Hypothesis IV: Freshmen from father—absent families attempt to avoid the reality of a separation more than those from intact families. This hypothesis stems from Wolfenstein's (1969) observations that bereaved children and adolescents deny separations that other like-aged people would not. A fifth hypothesis is: Hypothesis V: Freshmen who lost fathers earlier in their lives make more problem responses following separation than those who lost their fathers later in their lives. 24 An attempt will be made to compare those who experienced disruption between the ages of 4 and 9 with those who lost fathers between the ages of 10 and 14. This comparison will be made because research (Spitz, 1960; Brown, 1961) shows that children who experi- enced loss earlier in their lives are more vulnerable to psychologi- cal problems than those who experienced 1ater-1ife loss. Bowlby (1961) has pointed out, however, that the father's loss is of conse- quence only after he has become a salient figure to the child. There- fore, we may assume that for the four-year-old child, the father has become a salient figure. As was stated earlier, few research studies have differen- tiated the effects of divorce and death on the future development of the child (Herzog and Sudia, 1968). As a result, it is difficult to use the literature to make educated guesses concerning the dif- ferential consequences of death and divorce on the young adult. The following hypotheses, therefore, are of an exploratory nature; their purpose is to begin to establish some findings in the area of differential effects of divorce and death on the freshmen's mode of coping with separations. Exploratory Hypothesis 1: Freshmen who lost a father by death (Group A) react differently following a new separation than freshmen who lost a father because of divorce (Group B). 25 This general exploratory hypothesis will be addressed by the following four exploratory hypotheses: I-A: Group A freshmen seek attachment following separation more often than Group B freshmen. Wolfenstein (1969) found that bereaved adolescents face new separations by finding and attaching themselves to new parent- surrogates. I-B: Group B freshmen are more self—sufficient following separation than Group A freshmen. Adolescents from divorce-disrupted homes may welcome the opportunity to remove themselves from the chronic conflict of the family and, when faced with a new separation, may want to avoid entanglement. I-C: Group B freshmen are more hostile following a separa- tion than Group A freshmen. Although both groups will probably meet a new separation with hostility, the rage of the bereaved is considered less conscious (Wolfenstein, 1969) and probably less accessible to the testing instrument. I-D: Group A freshmen avoid the reality of separations more often than Group B freshmen. This hypothesis is based on Rochlin's (1965) contention that the finality of loss may often be denied by the bereaved. Since the separation from the father in a parental divorce is usually not final, the developing child will not have the need to develop denial defenses as much as the bereaved child. METHOD Description of Instruments Personal Data Sheet.--A personal data sheet (Appendix A) was devised to collect developmental information relevant to the study. Several questions asked about parent death, parental divorce, remar- riage, and the age of the subject when the family was disrupted. Family residence information was also requested so that geographic separation for the freshman could be ascertained. The State-Trait Anxiety,Inventory.--The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), developed by Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene (1972), consists of two self-reporting scales that measure trait anxiety (A-Trait) and state anxiety (A-State). The STAI A/Trait scale (Appendix B) consists of 20 statements that ask people to describe how they generally feel. Subjects respond to each scale item (e.g., "I feel secure") by checking one of the following four points: "Almost never," "Sometimes," "Often," and "Almost always." Each point on the scale is given a numerical equivalent; by adding the scores, the examiner obtains a total score for the scale. The STAI A-Trait scale has been found to be a measure of relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness (Spielberger, 1970). The scale is used to define a continuum of increasing levels of trait anxiety, with low scores indicating a 26 27 disposition to view a wide range of situations as safe and non- threatening and high scores indicating a disposition to view a wide range of situations as dangerous and threatening. It has been used to detect people who are troubled by neurotic anxiety problems. The STAI A—State scale (Appendix C) likewise consists of 20 statements that ask people to describe how they feel at a parti- cular time by again rating themselves on the above mentioned four- point scale. For the purposes of this study, the directions for the STAI A-State were modified by asking subjects how they felt on their first day on their own at Michigan State University. The essential qualities that are evaluated by the STAI A-State scale are feelings of tension, nervousness, worry and apprehension. The STAI A-State defines a continuum of increasing levels of states of anxiety, with low scores indicating states of calmness and seren- ity, intermediate scores indicating moderate levels of tension and apprehension, and high scores reflecting states of intense appre- hension and fearfulness that approach panic. Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene (1970) report reliability and validity scores for the state and trait measures. The test- retest correlations for the STAI A-Trait scale range from .73 to .86. The test-retest correlations for the STAI A-State range from .16 to .54 with a median correlations of .32. These low correlations for the STAI A-State were anticipated because a valid measure of state anxiety should reflect the influence of unique situational factors intervening between two testing times. As an alternative, 28 internal consistency was measured and found to range from .83 to .92. Alpha reliability coefficients were typically higher when state anxiety was measured under stressful conditions. Concurrent validity for the STAI A-Trait scale correlates .73 with the IPAT Anxiety Scale (Cattell and Scheier, 1963) and .85 with the Taylor (1953) Manifest Anxiety Scale. Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene (1970) report that the high correlations of the STAI A-State scale with the Depression, Psychasthenia and Schizo- phrenia scales of the MMPI establish the scale's construct validity. These three MMPI scales normally reflect high levels of anxiety. The Separation Anxiety Test.--The Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) is a semi-projective instrument developed to measure the responses of children and young adolescents to separation experiences. The test consists of a series of 12 pictures (Appendix D) in which young protagonists are seen separating from significant adults, either involuntarily or by choice. Accompanying each picture is a title describing the scene, a pair of questions designed to create a mental set to the separation situations, and a series of 17 state- ments describing the possible feelings and reactions of the protago- nists in the picture. These 17 statements are classified into seven response themes: 1) attachment, 2) individuation, 3) hostility, 4) painful tension, 5) reality avoidance, 6) concentration impairment, and 7) self- love loss. For the purposes of this study, only response themes 29 indicative of attachment, individuation, hostility and reality avoid- ance were considered. EaCh response theme consists of three items. The attachment theme contains a feeling of rejection, a feeling of loneliness, and a feeling of empathy item. The individuation theme consists of a feeling of adaptation, a feeling of well-being, and a sublima- tion item. The hostility theme consists of an angry, a projective, and an intrapunitive item. The reality avoidance theme consists of responses of withdrawal, evasion and fantasy. A sample of state- ments from the SAT, the feeling the statement describes, and the classification of the statement into one of the four response themes is presented in Appendix E. Male subjects were presented with the male form of the SAT in which boys are presented as the protagonists; female subjects were presented with a female form of the SAT. Each subject was also presented with an answer sheet (Appendix F) on which they were to circle their answers. Each subject was asked to empathize with the protagonist in each of the 12 depicted SAT separation experiences. Next, they were asked to select from the 17 reactions the ones they considered representative of the protagonist's feelings. They could select as many reactions as they wanted. Each subject's answer sheet thus contained endorsements of numerous reactions chosen for the 12 SAT situations. Each subject's answer sheet was then scored individually and objectively. First, using the SAT Tabulation Sheet (Appendix G), the total number of responses to the SAT was counted. Next, the 30 total number of attachment, individuation, hostility, and reality avoidant responses was determined by totaling the number of items associated with each response theme. These totals were entered in the Pattern Summary Chart (Appendix H). Next, percentages were computed. Thus, each subject's protocol produced four scores: 1) attachment percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of attachment; 2) individuation percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of individuation, 3) hostility percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of hostility, and 4) reality avoidant percentage, which was the per- centage of SAT responses indicative of reality avoidance. Since the SAT was developed for use with children and young adolescents, it was necessary to determine its applicability to a college population. An informal pre-test was conducted with Michigan State University graduate students who were then briefly interviewed. The pre-test established that pictures of separation experiences using children as the protagonists sufficiently stimulated the graduate students and enabled them to project their reactions onto the protagonist. Also, the pre-test and interview showed that the reactions selected on the SAT generally reflected the feelings of the pre-test subjects. Since the SAT was effective with an older, graduate student group, it was considered to be applicable to a freshmen population as well. Hansburg (1972) offers group validation data for the key SAT factors. Early adolescents from institutional settings display more individuation than attachment responses, indicative of excessive 31 self-sufficiency, while better adjusted subjects from nuclear fami- lies with closer family ties show higher attachment scores. Adoles- cents from families with the closest family ties had the lowest number of hostility responses. Avoidance of the reality of a separa- tion is highest for adolescents from institutional settings and lowest for adolescents from close, nuclear families. These validity considerations suggest that better adjusted adolescents living with their nuclear families differ from more disturbed, group residential adolescents by scoring lower on reality avoidance, lower on separa- tion hostility, and by displaying more attachment than individuation responses. Individual clinic cases corroborate that an excess of individuation responses is associated with a pathological attempt by the adolescent to be prematurely self-sufficient. Also, protocols with adolescents have schizophrenic reactions indicate abnormally strong attempts to avoid the reality of separations. A pattern of greater hostility than attachment responses has also been found in individual clinic cases to be linked to acting out and aggressive reactions to separation. In addition, obtaining significant results with the SAT in the present study lends construct validity to the measure. According to Hansburg's work with adolescents (1972), an adequate balance of attachment need and individuation is reflected by a protocol in which 20 to 25 percent of the response are of an attachment nature and 16 to 28 percent of the responses are of an individuation nature. Subjects who tend to seek symbiotic attachments 32 will have protocols in which more than 25 percent of the responses are of an attachment nature and in which individuation responses are below 16 percent. Self-sufficiently isolated subjects' protocols will be characterized by few attachment responses (less than 20 per- cent of the protocol) and numerous individuation responses (more than 28 percent). Problem hostile and reality avoidant responses can also be culled from the protocols. When the percentage of hostile response approaches 20 percent of the total responses, the subject is appar- ently having an extreme emotional reaction to the separation. When the percentage of reality avoidant responses is greater than 13 per- cent of the protocol, the subject's need to avoid the reality of the separation is evident. Hypotheses in Terms of Instruments The earlier stated hypotheses may now be defined operation- ally: Hypothesis I.--College freshmen from father-absent families who have left home are more anxious upon attending college than those for intact families. Hypothesis I, operationally defined.--College freshmen from father-absent families have significantly higher scores on State and Trait Anxiety Inventories. Hypothesis II.--College freshmen from father-absent families seek new attachments more often and are less self-sufficient follow- ing a new separation than freshmen from intact families. 33 Hypothesis II, operationally defined.-- a. Freshmen from father-absent families as a group have a higher percentage of attachment responses on the SAT than freshmen from intact families. b. Freshmen from father-absent families as a group have a lower percentage of individuation responses on-the SAT than freshmen from intact families. Hypothesis III.--Freshmen from father-absent families respond with more hostility following a separation than those from intact families. Hypothesis III, operationally defined.--Freshmen from father- absent families as a group have a higher percentage of hostility responses on the SAT than those from intact families. ' Hypothesis IV.--Freshmen from father-absent families attempt to avoid the reality of a separation more than those from intact families. Hypothesis IV, operationally defined.--Freshmen from father- absent families as a group select a higher percentage of reality avoidant responses on the SAT than freshmen from intact families. Hypothesis V.--Freshmen who experienced father absence earlier in their lives make more problem responses following separa- tion than those who lost their father later in their lives. Hypothesis V, operationally defined.--Freshmen whose families were disrupted by death or divorce when they were between the ages of 4 and 9 resulting in absence of the father will have higher Trait 34 Anxiety scores, higher State Anxiety scores, higher percentage of attachment, hostility, and reality avoidant responses on the SAT as well as a lower percentage of individuation responses on the SAT than freshmen whose families were disrupted when they were between the ages of 10 and 14. The exploratory hypotheses and their operational definitions now follow: Exploratory Hypothesis I-A.--Group A freshmen seek attachment following separation more often than Group B freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-A, operationally defined.--Group A freshmen have a higher percentage of attachment responses on the SAT than Group B freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-B.--Group B freshmen are more isolatedly self-sufficient following separation than Group A freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-B, operationally defined.--Group B freshmen have a higher percentage of individuation responses on the SAT than Group A freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-C.--Group B freshmen are more hostile following separation than Group A freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-C, operationally defined.--Group B freshmen have a higher percentage of hostile responses on the SAT than Group A freshmen. Exploratory Hypothesis I-D.--Group A freshmen avoid the reality of separation more often than Group B freshmen. 35 Exploratory Hypothesis I-D, operationally defined: Group A freshmen have a higher percentage of reality avoidant responses on the SAT than Group B freshmen. Subjects The subjects used in this study were 90 freshmen undergrad- uates drawn from the student population of Michigan State University. All of the subjects lived at least 60 miles away from East Lansing before attending college. 0f the 90 subjects, 80 were from Michigan. Of the 10 out-of—state subjects, three were in the "Father Death" group, three were in the "Divorced Father" group, and four were in the "Intact Family" group. All had begun college in September; they were tested in January of their freshmen year after they had been at Michigan State for between five and six months. As Table 1 shows, the subjects ranged in age from 18 to 19 with an average of 18.6 years. TABLE 1.--Number and Ages of Male and Female Subjects from Intact Family (IF), Father-Death (F0) and Divorced Father (DF) Homes. IF FD DF Total Age Range Mean Age Male 15 15 15 45 18 - 19 18.6 Female 15 15 15 45 18 - 19 18.7 30 30 30 90 18.6 Potential subjects were initially contacted in undergrad- uate courses. It was announced to each class that the author wished to conduct a study related to freshmen's actions to college. The 36 students were told that some of them would be re-contacted at a later date for testing. At the time of the announcement, all the students in the classes were asked to fill out the Personal Data Sheet (PDS). Based on the PDS, three groups of potential subjects were formed: 1) fresh- men from intact families; 2) freshmen who lost a father because of death between the ages of 4 and 14; and 3) freshmen who lost a father because of divorce between the ages of 4 and 14. Next, the author contacted the subjects by phone, requesting an hour of testing time for which the subjects would receive credit toward their psychology grade. In addition, four male subjects who lost a father by death participated in the study after responding to a classified ad placed in the university newspaper. As Table 1 shows, each of the three groups-father absence because of death, father absence because of divorce, and intact family subjects-contained 30 subjects, half of whom were male and half female. Table 2 shows that the father-absent groups were subdivided into two groups, the early father-absent subjects who lost their fathers between 4 and 9 and the late father-absent subjects who lost their fathers between 10 and 14. There were 28 early father-absent subjects, 15 male and 13 female. There were 32 late father-absent subjects, 15 male and 17 female. The average of loss for the male subjects was 9.8 years for the "Father Death" group and 9.7 for the "Divorced Father" group. For the female subjects, the average age of loss was 10.1 for the "Father Death" group and 9.9 for the "Divorced Father" group. Of the father-absent subjects, 31 out of 60 came from homes 37 in which the mother re-married. Of the subjects who experienced parental divorce, 28 reported seeing their fathers very rarely. TABLE 2. --Number of Early Father-Absent (EFA) and Late Father-Absent (LFA) Subjects. EFA LFA (loss between 4 and 9) (loss between 10 and 14) Death Divorce Total Death Divorce Total Male 7 8 15 8 7 15 30 Female 6 7 13 9 8 17 3O 13 15 28 17 15 32 60 Procedure 'Subjects were tested individually for approximately 45 minutes in 01in Health Center in January 1979. First, subjects were given a statement of informed consent which they were asked to read and sign before they were allowed to participate in the study. The author then explained the directions for each of the instruments. The following battery was next administered during the test- ing session in the following order: 1) Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory; 2) Spielberger Trait Anxiety Inventory; and 3) the Hansburg Separation Anxiety Test. STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF THE DATA Hypothesis I involved the use of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory which generates scores ranging from 20 to 80. An analysis of variance was used to determine the significance of the differences between group means. Hypotheses II, III, and IV involved the use of Hansburg‘s Separation Anxiety Test which generates mean percentage data for various separation anxiety variables. Analyses of variance were used to determine the significance of the differences between group means. Hypothesis V involved the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Separation Anxiety Test. T-tests were performed on each variable to be compared. A11 hypotheses were stated in a one-directional manner; hence, all t-tests were one-tailed. The Separation Anxiety Test was also used when Hypotheses II and IV were considered together. Chi squares were performed, compar- ing number of subjects scoring above and below normatively determined critical values for the various Separation Anxiety Test measures. 38 RESULTS Hypothesis I Hypothesis I stated that college freshmen from father-absent families who have left home are more anxious upon attending college than those from intact families. Table 3 summarizes the means, F ratios, and significance levels for the State and Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI). Differ- ences between father-absent and intact family subjects are not signi- ficant on either the State Anxiety or Trait Anxiety Inventories. This hypothesis was not supported by either of the two anxiety meas- ures, although the trend was in the expected direction. TABLE 3.--Means Scores, F Ratios and Significance Levels for Anxiety Measures of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. FA (N=60) IF (N=30) F Significance State Anxiety 45.3 43.7 .49 .49 Trait Anxiety 40.3 37.8 1.27 .26 Hypothesis II Hypothesis 11 stated that college freshmen from father-absent families seek new attachments more often and are less self-sufficient following a new separation than freshmen from intact families. 39 40 Table 4 summarizes the means, the F ratios, and the signi- ficance levels for the attachment and individuation measures. The mean scores refer to the mean percentage of attachment responses and the mean percentage of individuation responses chosen on the Separa- tion Anxiety Test (SAT). A 2 X 2 analysis of variance for the indi- viduation measure produced an F of 4.82, significant at a .03 level. A 2 X 2 analysis of variance for the attachment measure produced an F of 3.58, significant at a .06 level. These results show that father- absent subjects differ significantly from intact family subjects in terms of the percentage of individuation responses chosen on the SAT. Based on the SAT responses, father-absent subjects are less self- sufficient than intact family subjects. The results also show that differences between father-absent subjects and intact family subjects on the attachment measure of the SAT approach significance. A strong trend is present in which father-absent subjects demonstrate more attachment than intact family subjects. Hence, this hypothesis is largely supported. TABLE 4.--Means, F Ratios and Significance Levels for Percentage of Individuation (IND) and Percentage of Attachment (ATT) Responses for Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects FA (N=60) IF (N=30) F Significance Individuation Percentage 18.3 22.9 4.82 .03 Attachment Percentage 24.1 21.9 3.58 .06 41 Hypothesis III Hypothesis III stated that freshmen from father-absent fami- lies respond with more hostility following separation than those from intact families. The data show that father-absent subjects had a mean percentage of hostile responses of 13.8 (range of 11 to 16) while intact family subjects had a mean percentage of 13.2 (range of 9 to 16). The difference between these two mean percentages is not signi- ficant. Hence, this hypothesis was not supported. Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV stated that freshmen from father-absent families attempt to avoid the reality of a separation more than those from intact families. Table 5 summarizes the means, F ratios and significance levels for the reality avoidance SAT measure. Again, the mean scores refer to the mean percentage of reality avoidant responses selected on the SAT. For father-absent subjects, 15.8 percent of their SAT responses were reality avoidant responses while 12.4 percent of the SAT responses for intact family subjects were reality avoidant. An analysis of vari- ance for the reality avoidant measure produced an F of 6.32, signifi- cant at the .01 level. These results show that father-absent subjects 'chose significantly more reality avoidant responses on the SAT than intact family subjects. Based on the SAT responses, father-absent subjects avoid the reality of a separation more than intact family subjects. Hence, Hypothesis IV was supported by the reality avoidant measure on the SAT. 42 TABLE 5.--Means, F Ratios and Significance Levels for Percentage of Reality Avoidant Responses for Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects FA (N=60) IF (N=30) F Significance Reality Avoidant Percentage 15.8 12.4 6.32 .01 Hypothesis V Hypothesis V predicted that freshmen who experienced father absence earlier in their lives make more "problem responses" following separation than those who experienced father absence later in their lives. "Problem responses" were defined as high State Anxiety scores, high Trait Anxiety scores, high attachment, reality avoidant, and hostility percentages on the SAT, and low individuation scores on the SAT. "Early father absence" was defined as between the fourth and ninth birthday. "Late father absence" was defined as between the tenth and fourteenth birthday. Table 6 summarizes the mean, t—scores and significance levels of the various measures for the "early" and "late father absence" groups. A one-tailed t-test for the State Anxiety measure produced a t-value of 2.13, significant at a .02 level, while a one-tailed t-test for the Trait Anxiety measure yielded a value of 2.08, also significant at a .02 level. These data indicate that "early father absence" subjects have significantly higher State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety scores than "late father absence" subjects. 43 TABLE 6.--Mean Scores, t-values, and Significance Levels for Various Measures for "Early Father Absence" (EFA) and "Late Father Absence" (LFA) Subjects. EFA (N=28) LFA (N=32) t-value Significance State Anxiety 47.5 42.0 2.13 .02 Trait Anxiety 42.5 37.1 2.08 .02 Attachment Percentage 25.4 23.0 1.75 .05 Individuation Percentage 17.3 18.9 .76 .25 Hostility Percentage 14.5 13.3 .77 .25 Reality Avoidant Percentage 15.2 16.2 .62 .22 A one-tailed t-test for the attachment measure of the SAT produced a value of 1.75, significant at a .05 level. These data suggest that "early father absence" subjects chose more attachment responses on the SAT than "late father absence" subjects. Additional one-tailed t-tests comparing "early" and "late father absence" subjects on the individuation, hostility and reality avoidant measures of the SAT produced t-values of .72, .21 and .59. None of these t-values approaches significance. Thus, there are no significant differences between "early" and "late father absence" subjects on the individua- tion, hostility, and reality avoidant measures of the SAT. Based on the results in Table 6, "early father absence" sub- jects make more "problem responses" than "late father absence" sub- jects on three of the six designated "problem response" measures. 44 "Early father absence“ subjects are generally more anxious than "late father absence" subject. They also are more anxious than "late father absence" subjects in times of stress. Furthermore, "early father absence" subjects seek attachments following separation more often than "late father absence" subjects. However, "early father absence" subjects are no less self-sufficient following separation than "late father absence" subjects. In addition, "early father absence" sub- jects do not demonstrate more hostility following separation nor do they demonstrate more reality avoidance of the separation than "late father absence" subjects. Hypothesis II and IV, re-visited: The SAT also allows individual pattern analysis of each sub- ject's protocol. In fact, Hansburg (1972) suggests that the test is more predictive of problem separation responses when used idiographi- cally. Table 7 shows Hansburg's normative range for the attachment, individuation and reality avoidant SAT measures. The data in this study are consistent with Hansburg's norms. In the present study, between 80 and 90 percent of the intact family subjects scores between the ranges for the attachment, individuation and reality avoidant measures reported by Hansburg. 45 TABLE 7.--Hansburg's Normative Range for 3 SAT Measures. Normative Range Percentage of Attachment Responses 20 - 25 Percentage of Individuation Responses 16 - 28 Percentage of Reality Avoidant Responses 10 - l3 Based on Hansburg's norms, subjects in this study who selected more than 25 percent attachment responses while also choosing less than 16 percent individuation responses were considered "symbiotic." Hypothesis 11 may be re-stated as follows: more subjects from father absent families are "symbiotic" than subjects from intact families. Hypothesis II operationally restated is: more subjects from father- absent families chose more than 25 percent attachment responses and less than 16 percent individuation responses than intact family sub- jects. As Table 8 shows, a 2 X 2 Chi Square comparing father absent and intact family subjects for the symbiotic measure produced a value of 1.86, significant at a .17 level. These data do not support the hypothesis that more father absent subjects are symbiotic than intact family subjects. TABLE 8.--Chi Square for Number of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects Responding Symbiotically FA IF x2 = 1.86 significant at .17 level Symbiotic l8 5 Non-Symbiotic 42 25 46 Hypothesis IV may also be considered in a Similar manner. Based on the normative range in Table 7, subjects who chose more than 15 percent reality avoidant responses may be considered "reality avoidant." Hypothesis IV may be re-stated as follows: more subjects from father absent families score above the norm for reality avoidant responses than subjects from intact families. As Table 9 shows, a 2 X 2 Chi Square comparing father absent and intact family subjects for the reality avoidant measure produced a value of 7.40, significant at less than a .01 level. These data further support the hypothesis that father absent subjects attempt to avoid the reality of a separa- tion more than intact family subjects. TABLE 9.--Chi Square for Number of Father-Absent (FA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects Avoiding the Reality of a Separation (RAVO). 2 - FA IF X - 7.40 significant at less than .01 level RAVO 30 6 Non-RAVO 30 24 Hypothesis II and IV may be linked and considered according to the pattern analysis. In this way, it is possible to determine whether "symbiotic" father absent subjects avoid the reality of a new separation more than "symbiotic" intact family subjects. As Table 10 shows, a 2 X 2 Chi Square comparing "symbiotic" father absent and "symbiotic" intact family subjects for the reality avoidant measure produced a value of 6.97, significant at less than a .01 level. This 47 result confirms that more "symbiotic" father absent subjects avoid the reality of a new separation than "symbiotic" intact family subject. TABLE 10.--Chi Square for Number of Symbiotic Father-Absent (SFA) and Symbiotic Intact Family (SIF) Subjects Avoiding the Reality of a Separation (RAVO). SFA SIF x2 = 5.97 significant at less than .01 level RAVO 12 0 Non-RAVO 6 5 Additional Results This study specifically avoided making predictions based on sex-differences. However, analysis of the data for sex-differences reveals the vulnerability of male subjects to father absence. Table 11 summarizes the means, the t-scores and the significance levels of the various SAT measures for the father absent and intact family male subjects. TABLE 11.--Means, T-values and Significance Levels for Male Subjects on the Separation Anxiety Test Variables. Father-Absent Intact Family (N=30) (N=15) t P Attachment Pct. 24.5 20.0 2.54 .02 Individuation Pct. 17.5 24.3 -1.84 .08 Reality Avoidant Pct. 16.7 12.3 2.07 .07 Hostility Pct. 14.8 13.7 .46 N.S. 48 For the male subjects, a two-tailed t-test comparing father absent and intact family subjects for attachment responses produced a value of 2.54, significant at a .02 level. The t-score shows that father absent male subjects chose significantly more attachment responses following a separation than intact family male subjects. A two-tailed t-test for the male subjects comparing father-absent and intact family subjects on the individuation measure produced a t-score of -1.84, significant at a .08 level. These data suggest that a trend exists in which father absent male subjects are less self- sufficient than intact family male subjects. Next, a two-tailed t-test for the male subjects comparing father absent and intact family subjects on the reality avoidant measure produced a t-score of 2.07, significant at a .07 level. These data suggest that a trend exists in which father absent male subjects avoid the reality of a separation more than intact family male subjects. However, a two-tailed t-test comparing father-absent males and intact family males on the hostility measure produced a t-score of .46, which does not approach significance. These data do not support a hypothesis that father absent male subjects differ from intact family male subjects in the expression of hostility following separation. Table 12 shows that t-tests for females comparing father- absent and intact family subjects produce non-significant t-scores for all the SAT measures. The absence of significant differences suggests that females from father-absent families are not more 49 "attached," not less self—sufficient, not more reality avoidant, and not angrier following separation than females from intact families. TABLE 12.--Means, T-values and Significance Levels for Female Subjects on the Separation Anxiety Text Variables. Father-Absent Intact Family t p (N=30) (N-15) Attachment Pct. 23.6 23.8 .18 N.S. Individuation Pct. 19.0 21.5 .71 N.S. Reality Avoidant Pct. 14.9 12.6 1.07 N.S. Hostility Pct. 12.8 12.7 .02 N.S. Tables 11 and 12 also show that males from father-absent fami- lies consistently select the least adaptive responses to separation. Their attachment percentage of 24.5 is greater than that for males from intact families and for females from both family conditions. Their individuation percentage of 17.5 is lower than that for males from intact families and for females from both family conditions. Next, their reality avoidant percentage of 16.7 is greater than that for males from intact families and for females from both family conditions. Finally, their hostility percentage of 14.8 is greater than that for males from intact families and for females from both family conditions. These differences are not statistically signifi- cant; however, the results highlight the vulnerability to new separa- tions for males who experienced father absence as compared with females. 50 Tables 13 and 14 show two-tailed t-tests comparing intact family subjects with Nearly father absent? and Plate father absent? subjects on the various measures used in the present study. Whereas intact family and "late father absent? subjects did not significantly differ on any of the measures, Nearly father absent? and intact family subjects differed significantly on three of the six measures. TABLE l3.--Mean Scores, T-values and Significance Levels for Various Measures of "Early Father Absent" (EFA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. EFA (N=28) IF (N=30) t-value Significance State Anxiety 47.5 43.6 1.39 .17 Trait Anxiety 42.5 37.7 2.01 .05 Attachment Pct. 25.4 21.9 2.52 .01 Individuation Pct. 17.3 22.9 2.08 .04 Hostility Pct. 14.5 12.4 .81 .42 Reality Avoidance Pct. 15.2 13.2 .78 .45 TABLE l4.--Mean Scores, T-values and Significance Levels for Various Measures of "Late Father Absent" (LFA) and Intact Family (IF) Subjects. LFA (N=32) IF (N-30) t-value Significance State Anxiety 42.0 43.6 .68 .50 Trait Anxiety 37.1 37.7 .25 .80 Attachment Pct. 23.0 21.9 .56 .58 Individuation Pct. 18.9 22.9 1.60 .12 51 TABLE 14.--Continued LFA (N=32) IF (N-30) t-value Significance Hostility Pct. 13.3 12.4 .62 .54 Reality Avoidance Pct. 16.2 13.2 1.90 .06 A two-tailed t-test comparing "early father absent" and intact family subjects for trait anxiety produced a value of 2.01, signifi- cant at a .05 level. The t-value shows that "early father absent" subjects are generally more anxious than intact family subjects. On the attachment and individuation measures, two-tailed t-tests produced values of 2.52 and 2.08 respectively, significant at a .01 and .04 level. These data show that "early father absent" subjects seek attachments more often and are less individuated than intact family subjects. Most importantly, these data show the greater vulnerability of "early father absent" subjects as compared with "late father absent" subjects when presented with a new separation. Exploratory Hypothesis I-A.--Exploratory Hypothesis I-A pre- dicted that freshmen who lost a father by death (Group A) seek attachment more often than freshmen who were separated from a father because of divorce (Group B). The data in Table 15 do not support this hypothesis.‘ 52 TABLE 15.--A Comparison of Various Separation Anxiety Test Measures for Group A (Father Death) and Group B (Father Divorce) Subjects. Group A Group B (N=30) (N=30) F Significance Mean Percentage Attachment 24.1 24.0 .02 .90 Mean Percentage Individuation 18.7 17.8 .16 .69 Mean Percentage Hostile 14.3 13.3 .33 .62 Mean Percentage Reality Avoidant 16.3 15.3 .37 .59 Exploratory Hypothesis I-B.--This hypothesis predicted that Group A freshmen are less self-sufficient than Group B freshmen. The data in Table 15 do not support this hypothesis. Exploratory Hypothesis I-C.--This hypothesis predicted that Group B freshmen are more hostile following separation than Group A freshmen. This hypothesis is not supported by the data in Table 15. Exploratory Hypothesis I-D.--This hypothesis predicted that Group A freshmen avoid the reality of a separation more often than Group B freshmen. This hypothesis is not stported by the data in Table 15. Hence, none of the hypotheses examining the differential effects of death and divorce on freshmen's reactions to separation are corroborated. DISCUSSION The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of prior father-absence on freshmen's reactions to a particular separa- tion experience. The separation experience was going away to college. Three of the five major hypotheses were strongly supported by the data. None of the four exploratory hypotheses was supported. A review of the results and additional findings which had not been anticipated are presented. Directions for future research will also be discussed. The Findinge Hypothesis I.--The data did not support Hypothesis 1, that college freshmen from father—absent families who have left home are more anxious than those from intact families. Based on Spielberger's (1970) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the data suggest that there is no difference between subjects from father-absent and intact families. This finding is consistent with Wulf's (1976) finding that college students who lost a parent by death are no more anxious than non-bereaved college students. The absence of elevated anxiety scores, in particular the state anxiety scores, for father-absent subjects may be because of two methodological considerations related to the date of testing. Freshmen were tested in January, after they had had four months to adjust to the separation. As a result, the intensity of the separation 53 54 was probably diminishing. Consequently, their reactions to the separation were probably lessening, manifested by the absence of elevated state anxiety scores for the father-absent groups. Secondly, freshmen with the most aggravated separation reactions may have already dropped out of college. Thus, the extremes of the sample may have been lost by the relative late date of the testing. Hypothesis II.--As predicted in Hypothesis II, father-absence is related to lessened individuation following a separation. The data strongly indicate that father-absent subjects fail to use separa- tions as springborads for independent, exploratory, self-developing activities. Furthermore, in partial support of Hypothesis II, a trend is present in which father-absence is related to increased attachment- seeking. The data suggest that father-absent subjects seek attach- ments following separations more than intact family subjects. These results suggest that freshmen who have experienced father-absence are, in Bowlby's (1973) terms, “anxiously attached." "Anxious attachment" occurs when an individual who has experienced a traumatic separation in the past fears the repetition of a separa- tion from a new attachment figure. The interpersonal strategy of father-absent subjects is to find new attachment figures upon whom they become extremely dependent. This strategy appears to be at the expense of self-developing activities. Hypothesis III.--The data did not support Hypothesis III, that father-absent subjects are more hostile following separations than those from intact families. Father-absent subjects were not angrier 55 following a separation than intact family subjects. Three possible explanations will be offered for the lack of support for Hypothesis III. First, hostility as a key response to separation may have been exaggerated by Bowlby (1973) and Hansburg (1972). Prior loss may not predispose an individual to react angrily to a new separation; in fact, a depressive reaction rather than an angry one may be anti- cipated. Dismissing the importance of hostility as a key response, however, when its presence has been thoroughly documented (Bowlby, 1973) would be premature. A second possible explanation of a methodological nature may be considered. The hostility measure of the SAT appears to lack discriminating power. A look at the SAT shows that some of the situations depicted ("The judge is placing the child in an institu- tion") are of such an infuriating nature that most, if not all, sub- jects would respond hostilely; other situations are so benign ("The mother has just put the child to bed") that an angry response is most unlikely. Hansburg developed this measure by differentiating between adolescents from intact families and adolescents who were institutionalized for delinquency. One would surmise that those institutionalized were extremely angry and therefore responded with hostility often on the test. Within a functioning college population, such hostility, for the most part, is either channelled or absent. Hence, the SAT may adequately measure hostility differences only when comparing excessively angry and normally functioning individuals. 56 A third possible explanation allows for the importance of hostility as a response to separation when the separation is of a particular kind. When separation is forced upon a person, he will probably react angrily (Bowlby, 1973); the SAT scenes depict forced involuntary separations. However, the subjects in the present study probably chose to separate at this time in their lives. Consequently, their separation was of a voluntary nature. As a result they may not have responded angrily to the test stimuli because the separa- tion stimuli differed significantly from their experience. More importantly, the subjects may not have been angry at the separation because they probably initiated it. Given the limitations of the hostility measure of the SAT and of the sample of this study, and because of the voluntary nature of the separation for the subjects, it does not seem possible to eval- uate whether father-absent subjects are more hostile following separa- tions. Nevertheless, this study does not support the prediction that father-absent subjects are more hostile following separations than intact family subjects. Hypothesis IV.--The results of this study confirm Hypothesis IV, that father-absent subjects avoid the reality of a separation more than those from intact families. Father-absent subjects reported withdrawing from separations until they were better able to cope. In addition, they utilized fantasy to ease the pain of the separations. Finally, father-absent subjects denied any pain asso- ciated with the separation more than intact family subjects. These 57 findings are consistent with Rochlin's (1976) and Hansburg's (1972) suggestion that the reality of a new separation may be avoided more often by those who experienced traumatic past separations. In this study, father-absent subjects consistently avoided the reality of a present separation more often than those from intact families. We may surmise that father-absent subjects react to the present separa- tion as if it were similar to the past loss. In effect, they treat a minor separation as a major one, a major separation as a loss. A minor separation may elicit great separation anxiety in the father- absent subjects which they defend against with the mechanism of denial developed to master the earlier traumatic loss. Hypothesis V.--The data in this study partially support Hypothesis V, that subjects who experienced father-absence earlier in their lives make more "problem responses" following separation than those who experienced father-absence later in their lives. While "late father absent" subjects react similarly to intact family subjects, "early father absent" subjects respond in a problem fashion more than intact family subjects. Those who experienced father- absence between their fourth and ninth birthdays have greater state and trait anxiety than those who experienced father-absence between their tenth and fourteenth birthdays. In other words, “early father absent" subjects view a wider range of situations as dangerous and threatening than Vlate father absent" subjects. They also are more often intensely apprehensive and fearful. "Early father absent" subjects also seek attachments following separation more than "late 58 father absent" subjects. However, "early father absent? subjects are not less self-sufficient, are not angrier, and are no more prone to deny the reality of a separation than "late father absent subjects. These findings indicate that "early father absent" subjects are more anxious and more dependent than "late father absent" sub- jects. The age of the subject at the time of the absence thus appears of importance, as Furman (1974) pointed out. It is noteworthy that paternal absence earlier in life is associated with greater dependency needs. Three possible reasons for this finding will be considered. First, as Barry, Barry and Lindemann (1965) suggest, the mother who has lost a mate will be less available to her child. As a result, dependency needs may go unat- tended. We may surmise that dependency needs of a younger child are more pressing than those of a more independent older child. Thus, the mother's unavailability to her more dependent, younger child may predispose that child to need and crave a mother's love, often dis- placed onto maternal surrogates, throughout life. A second explanation is that many needs of the older child are met by his peers. The loss of the father may be less salient because the older child, individuating, is becoming increasingly more involved with his peers. The younger child, however, is more depen- dent upon his parents and receives much less support from his peers. Therefore, the loss of the father for the younger child is more severe. A third explanation is that the father satisfies important dependency needs of the child between the ages of 4 and 9. Bowlby 59 (1961) has viewed the loss of the father when the child is between the ages of 5 and 14 as critical to the development of subsequent emotional difficulties. The findings in this study suggest that the age range of vulnerability to paternal absence may be narrower; furthermore, the vulnerability may stem from unmet "paternal depen- dency needs." In a speculative vein, "paternal dependency needs" may refer to the need for support from the father offered to the child who moves out from the maternal "orbit" into the less certain and more exciting world of school, peers, and teachers. We may surmise that those who experienced earlier father-absence received less support during the years when their interpersonal world was expanding than the "late father absent" subjects whose father was available to them during this time. As a result, when "early father absent" subjects again encounter an expanding interpersonal world when they go away to college, the usual attachment need is augmented by the unmet “paternal dependency needs" from childhood. Paternal absence earlier in life is also associated with greater state and trait anxiety. We may surmise that a younger child is more vulnerable to major interpersonal disruptions than an older child. Paternal absence earlier in life may prevent the younger child from developing confidence that the significant figures in his life will be available to him. As a result, he reacts anxiously more often and more intensely to possibly threatening situations. The older child who experiences paternal absence will have had a 60 longer history of reliable support from his father. Thus, he may be less anxious than the earlier father-absent subjects. The results of this study also point out an interesting relationship between symbiotic behavior and reality avoidance. "Symbiotic behavior" (Hansburg, 1972) refers to the simultaneous presence of strong attachment and weak individuation tendencies. The data show that symbiotic father-absent subjects avoid the reality of a new separation more than symbiotic intact family subjects. Father-absence for a symbiotic subject appears to have encouraged a predisposition to deny the reality of a new separation. This finding is understandable when we consider the child's vulnerability to loss. Wolfenstein (1966), Cantalupo (1978) and Furman (1974) suggest that bereaved children establish denial of the loss as a major way of coping with the trauma. Wolfenstein views children as "incapable of accepting the reality of the 1055;" along with Furman and Cantalupo, she believes bereaved children are "arrested? in their development at the stage in which they were at the time of their parent's death. In other words, in an attempt to deny the reality of the loss, the child attempts to keep the parent alive by continuing to be the child associated with the alive parent. Thus, although father-absence does not predispose more individual to be symbiotic, it clearly encourages those who are symbiotic to also be reality avoidant. The hypotheses concerned exclusively with reactions to separa- tions as measured by the SAT tend to be confirmed in this study; Hypothesis I, however, concerned with general anxiety as measured by 61 the STAI, was not supported. We may hypothesize that Spielberg's STAI and Hansburg's SAT are tapping two different types of anxiety. The STAI measures general anxiety-both transitory and stable- but, nonetheless, not specific to any particular anxiety-provoking situation. 0n the other hand, the SAT measures reactions to anxiety exclusively related to separation experiences. The absence of a general anxiety and the presence of a more particular separation anxiety in father-absent subjects suggest 1) prior father absence does not influence the susceptibility to general anxiety in the sub- jects, but 2) it does predispose them to react anxiously to possible separation experiences. Numerous studies cited by Wulf (1976) did not find a clear relationship between parental absence and subsequent personality difficulties. Some studies reported a positive relationship between these two variables; other studies were more equivocal. A factor in the contradictory findings may be whether the measure of psychopatho- logy tapped the particular vulnerability to separations of the parentally-absent subjects. The results of this study suggest that father-absent children will be no more anxious than those from intact families, but they will be more anxious when experiencing a separa- tion. Therefore, the degree of separation implied in an event may determine whether those exposed to prior loss react anxiously. There is another possible explanation that may account for the support of hypotheses tested with the SAT and the lack of support of hypotheses tested with the STAI. The STAI is a self-report 62 measure in which subjects can easily defend against their feelings; they may attempt to present themselves in a socially more favorable, less anxious light. The SAT, however, is projective in nature. Like most projective tests, the SAT offers less of an opportunity to defend consciously against the expression of deeper anxieties. For the subjects, there are no right or wrong answers when taking a pro- jective test like the SAT. As a result, Hypothesis I may not have been supported because the instrument, used the STAI, allowed the subjects to report less accurately their true feelings. However, hypotheses tested with the SAT were supported, probably because the test elicits a less defended picture of the subject's internal reactions to separations. Sex Differences.--This study purposefully avoided making hypotheses concerning sex differences. Sex difference findings were viewed as possibly detracting from the central thesis, that feelings engendered by previous separations and losses make more difficult adjustments to new separations. However, the results highlight the male's greater vulnrability to father-absence when presented with a new separation. We may recall that father-absent males were more attached, less individuated, and more reality avoidant than their intact family male counterparts; however, father-absence did not result in significant differences for females on any of the SAT variables. The most noteworthy consequence for males, however, is that father-absence is strongly related to icnreased need for attachment. 63 Four possible explanations for this finding may be offered. The first explanation may be termed the "female ceiling effect." The data in Tables ll and l2 show that intact family females seek attach- ment more often than intact family males. The scores of intact family females are nearly indentical to those of father-absent males and and females. We may wonder whether it is necessary for females, who seek attachments more often than their male counterparts, to increase that striving in time of stress. In other words, it may not be neces- sary for father-absent females to increase their attachment-seeking behavior because it is already at a sufficient level to cope effec- tively with separation anxiety. Father-absent males, however, need to seek attachments more than is the norm for males in this culture. The second explanation is based upon the father's role in the sex-typing of dependency attitudes. Numerous studies (Maccoby and Jacklin, l974) have shown that fathers, more than mothers, act dif- ferently to sons and daughters in regard to dependency needs. Fathers discourage sons from being dependent, while they allow their daughters to act dependently. Fathers actively encourage independence in their sons and passively condone help-seeking in their daughters. If this be true with the subjects in this study, then sons who have not con- stantly had their fathers in the home will have received less dis- couragement of their dependent strivings. As a result, upon facing a separation, the father-absent males may be more dependent than other males. The third explanation, a corollary of the second, stresses the excessive closeness between mothers and sons that may develop 64 when the father is absent. Contrary to the idea that the son becomes the "responsible man" of the house (Herzog and Sudia, l968), this study suggests that the son becomes more dependent upon others, especially his mother. Father-absent males may then respond to new separations with strongly-patterned attachment seeking. The final explanation stresses the severity of the loss of the same-sexed parent. A modeling theory would stress the apprehen- sion of a son approaching the adult world without the guidance of the same-sexed role model. He would therefore look for others to rely upon. A more psychodynamic formulation might stress guilt over the father-absence and increased dependency as a defense against guilt-inducing independence. In either case, the loss of a father would be of greater consequence to sons than to the daughters. The data did not support the major exploratory hypothesis, that freshmen who lost a father by death react differently following a new separation than freshmen who lost a father because of divorce. Both groups of father-absent subjects reacted to a new separation with similar amounts of attachment-seeking, self-sufficiency, hosti- lity, and reality avoidance. Thus, the two types of father-absence do not result in different ways of coping with a separation. It is important to recall that subjects who experienced parental divorce reported spending very little time with their fathers. 0f time spent with either their father or mother, the subjects reported spending only l0 percent of that time with their fathers. For these subjects, the father appeared to become an insignificant figure in their daily lives. When divorce results in the near total removal of the father 65 from the child's daily life, the child appears to have, in effect, lost his father. Thus, when divorce significantly removes the father from the child, the child reacts to future separations similar to bereaved children. Implications for Future Research Although the central thesis of this study, that prior loss predisposes an individual to react with difficulty to new separations, was basically confirmed by the data, replication with methodolo— gical changes would probably buttress the findings. As was already noted, the freshmen were tested after they had had four months to adjust to the separation of leaving home to attend college. By this time, the intensity of the separation may have been diminishing.. Also, subjects with the most aggravated separation reactions may have already dropped out of college. If the subjects were tested within the first month of college, the intensity of their separation experience would probably be assured. Also, those with intense separation reactions would probably still be at college and therefore still be included in the sample. Early testing, thus, would probably strengthen the already significant findings. Future research might also be directed at further validation of the Separation Anxiety Text. This study succeeds in offering more validational support for the Separation Anxiety Text by using the instrument to differentiate separation reacton patterns of groups one would intuit as predisposed to react differently to separation experi— ences. Future research that correlated naturalistic measures with 66 Separation Anxiety Test measures would offer more validational data. Included in the naturalistic measures might be resident advisor ratings of separation adjustment difficulties and grade point aver- ages after one semester. As was previously noted, a major sex-difference finding was that in the area of attachment-seeking, male subjects were more vul- nerable to the consequences of father-absence. Isolating the cause of this sex-difference requires further studies which will be briefly outlined. A study similar to this one that examined the separation reactions of males and females who lost a mother would be helpful. If mother-absence was found to be related to more vulnerability for daughters than for sons, then the critical variable in the different separation reactions would appear to be the loss of the same-sexed parent. Secondly, if mother-absence produces the same separation reactions in males and females as father-absence produced, then the critical variable would appear to be the loss of a parent, not simply the loss of the same-sexed parent. Thirdly, if the results of future studies of mother-absence were similar to this study with one excep- tion--that males did not demonstrate increased attachment--then there would be support for the importance of the father's role in the dis- couragement of dependency attitudes in boys. This last possible result would demonstrate that even though the son has suffered a loss, he is no more dependent because the surviving parent, the father, probably discourages expression of the son's dependency needs. 67 Two additional hypotheses offered as explanations for the male subjects' increased attachment-seeking could be examined by looking at the peer relations of subjects in this study. One hypoth- esis was the excessive patterning closeness with the mother. The other was the severity of the loss of the same-sexed parent. If father-absent males consistently seek.women to meet their dependency needs, we might suspect that as sons they overly relied upon their mothers. This finding would support the hypothesis that father-absent males formed excessively close relationships with their mothers which they attempt to re-establish with surrogates following new separations. If, on the other hand, father-absent males consistently seek men to depend upon, then we might suspect that their motivation is to re-acquire a same-sexed role model. This finding would support the hypothesis that loss of the same-sexed parent results in excessive attachment seeking. Although the findings of this study did not differentiate between the separation reactions of subjects who experienced parental death and parental divorce, it is important to recall that subjects in the divorced group did not see their fathers often. A future study might compare the separation reactions of bereaved subjects, subjects from divorced families who rarely saw their fathers, and subjects from divorced families in which fathers continued to be salient figures in their daily lives. He might surmise that the separation reactions of subjects who maintained close ties with their fathers would not be as intense as the reactions of the sub- jects in the other two groups. 68 Finally, a future study should control for the socio-economic status of the subjects. It has been previously noted that economic hardships often accompany marital disruptions. Freshmen from father- absent homes may have less economic resources than intact family subjects. Consequently, father-absent freshmen may have less money for visits home or phone calls home. Their separation reactions, as a result, may be aggravated because they are unable to maintain reassuring contacts with their families. SUMMARY This study was designed to explore the thesis that past real life losses have an effect on an individual's adjustment to present separations. Possible ways of reacting to new separations include renewed attachment—seeking, individuation, hostility and reality avoidance. In the present study, it was hypothesized that subjects who experienced father-absence while growing up would have greater dif- ficulty adjusting to a present separation than subjects from intact families. It was hypothesized that subjects from father-absent fami- lies would demonstrate more anxiety, more attachment-seeking, less individuation, more hostility, and more reality avoidance following a separation than subjects from intact families. To test the above hypotheses, 90 subjects, half of whom were male and half female, were administered Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hansburg's Separation Anxiety Test. Subjects were tested four months after leaving home to attend Michigan State University. Three of the five major hypotheses were supported. Subjects who experienced father-absence demonstrated more attachment-seeking, less individuation, and more reality avoidance than subjects from intact families. Additionally, those who lost fathers earlier in life 69 70 had greater difficulty adjusting to new separations. Finally, males who experienced father-absence demonstrated more attachment-seeking than any other group. In discussing the results of the study, a difference between general anxiety and separation anxiety was considered. Also, the relationship between father-absence and separation problems was dis- cussed. Next, the relationship between symbiotic behavior and reality avoidance was touched upon. Possible causes for greater anxiety in subjects who experienced father absence earlier in their lives were entertained as were causes for sex-differences. Finally, the need for future studies exploring separation reactions of mother-absent subjects was made apparent. APPENDICES 7l APPENDIX A PERSONAL REACTIONS TO ATTENDING COLLEGE PERSONAL DATA SHEET Name: (first name and first initial of last name): Age: I Year at MSU (circle one): Freshmen Sophmore Junior Senior DO YOU LIVE AWAY FROM YOUR FAMILY NOW? YOUR FAMILY'S HOMETOWN AND STATE: SELECTED FAMILY BACKGROUND l. Are both of your natural parents alive? Yes No 2. If your answer to l, was go, which parent is no longer living? Father Mother 3. How old were you at the time of the death? 4. Were your natural parents ever separated or divorced? Yes No 5. If your answer to A, was yes, how old were you at the time of the separation or divorce? 6. If your parents were separated but not divorced, how long was the separation for? 7. Which parent did you live with following the separation or divorce? Father Mother Other 8. If you answered Other to 1, please explain: Please leave a phone number where I could reach you regarding approxi- mately 45 minutes of additional research questions: . In return, you will receive credit toward this course. 72 APPENDIX B TRAIT ANXIETY INVENTORY Name Date DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each statement and then blacken in the appropriate circle in the right of the statement to indicate how you generally feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any own statement but give the answer which seems to describe how you generally feel. Almost Almost Never Sometimes Often Always 2l. I feel pleasant 1 2 3 4 22. I tire quickly. 1 2 3 4 23. I feel like crying. 1 2 3 4 24. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. 1 2 3 4 25. I am losing out on things because I can't make up my mind soon enough. 1 2 3 4 26. I feel rested. 1 2 3 4 27. I am ”calm, cool, and collected". 1 2 3 4 28. I feel that difficul- ties are piling up so that I cannot overcome them. 1 2 3 4 29. I worry too much over something that really doesn't matter. 1 2 3 4 73 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. I am happy. I am inclined to take things hard. I lack self- confidence. I feel secure. I try to avoid facing a crises of difficulty. I feel blue. I am content. Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and bothers me. I take disappointments so keenly that I can't put them out of my mind. I am a steady person. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interests. 74 Almost Never 1 Sometimes 2 Often 3 Almost Always 4 APPENDIX C STATE ANXIETY INVENTORY Subject Number Date Directions: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Reach each statement and then blacken in the appropriate circle to the right of the statement to indicate how you felt on your first day alone at Michigan State. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one state- ment but given the answer which seems to describe your feeling then best. Not At Moderately Very Much All Somewhat ‘ So 50 l. I feel calm l 2 3 4 2. I feel secure l 3 4 3. I am tense l 2 3 4 4. I am regretful l 2 3 4 5. I feel at ease l 2 3 4 6. I feel upset l 2 3 4 7. I am presently worrying over possible misfor- tunes l 2 3 4 8. I feel rested l 2 3 4 9. I feel anxious l 2 3 4 lo. I feel comfortable 1 2 3 4 ll. I feel self-confident l 2 3 4 l2. I feel nervous l 2 3 4 l3. I am jittery l 2 3 4 75 T4. 15. 16. I7. 18. l9. 20. I feel "high strung" I am relaxed I feel content I am worried I feel over-excited and “rattled" I feel joyful I feel pleasant 76 Not At ' All l l Somewhat 2 NM N Moderately Very Much So 3 cow 00 SO‘ 4 4 4 4 .p APPENDIX D THE SEPARATION ANXIETY TEXT Directions to the Examiner Be sure to have a room that is undisturbed by outsiders. Have the child sit Opposite to you. The book containing the pictures and the statements should be placed directly in front of the child while you have the instructions for the child in front of you. In addition, you should have the recording chart in front of you. On the chart write the name of the child, the child's age, boy or girl, date of the test, and the name of the facility in which the child is living. It would also be useful to have the number of years in which the child has been living in this facility written on the chart. Read the instructions to the child and then have the youngster open the book and to the first picture. Tell him (her) to read the title under the first picture and to study the picture. Then call his attention to the printed page opposite the picture. Tell him to read to title at the top of the page. Then ask him to read the ques- tios aloud as follows: Did this every happen to you? Yes No If it didn't, can you image how it would feel if it did? Yes No 77 78 Record "Y" for "yes" and PM" for “No“ directly over the Roman numeral. Then say, The child feels--- and repeat to him to select as many statements below which tell how the child feels. Now indicate that he can read the statements to himself and tell you the number of the statements which he has selected. Encircle these numbers under the appropriate Roman numeral for the picture. Proceed in this same manner for each picture and for each page of statements. During the examination it is important not to prompt the child in any way. You must however, remind him that for each picture he should be sure to start out reading the statements at the top and read them in order down the page. It is important that you encircle the numbers under the proper picture, otherwise the test will be invalidated. If the child asks any questions, simply reassure him to use his own judgment and to indicate which statement or statements he thinks apply to the child's feelings. If the child selects only one statement on a particular picture, remind him that he may select as many of the phrases he may wish. Should the child be uanble to find any applicable statement, ask him to explain in his own words how the child feels and record this on the back of the chart with the appropriate number for the picture. Our experience has shown that this will rarely ever happen. When you have completed the administration of the test and dismissed the child, it would be helpful to record your observations of the child's behavior on the back of the chart. 79 Directions to the Child This is not a test. It is an experiment to find out what young people feel about some pictures that we have. There are no right or wrong answers. We are only interested in the way you feel about the pictures. I am going to show you the pictures one at a time. For each picture there will be a number of statements about the child in the picture. You will be asked to pick out as many statements as you wish that tell how the child feels. Now let's begin with the first picture. 8O THE GIRL WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HER GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT HER PARENT 8T THE GIRL WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HER GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT HER PARENTS. Did this every happen to you? Yes No If it never happend to you, can you imagine how this child feels? Yes No Check off below as many statements as you think will tell hos the girl feels. The Girl Feels l. that she will be much happier now. 2. that her parents don't love her any more. 3. like curling up in a corner by herself. 4. a terrible pain in her chest. 5. alone and miserable. 6. that she doesn't care what happens. 7. tht she will do her best to get along. 8. that this house will be a scary place to live in. 9. that something bad is going to happen to her now. l0. that it's all the fault of her neighbors. ll. angry at somebody. l2. that she won't be the same person any more. 13. that if she had been a good gorl, this wouldn't have happened. l4. that it's only a dream - it isn't really happening. l5. like reading a book, watching TV or playing games. l6. sorry for her parents. l7. she won't be able to concentrate on her schoolwork. If there is anything else which you think this girl feels, write it down here. 82 , , .. S a . , r , 91 .Ma. . ......\l.m . l.. . .....1 .. c.. . . ..)€‘Efllk .Al.A'¥l.;’-I . I A GIRL IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS. 83 A GIRL IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS Can you remember when this last happened to you? Yes No Can you imagine how this child feels about it? Yes No Check as many of the statements below which you think would tell how -—I o 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. DmVO‘U'l-th—I' 000000000 this that that child feels. This Child Feels she doesn't care what happens. the new class is a scary place to be. sorry for her past teacher. that like that that that that that that like very like if she had been a good girl, this wouldn't have happened. playing games with other children. something is happening to change her. she will make the best of the situation. nobody really likes her. now she is going to have a good time. it's not really happening - it's only a dream. she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. sitting alone in the corner of the room. angry at somebody. she's getting a stomach ache. alone an miserable. that that something terrible is going to happen. somebody bad is responsible for doing this to her. If you have anything more to say about how this child feels, write down here what you think. THE FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. 85 THE FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD Did this ever happen to you Yes No If it didn't, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes No Now try to imagine how the child in this picture feels. Check off as many statements below which say what you think the child feels. You may check as many statements as you wish. The Child Feels l. afraid to leave. 2. a pain in the stomach. 3. that the neighbors made them move. 4. glad to get away from this bad neighborhood. 5. alone and miserable. 6. that she doesn't care what happens. 7. that it's only a dream. 8. like hiding somewhere. 9. that the new house will be a scary place to live in. 10. that now she will be a different person. ll. that she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. l2. sorry for her parents. l3. that she will make the best of the situation. l4. like punching somebody in the face. 15. that nobody likes her any more. l6. that now she can make some new friends. l7. that if she had behaved in the neighborhood, she wouldn't have to move. If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child feels, write it down here. ' 86 THE CHILD IS LEAVING HER PDTHER TO GO TO SCI-00L. 87 THE CHILD IS LEAVING HER MOTHER TO GO TO SCHOOL You have done what this girl is doing many times. You no doubt have some idea about her feelings, don't you? Yes No Check as many statements below which you think tell how this girl feels. The Girl Feels l. that she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. 2. afraid to leave. 3. that school is a scary place to be. 4. that her mother doesn't like her. 5. that she doesn't care what happens. 6. angry at heaving to go to school. 7. like joining her friends and going to school. 8. glad to get away from her house. 9. sorry for her mother. lO. like she's going to be sick. ll. that something is happening to change her. l2. if she had been a good girl, her mother would let her stay home. l3. like staying home in bed. l4. that she will do her best go get along. l5. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. l6 alone and miserable. l7. that somebody else is causing all this trouble. If there is anything more that you think this girl feels, write down here what you think. THE CHILD IS LEAVING HER PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP. 89 A CHILD IS LEAVING HER PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes______ No Can you imagine how it felt when it did happen? Yes_____ No If it didn't happen to you, can you imagine how it would feel if. it did? Yes__ No Now check off as many of the statements below which you think tell what this girl feels. The Girl Feels l. sorry for her parents. 2. angry about going. 3. that this is a scary place to be. 4. that now she will be a different person. 5. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. 6. that her mind can't think straight. 7. like sitting alone in the back of the bus. 8. that someone else made this happen to her. 9. like reading a book and playing games. To. that she doesn't care what happens. ll. that something terrible is going to happen to her. l2. that a bad headache is coming on. l3. that nobody really loves her. . l4. that she will make the best of the situations. l5. that if she had been a good girl, her parents wouldn't send her away. l6. that now she is really free to enjoy herself. l7. alone and miserable. If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down here. 90 AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER, THE FATHER IS LEAVING. 91 AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER, THE FATHER IS LEAVING Did this every happen to you?‘ Yes NO If not, can you imagine how you would feel if it did? Yes No Now check off as many of the statements below which tell what you think about how the girl in the picture feels. Check as many statements as you wish. The Girl Feels l. very angry at the father. 2. that now she is free to do anything she wants to. 3. that her home will now be a scary place. 4. that she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. 5. that something terrible is going to happen to her now. 6. that someone else has been causing all of this trouble. 7. like reading a book, fixing something or watching TV. 8. that something is happening to change her. 9. lonely and unahppy. lO. nobody really likes her. ll. that she is going to be very sick. l2. like hiding away in her parents' bedroom. l3. sorry for her mother. l4. that she doesn't care what happens. l5. that she will try hard to work things out. l6. that she, herself, caused her father to leave. 17. that it's only a dream - it really isn't happening. If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down here. 92 THE GIRL'S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR LEAVING ON A VOYAGE. 93 THE GIRL'S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR LEAVING ON A VOYAGE Did this ever happen to you? 'Yes No Can you imagine how you would feel if this happened to you? Yes No Now try to imagine how the child in the picture feels. Check off as many statements below which say what you think the child feels. The Child Feels l. sorry for her brother.' that is she had behaved better, her brother wouldn't have left her. that it's nt really happening — it's only a dream. that this is a very scary thing. very angry. lonely and miserable. that she will not be the same person any more. like sitting alone in her room at home. that someone else caused all this trouble. lO. like playing a game with her friend. ll. that she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. l2. that she will try hard to work things out. l3. that something terrible is going to happen to her. l4. that noboby really likes her. l5. that a bad stomach ache is coming on. l6. that she doesn't care what happens. l7. that now she is free to enjoy herself in any way she likes. pmummpw If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child feels, write it down here. 95 THE JUDGE IS PLACING THIS CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes No If it never happened to you, can you imagine how you would feel if Now check as many statements below which tell what you think this _.a O 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. If there is anything else which you feel this child feels, write it mmNO‘UT-§wN—J 000000000 it did? Yes No child feels. Check as many statements as you wish. The Child Feels that the world is full of bad people who did this to her. that it's only a dream and she will wake up soon. like committing suicide. that she will go and make the best of it. sorry for her parents. that the court room is a frightening place. like curling up in a corner. dizzy and faint. that she doesn't care what happens. happy to get to the institution as soon as possible. that she is not very well liked. terrified at what will happen to her. like reading a book or watching TV. angry at the judge. that now she won't be able to learn school work. all alone and unhappy. that now she will be a different person. down here. 96 THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED. 97 THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD To BED This has probably happened to you many times. Can you imagine in your mind that it is happening right now? Yes No Now check off those statements below which you think tell how the child feels. Check as many statements as you wish. —-l d —l o O O 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. mm‘mm-th-H 0.00.0000 The Girl Feels angry at her mother. that like that that that that that that that like that it's scary to be alone here. hiding under the covers. she doesn't care what happens. something is happening to change her. someone in the family made the mother leave. now she's free to enjoy herself any way she likes. her mother doesn't stay with her because she's a bad girl. it's not really happening - it's only a dream. she will make the best of the situation. reading a book, watching TV or making clay models. something bad is going to happen to her. sorry for her mother. that that that very she is getting sick. her mother doesn't really like her. she won't be able to study in school tomorrow. lonely. If there is anything else which you would like to say about how this girl feels, write it down here. 98 THE GIRL'S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. 99 THE GIRL'S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL Did anything like this every happen in your family? Yes No If it didn't, can you imagine how you would feel if it did happen? Yes No Now check Off as many statements below which tell what you think this child feels. Check as many statements as you wish. The Girl Feels l. very angry at somebody. 2. that she will not be the same person any more. 3. glad that her mother is leaving. 4. like hiding in her room. 5. that she doesn't care what happens. 6. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. 7. that she's going to have a bad headache. 8. that she will do her best to get along. 9. scared about what is going to happen to her. lO. sorry for her mother. ll. that nobody likes her any more. l2. like watching TV. l3. that her mother became sick because she was bad. l4. that somebody else caused all this trouble. l5. that her room is going to be a scary place to stay in now. l6. alone and miserable. l7. that she won't be able to concentrate on her school work. If there is anything else which you would like to say about how this this child feels, write it down here. ‘ 100 THE GIRL AND HER FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE MOTHER'S COFFIN. 101 THE GIRL AND HER FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE MOTHER'S COFFIN Did this ever happen to you? (Yes No If it didn't, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes NO Check off as many statements below which say what you think the toooyasm-th—a .—I O 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. child feels. You may check as many statements as you wish. The Child Feels that she won't be the same person any more. frightened about what will happen to her. that if she had been a good girl, it wouldn't have happened. that now she is free to do what she wants. angry about what happened. that nobody will love her any more. that she doesn't care what happens. that her home will now be a scary place to live in. like sitting in a corner by herself. that other people are to blame for this. tht she will make the best of the situation. that it is only a dream. a bad pain in her head. sorry for her father. alone and miserable. that now she won't be able to study any more. like reading a book or watching TV. If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way that this child feels, write it down here. 102 THE GIRL IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME. 103 THE GIRL IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME Did you ever do anything like this? Yes_____ No If you didn't, did you ever think of doing something like this? Yes No Can you understand why this child would want to do this? Yes No Now check as many of the statements below which you think tell how this child feels. The Child Feels l. that she is just going away to have some fun. 2. angry at her parents. 3. afraid that she will be punished for something she did. 4. that she doesn't care what happens. 5. that her parents don't want her around any more. 6. that the neighbors have been stirring up her parents against her. 7. terrible stomach cramps coming on. 8 that she will do her best to get along. 9. that she is only dreaming about this and it's not happening. lO. that something very bad is going to happen to her. ll. that it is awfully scary outside. l2. sorry for her parents. l3. like watching TV or reading a book. l4. like going to her hideout. l5. that she won't be able to study school work any more. 16. that now she will be a different person. l7. lonely and miserable. If there is anything else which you wish to say about hos this child feels, write it down here. 104 APPENDIX E Sample Statements, Associated Feelings, and Thematic Classification for Separation STATEMENTS The girl feels.... 1. 10. 11. 12. that her parents don't love her any more. alone and miserable sorry for her parents. that she will do her best to get along. that she will be much happier now. like reading a book, watching TV, or playing games. angry at somebody. that it's all the fault of her neighbors. that is she had been a good girl, this wouldn't have happened like curling up in a corner by herself that she doesn't care what happens. that it's only a dream-it isn't really happening Anxiety Test* FEELINGS rejection loneliness empathy adaptation well-being sublimation anger projection intrapunitive withdrawal evasion fantasy THEME attachment attachment attachment individuation individuation individuation hostility hostility hostility reality avoidance reality avoidance. reality avoidance *These statements accompany the first Separation Anxiety Text picture entitled "The girl will live permanently with her grandmother and without her parents." 105 APPENDIX F ANSWER SHEET FEMALE FORM FOR EACH OF THE 12 CARDS, THERE ARE TWO YES-NO QUESTIONS AND 17 FEELING STATEMENTS. ON THIS SHEET, CIRCLE THE CORRECT YES-NO ANSWERS FOR YOU AND AS MANY OF THE NUMBERS THAT CORRESPOND TO THE FEELINGS YOU THINK THE GIRL FEELS. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU THINK THE GIRL FEELS, WRITE IT BESIDE OTHER FEELINGS ' CARD l. The girl will live permanently with her grandmother and without per parents. YES NO YES NO (13> \memmhMN—i -l A OTHER FEELINGS CARD 2. A girl is being transferred to a new class. YES NO YES NO W) \OWVOSU'l-kwN—J .—a .b OTHER FEELINGS 106 CARD 3. The family is moving to a new neighborhood. YES NO YES NO w? \DQNO‘U‘I-bWN—I' _a .5 OTHER FEELINGS CARD 4. The child is leaving her mother to go to school. A. YES NO B YES NO \DmNCIUT-pr-d ._| b OTHER FEELINGS CARD 5. The child is leaving her parents to go to camp. YES NO YES NO 9’?’ Looowmm-n-ooN—a o o o o o o o o o u—l A OTHER FEELINGS 107 CARD 6. After an Argument with the Mother, the Father is leaving. YES NO YES NO w) Lomwmm-wa-I _a .b OTHER FEELINGS CARD 7. The Girl's older brother is a sailor leaving on a voyage. YES NO YES NO W) .—a .9 OTHER FEELINGS CARD 8. The Judge is placing the child in an institution. A. YES NO B YES NO \DCDNO‘UT-DMN-J —J 4:. OTHER FEELINGS 108 CARD 9. The mother has just put the child to bed. A. YES NO 8. YES NO OWVOSU‘l-wad ._I .h OTHER FEELINGS CARD l0. The girl's mother is being taken to the hospital. A. YES NO B YES NO DODNOWU'I-th—I —.l .h OTHER FEELINGS CARD ll. The girl and her father are standing t the mother's coffin. A. YES NO B YES NO \meafim-wa-d o o O o o o o o o —l .b OTHER FEELINGS 109 CARD l2. The girl is running away from home. A. YES NO B YES NO tooowmmth—I -l .b OTHER FEELINGS 110 APPENDIX G TABULATION SHEET Picture Number I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII TOTAL Mental Set Response Separation Intensity S M M M M S M S H S S S Rejection 2 8 15 4 13 10 14 11 15 ll 6 5. Impaired Concentration 17 ll 11 l 6 4 11 15 16 17 16 15 Phobic Feeling 8 2 9 3 3 3 4 6 2 15 8 ll Anxiety 9 16 1 2 11 5 13 12 12 9 2 10 Loneliness 5 15 5 16 17 9 6 l6 17 16 15 17 Withdrawal 3 12 8 13 7 12 8 7 3 4 9 14 Somatic 4 14 2 10 12 11 15 8 14 7 l3 7 Adaptive Reaction 7 7 13 14 14 15 12 4 10 8 11 8 Anger 11 13 14 6 2 l 5 l4 1 l 5 2 Projection 10 17 17 8 6 9 l 6 14 10 6 Empathy 16 3 12 9 l 13 1 5 13 10 14 12 Evasion 6 l 6 5 10 14 16 9 4 5 7 4 Fantasy 14 10 7 15 5 l7 3 2 9 6 12 9 Well-Being 1 9 4 8 16 2 17 10 7 3 4 1 Sublimation 15 5 16 7 9 7 10 13 11 12 17 13 Intrapunitive l3 4 17 12 15 16 2 3 8 13 3 3 Identity Stress 12 6 10 ll 4 8 7 17 5 2 1 16 TOTAL 111 Aamwpcmm new cowmm>m .szecucpvz mo Ezmv oucmuwo>< au_mem Ammmcm>wpwcaa -ogpcv can cowpomnogq .Lomea Lo ssmv xww_wpmo= Acovpmewpnzm can mcwmn ppm; .cowamuammm to samv coepaaea>wacfi Axguagsm use mmmcwpmcop .cowpumnmg to gang Seascuaup acmesou mwmmzqsm we mmc< Poconos; _apo» kc a _a60h HHx .Hx XH .H~> x .HHH> .H> .H .> .>H .HHH .HH meocpm uFPz monsoammm we gmnssz :mewmg mmcoammm Hmm