21:94 as «*5 H gr; my; wing/mun: gm 1; w in ii Willi! LIBRARY Mic} rgan Sm: Uni'rrsxty This is to certify that the thesis entitled Gender Role Bias. in Family Assessment presented by Det P. Romero has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree In IDtEleSClplinary Social Science A Céflpw» Major pr fessor Date December 15, 1977 0-7 639 ® Copyright by Det P. Ramiro 1977 GENDER ROLE BIAS IN FAMILY ASSESSMENT By Det P. Romero ‘A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfilhment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR.OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Social Science 1977 ABSTRACT GENDER ROLE BIAS IN FAMILY ASSESQIENT By Det P. Romero A literature review of feminists' contributions to the reevaluation of the traditional model of the nuclear family unit is presented, followed by a review of the assessment phase in the practice of family therapy. In discussing available literature on biases in clinical judgment, empirical investigations of sex role stereotyping in the assessment of individual clients are questioned in terms of their generalizability to the assessment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relation- ships. The concept of gender role bias (as opposed to. sex role stereotyping) is formulated through a focus on the gender-typed roles and gender-typed intrafamilial relationships posited in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit. As a result of the literature review, a major concern focused on the possible distorted perception of the individual family member (s) and the corresponding family relationships if an adjustment notion of health in regard to family relationships reflected only an acceptance of societal gender role expectations as defined in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit. The primary focus of this study is to investigate the possible influence of gender role bias in the assessment of family members and their correSponding Det P. Romero intrafamilial relationships. It was determined that it was necessary to first examine whether the relational context of the family unit influenced the clinical judgment of family members and family relationships . Two versions of the same family case analogue depicting a traditional three-member nuclear family unit (father, mother, child) amd varying only with the sex of the child was developed. To generate the two counterpart versions of the same family case analogue, the sex of the two parent profiles were reversed (role- reversal). The resulting four case versions were randomly distributed to a sample of graduate social work students (N = 91) as a stimulus condition in the form of a structured task. For each family member, subjects canpleted items designed to elicit clinical impression and items designed to elicit technique choices. The clinical impression items were sunnned and a mean clinical impression score for each family member was computed. Subjects also completed items designed to elicit clinical impression of the parent-child relationships and the overall prognosis for family therapy. In addition, subjects ranked five problem areas for each family member and the marital relationship. Finally, subjects completed an "orientation toward women" scale, yielding a contemporary-traditional ratio score. For each family member, the mean clinical impression scores, each technique item, and each of the family relationship items (parent-child and overall prognosis) were analyzed using a 23 between subjects analysis of co-variance. The main effects tested were m“ _..._.... _. ...- Det P. Romero relational context and sex of respondent, and the covariate in these analyses was the subj ect' s orientation toward women as reflected in the C-T ratio score. Chi-square (X2) tests for independence of the distributions between the frequency a problem area is identified as being the most problematic and case version were conducted for each family member and the marital relationship. In addition, the ranking distributions of each problem area for each family member and the marital relationship were examined. The results presented in this study strongly suggest that relational context influences clinical impressions and judgments of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships. Significant differences between male and female respondents also suggest that relational context and sex of the clinician may influence the assessment of the parent, the child, and the corresponding mother-child relationship. Further, there is some indication that family members and family relationships which conform to the tradi- tional model of the nuclear family unit elicit more favorable clinical impressions and judgment. This is particularly the case for the clinical impressions of the mother-child relationship, the assessment of which was found to be significantly related to the respondent' s orientation toward women. These preliminary results indicate the utility of further exploring the influence of m _r_o;l_e_ big; in the assessment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . TO MY "FAMILY" ii . TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . °. . LIST OF.APPENDICES . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . Statement of Problem. . . II. IMETHOD . . .. subjects . Procedure . . . . Instruments . . . . . .Analysis of Results Hypotheses . . III. RESULTS . . . . . Researdh.Findings IV} .DISCUSSIGN’ . . . . . Summary . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . iii Page iv 17 24 24 24 27 32 35 37 37 69 82 87 136 Table 1 . 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES ’ Distribution of Subjects According to Case Version by &x O O O O O O O O 0 Distribution of Subjects According to Age Distribution of Subjects According to Marital Status . Pour Versions of the Family Case Analogue Perceived Maj or Problem Area of Father by Case Version . . . . . Perceived Maj or Problem Area of Father by Case Version . . . . . . Ranking Distribution of Father Problem (1) by CaseVersion . . . . . . . Ranking Distribution of Father Problem (2) by Case Version . . . . . . Distribution of Father Problem (4) by Case Versim . . . . . Ranking Distribution of Mother Problem (1) by Case Version . . . . Ranking Distribution of Mother Problem (2) by Case Version . . . Ranking Distribution of Mother Problem (3) by CaseVersion . . . . . . Ranking Distribution of Mother Problem (4) by CaseVersion . . . . . . iv Page 26 26 26 28 57 57 59 59 60 60 62 62 63 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF FIGURES Father's Mean Clinical Impress 1on Score by Case Version . . . . Mather' 5 Mean Clinical Impression Score by Case Version . . . . Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject Q1 Mother's Mean Clinical Impression Score Mean Technique Score (8) for Father by Case Vers10n . . . . Mean Technique Score (9) for Father by CaseVersion........' Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject Q1 Mean Technique Score (9) for Father . Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject Q1 Mean Technique Score (10) for Father . Mean Technique Score (11) for Father by Case Version . . . . . . Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject On Mean Technique Score (13) for Father Mean Technique Score (8) for Mother by Case Vers 1on . . Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject Q1 Mean Technique Score (8) for Mother . Mean Technique Score (9) for Mother by Case Version . . . . . . Mean Technique Score (11) for Mother by CaseVersion . . . . . . Mean Technique Score (12) for Mother by CaseVersion Page 38 38 40 40 42 42 43 43 46 46 47 47 49 49 Figure 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Mean Technique Score (13) for Mother by Case Version . . man Technique Score (8) for 0111d by SexofSubject . . . . . Mean Technique Score (9) for 01ild by Case Version . . . Mean Technique Score (10) for 0xild by. SexofSubject...... Mean Technique Score (11) for 01ild by Case Version . . . . Mean Technique Score (12) for 01nd by Case Version . . Mean Technique Score (13) for 0111d by CaseVersion . . . . . . Mean Impression Score of the Mother . 01nd Relationship by Case Version . . Interaction of Case Version and Sex of Subject on Subject's Assessment of the Mother - 0111d Relationship . . . . . . Page 51 51 53 53 S4 54 SS 65 6S LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page AL Chse‘Versions . . . . . . . . . . 88 B. Instrument Scales . . . . . . . . . 101 C. Statistical Tables . . . . . . . . 115 “ 01apter 1 Introduction Every society has its share of resocialization movements , and each movenent seems to generate consequences having a permeating impact on various sub-systems within a particular society. This was the case for both the "hippie movement" and the civil rights movement of the sixties (Agel, 1971). One movement which seems to be evolving as the resocialization movement ‘of the seventies is the "mmen's liberation" or feminist movement. Like previous movements , feminists have both conducted and generated critical reviews of the behavioral sciences contributing theoretical models and/ or frameworks to the practice of clinical assessment and various modalities of therapy (Kohlberg, 1966; Brodsky, 1973; Eastman, 1973; Jakubowsld-Spector, 1973; Whitely, 1973; Kirsh, 1974; Beck, 1974; Fodor, 1974; Franks and Ruth, 1974; Gingras-Baker, 1976; Carlock and Martin, 1977). Since the practice of family assessment and therapy relies on a nunber of disciplines (e.g. social work, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, anthropology, etc.) , critical reviews by feminists of those discipline-bound contributions to family assessment and therapy remain scattered throughout the social science literature. The primary focus of these reviews frequently seans to be on sexism in the practice of therapy and on the "traditional" model of women contributing to a biased assessment of the female client. mile feminists differ in regard to specific alternatives to sexism in therapy (de Beauvoir, 1953; Frieden, 1963; Bernard, 1972; Mitchell, 1973; Gingras-Baker, 1976; Rmnero, 1977), most would agree on a few general underlying assrmxptions . These general assumptions comprise a ‘faninist perspective utilized in evaluating the "traditional" model of the female life cycle. Central to the feninist perspective is the assumption that social structure, culture, and the individual are integrally related and that sane of the sources of women's role conflict and dissatisfaction can be identified and understood in toms of the social structure (Brodsky, 1973; Eastman, 1973; Kirsh, 1974; Gingras- Baker, 1976). Faninists assert that for a worm in particular, gender role determines to a large degree future roles in life, dictating limitations on the options for developnmt, regardless of intellect, activity level , or physical and emotional capacity (Epstein, 1970; Amundsen, 1971). The role confinement of women according to the traditional model is viewed to be psychologically frustrating and increasingly alarming as ° epideniological studies reveal that women complain more of nervousness , impending breakdown, attenpts at suicide, and are more frequently the clients of therapy. For these reasons, feminists frequently refer to the "traditional" model of wanen which is believed to be the predanimnt model used in assessment and therapy (Bean and Livson, 1973; Miller, 1974; Schwartz, 1974; Task Force Report, 1975; Geek and Ryan, 1975; Alsbrook, 1976; Harris and Incas, 1976; Romero, 1977). Feminists' contributions not only have called attention to the misconceptions of the "second" sex, but also to the reevaluation of the "traditional" model of the nuclear family unit (Casler, 1961; Bernard, 1971; 01ristie, 1970; Tanner, 1970; Weisstein, 1970; Laws, 1971; Millman, 1971; Wortis, 1971; Brogan, 1972; Gove, 1972; Hochschild, 1973; Franks and Burtle, 1974; Brown and Hellinger, 1975; Rice and Rice, 1977) . Closer scrutiny of the traditional model of the nuclear family unit reveals that the female gender role is consistently defined in relation 1:3 the male gender role. Further, if one were to eiqaand the traditional mdel of the nuclear family unit, the end result would be two traditional models of the individual life cycle - one for males and one for females. This can be revealed by reviewing first what faninists usually refer to as the "traditional" model of the miclear family unit. According to the traditional model of the family unit, the miclear family is universally found and can be considered the building block of society (Parsons and Bales, 1953; Birdwhistell, 1970; Laws, 1971; Skolnick ad Skolnick, 1971; Peal, 1975). This model of the miclear family is based on a clear-cut, biologically structured division of labor between men and wanen (Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971), and implicit in the model is the notion that both sexes should become experts in their respective danains (Birdwhistell, 1970) . A major function of the family is perceived to be the socialization of children; that is , to tame their impulses and instill values, skills, and desires necessary to run society (Lewis, 1971; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971). Fran this perspective , normal personality developnent is viewed to be highly contingent on the proper combination of influences operating in the family unit, and the traditional arrangement posited is assumed to be the most functional arrangement for the children, the parents , and society in general (Parsons and Bales, 1953). Inherent in the traditional model of the miclear family unit is a traditional model of the marital'relationship (Lam, 1971; Gunmn and Rice, 1975; Millman and Kater, 1975; Gingras-Baker, 1976; Rice and Rice, 1977). The traditional, institutional, or utilitarian model of marriage ascribes an instrumental (or outward-directed) role to the husband and an expressive (directed imvard toward family relations) to the wife (Hicks and Platt, 1970; Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Rollins and Feldnmn, 1970; Sillmn, 1966) . Task specialization is presumed to be the most efficient strategy and a sexual division of labor is presented as the mast efficient structure (Blood and Wolfe, 1960) . The model describes a traditional form of marriage in that the wife' 5 activities are confined to the hone and the husband's prinary responsibility is managing the family unit's relations with the larger social sub-systems (Hicks and Platt, 1970) . These umrital roles are presumed to be complimentary (Sillman, 1966; Levin, 1969), with marital satisfaction contingent upon job satisfaction for the husband and upm the mother role for the wife (Rollins and Feldman, 1970). Getting a job and financially supporting his family is assmed to be the husband's major concern while for the wife it is assumed to be housework and caring for the children (Blood and Wolfe, 1960; Hicks and Platt, 1970). Traditional models of the parent-child relationships may be expanded from the traditional models of the nuclear family unit and the mrital relationship (Casler, 1961; Weisstein, 1970; laws, 1971; Stevens, 1971; Wortis, 1971; Chesler, 1972; Mead, 1972; Osmond, Franks, and Burtle, 1974; Rosaldo and Lamphere, 1974; Daniels, 1975; Romero, 1977) .t The mother is assigned the major responsibility for child-rearing tasks (Orlansky, 1949; Mead, 1962; Stannard, 1970). The joys of motherhood are expected to offset whatever costs are associated with the mother giving up other sources of satisfaction during this period (Morgan, 1970; 01esler and Cole, 1973; Laws, 1975). Since the mother is assrmed to be the primary caretaker during the child's pro-school years , primary importance is attributed to the mother-child relationship as a source of children's emotional disturbances (Bowlby, 1951, 1961, 1969; 61ka and Glueck, 1957; Harlow, 1958; Rheingold, 1964). If the mother does not behave according to the traditional model , it is assuned that this can impede a girl's identification with the mother and a boy's with his father (Slater, 1964) . For the father, fatherhood is presuned to be less important than keeping a job and financially supporting the family unit (Jourard, 1964; Brenton, 1966; Goldberg, 1966; Kayton and Biller, 1972; Nichols, 1975; Sattel, 1976). The importance placed on the parents providing appropriate gender role models for their children to identify with is crucial to consider in these traditional models of family relationships. In essence, these models assume that children should be socialized according to the traditional gender role stereotypes so that at appropriate times throughout the individual's life cycle, males and females can assume their roles in the family unit (Gurin, Veroff, and Feld, 1960; Erikson, 1963, 1964, 1968; Rhinegold, 1964; Steadler, 1964; Johnson and bbdianus, 1967, Lidz, 1968; Mason, Conger, and Kagan, 1969). Thus, the traditional models extend across the full range of the individual life cycle, with two separate mdels according to sex (Freud, 1925, 1933, 1936; Jung, 1931; Fran, 1943; Deutsch, 1944; Erikson, 1963, 1964, 1968; Bettelheim, 1965; Lidz, 1968; Turner, 1973). The nature of the male is assrmed to be to show what he can do and to prove that he never fails while for the femle it is the need to attract and to prove to herself that she can attract a man (Pram, 1943; Erikson, 1963; Lidz, 1968). Traditional notions of msculinity ad faininity ascribe instrumental traits to the male and expressive traits to the female (Freud, 1933; Deutsch, 1944; Cronbach, 1970; Hoffman, 1972; Block, VonDerLippe and Block, 1973), traits that correspond to the gender-typed 2133 defined in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit (Parsons and Bales, 1953; Birdwhistell, 1970; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971; Laws, 1971; Peal, 1975). It thus becomes clear that the traditional model of the nuclear family unit inherent 1y types individual family members ad their corresponding intrafamilial relationships according to traditional gender role stereotypes (Birchvhistell, 1970; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971; Laws, 1975; Gingras-Baker, 1976). While attitudes are in the process of changing and alternative perspectives are being utilized more and more frequently, the traditional models of the individual life cycles and family relationships still continue to be used in the training of mental health professionals (01esler, 1971; Livson, 1973; Sclmrartz, 1973; Diagson, 1975; Task Force Report; 1975; Gingras-Baker, 1976; Runero, 1977). Feminists claim that if a traditional model of the nuclear family unit is exclusively enployed in the assessment stage of family therapy, then the mental health of family menbers and their corresponding family relationships will be judged in reference to traditional gender role stereotypes (Birdwhistell, 1970; Laws, 1971; Millman, 1971; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971; Hirsch, 1974; Peal, 1975; Gingras-Baker, 1976). This bias is believed to be facilitated by the way theoretical models are used in family assessment ad therapy (Birdwhistell, 1970; Skolnick and Skolnick, 1971; Gingras-Baker, 1976). The assessment of family menbers and their corresponding intra- familial relationships is generally accepted as the first step in the practice of family therapy (Haley and Hoffma, 1967; Francis, 1968; Erikson et al., 1972; Satir et al., 1977). Haley (1976) notes that the act of therapy begins with the way the problan is examined, with the writ of attention being the intrafamilial relationships of the family unit. While family theorists differ as to which aspects of the family relationships are of prinery inportance (carniunication patterns, value orientations, family life history, etc.) , most would agree that an assessment begins with sane sort of fact-gathering process around the presenting problem (Haley and Hoffinan, 1967; Conmittee, 1970; Eriksa1 et al., 1972). Inpressions, information, ad observations of the family members interacting with one another are collected in the process and are orgaized according to sane theoretical framework (5) or model (5) . This is presumed to facilitate clinical appreciation of the family relationships ad of the family as a social system (Satir, 1967; Haley, 1976; Satir, Stachowiak, and Taschman, 1977). Family therapy textbooks encourage the use of theoretical frame- works in family assessment for two major reasons: 1) it is presumed to enhance the clinician's capetence to deal with conplex phenanena in family therapy sessions and 2) it ca assist the clinician in devising future intervention strategies throughout the therapeautic process (Davis, 1967; Haley, 1976). By synthesizing clinical inpressions and informtim according to some framavork or model, the clinician then formulates a clinical judgnent of the family members and their relationships . The clinical judgment formulated presunably influences both the systanatic identification of causal -pertinent factors and implications in relation to the presenting problem and the development of a plan of actiar. Lehmn (1954) additionally notes that the clinical judgment also provides a effective way of relating processes to outcanes, thereby enhancing predictive ability for designated interventions in the treatment plan. A The inportace of family assessment to on-going therapy is sufficiently crucial for a number of professionals to be concerned about possible distorting biases (Boszormenyinagy and Framo, 1965; Ackerman, 1966; Erikson and Hoga, 1972; Zuk, 1972; Bell, 1974). While various possible sources of bias are briefly reviewed (race, ethnic background, age, etc.), most write at great length about a clinicia's family of origin influencing how the family unit is perceived. This possible influence is conceptualized in the following mnner. If a family being assessed factions differently from the clinicia's family of origin (e.g. different cultural value orientatials found in minority families), Ackerman (1966) suggests that a distorted perception of the family unit nay result if the clinicia is not cognizant of the "reality factors" mnifested in different styles of family functioning. With the focus on similarities between the family being assessed and the clinician's family of origin, Devis (1967) discussess how these similarities may reactivate "unfinished business" the clinicia may have with his/her family of origin. He notes that reactivated family conflicts may influence clinical inpressions and judgments (and, therefore , interventions in the treatment pla of action) of the family being assessed if the clinicia is not aware of possible coatertransference reactions. Haley (1976), Skolnick and Skolnick (1971), and Birdwhistell (1970) also suggest that the traditional model of the mlclear family has come to define what is normal ad natural both for research and therapy, ad subtly influences our thinking to regard deviations fran it as sick, or perverse, or inmoral. The above concerns dealing with possible biases in family assessment generate speculations in regard to what would be considered healthy ad appropriate gender role behavior in the family unit. If a clinicia's family of origin functioned according to a traditional mdel of the nuclear family unit, would these elqleriences influence his/her clinical impressions and judgments of a family unit maifesting alternative styles of functioning with respect to gender role behavior in the family unit? If a clinicia utilized a traditional model of the nuclear family unit as a framework with which to organize clinical inpressions of family nembers ad their corresponding intrafamilial relationships, do families which adhere to traditional gender roles' elicit a more favorable clinical inpression? Do cultural stereotypes of male ad female gender roles influence a clinicia's acceptance of the traditional model of the nuclear family unit? These questions would lead one to wonder how these issues play a part (if at all) in a clinician's assessment of natal health. “ Other researchers have continued along this line of questioning, specifically focusing on sex role stereotyping of individual clients. As a result of a study on sex role stereotypes and self concepts in college students (Rosenkrantz et a1. , 1968), Brovernmn et a1. (1970) employed a similar methodology in order to investigate sex role stereotypes and clinical judgments of mental health. By asking clinicias to ascribe a cluster of different personality traits to the healthy mtune adult, the healthy mature male, and the healthy mattn‘e female, they fomd that clinicians tended to ascribe the "male-valued, conpetency cluster traits" more often to healthy men than to healthy women. In 10 effect, clinicias were suggesting that healthy women differ from healthy men by being " . . . nore submissive, less independent, less aggressive, less conpetitive, more excitable in minor crises, more emotional, more conceited about their appearance, and having their feelings more easily hm't" (p. 71) The investigators interpreted their results to indicate a double-standard of mental health for men ad women. Since the clinicias were more likely to attribute traits that were presumed to be characteristics of a healthy adult to men than to women, an "ati-female" bias was proposed (Broverman et al., 1972). Brogan (1972) , on the other had, presented findings that were opposite to those of Broverman et a1. (1970). 13:1le a different methodology, Brogan administered a questionnaire to a sanple grotp of therapists. Her attitudinal questionnaire considered sociological , psychological, semal, legal, economic, and political factors as well as those presumed to be related to the women's liberation movement. Her results revealed that the sanple group of therapists assured a significatly liberal orientation in their attitudes regarding women, suggesting a "pro-female" bias. In their attempt to explore the apparent inconsistency between the above two studies, Brown ad Hellinger (1975) administered an "orientation toward women" scale to a sample of mental health professionals. 0f present concern are their data indicating that fenale therapists tend to have more "contanporary" attitudes toward wanen than do male therapists. This was particularly the case on items concerned with mothering and the maternal instinct. Brown and Hellinger propose that their data suggests a possible "anti-female" bias if a 11 clinicia were not acutely aware of his/her biases toward wonuen. The influence of a theraist's attitudes toward women (both single women ad married women) has been documented around cases involving individual clients (Abramowitz, Abramowitz, and Comes, 1973; Fabrikat, 1974) . While these attitudes are in the process of changing, others contimle to assert that a clinicia's negative valuation of women reflects the pervasive cultural view of women (Shainess, 1969; Ben and Ban, 1970; Miller and Mothner, 1971; 01esler, 1973; Hirsch, 1974; Levine, Kain, ad Levine, 1974; Lauvs, 1975; Gingras-Baker, 1976). Similar concerns prompted investigators to study the possible influence of sex role stereotyping in clinical judgment. While the above studies certainly contributed valuable inferences regarding sex role stereotyping of individual clients , there are actually few studies which attempt to assess sex role stereotyping in clinical judgment. Gross et a1. (1969) investigated the effect of race and sex on the variation of diagnosis ad disposition in a psychiatric emergency room. Mlile their data would allow inferences regarding the influence of the sex factor alone on clinical judgment, the reported data canbines the race and sex factor. Inferences about the influence of sex role stereotyping in clinical judgment ca also be made from the results of a investigation of therapeautic styles by Dell and Ryan (1975). However, they focus on therapeautic styles of the clinician and not on clinical judgment. Consequently, only Miller (1974) and Fischer, Dulaey, Fazio, Hudak, ad Zivotofsky (1976) have attempted to assess the influence of sex role stereotyping in clinical judgment. Following a model designed by Blake (1971) , Miller (1974) devised 12 two forms of a case analogue in which every variable except sex was held constant. The case mterial that was created depicted a relatively healthy, twenty-six year-old single, white, Protestant client who was referred for evaluation because of psychosomatic complaints and mild depression. The most marked clinical feature that the individual client manifested was "passivity". A version depicting a male client and the £311: version depicting a female client wer devised, and alternate forms of the case analogue were randomly distributed to a sample of mental health professionals. Clinical impressions of the respondats were collected via a questionnaire designed to invite judgments about specific dimensions of the particular individual client. Results showed a fairly consistent tendency for the female case version to elicit clinical judgments slightly more favorable than the male case version. Further, when ranking general problem areas, "passivity" was the overwhelming choice of treatment focus for the male form-while only half of the respondents chose that particular treatment focus for the female form. Miller interpreted her results to indicate a "anti- famle" bias in clinical judgnent. Fischer et a1. (1976) expanded Miller's methodology and developed their case aalogues in the following manner. A one-page clinical history was devised depicting a individual client described as a 35-year-old college graduate who had been married for ten years and had two children. Two versions were then develOped: one depicting an individual client with a "aggressive" personality and a second depicting a individual client with a "passive" personality. These two versions were then the basis for their four versions of the case histories: aggressive mle, aggressive femle, passive male, passive 13 fanale. An inventory designed to elicit judgments that were representative of those made in actual practice with individual clients accompanied each of the four versions randomly distributed to a sample of social workers. Significant results showed that fenale clients (both agressive ad passive personality) were judged as more intelligent, more nature emotionally, needing more encouragement to be emotionally expressive, and elicited more positive personal feelings than the two mle client versions. Fischer et a1. concluded that a strong "pro-fanale" bias appears to characterize social worker's clinical judgments. In reviewing the above studies investigating the influence of sex role stereotyping on clinical judgnent, there is serious question concerning the generalizability of these results to family assessment. All of the above studies investigating clinical judgment focus on sex 5913 stereotyping, i.e. the ascription of certain traits and/or characteristics based on the individual‘s sex. This is appropriate since in individual therapy the mjor focus is on the individml and since frequently the only interactional behavior perceived during treatment is that between the individual cliat ad the therapist. However, in family therapy, the major focus of assessment shifts to the relationships of the family unit in question. Further, the therapist has the opportunity during treatment to observe interactional behavior between family members , and these observations are frequently incorporated as part of the "clinical material" used in the assessment process. While the assessment of a family guides the treatment process , observations of interactions between family members continue to be utilized during treatment . Hence, behavior between individual family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships tend to 14 receive more clinical attention than the traits of an individml family manber. These same studies on clinical judgment of an individual client also vary on when at first may appear to be a insignificant factor. One of the studies employs a case analogue depicting a client who is married ad has children. Other studies use case analogues in which the individual client is single or the marital status of the client is sinply omitted. Studies utilizing paper-and-pencil scales of healthy adult, healthy male, and healthy female simply ignore this factor. Consequently, it is not clear whether the individual client was judged as a individual client or as a individual client in a particular relational context. In family assessment, the clinicia my focus on the marital relationship (between a father and a mother) and/ or any of the possible parent-child relationships (father-son, father- daughter, mother-son, mother-daughter) an individual family member may experience as being problematic. However, the individual family member is always assessed within the relational context of his/her family unit. It seems inappropriate to generalize results of studies on sex role stereotyping in clinical judgments of individual clients to family assessment - the assessment of relationships in the family unit. This is particularly the case due to the variation of the marital and family status of the hypothetical individual client being judged and to the lack of clarity over whether the individual client was being assessed as an individual client or as an individual client in a particular relational context. Further, one' s expectations of appropriate behavior for the ggIder-typed _rg_l_._e_§_ in the family unit (father, mother, son, daughter) and expectations around the possible 15 gender-typed intrafamilial relationships (e.g. father-son, father- daughter, mother-son, mother-daughter) would seem to be important to consider. 1 The results of these studies warrant further discussion. All of the above studies on clinical judgment offer interpretations falling under one of two categories: "pro-female" or "ati-female" bias. This is primarily due to the authors ' attempts to evaluate the efficacy of applying presumably male standards of natal health to female clients . With this point as the designated focus (as well as sexism usually referring to female clients), it was not necessary to question the efficacy of male standards of mental health for male clients. However, when shifting from assessment of an individual, client to assessment of family relationships , similar concerns for male clients are unavoidable. The literature review on the traditional model of the nuclear family unit provides a cogent rationale for this issue. Recall that throughout the discussion of the traditional model of the female life cycle, the female gender role was consistently defined in relation _t9_ the male gender role. In other words , there also exists a "traditional" model of the individual life cycle for the male. One could propose that some males who wish to grow as full human beings (as opposed to the instrumental specialist depicted in the traditional model) may also find this model of the nuclear family unit limiting. Thus, in regard to family assessment (when family members are assessed _i_n_ relation 1:2 one another), feminists' concerns may be viewed as cogent for both sexes. Such a viewpoint would shift the focus of feminists' concerns from the female gender role to both the male and female gemier roles :13; relation 16 32 each other, a appropriate concern when conducting a family assessment. From this perspective, the central issue then becomes m ELSE-1E (rather tha sex role stereotyping) in clinical judgment, with different questions and concerns being generated. Does gender role bias influence the assessment of family members ad their corresponding intrafamilial relationships? With the emphasis on relationships in family assessment, do relationships in the family unit which conform to the "traditional" model elicit more favorable clinical judgments? Should this be the case, then this bias could be perceived as reinforcement of gender-typed adult behavior, re- inforcement of parental expectations of their children's appropriate gender role behavior, ad the appropriate gender role behavior of the children - all according to the traditional model of the mmclear family unit. One would then be concerned with the possible distorted perception of the individual family member (s) and the corresponding family relationships if a adjustment notion of health in regard to family relationships reflected only a acceptance of societal gender role eapectations as defined in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit. With the serious questions surrounding the generalizability of studies investigating sex role stereotyping of individual clients to family assessment remaining unresolved, we cannot make inferences from these studies of assessment of individual clients to assessment of family relationships . Since gender role bias has never been investigated in regard to family assessment, it seemed appmpriate to begin investigating the possible influences of this type of bias in the clinical impressions of family numbers and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . 17 This line of inquiry would prove useful for several reasons. The reevaluation of lath male ad female gender roles ca be accomodated. Methodological constraints around the generalizability of results from studies of individual assessments can be addressed while simultaneously determining if the relational context influences the assessment of a individual family member. In addition, further exploration around the stereotyping of family relationships as opposed to the stereotyping of individuals may lead to the formulation of gimdfl role bias as a particular countertransference concept of family therapy. Statement of Problem The primary focus of this study is to investigate the possible influence of ggn_d_e_r_ 3213 big in the assessment of family meters and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships. Since this topic has never been previously investigated, it becomes necessary to first examine whether the relational context of the family mit influences the clinical judgment of family members and family relationships. These judgments would then contribute to an overall impression of the family unit providing the relational context in which family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships are assessed. It seems appropriate to begin with the relational context as defined in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit. In essence, this model conceptually posits four gender-typed SEE-E in the family unit: father, mother, son, daughter. These roles are gender-typed because the sex of the individual family member differentiates what is considered appropriate behavior for a parent and a child, ad therefore what is considered appropriate behavior in the marital and parent-child relationships. The sex of the father is 18 male while the sex of the mother is female. However, the sex of the child may be either male or female. Consequently, the relational context of a three-member nuclear family unit presumably would vary depending tpon the sex of the child. By focusing first on a three- member nuclear family unit, one can begin to assess the relational contexts of a traditional nuclear family unit comprised of a father, a mother, ad a male child, ad a traditional nuclear family unit comprised of a father, a mother, and a female child. However, it would also seem useful to determine whether relationships in the family unit which conform to the "traditional" model of the nuclear family unit elicit more favorable clinical judgments in family assessment. Since this topic has never been previously investigated and since a family unit may be conceived on a traditional versus contemporary continuum, it seemed logical to compare the traditional relational contexts defined above with the opposite counterparts. This ca be achieved simply by conceptually reversing the gender-typed roles of the parents (role-reversal) or, in other words, ascribing the traits ad behaviors considered appropriate for the tradt ional father to the mother ad vice versa. When also considering both alternatives for the sex of the child, the end result would be the following four relational contexts: (a) two traditional relational contexts depending on the sex of the child and (b) their two reversed counterparts, also varying according to the sex of the child. Shifting the focus of the present discussion from the family to the clinicia conducting the assessment, the studies on sex role stereotyping in clinical judgment suggest that the sex of the clinicia (Miller, 1974; Fischer et al., 1976) and the clinician's attitudes toward women (Brown ad Hellinger, 1975) have a influence on clinical impressions and judgments depending on the sex of the client. Since measurement of attitudes toward women yields a continuous variable (Brown and Hellinger, 1975) , it would be possible statistically to control for a individual clinicia' s orientation toward women when soliciting clinical impressions and judgments of family members and relationships in the form of a structured task. This would allow one to attribute differential clinical impressions ad judgments to the four relational contexts previously defined and not to a individual ' s orientation toward women. This is particularly important given the influence the women's movement has had over the past few years. If gender role bias influenced the assessment of a family unit, such a influence would be ezpected to affect the assessment of individual family members , their corresponding intrafamilial relationships (marital relationship ad parent-child relationships), and the family unit's progosis for treatment, all generally considered a part of a clinician's clinical impressions and judgment of family relationships . The studies reviewed on clinical judgment also provide several appropriate scales with which to measure clinical impressions ad judgments. Fischer ad Miller (1973) and Fischer et al. (1976) developed eleven items designed to secure 1) clinical impressions and judgments of the client and 2) possible intervention techniques frequently used in actual practive of therapy. With minimal modification in the wording of these items (e.g. referring to "father" instead of the "client) , these items would also serve the purposes of a family assessment. The only major modification necessary would be that 9% family member would need to be assessed on these items. 20 Miller (1974) developed five general problem areas in her study of assessment of individual clients, ad the inclusion of these general problem areas would be useful in a family assessment. The same modifications would be needed: the items should refer to the family member instead of the individual client, and the problem areas would need to be ranked for gash family member. Laws (1975) also proposes five general problem areas which are frequently problematic in the marital relationship between parents of school-age children. A ranking of these problem areas would provide information as to how the marital relationship is clinically perceived. By adding three items desigied to elicit judgments about the father-child relationship , the mother-child relationship , and the overall prognosis for family treatment, clinical impressions and judgments of those areas presumed to be influenced by gender role bias could then be assessed. Finally, Brown ad Hellinger's (1975) "orientation toward women" scale would yield the continuous variable needed to control statistically for the possible influence a clinicia's orientation toward women may have on clinical impress ions and judgments of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . The most appropriate way to examine the effects of one set of variables on a set of dependent variables is to develop a research design that allows for the manipulation of the identified independent variables. In other words, the design should insure objectivity by allowing the different variations , acontaminated by one another, to have a effect on the dependent variables. Since this would prove difficult ad time consuming with actual therapy sessions, and since investigation of gender role bias is only at the initial stage, 21 a three-member (father, mother, school-age child) family case analogue was developed. The case aalogue was comprised first around a father, a mother, ad a male child, with the father conceptually being designated as the active parent and the mother conceptually being designated as the passive parent. The clinical profile of the father (and, therefore, the active parent) ad the clinical profile of the male child were both designed around stereotypically male traits ad behaviors: domineering, aggressive, pushy, ad oriented towards instrumental tasks. This was done for both clinical profiles in order to reflect the appropriate role identification in the father-son relationship inherent in the tradtional model of the nuclear family unit. On the other hand, the clinical profile of the mother (and, therefore, the passive parent) was comprised around stereotypically female traits ad behaviors: shy, passive, submissive, and with a orientation towards expressive tasks. The end result was a family case analogue providing a traditional relational context in the form of a family unit comprised of a father, a mother, ad a fig child. The case analogue was then duplicated, changing only the name ad sex of the child, providing a traditional relational context in the form of a family unit comprised of a father, a mother, ad a £119.13 child. The two comterpart versions subsequently follow by duplicating each of the two traditional versions while reversing the sex of the two parent profiles. In this maner, the original family case aalogue was expaded into four case versions, changing 9211 the sex of the child and the sex of the parent profileCs). It should be roted that while the sex of the child ad the sex of the parent profile (5) change, the clinical profiles of the family members 22 (active parent, passive parent, child) remain the same across all four case versions. By maipulating the independent variables comprising the relational context in this fashion, the research design will insure objectivity by allowing the different variations to have a effect on clinical impressions ad judgment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . If the four family case versions were presented as a stimulus condition in the form of a structtn‘ed task ad data about the clinical impressions and judgments of each family member and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships were generated, the expected hypotheses would be: Hl) The relational context (sex of the child and sex ' of the parent profile(s)) ad sex of the clinicia is expected to influence clinical impressions and treatment expectations of Lech family member. HZ) There is a significat relationship between perceived severity of individzal problem areas ad the relational context (sex of the child ad sex of the parent profile (5)) . This is expected to be the case for go}; family member. H3) There is a sigiificat relationship between perceived severity of problem areas in the marital relationship and the relational context (sex of the child ad sex of the parent profile(s)). H4) The relational context (sex of the child and 23 sex of the parent profile(s)) ad sex of the clinicia is expected to influence clinical judgment of the parent-child relationships and impression of the family's overall prognosis for family treatment. HS) A clinicia's orientation toward women is enacted to influence clinical impressions and judgments of family members ad their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . (hater II Method Subjects Arragements were made to obtain subjects (S's) through the required gracbmate methods courses in the School of Social Work. A variety of reasons substatiated this choice of subject pool: 1) available data on practicing family therapists reveals that the largest proportion (40%) are Social workers (Committee, 1970); 2) the discipline of social work has traditionally been associated with family assessment ad therapy; and 3) since investigation of g_e__nd3_1; _r_o_l_e_ 2.1.3.5. in family assessment is in the initial stages, it seemed appropriate to begin with a group of easily accessible _S_'s. Therefore, S's were drama from all first- and second-year methods courses required for all graduate social work students. All §_'s participation was completely volatary. Procedure Instructors of first- ad second-year methods courses required for all graduate social work students were approached ad class time to present a research project was solicited. To those instructors who inquired, the purpose of the research project was. explained as a investigation of how social work students put together a clinical assessment of a family. All of the instructors grated class time ad specific class sessions were then scheduled. At the beginning of the scheduled class session, students were told that their instructors had given permission 24 25 for class time to be used for a research project but that participation was strictly on a voluntary basis. No student present at the scheduled class sessions refused to participate in the present study. Table 1 illustrates the distributim of _S_'s (N = 91) who participated in the present study according to case version by sex of _S_. Overall, 74% of the sample of graduate social work students were female ad 26% were male. The table also reveals that only four male subjects received case version three as compared to 19 female subjects. Table 2 provides the distribution of S's according to age, revealing that the largest number of §_'s (31%) were between the ages of 24 and 26. None of the _S_'s were under 21. Table 3 reveals the distribution of §_'s according to marital status, with 42% single ad 36% of the sample being married. Approximately 17% of the sample of _S_'s were divorced. More tha half of the sample of _S_'s (54%) were second-year graduate social work students while 46% identified themselves as first-year graduate social work students. All of the §_'s indicated their major was social work, with 66% of the sample of _S_'s (n - 60) indicating they had had coursework and/or training in family assessment. All S's were randomly assigned to one of four gratps corresponding to the four versions of the family case aalogue. After explaining to the _S_'s that the present study was attempting to investigate how social workers conduct a family assessment, _S_'s were asked to read the family case aalogue ad to respond to the questions in order that followed. Subjects were reminded to focus on the family rather than on the worker conducting the assessment interview and they were instructed not to refer to the case aalogue while responding to the questions but to rely totally on their clinical impressions of the family members and 26 819.8. .388 3.3.1.... 2.38 5 «8.8.2.: 5.211.: 3...... .n 33.13.331.38. 8:3 a 3.381331.I.£3=2 .. .-I< 203nm) on‘U Su 3-0 new 00¢ .04 o. 9.333" 3003.5 .e zeta-.230 N 03-h new 3 :32.) :00 3 afioaooo< 3003.5 .0 coma-3.3.3 p .3.» 27 their family relationships . Further, Sf s were reminded that the information in the family case aalogue must be treated as confidential information, partly because the case aalogue was developed from actual case material and partly to add a realistic tone to the requested task. Every attempt was made to structure the administration of the instruments to the §_'s in such a marmer that both male ad female administrators were equally used. Consequently, half of the graduate classes were administered the instrumats by a male and the other half by a female administrator. Instruments , Family case aalggt_x_e_:_ The family case aalogue was developed from actual case material used in graduate social work methods courses. The _ general format of the training case materials was duplicated, as were the vocabulary ad writing style. Portions of the family case analogue were literally taken from same of the training materials, with .a_1_]_._ possible identifying information disguised. As emplained in the ~ proceeding chapter, the only changes made to produce the four versions of the case analogue were sex of the child and sex of the parent profile(s). Table 4 identifies the four versions of the family case aalogue. While the sex of the child and the sex of the parent profile(s) are the identified indepexient variables , it should be roted that the clinical profiles of the child, the active parent, and the passive parent are identical in all four versions of the family case analogue. The four versicns of the family case aalogue are included in Appendix A. Clinical Impression Items: After reading the family case analogue, S's cmpleted seven items (six-point, Likert-type scale) designed to elicit clinical impressions and used by Fischer ad Miller (1973) ad 28 Table 4 Four Versions Of The Family Case Analogue Active Parent Passive Parent Sex of Child 1 Father ‘ Mother Son C ase 2 Father Mother Daughter Version 3 . Mother Father Son 4 Mother Father Daughter 29 Fischer et al. (1976). Two modifications were needed: "the client" was replaced by the family members (father, mother, child) and the items were completed for a family member in the case analogue. These items elicited clinical impressions of each family member with regard to utional maturity, overall degree of stability, general level of intelligence, degree self-reliace was perceived as a major problem, individual family member's prognosis for treatment , personal reaction to family member, and extent of the §_'s eagerness to have the family member as a actual client. The order of the family members being rated varied from _S_ to _S_ (e.g. father - mother - child; mother - child - father; child - father - mother, etc.) . The clinical impression items were analyzed in such a way that the "positive" and "healthy" aspect of the clinical impression was consistently associated closer to the numerical value of one while the "negative" and "unhealthy" aspect of the clinical impression was consistently associated closer to the mmmerical value of six. Consequently, if the clinical items are summed and a average computed, a mea clinical impression score could be generated. A mea clinical impression score was computed for each family member (father , mother, child). See Appendix B for examples of the clinical impression items used. Technique Items: Additionally, §_'s were asked to respond to six items (six-point, Likert-type scale) used by Fischer et al. (1976) regarding the following intervention techniques: extent to which the family member is perceived to need encouragement to be more self-reliat, theamount ofwarmthadsupportthe familymemberwouldneedin treatment, the extent to which the family member would need a directive worker during treatment , the extent the family member should be 30- eioouraged to be more family-oriented, the extent the family member needs to be encouraged to be more emotionally expressive, and the extent to which the §_ would be directive er non-directive with family member during treatment. Subjects responded to these items for each family member ad the set of responses were solicited in the same random order as was used for the clinical impression items. See Appendix B for examples of the technique items used. Raking of Individual Problem Areas: For each family member, _S_'s were asbd to rank the following general problem areas from most problematic (first ranking position) to least probleratic (fifth ranking position): immature sexual identity, limited object relations, environmental ad social problems, passivity, and underdeveloped ego skills. While including these items in the same mamer as used by Miller (1974) , the only difference was that a ranking of these problem areas was solicited for 9_a_._ch_ family member. See Appendix B for examples of the individual problem area items. Ranking of barital Problem Areas: After they had completed all of the above items for each family member, _S_' s were then asked to rank the following geieral marital problem areas from most problematic (first raking position) to least problematic (fifth ranking position) according to their impression of the marital relationship: companionship, handling of finances, household tasks, sex, ad parent-child relationships . The literature suggests these general problem areas as being most probleratic between couples who have school-age children (Laws, 1975) . See Appendix B for a example of the marital problem area ita. Miscellaeous Items: Subjects next responded to three items 31 (six-point, Likert-type scale) regarding the following aspects of a family assessment: impress ion of the father-child relationship (healthy versus probleratic) , impress ion of the mother-child relationship (healthy versus problematic), ad overall prognosis of the family for family treatment (extremely good versus extremely bad). See Appadix B for examples of these three items. B_i_9_graphioal Data Sheet: Subjects then completed a biographical data sheet requesting the following general demographic information: sex, educational status, graduate level, age, marital status, an item to verify that the _S_'s major is social work, and an item to check if the _S_ had ever taken any coursework and/or training in family assessment. These data were used to describe the sample of _S_'s who participated in the present study. For a example of the data sheet used, see Appendix B. Orientation Toward Women Scale: Finally, _S_'s were then asked to respond to 29 items (seven-point, Likert-type scale) desigied ad used by Bram and Hellinger (1975) in their assessment of attitudes toward women. Eighteen of the items are typed "traditional" and 11 of the items are typed "contexporary". The mea scores of each set for each S were computed, ad a C-T ratio score was calculated by dividing the mea contemporary score by the mea traditional score. Thus, ratio scores less than one indicate a contexporary orientation toward women ad ratio scores greater than one indicate a traditional orientation toward women. Note that S's responded to these items E522}; their clinical impressions of family members and the corresponding family relationships were recorded. See Appadix B for an example of the orientation toward women scale used. 32 Analysis of Results The same coding procehn‘e was followed for all of the data geierated. After the _S_'s completed the instrument scales, two trained coders trasferred the data onto coding sheets. Professional keypunchers then punched and verified the data on IE4 computer cards . The biographical information on each §_ ad the chi-square (X2) analyses were aalyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1975). The SPSS package was also used to compute all transformation scores ad variables involved (mea clinical impression scores, frequency tabulations used, and the C-T ratio scores). The mea clinical impression scores for each family member, the six technique items for each family member, and the three items on the parent-child relationships ad overall family prognosis are dependent variables collected from the same subject. Consequently, multivariate statistical procedures would be most appropriate to use in analyzing the generated data. However, this statistical procedure considers the dependent variables as one set, thereby presenting the possibility that specific significat differences on specific items would be obscured in the overall analyses. It seemed more appropriate given the initial stage of investigation to be able to identify the direction of specific significat differences on specific items. For these reasons , alternative statistical procedures were examined. In his discussion of the least-squares estimation for analysis-of- variance models, Finn (1974) argues that a alternative solution for the model of deficient rak is to select and estimate linear combinations of the parameters that are of scientific interest. These combinations are expressed as contrasts among subpopulation means and ca be emplicitly 33 chose: in accordance with the experimental design and procedures. This solution has the advatage of providing direct results concerning the experimental outcomes since it is usually. differences amongst group meas that are of concern. If one does not restrict the sum of the parameters , the connotation is avoided that experimental effects samehow nullify one another. When there is no particular order to the groups in the experimental design andwhen it is useful to estimate the simple terms in the model, Finn (1974) argues that deviation contrasts may be exployed (see pp. 215 - 232) . Finn's model is appropriately suited for analyzing differences between the four case versions as differences in deviation contrasts. The mea of each item for each contrast (case version) is compared to the mea of each item for each of the other three contrasts (case versions). Thus , a significat contrast would indicate that the mea score of a item for that contrast (case version) is significantly different when compared to the mea scores of the same item for the other three contrasts (case versions). With this statistical procedure, one would be able to identify the direction of specific significat differences on specific items with respect to case version and sex of the respondent. In addition, a computer software package developed by Finn (1974) and maintained by the Carputer Institute for Social Science Research (CISSR) analyzes data using the above statistical rationale in the identification of significant contrasts . Therefore , the mea clinical impression scores for each family member, the six technique items for each family member, and the three items on the parent-child relationships and overall family prognosis were ea__c_h_ aalyzed by a 2:5 betwee: subjects analysis of 34 co-variace. The three main factors were identified as the following: sex of the child and sex of the parent(s) profiled (case version), ad sex of the respondent (_S) . The covariate' in these analyses was the S_'s orientation toward women as reflected in the C-T ratio score. This procedure allows for the evaluation of crucial interaction effects while allowing one to account for more of the within-cell variace by controlling for the _S_'s orientation toward women (i.e. by using the C-T‘ ratio score as the covariate) . The null hypotheses are that there are to significant differences in each of the dependat variables with respect to any of the effects tested ad H0 will be rejected at the-t = .05 level. 1 In regard to the two sets of ranking data (perceived problem areas of each individual family member and perceived problem areas of the marital relationship), the problem area designated as the most problematic problem area could also be interpreted as the desigiated central focus of treatment. One way of relating problem areas to sex of the child ad sex of the parent (5) profiled would be a 5 x 4 frequency distribution table of the frequencies each problem area was identified as the individual family member's most problematic area according to case version (i . e . problem area by case version). The problem areas perceived by the §_ to be the most problematic ca then be considered as the S's desigated central focus of treatment. A chi-square (3(2) test for independence of the distribution between the frequency a problem area is identified as being the most problematic area and case version was conducted for the father, the mother, the child, ad the marital relationship. Further , in order to extrapolate more meaning from the generated 35 ranking data, each problem area was analyzed in and of itself. The ranking distribution of one problem area may not be the same as the ranking distribution of the other identified problem areas, and this could easily be checked through a S x 4 frequency distribution table (ranking distribution of the problem area by case version) of the frequencies the problem area was ranked first, second, third, etc. (five ranking positions) for each case version. These tables would then reveal when a problem area was significantly not considered a problem for each family member. This would augment the information generated from the above frequency distribution tables . Therefore , for each identified problem area, an additional chi-square (X2) test for independence between the ranking distribution of the problem area and case version was conducted for the father, the mother, the child, and the marital relationship. The m111 hypotheses for all chi-square (X2) computations is that the distribution between the two identified factors is not significant and H0 will be rejected at the“ - .05 level. The hypotheses mentioned previously are restated in operational terms as follows: HlA) Controlling for the respondent ' s orientation toward women (C-T ratio score), differences in each of the mean clinical impression scores for each family member are expected with respect to case version (sex of the child and sex of the parent (5) profiled) and sex of the respondent. HlB) Controlling for the respondent ' s orientation toward women, differences in each of the technique items for each family member are emected with respect to case version 36 and sex of the respondent. HZA) For each family member, there is a significant relationship between the frequency a, problem area is identified as the most problematic area and case version (sex of the child and sex of the parent (5) profiled). I-IZB) For each problem area, there is a significant relationship between the ranking distribution of the problem area and case version. EBA) There is a significant relationship between the frequency a marital problem area is identified as the most problematic area and case version (sex of the child and sex of the parent (5) profiled). H33) There is a significant relationship between the ranking distribution of each marital problem area and case version. H4) Controlling for the respondent's orientation toward women (C-T ratio score), differences in each of the three items on the father-child relationship , the mother-child relationship, and the family's overall prognosis for family therapy are expected with respect to case version (sex of the child and sex of the-parent (s) profiled) and sex of the respondent. Chapter III Results While significant results are included in this section in the form of figure graphs and summary tables, swmary tables of all other non- significant results are included in Appendix C. A summary table presenting the means and standard deviations for each cell (2 x 4), the respective marginal means, and the error term can be foLmd in Appendix C for each item analyzed using a 23 between subjects analysis of co- variance (see Tables 1 - 24). In addition, summary tables for all nonsignificant chi-square (X2) analyses are also included in Appendix C (see Tables 25 - 39). To test Hypothesis 1A, a 23 between subjects analysis of co-variance was conducted on the mean clinical impression scores for the father, the mother, and the child. Figure 1 shows that the fathers' mean clinical impression scores are significantly different with respect to case version (F(l,82) = 10.08, p 4 .001; F(1,82) = 13.82, p 4 .0004; F(l,82) = 18.64, p e. .0001). A Scheffe’ post-hoe analysis of all possible camparisons between means reveals that the differences between case versions one and two and between case versions three and four are both nonsignificant (range = 4.03, p 4 .05). These results illustrate that active fathers elicited a more negative, Lmhealthy clinical impression than did passive fathers . Figure 2 illustrates that significant differences in mothers' mean clinical impression scores were found only for case versions one and three (F(1,82) = 13.56, p 4 .0005; F(1,82) = 7.94, p 4.006). A Scheffe’ 37 38 32:39 23:22. n a, co.-.o> 0.30 n N 83.38... 3.91.3.8 2...! _v 3?}...1 2.3.1.... 2...... .n 8.1.3.332 3...... .3... 2...... .« 8...!!! 8...... . .1... 8.3 .. .u-( 203-3> undo :v(u Z. Oglunu: «hump-509 «(5-4,... 0:— ‘ ‘ no.8.) 3-0 >3 cot-2...... 325.0 can! 2... a. “— .202 32230 3.0.3.3.. u .1 :.o.u.o> 3-0 _ e r n u p a." . . . . . . a." l J 1 c.» L .6 I a." .500“ l_ D." .500“ 5.325... .3335...- - .838 .838 ea. coo—2 . .6 z .. .6 23a . . :3...) .30 >3 .30» 9.2.32 coin-5:... 30.5.0 .305 9.22:“. p 052.... post-hoc analysis indicates there is a significant difference between the mean clinical impression scores for case versions one and three (range - 4.03, p 4 .05). The data show that the mother in case version three elicited a more negative, tmhealthy clinical impression than did the mother in case version one. In addition, Figure 3 illustrates significant interactions of case version and sex of respondent for case versions three and four (F(1,82) = 4.02, p 4 .04) on mothers' mean clinical impression scores. For case version three, male respondents perceived the mother to be more healthy than did female respondents while for case version four, female respondents perceived the mother to be more healthy than did male respondents . No significant differences in mean clinical impression scores with respect to case version and sex of respondent were fmmd for the child (see Appendix C, Table 3). Thus, in testing Hypothesis 1A, significant differences in mean clinical impression scores were fomd only for the father and the mother. Active fathers elicited a more negative, unhealthy clinical impression than did passive fathers . The mother in case version three elicited a more negative, unhealthy clinical impression than did the mother in case version one. In addition, male respondents perceived the mother in case version three to be more healthy than did female respondents while female respondents perceived the mother in case version four to be more healthy than did male respondents. In order to test Hypothesis 13, the same analysis of co-variance was used to analyze each of the technique items asked about the father, the mother, and the child. Five technique items were significant when asked about the father. Figure 4 shows the significant differences of Father Item #8 (self-reliant) with respect to all four case versions (F(1,82) = 30.14, p ‘.0001; F(1,82) = 12.63, p ‘.007; F(1,82) = 20.53, p 4.001). ’40 unacucoo 2.3.2.5.. :22; 3-0 25...... . :8. 3...; 86 3 .05... I .9 .0- . -.~ 3:: 23m 2.25.3... .3! v .052... 01.3.0: 8:3! 2...: oi 3.8.5 .v can u 8.201 333- s!!! 2....)- .n 310.36.533.13. 2...: .« 1.533.833. 2.23 .. . nae 803:) uncu :0: 8. 8—833. 35.8.5 3:.- u:- .20: Sou—a:- o.an.,.. I n .. 300...... 0.2.. I III 2.3.3.5.. :- 32.28.... u i :3...) .30 .4 v n N p a q q q no" 1 c.» x a .n 0.3m 23m c2329... 2.2.... on... I .0255 can: n_ can: .6 23% 5:39.35. 70......0 :32 9.2.32 :0 «0.3.5 .o no» a... co...o> .30 .o 3.328... \ . n 2.6.“. 41 A Scheffe’ post-hoe analysis indicates there are no significant differences between case versions one and two and between case versions three and four (range = 4.03, p 4 .05). These results show that respondents indicated that passive fathers should be encouraged to be more self- reliant while active fathers should not receive this type of encouragement. Figure 5 reveals that Father Item #9 (directive worker) is only significant for case version one (F(1,82) = 4.10, p 1- .05). Respondents indicated that the father in case version one should not have a directive worker. In addition, Figure 6 illustrates a significant interaction between case version three and sex of respondent on this particular technique item (F(1,82) = 5.37, p4.02). Male respondents indicated that the father in case version three should have a directive worker while female respondents indicated he should have a non- directive worker. Figure 7 shows that Father Item #10 (warmth and support) elicited significant interactions between sex of respondent and case versions two and four (F(1,82) = 6.19, p 4 .01). For case version two, male respondents tended to perceive the father as needing warmth and support more than did female respondents. In contrast, female respondents tended to perceive the father in case version four as needing warmth and support more than did male respondents . Figure 8 presents a significant contrast for case version three only in regard to Father Item #11 (family-oriented) (F(1,82) = 3.96, p l- .05). These results show that respondents felt the father in case version three should be encouraged to be family-orie1ted less so than the father in ‘ the other three case versions. Figure 9 presents a significant interaction between case version three and sex of respondent on Father Item #13 81-3938: 8.3.8.2233! .v 3.8.2.... 8:3.8..3!...£ 5 1.1.3.38! 232.111.! .n 3.18:...3!..1.o. 3.3 .. «2233- III . a: 20...... 33 .83 z. 3.23.! 3.3.23 229.3.- a... QO—a-Bl Ill .20: 38.....2. 9.- 8820281 .1 42 39.9.; 3-0 . 39.33 2.2.3.... u i A :3...) 00.0 2 . v n N p . J u q d ..H l a a m I .6 , 1 ... l a.» l .6 23m 1 .4 . . «33.2.3... 28... . I no can: 0:25.00... :33 L ... - L ... €3.33 2.2023. . . . .23.... .e. .3 23m 2...... _ .533 258...: .33.; 83 2. 3...... .50.. =38 .5 .333... .0 new .3. .3 23m 2.35.3» can! .5- sofico: 38 .0 5.8283. _ m 050: o 95...». 83oz: 03.3.84... 2:38 .v 03.1.01 2.33.8.2! 3.38 .n ingot-33.1.1333 .« 83.133.333.110‘253 .- ..-< 203-.) 35.. 2U 3-0 .9 3.328... h 0.52.. 44 (non-directive versus directive) (F(1,82) = 4.34, p 4- .04). For case version three, male respondents indicated they would be directive with the father while female respondents indicated they would be non-directive during therapy with the father. No significant differences with respect to case version and sex of respondent were found for Father Item #12 (emotionally expressive). An examination of Table 8 in Appendix C reveals that irrespective of case version and sex of respondent , respondents perceived the father as needing to be encouraged to be more emotionally expressive. Consequently, only five of the six technique items were significant when asked about the father. Respondents indicated that passive fathers should be encouraged to be more self-reliant while active fathers should not. The father in case version one 'is perceived as not needing a directive worker while respondents felt the father in case version three should be encouraged to be family-oriented less so than the father in the other three case versions. Male respondents indicated that the father in case version three should have a directive worker while female respondents indicated he should have a non-directive worker. For case version two, male respondents tended to perceive the father as needing warmth and support more than did female respondents. However , female respondents tended to perceive the father in case version four as needing warmth and support more than did male respondents . Further , male respondents indicated they would be directive with the father in case version three while for the same father, female respondents indicated they would be non- directive during treatment . Five technique items were significant when asked about the mother . Figure 10 presents all four case versions significant for the Mother Item #8 (self-reliant) (F(1,82) = 54.31, p4 .0001; F(1,82) = 10.76, p .c.001; F(1,82) . 37.75, p 4.0001). A Scheffe’post-hoc analysis shows that the differences between case versions one and two and between case versions three and four are both nonsignificant (range = 4.03, p 4 .05). These data show that respondents indicated that passive mothers should be encouraged to be more self-reliant while active mothers should not. Figure 11 reveals significant interactions between sex of respondent and case versions one, three, and four in regard to Mother Item #8 (self-reliant) (F(1,82) :1 6.78, p l- .01; F(l,82) a 5.30, p4 .02). Fanale respondents tended to perceive the mother in case versions one and three as needing to be encouraged to be more self-reliant more than did male respondents. However, for case version four, male respondents perceived the mother as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant more than did female respondents. These results (Figure 10 and Figure 11) show that Mother Itan #8 (self-reliant) elicited both a main effect with respect to case version and significant interaction effects with respect to sex of respondent and case versions one, three, and four. Figure 12 shows that Mother Item #9 (directive worker) elicited significant mean scores with respect to case versions two and four (F(1,82) - 12.34, p 4 .0008). A Scheffe’ post-hoc analysis reveals that the difference in mean scores between case versions two and four is significant (range - 4.03, p 4.05). These results show that respondents indicated the mother in case version two should have a non-directive worker while the mother in case version four should have a directive worker. Figure 13 illustrates that Mother Item #11 (family-oriented) was significant with re5pect to case version (F(1,82) =- 6.84, p .4. .01, F(1,82) - 23.80, 134.0001, F(1,82) . 12.21, 13.4.0008). A Scheffe’ 1&6 32...: 235.3... a .1 :22.) 3-0 d .23.... £20... 3.8.: 8-0 3 =20! ..~ .6 .3. .3 23m 2.3.38.— .3! Or 050...— 33133 5.3.1.! 8.31 .v 3.38: 3.3.3.: 2...). a 1139.3..283.!=1 3.3 5 08.381333. 1...... 3:8 .. . u.‘ 803-.) un‘U 29(u 8. 6:83.: unluuZOU 343- u:— .202 3.2.... a .31 no.2: . In $2.900 2.32:5? . .i C n N P 1 d T u a." 1 a.» 1 a.» Soon 1 .6 . 23m 2.9.5.0... 2.0.5.0: can... .30: 1 9.. 73323 .3 03.3.3 :32. .2...“— 3L .0: 030m 2.25.03. can! :0 3.3.6 .0 new a... eo_Eo> 3.0 .o ooze-.2... a .952...— . 1.1.8.3.... 2.2.1.2.... 2...... .. . 3.1.... 3.3-5.... 2...... a 81.....itzltfizii a 5.8.3.83... :1... .3... .. . 3. 20...... :3 x... z. Galena: ably—200 ‘34:. 0.: .2... 3.3.... 3.2.2... .0 .4 .._.E .II :22... 3.0 .32.... 3.2.2... . * 07 V a N .. ..n . . . < o.— . I ...~ 1 ad I .4 l c.» l a; 1 .6 2... Soow 1 9n 2...... 3.3.3... . so.» .3... L 3.2 L ... . ... .3333 32...... 2.1.8.7.. .230: .0..— .m. 0.00% 39...... 3.0 a. 3...... Gav—csooh can: :0 3.3.5 .0 .0. -.~ 0.00Q USU-ecclh BID: . film UC‘ :0.0u.> .000 so §~0flb¢~p€ up. .52.. . . _ pp .52“. 48 post-hoe analysis reveals that l) the difference in mean scores between case versions three and four is nonsignificant, 2) there is a significant difference in mean scores between case versions one and three , and that 3) the mean score for case version two is a homogeneous subset in and of itself. These data show that respondents indicated the mother in case versions three and four should be encouraged to be more family- oriented, and that while the mother in both case versions one and two should not be encouraged to be family-oriented, the mother in case version two should be encouraged less so than the anther in case version one. , Figure 14 reveals that for Mother Item #12 (eantionally expressive), case versions one and four elicited significant mean scores (F (1,82) =- 5.01, p 4 .03). However, while an overall main effect with respect to case version is indicated for case versions one and four, a Scheffe’ post-hoe analysis shows that the difference in mean scores between case versions one and four is nonsignificant (range = 4.03, p 4.05). Figure 15 illustrates that Mother Item #13 (non-directive versus directive) elicited significant mean scores with respect to case versions two and four (F(1,82) . 7.47, p 4.007). Further, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis indicates that there is a significant difference in mean scores between case versions two and four. These results indicate that respondents would be non-directive during therapy with the mother in case version two while they would be directive during therapy with the mother in case version four. No significant differences with respect to case version and sex of respondent were found for Mother Item #10 (warmth and support). Table 12 in Appendix C shows that respondents perceived the anther as needing a considerable amount of warmth and support during treatment irrespective 49 32...... ~2...... 3.... 1...... 2...... .. 39.3.... 3.3.8.... 2...... .. 8198.13.33.31... 3.... a 1.8481313..8....22.< .. . u... 2...... :4. x... :. Salaam: 2x380 3.29-(3- .8- .202 3...... .a......... u k. .o....> 3.0 .35.... 2.3.2.2. . .i 5......) on... . a u . .. . n a . 1 q q . fl.— . . a . a.“ I 9.. 1 ..~ I a.» .. ..~ 9...... 9...... 33......— . J 3 .3353: can! .32 ._ ... L ... .. 7......auu. 3.2.2.233 3...... 3.9 :— 3...... \ .3. A": 2..» 2.3.5: 3...! 3 .52... 2.3.3.5 . 3.3.... 3.2.} 3... 3 3...... .o. a: 2..» 3.2.3.... .3! a. .5... 50 of case version and sex of respondent. This leaves only five technique items significant when asked about the mother. Respondents indicated that.passive mothers should be encouraged-to be more self-reliant while active mothers should.not. The mother in.case version two is perceived to need a.nonrdirective worker while the mother in case version four is perceived to need a directive worker. The mother in.case versions three and feur should be encouraged to be more family-oriented. While the mother in both case versions one and two is viewed as not needing to be encouraged to be more family-oriented, this is the case more so for the mother in case version two. Respondents also indicated they would be nonrdirective during therapy with.the mother in.case version.two while they would be directive during therapy with the mother in case version feur. Female reSpondents tended to perceive the mother in case versions one and three as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant more than did male respondents. However, male respondents perceived the mother in case version four as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant.more than did female respondents. .All six technique items generated significant results when asked about the Child. Figure 16 shows that the Child Item #8 (self-reliant) is significant with respect to sex of respondent (F(1,82) = 9.70, p 4.003). Phrther, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis indicates that the difference in.mean scores on this item. between male and female respondents is significant (range = 2.81, p.£-.OS). These results indicate that female respondents saw the Child as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant more than did.ma1e respondents. Figure 17 presents case version three eliciting a significant mean score for Child Item #9 (directive worker) (F(1,82) = 16.80, p K—.0001). The Child (son) in case version three is perceived to need a.non-directive OP 053°.l 'hac‘h‘ 51 Iguana-.38! 3:311... 3...! 8......8: 8.37.3... 25...... 819.85%... 838.313.... 1.181 .9.3... 13.: 2...! .u.‘ ZOfiuu> un‘U 8U¢u 8. Contact 3x330 d§(a= u...— .203 .auzcoo 2.52:5... ui 0.2.5“. 2:: q . . 3 1 ..~ 1 3 23m 2.35.08. :3: L ... 75...: . :5. .833 .o 5m .5 2.5 .3 .0. Boom 30.5.03. :32 or 0.52“. . 32:30 2.33.5.“ ... i :23»: 83 N a . m J . z 1 Z 1 3 23m 2.2.29: :8: L... #02323. x 3:923:55 . 2:2; 35 3 :50! .3. 3: 33m 2.22.03. :38 mp 9.30.“. 52 worker more than the child in the other three case versions. Figure 18 illustrates that for Child Item #10 (warmth and support), there are significant differences with respect to sex of respondent (F(1,82) =- 4.41, p 4 .04). However, while an overall main effect with respect to sex of respondent is indicated, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis reveals that the difference in mean score between male and female respondents is nonsignificant (range =- 2.81, p 4.05). Figure 19 presents Child Item #11 (family-oriented) significant with reSpect to case version three (F(1,82) = 4.43, p £ .04). These results indicate that the child (son) in case version three should not be encouraged to be family-oriented, significantly more so than the child in the other three case versions. Figure 20 shows that case versions one, two, and four are significant on the Child Item #12 (emotionally expressive) (F(1,82) - 5.17, p 4.03). However, while an overall main effect is presented with respect to case versions one, two, and four, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis reveals that the mean scores for all four case versions are considered in the same hanogeneous subset and that there are no significant differences in any pair of mean scores (range - 4.03, p 4.05). Figure 21 reveals that the Child Item #13 (non- directive versus directive) was significant only with respect to case version three (F(1,82) - 5.27, p 4 .02). These data show that reSpondents indicated they would be non-directive during treatment with the child (son) in case version three, more so than with the child in the other three case versions. While overall main effects were found for Child Item #10 (warmth and support) and Child Item #12 (emotionally expressive), post-hoc analyses revealed that the differences in the mean scores in question .2223 232:3; .K. 3.2.3... no?! - q 53 $33.6 a... 5.5.3. .835 .o :m 3 2.5 81...... 8...: 8.3 .. .1... 2...... .v .3 - 8...... 8.3 . 8...... 8...... a 83...... .33.. 8...... . .3... 8:... a .3 . 3...... 8...! . .3... 8.3 .. . a... 20...... :3 .83 a. 8—23.! 3.2.20... 3.9.3.- .2. .208 £853.. 3......3 u #3. €2.33 2.8.3.»? . a. 5.9.0.. 83 v n a . . . 4 . :iz. q r... L .6 23m _ 1 a. 9.25 2.25.3... . . _ . 2.35.8» can! :38 . L 3 .333! 2.33.3. . 3...... :6 r. 2.3 .2 .0: 23m 2.25.0... can: .3 .3 23... 2.3.2.3... one! up .52.. 2 2.3... .53....2. 33.28 34... .33.... 2.8.2.3. . i 30...... 8.8 v n N — d I d d n.— 4... Ao>...o.....u 2.2.2.083 8...... :8 z 2.... .8 as 9...»... 2.9.5.3» one: ON 0:5... 81...... 8...... 8:3 . .1... 8...... .v .8. . 8...... 8.3. . 8a... 8...... .n 81...... 5...... 81... . .3... 8.... a 8.81.... 831.31....3 .. . .9. 10...... ..0 beaten .0 02¢ pee—acct 3-02 12:33.— .» e3.o.—.. S8 "passivity" which is identified as the major problematic area. However, "limited object relations" is identified as the major problematic area for the mother in case versions three and four. No significant distribution between perceived major problem area and case version was found for the child (see Table 25 in Appendix C). Therefore, significant results with respect to Hypothesis 2A were found only for the father and the mother. For active fathers , "limited object relations" and "inmatm'e sexual identity" were perceived as major foci of treatment while "passivity" was perceived as the major focus of treatment for passive fathers. "Limited object relations" was identified as the central focus of treatment for active nothers while for passive mothers, "passivity" was identified as the central focus of treatment. To test Hypothesis 2B, chi-square (X2) tests for independence were conducted between the ranking distribution of a problem area and case version. This was computed. for the father, the mother, and the child on each of the five identified problem areas. For the father, three problan areas were found to have significant ranking distributions with respect to case version. Table 7 illustrates the significant ranking distribution of the problem "inmature sexual identity" (X2 =- 23,03, p .4. .005). Table 8 shows the significant ranking distribution of the problem "limited object relations" or2 - 34.07, p @0007) and Table 9 presents the significant ranking distribution of the problem area "passivity" (x2 - 74.91, p 4.00). No significant ranking distributions were found for the problem areas "environmental and social problems" and "underdeveloped ego skills" (see Tables 26 and 27 in Appendix C). Four problem areas were found to have significant ranking distributions by case version for the mother. Table 10 reveals the ranking distribution 59 2.8.32. u .4 38.0 v a .1 819...... 8...... 8:2 £1... 8...! 3 .3 .. 8...... 3:1. .3... 3...... .n 8.1.8.3.... 538.138.... 5 2 u .2. 3.... n «X 3 u z m m s a a e e a o e p n o a e a a a p a u a a. u n v n N u :2e.e> cotton 9.3.3: . eeeo 75.5... .830 3:5... c223 once an «a. E299... 3...... 5 5:55.33 95...... 0 e30... 3.13:3...3123 .. 2.855.. n i . .3. 20...... :3 .8... a. 3.23.! 33.23 3.9:...- ...— n00.0 V a i. .202 «w u dd 3.3 n «X 3 u z e n a u a e s o o o p n 0 0 v N 0 N o a o e s n m ' ” N m." :2...) coztos act-co: . 03-0. 25...... .2383 .333) once an «3 £222.. .2.... .o 5:552... asst... h 030... 60 8.1.8. 8...... 2...... .84... 2...... .8. . 8...! 2...... . 84... 2...... 8.1.8 .83.... 2...... . 8...... 2...... .3 .89.: 2...... . 8.... 2...! .ml( 803-.) uu 5.2.8 9.3:: . e30 _ 53.30. .Iaxem _ :o.e.e> eneo an A 3 3332.. .0503 .0 :o_.=a_=o.0 0:25.: o. .3... 2.853.. n .1 . 886 v a .1 a. u... 3.: ”Ln 3 n z n a o m o v p p . m 3 n o... a . o o . a t e o p o p m e a a p 3...... 33.2. acmaccu :00 A3333... :28; eoeo 5 Av. Sofie... 3...... 5 5.3.53 .835... 0 £an 61 by case version of the problem area "immature sexual identity" (X2 = 26.06, p 4 .01) and Table 11 presents the ranking distribution of the problem area "limited object relations" (X2 = 50.63, p 4.00). Table 12 shows the ranking distribution by case version of the problem area "environmental and social problems" (x2 = 21.16, p -05) while Table 13 reports the ranking distribution by case version of the problem area "passivity" (X2 = 90.57, pl. .00). Accordingly, no significant ranking distributions were found for any of the five identified problem areas for the child (see Tables 29 - 33 in Appendix C). These ranking distributions were examined in order to identify problem areas which were significantly perceived as not being a problematic area so that results generated in Hypothesis 2A could be augmented. The only additional information found for the father is that "passivity" was significantly perceived as 93 being a problem for active fathers. While no significant ranking distribution was found for the problem area "underdeveloped ego skills" for the mother (see Table 28 in Appendix C), both "passivity" and "enviromnental and social problems" were significantly perceived as 1_1_o_t_ being a problematic area for active mothers. In addition, "inmature sexual identity" was significantly perceived as 1.19.1.3. being a problem for the mother in case version two (see Table 10). Hypothesis 3A required a chi-square (X2) test for independence in order to examine the distribution between perceived major marital problem area by case version and Hypothesis SB required the same test for independence in examining the ranking distribution of each identified marital problem area. None of the tests for independence conducted on the perceived major marital problem areas by case version and on the ............_.u. .1 812...... .138 3:3 . .3... 2...... .v I. - 8...... 2a... .. .3... 2...... 5 £123.13. 2...... . .3... 2...... a 1.333.331.5093: .— . ua< 803.0) :16 Sv 60.33.— 654.58 . OQIO 20.3.0. . 3:25.233. 5...... ....o E .3 {.32. 35.: 5 823.53 2.3:... Np finch .gau...=u.nn 3.. 6666.6 V 6 .4. .2... up "a... and... n «X «a u z p p p v 3 ¢ . o o o 2 n m a o c . o ~ a o o w u. u m e n a u eo...o> 5...... 9.3.5: 3.0 .223... .330. :22; .30 an an. 6.30... 35.: .0 cases...— 95...... 3 .33 63 Table 13 Banking Distributlon Of Mothet Problem (4) By Case Version I Passlvlty l COO. ' Ranking Position Vonlon 1 2 3 . 4 5 1 12 ' 12 o o o z 12 a . 4 1 o 3 o o 1 3 19 4 1 o 2 0 18 N = 91 4 I x 3 90.57 NO"! . m. uumowu coumm "mm 63.: 12 In new can "was an. 1: WW-Mnm-h * p < 0.0000 . 11 mwomm-W . . . 3: mains-um. ma... * = significant 5 .a man w.m «aha-W 64- ranking distribution of each identified marital problem area were significant (see Tables 34 - 39 in Appendix C). To test Hypothesis 4, the same analysis of co-variance used to test Hypotheses 1A and 1B was conducted for each of the three items on the father-child relationship , the mother-child relationship , and overall prognosis for family therapy. No significant differences in mean clinical impression scores with respect to case version and sex of respondent were found for the father-child relationship (see Table 22 in Appendix .C). Figure 22 illustrates significant differences in mean clinical impression scores of the mother-child relationship with respect to case versions one and three (F(1,82) = 20.79, p4 .0001; F(1,82) = 7.59, p 4.007). Further, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis reveals that the difference in mean clinical impression scores between case versions one and.three is significant (range = 4.03, p 4 .05). These results indicate that the mother-child relationship in case version three elicited a more problematic clinical impression than did the mother-child relationship in case version one. In addition, Figure 23 illustrates a significant interaction between sex of respondent and case version one in regard to subjects' assessment of the mother-child relationship (F(1,82) - 3.73, p 4 .05). These results indicate that female respondents perceived the mother-child relationship in case version one as being problematic more than did male respondents. Figure 24 shows that the family prognosis item was significant with respect to sex of respondent (F(1,82) = 4.76, p 4:. .03). However, while an overall main effect with respect to sex of respondent is indicated, a Scheffe’post-hoc analysis reveals the difference in the mean impression scores of male and female respondents to be nonsignificant (range = 2.81, p 4.05). Consequently, only the results with respect to 65 33.....2. 32.2.3 "did. 30.3... 0.2.... n 11.. 30......- o..... u ll 2.3.2.3.. a: 39:03:... u i. no.3.) 0:6 . l 81.306. I; 2....1 u 8a... 2.3 .v in o 1.01 3:31 .1! 2...... .n .01: u 1.0! 028'; . 1... 58¢ .« suiggeugs 2...: .- . u.( 803..) untu 86¢. Z. Ou—Zunu: 333209 ag—(zc .8- .302 .52....2» 32.2.3 {van 38:30 23:23.» a .1 v n N p . . . . .4 a.» ... I a... a; l .6 030% 9.0.5 . 5.329... c. €230.95 :00: .0255 :35. L a... 2.23:2... 2.5 I 3...... o... .o acoEu-ooo< 9.00.5.5 :6 8.3.6 .o no» a... :2...) 3.0 .o cozy-.3... an 9:5..— co.u.o> 02.0 .6 2.22.2... .220. 3...... 2.... .6 23¢ c2803.... an... «N 92.9... 66 Figure 24 Mean Impression Score for Family Pragnosis by Sex of Subject 3.5 P Mean lmpnssion Scan 3.! - 2.5 — 2 ‘a l l Male Female *3 significant contrast Nob: ' m «um coutcxts murmur In use» cus- vusiou an x n m w - lush. Muha- Son 3. mm m - w m- m I: M Mint .um. m - Son 4: and» mu... am no»... .oougu. 67 the mother-child relationship will be considered significant. That is, the mother-child relationship in case version three elicited a more problematic clinical impression than did the mother-child relationship in case version one. Further, female respondents perceived the mother-child relationship in case version one as being problematic more than did male respondents. The covariate was found to be significant on three items: child technique item #9 (directive worker), child technique item #12 (anotionally expressive), and subj ects' assessment of the mother-child relationship. Recall that the covariate used was a contemporary- traditional ratio score reflecting the respondent ' s orientation toward wauen. A ratio score less than one reflected a more contemporary orientation toward women while a ratio score greater than one reflected a more traditional orientation toward women. Hence , a significant covariate would indicate that a subject with a contemporary orientation tended towards one response pattern while a subject with a traditional orientation toward women tended towards the opposite response pattern. A significant covariate on the child technique item #9 (F(1,82) = 16.80, p 4 .0001) indicates that respondents with a contemporary orientation toward women were more apt to chose a directive worker for the child while reSpondents with a traditional orientation toward women were more apt to choose a non-directive worker for the child. In regard to child technique item #12 (F(1,82) = 5.17, p433), a significant covariate is interpreted to mean that respondents with a contemporary orientation toward women tended to perceive the child as needing to be encouraged to be more euntionally expressive while respondents with a traditional orientation toward women tended to perceive the child as 68 not needing this type of encouragement. A significant covariate on the item eliciting an impression of the mother-child relationship (F(1,82) = 4.61, p 4 .03) indicates that respondents with a contemporary orientation toward women tended to perceive the mother-child relationship as being less problematic while those respondents with a traditional orientation toward women were more apt to perceive the mother-Child relationship as being problematic. With the exception of the above three items, none of the other items were found to be significant with respect to the covariate. Chapter IV Discussion — Since one of the major issues investigated in the present study involves whether or not relational context influences the assessment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships, a recapitulation. of'the relational contexts used is in order. Each relational context presents an.active parent profile, a passive parent profile, and an active Child.profi1e. The active parent profile and the active Child.profile were initially designed around stereotypically male traits in.crder to reflect the appropriate identification bond between a father and.a son. The passive parent profile was initially designed around stereotypically female traits in.crder to reflect the traditional role of the mother. These profiles comprised the traditional relational context of an active father, a.passive mother, and a son. By duplicating the relational context, changing only the sex of the child, a second traditional relational context comprised of an active father, a passive mother, and a daughter ensued. The two counterpart relational contexts followed by duplicating these two versions, reversing only the sex of the parent profiles and yielding the fbllowing two additional relational contexts: one comprised of a.passive father, an.active mother, and a son, and one comprised of a passive father, an active ‘mother, and a daughter. These then were the fourrelational contexts within WhiCh family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationShips were assessed. 69 70 As mentioned above , each relational context presented an active parent profile and a passive parent profile. The subjects were able to differentiate between the active and passive parent profiles regardless of the sex of the parent or the sex of the child. The active parent was viewed significantly as not needing to be encouraged to be more self-relimt and "limited object relations" was chosen as the central focus of treatment. Further, for an active parent, "passivity" was significantly viewed as _I}_o_t_ being a problan. In contrast , the passive parent was perceived as needing to be encouraged to be more self-reliant, with "passivity" designated as the central focus of treatment. On these dependent variables , the active-passive parent profiles were differentiated regardless of the sex of the parent and the sex of the child. However, the active-passive parent profiles were further delineated depemling only on the sex of the parent. When the parent was a father, active fathers elicited a more negative , unhealthy clinical impress ion than did passive fathers. In addition, "inmature sexual identity" was identified as a major problem area for active fathers only. Since the active parent profile was initially designed to illustrate active parental involvement in the parent-child relationship, these results suggest that active fathers are perceived as being more unhealthy than are passive fathers, and that the sexual identity of the active father is seriously questioned. The active-passive parent profiles were also further differentiated when the parent was a mother. Active mothers were perceived as needing to be encouraged to be more family-oriented while passive mothers were not. Further, "environmental and social problems" was significantly viewed as not being a problem for active mothers (regardless of the sex of the child) . These results are interesting given that the mother in all four relational contexts was presented as being employed outside of the family unit. When considering that "environmental and social problems" did not generate any significant differences for the father, these results seem to suggest that exwirormtental and social problems are not considered germane to the emotional problems of the active mother (regardless of the sex of the child). 1 While the above specific differences in regard to relational context were found to be delineated with respect to the active-passive parent profiles , other specific results illustrating the influence of relational context on the assessment of family members and their correspmding intrafamilial relationships were found. For ease of presentation and discussion, the significant results with respect to relational context will be presented for each family member. Relational context alone seemed to influence the assessment of the father on only two dependent variables and only when the child was a son. The active father with a son (-passive mother) was significantly perceived as needing a non- directive worker . Quite frequently an appropriate way to deal with an angry, pushy, concerned father is to gently reflect the underlying feelings he is expressing in order to allow him to ventilate and to feel he is being heard and listened to. However, this does not account for why the active father with a son would be considered as needing a non-directive worker and not an active father with a daughter . In a similar fashion, the passive father with a son (-active mother) was perceived significantly as not needing to be encouraged 72 to be nere family-oriented while such was not the case for the passive father with a daughter. One explanation for this specific finding could involve the father providing an appropriate gender role model (i.e. outer-directed) for the son. Such a viewpoint would require the passive father with a son to be more outer-directed in order that the son may learn the appropriate role behavior when he himself becanes a father. This presunably would not be as important when the child was a daughter. In contrast with the father, several dependent variables were found to be influenced by the relational context in the assessment of the nether. Further, in terms of clinical impress ions of the nether , the son was rather influential while the daughter seemed to influence technique decisions when asked about the mother. The active nether with a son (-passive father) elicited a more negative, unhealthy clinical impression than did the passive mother with a son (-active father). In addition, the active nether-son relationship was perceived as being significantly more problematic than was the passive mother-son relationship. These results seem to suggest both the extent the son influences the assessment of the nether and the clinical attention awarded to the male child. Clinical attention to both the son and the daughter were suggested in the formulation of the clinical impressions of the father while for the nether, clinical impress ions seantobeinfluencedbythesonmly. 01 the other hand , the only technique items for the nether that were significant with respect to relational context involved the daughter. For the active nether with a daughter (-passive father), subjects indicated that the nether would need a directive worker and 73 that they thanselves would be directive with this mother during treatment. In contrast, subjects indicated they would be non-directive with a passive nether with a daughter (-a<':tive father) and also indicated that this mother would need a non-directive worker. These results are sanewhat puzzling given the significant influence the son seems to play in the foundation of clinical impressions of the nether. Even more striking is a comparison of these results with the non- directive worker chosen for the active father with a son (-passive nether). The pattern seems reversed, with the active nether with a daughter perceived as needing a directive , rather than a non-directive , worker and the passive mother with a daughter designated as needing a non-directive worker. One additional finding seems to single out the passive nether with ' a daughter (~active father). For the nether in this relational context , "imatm‘e sexual identity" was significantly perceived as not being a problan. Since the child in this relational context was a daughter, this may suggest that the passive nether was perceived as providing an appropriate sexual identity nedel for the daughter. Since sexual identity is generally considered to deve10p from identification with the same-sex parent, this significant result may also conlnent indirectly on what is considered an appropriate sexual identity model for a daughter. In regard to the child, the relational context seemed only to influence technique decisions about the son with an active nether and a passive father. 'Ihe son in this relational context was significantly perceived as needing a non-directive worker, and subjects indicated they themselves would be non-directive with this son during treatment. In addition, the son was significantly perceived as not needing to be 74 encouraged to be more family-oriented. These data seem to reflect sane concern over the active mother-son relationship and the clinical attention awarded to the son. This seems, to follow suit with the active nether-son relationship perceived as being more problematic and the active nether (with a son) eliciting a more negative , unhealthy clinical impression. V The above significant results strongly suggest that relational context does influence the assessment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . Further, the results also reveal the clinical attention frequently warded to the son, both in terms of technique decisions in regard to individual family members and in the assessment of the mother and the mother-child relationship. These specific results were identified despite the subjects' ability to differentiate, on some dependent variables , between the active and passive parent profiles. In addition to examining the influences of relational context on the assessment of family menbers and their family relationships, the other main effect tested was sex of respondent. (hit of all of the data generated, only one item was significant with respect to sex of the respondent. Female subjects perceived the child as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant nere than did male subjects. This was the case irrespective of the relational context within which the child was assessed. This finding suggests that female clinicians perceive a school-age child as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant while male clinicians perceive the child as needing this type of encouragement to a lesser degree. Perhaps this differential in degree lies in the issue over whether or not a child is ready to be self-reliant. Female 75 subjects seem to think so while male subjects my not view the child as being ready or needing to be self-reliant. While the above result was the only significant item found with respect to sex of the respondent, a mnnber of significant interactions between relational context and sex of respondent were found. These results seem to suggest that, within a particular relational context, male and female clinicians perceive the family member and the nether- child relationship in sane-what different ways . For the passive father with a son (-active nether), males perceived the father as needing a directive worker and indicated they themselves would be directive with this father during treatment. In contrast, female subjects perceived the father as needing a non-directive worker and they indicated they themselves would be non-directive with the father during treatment. It is not clear to what extent the son and/or the active mother is influencing these outcomes , or to what extent a passive father in this relational context elicits these differential responses in nale and fanale subjects. Additionally, male subjects perceived the active father with a daughter (-passive nether) as needing warmth and support nere than did female subjects while the reverse was so for the passive father with a daughter (-active nether). Females felt the passive father with a daughter needed warmth and support nere than did male subjects. These results suggest male clinicians would give the active father with a daughter considerably nere warmth and support while female clinicians would give the passive father with a daughter considerably nere warmth and support during treatment. Again, it is not clear which aspect of the relational context (or , for that nutter , the relational context 76 itself) seems to be influencing these generated results. However, it is clear that subjects were considering the father with a daughter. Other significant interactions between relational context and sex of the respondent were found to be influential in the assessment of the mother and the mother-child relationship. Males perceived the active nether with a son (-passive father) as being more healthy than did female subjects. However, female subjects perceived the active nether with a daughter as being more healthy than did males . These results seem to suggest that the sex of the child and sex of the clinician together influence the assessment of the active nether, with possible same-sex identification between the child and the clinician being a possible influencing factor. The same-sex factor may also explain why males perceived the passive nether-son relationship as being less problematic than did female subjects. Male respondents could be identifying with both the son and the active father , thereby reducing possible perceived negative effects steaming frmn the passive nether-son relationship. The active father as an appropriate nedel for the son could also be perceived as being enough of a model to offset the passive nether-child relationship when the child is a son, a situation males could possibly identify with more so than females. Interestingly enough, female respondents perceived the passive mother with a son (-active father) in}; the active nether with a .son (-passive father) as needing to be encouraged to be self-reliant more than did males . This reflects the attention awarded by females to the mother (with a son) in terms of needing to be self-reliant. However, when it is an active nether with a daughter (-passive father), males 77 perceive the mother as needing to be self-reliant nere than female respondents . This reversal could be due either to the fact that the child is a daughter or due to the passive father in the relational . context. Since the same result was not found for the passive nether with a daughter (-active father), it may very well be the passive father in the relational context that is the influential factor. Admittedly, the ratio of male to female subjects participating in the present study is rather low. However, the above results strongly suggest that in regard to particular relational contexts , male and female clinicians perceive the situation somewhat differently. These differences in perception seem to be elicited more so by the passive father-active nether-child relational contexts, with these elicited differences influencing the assessment of the father and of the nether. Sex differences in clinicians ' assessment of parents and the nether-child relationship in particular relational contexts should be further explored with larger samples of male and fanale subjects. ' While all of the above results comprise the significant results generated, a number of nonsignificant results were found. Since there are a nunber of specific dependent variables which were nonsignificant, they are presented for each family member and the corresponding intrafamilial relationship. There were no significant differences on the "emotionally express ive" technique item for the father with respect to relational context and sex of the respondent. The generated mean scores indicate that respondents perceived the father as needing to be encouraged to be nere emotionally expressive , irrespective of the relational context and sex of the respondent . These results suggest that fathers , in general, are perceived to need help in eaqaressing enetions. This would be considered to be the case if the father were always the instrumental, outer-directed specialist depicted in the traditional model of the nuclear family. These results suggest that the fathers in the four relational contexts were perceived in this fashion in regard to needing to be more enetionally expressive. With respect to the problan areas "environmental and social problems" and "underdeveloped ego skills", neither was significant when asked about the father. Mile "Imderdeveloped ego skills" was also not significant for the mother, it is interesting that "enviromnental and social problems" was not found to be a significant problem area for the father. One could argue that a very limited amount of information was presented in the case analogues with which subjects could assess this problem area. Such a rationale would suffice for the nonsignificant finding for the father, but would then highlight the significant finding of this problem area for the active nether. No significant differences with respect to relational context and sex of respondent were found in the assessment of the father-child relationship. One could propose that the item eliciting an impression of the father-child relationship was itself deficient. However, were this the case, then no significant differences should have been found for impressions of the mother-child relationship since the same item was used. Rather, it would seem that these results suggest the tendency to ignore the father-child relationship in the assessment of a family. This would particularly be the case if the mother and the nether-child relatimship were awarded clinical attention as a major source of internal family problans . As mentioned previously, no significant results were found in regard 79 to the problem area "Lmderdeveloped ego skills" when asked about the mother. A similar finding of nonsignificance of this problem area was found when asked about the father. Both nonsignificant results are interpreted to mean that other designated problem areas were significantly perceived as major problan areas for the nether and the father as apposed to identifying "underdeveloped ego skills". Consequently, no significant distributions between this problem area and relational context were found for either parent. In contrast, the nonsignificant result on the warmth and support technique itan for the mother suggests that mothers in general are perceived to need a considerable amount of warmth and support during treatment, irrespective of relational context and sex of respondent. This perception would hold true given the expressive specialist the mother is portrayed as in the traditional model of the nuclear family unit. In addition, these data also cannent m1 how nethers should be handled during treatment . While nest indivichlals would welcome warmth and support during treatment , it is particularly noteworthy that mothers , and not fathers , were perceived as needing a conciderable anemt of warmth amd support during treatment. Neither the clinical inpression scores nor the raking of problem areas were significant when asked about the child. (he could argue that these data reflect a tendency to ignore the child in family assessment . Such an argtnnent is not tenable , particularly given the influences of the sex of the child in assessment of the parents and the nether-child relationship. A more tenable argunent would focus on the methodological structure of the items eliciting a clinical impression and on the problem areas designated for ranking. Both sets of items were previously designed for the assessment of individual adults , and may very well be inappropriate 80' in identifying specific differences with respect to the relational context and sex of the respondent in regard to the child. A similar argnnent may be posited for the nonsignificant results generated in the ranking of marital problem areas. It could very well be that analysis of a marital relationship is not amenable to the ranking of the specific marital problem areas identified. Further, a review of the case analogues used reveals that very little information about the marital relationship was included which subjects could use in assessing the marital problem areas identified. Perhaps a more funtional way of recording subjects' impressions of the marital relationship would have been to use a similar item as was used for the parent-child relationships , rather than a nere detailed ranking of designated marital problem areas. A lack of significant results was also found on the overall family prognosis item with respect to relational context . This finding is interpreted to mean that regardless of the relational context presented in the case analogue, all four versions generally elicited favorable prognoses for family therm. These data suggest that the relational context does not influence a family's overall prognosis for family treatment. It is important to recognize that this finding is with respect to the g_v_e_n_-_a_]_._l; prognosis for family treatment, and does not necessarily reflect a lack of specific significant results with respect to relational context, as previously reported significant results indicate . While several dependent variables were initially significant with respect to an overall main effect, post-hoc analyses reveal the differences to be nonsignificant. These results can not legitimately be considered significant. However, neither can they legitimately be classified as 81 nonsignificant results . Rather, these results should be identified as areas in need of further exploration in order to more precisely determine the influential factors in operation. It would be best not to conment on the following items at this initial stage of investigation: emotionally expressive technique item for the mother (relational context), warmth and support technique for the child (sex of respondent), enetionally expressive technique item for the child (relational context), and overall prognosis for the family treatment (sex of respondent). Finally, the covariate was fonnnd to be significant on two child technique items and on subjects' assessment of the nether-child relationship. These findings are in accord with the results presented by Bram and Hellinger (1975). In regard to the child technique itenns, the results suggest that those respondents with a contemporary orientation toward women were nere ant to choose a directive worker for the child andtendedtoperceivethechildasneedingtobeencouragedtobenere anotionally expressive . 0n the other hand, those reSpondents with a traditional oriantation toward women were more apt to choose a nondirective worker for the child andth to perceive the child as not needing to be encouraged to be more anotionally expressive. These items seen to reflect a difference in child rearing modes depending on the individual '5 orientation toward wanen. However, it is the significant covariate with respect to subjects' assessment of the mother-child relationship that is the nest crucial finding of the three. The results strangly suggest that respondents with a contenporary orientation toward women tended to perceive the nether-child relationship as being problematic. This finding is crucial in that significant results were generated in subjects' assessment of 82 the mother-child relationship while the father-child relationship tended to be ignored. If clinical attentionn is awarded to the mother- child relationship (as seems to usually be the case), then a clinician's cultural orientation toward wunen would seen to be an influential factor in the assessment of the family relationships involved. This finding is important in family assessment for implications other than just the assessment {of the nether-child relationship. Since it was previously delineated in the literature review how gender-typed roles in the family unit are defined _i_n_ relation 33 one another, a stereotyping of the nether -child relationship along traditional lines would suggest a possible stereotyping of all the gender-typed roles and gender-typed fanily relationships in the family unit. Such a perspective would not accanedate fathers being actively involved in the parent-child relationships , and would lead to clinically favor behavior and family relationships which adhere to the gender-typed roles and gander-typed family relationships as defined in the traditional nedel of the nuclear fanily nnnit. M Preliminary results in the investigation of gg_nd_e_n_'_ gels bias in family assessment strongly suggest that relational contact does influence the assessment of family menbers and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships. While subjects were able to differentiate between an active and passive parent profile, the active-passive parent profiles were further delineated depending only on the sex of the parent. Specific results illustrating the influence of relational context on clinical inpressions and technique choices were also found for fanily nenbers and the mother-child relationship. While only one technique iten for 83 the child was found to be significant with respect to sex of the respondent, numerous interaction effects between relational context and sex of respondent were fonnnd to be significant in subjects' assessment of the parents and the nether-child relationship. In addition, the covariate was found to be significant with respect to two child technique items and subjects' assessment of the nether- child relationship. Significant results generated reflect the clinical attention awmd to the son in technique choices made for all three family .menbers (father, mother, child), and in subjects' assessment of the nether and the nether-child relationship. In fact, the noticeable lack of clinical attention given to the daughter may indeed reflect the differential value placed on a male child as opposed to a fenale child. These results seen to suggest that a male child is paid more clinical attention than is given a female child, with clinical impressions of the nether and the nether-child relationship being influenced by the son. Further investigation of this differential degree in clinical attention awarded to sons as opposed to daughters is warranted. There is also some indication that family menbers and family relationships which conform to the traditional model of the nuclear family nnnit elicit more favorable clinical judgnents. This was particularly the case for the nether-child relationship, the assessment of which was fonnnd to be significantly related to the subject's orientation toward wanen. In addition, the results also suggest a tendency to ignore the father-child relationship , with active fathers eliciting a more negative , unhealthy clinical impress ion than did passive fathers. 84 Since available data on instruments used in the present study were generated in the assessment of individual clients , it would prove meaningless to canpare the present results with previously generated results . 0n the other hand , the results of the present study would be nere beneficial in delineating future areas of investigation. As previously noted, further investigation of the difference in clinical attention awarded to the male child as opposed to the female child seems desirable. Additionally, further in- vestigation of the nether-daughter relationship would be justified given the identified influence of the son in the assessment of the mother and of the nether-child relationship. Fathers who are active in their parent-child relationships would also prove to be a fruitful research endeavor, particularly since the present results suggest the tendency to ignore the father-child relationship. With an increasing nunber of fathers becoming involved in the birth of their children (e.g. the Lamaze method of childbirth), it would be possible to explore both the sexual identity and overall mental health of active fathers who have opted for an active parental role in the rearing of their children. Undoubtedly the number of fathers who play an active role in the parent-child relationship will increase in the next couple of years and research in this area is necessary to insure that clinicians conducting family assessments do not continue to exclude the father-child relationship in the assessment of family relationships. Since no significant results were generated in clinical impress ions and ranking of problem areas for the child, it would seen useful to deve10p a scale whereby the influence of the relational context on 85 clinical impressions of the child could be further delineated. This is particularly important given the fact that family therapy usually involves children and given the differential clinical attention awarded to sons as opposed to daughters. Exploration of the influence of relational context on assessment of the child could also reveal how a clinician's assessment reinforces both parental expectations of appropriate gender role behavior for children and actual gender role behavior of the child in question. Stereotyping of the marital relationship is also a crucial area warranting further investigation. If a clinician's orientation toward wanen is significant with respect to the assessment of the mother-child relationship, then a clinician with a traditional orientation toward women may also be stereotyping the marital relationship involved. While this conclusion is made on a conceptual level of abstraction, it can easily be determined through exploration of a clinician's clinical impression of various marital relationships in differing relational contexts . Finally, further investigation of the differences in clinical impressions and judgments of male and female clinicians need to be investigated with respect to particular relational contexts. The present study strongly suggests that these types of differences in judgment with respect to relational context and sex of the clinician do ocdhr. While these results currently can only be considered as biases in clinical judgnnent, how these biases play a part in connntertransference phenomena once treatment is underway remains to be ascertained. Such a line of inquiry would be important if clinicians are to provide high-quality direct services to the currently changing 86 fanily nnnit in contemporary American society. The results presented in this study strongly suggest that relational context influences clinical impressions and judgments of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . Significant differences between male and fenale respondents also suggest that relational context and sex of the clinician may influence the assessment of the parent, the child, and the corresponding nether- child relationship. Further, there is sane indication that family menbers and family relationships which conform to the traditional nedel of the mclear fanily unit elicit nere favorable clinical impressions and judgment. This is particularly the case for the assessment of the mother-child relationship, the assessment of which was found to be significantly related to the respondent's orientation toward wanen. These preliminary results indicate the utility of further exploring the influence of gender; 39E bias in the assessment of family members and their corresponding intrafamilial relationships . APPENDICES 87 APPENDIX A CASE VERSIONS 88 89 case VERSION #1 THE "P" FAMILY Identifying Information ur. P, age 30 - Graduate student in Business Administration Mrs. P, age 28 - Legal secretary Don, age 6 - First Grade at many Elementary School Referral Reason: The school social worker referred this family to Family and Child Services because the school was having some behavioral problems with Don. She indicated that she felt this might be a "family problem" but she was not certain. She went on to explain that Don's teacher had complained about his behavior. While Don was progressing normally academically in school, he was prone to temper tantrums, is easily distracted, and frequently wanders around the room poking at the other children and distrupting class sessions. At times, Don was seen pushing and fighting with other children during recess and after school. The school social worker also explained that she and Don's teacher had met yesterday with Don's parents in a regularly scheduled conference. She described Mr. P as being domineering, aggressive, and overpowering, and frequently Speaking in a punitive manner. She stated that both she and the teacher found it very hard to work with him. Mrs. P was described as the "shy, quiet, somewhat reticent type." The school social worker ended by explaining that both parents had agreed that a family assessment might help everyone understand why Don was behaving this way, and that they would contact the agency for a family assessment session. Telephone contact with: Mr. P (two weeks later) Mr. P began the conversation by angrily stating that he had called earlier in the morning and had left a message for him to be contacted. I explained that I had been on a home visit earlier and that I bad Just returned to the office. I wondered out loud what our agency could do for him now that we had the opportunity to talk. .Mr. P asked if the school had contacted this agency about his son Don. I explained that while I was not the individual who spoke with the school social worker, a referral form had been completed by one of the other workers. Mr. P remarked that that did not sound like a very efficient way of handling requests but that be guessed he might as well talk to me. an explained that Don's teacher and social worker both thought it might help if his family were seen by someone and that he was calling for an appointment so that they wouldn't pick on Don anymore. I asked him if he could help me understand what he meant by Don not being picked on anymore. Eb stated that he felt if he did not call for an appointment, than the teacher and the social worker would start picking on Don and singling him out since they obviously felt it was necessary. I asked Mr. P how he felt about a family session and he defensively explained that he did not say they would not come. I then asked Mr. P if he ever felt "picked on and singled out." Mr. P replied no, then immediately asked if he could make an appointment for his family to come in. I asked him what times during the week could we compare our time schedules on as possible appointment times. Mr. P stated that his work kept him very busy during the day and well into the night, and that he had to schedule around his work. He stated that Thursday afternoon at one would be a good time. I replied that I had that appointment slot open, and-would he and his family like to come in this week. Mr. P then suddenly remembered that he had an important appointment for lunch that time this week, and wanted to know if he could make an appointment for the following week. The appointment was confirmed and we hung up. 9O -2- Family Session: Mr. and Mrs. P and Don came into the office together and sat down. Mr. P andDonsatonthedevanwhileMrs. PsatnearDononachairnexttothe devan. Don seemed quite excited when they first came in, but then became star and sanewhat withdrawn when they were asked wmr each of then thought they were here this afternoon. I stated that Don seemed a little uncomfortable, and that I was wondering why he thought he was here today. Don glanced at Mr. P and shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if he felt uncomfortable talking right now and he nodded his head yes. Mr. P then stated that he could understand wtnr Don felt the way he did about "it", and I asked Mr. P if he could explain wint he meant by "it". Mr. P then stated tlnt Don was mating some problems with his teacher at school and that he felt "picked on". I then asked Don if this was how he felt. Don again quickly glanced at Mr. P and nodded his head yes. I then turned to Mrs. P, who had been sitting quietly with her eyes downcst, and asked her how she saw them being here today. Mrs. P cleared her throat before she began to speak, and I noticed Don glancing at Mr. P. Mrs. P stated that she also thought that Don was having some problems at school and she quietly insisted that they were open to any criticism I may have about the way they were raising Don. Mr. P imediately began explaining that he knew how Don felt because he had felt the same way when he was a child, and that the way schools were nowadays, the quality of teachers was pretty low. I then stated that it seemed as though Mr. and Mrs. P saw things differently as to what might be contributing to Don's school behavior. Mr. P defensively insisted that he did not say nothing in the home was contributing to Don's behavior. Mrs. P then looked at me in what I felt was a beseeching manner, and said that she was not disagreeing with Mr. P, and that she really didn't know what was happening at school. I reflected that she seemed to feel pretty helpless about the situation, and Mrs. P allowed tlnt she frequently felt 1"th W with Don. Mr. P then explained that Don was a pretty active child. He hastily added tint Don wasn't a hyperactive child, but that he had a lot of energ and was always wanting to be on the move. Mrs. P smiled briefly and said tint Don takes after Mr. P on that point. When Don heard this, he gave a big smile, and I noticed that he seemed pretty pleased when Mrs. P said he was like Mr. P. Don glanced at Mr. P, smiled shyly and said yes. I then asked them if they could tell me what it was like for each of them to live in this household. Mr. P asked, with a somewlnt suspicious look, wilt I meant. m. P then explained that I was asking them wtnt it was like for them to live together. She then turned to me» and timidly asked if that was wlnt I meant and I said yes. At this point Don loudly and proudly stated that neither he nor Mr. P liked to clean around the house, and he then turned to Mr. P and asked, "Right7". Mr. P replied, "Rightl". I asked them if both were working, and Mr. P stated in a challenging manner that with the high prices of food and other household bills, it was necessary that they both worked forawhile. Iaskedhowlongbothof thaahadbeenworkinganer. P replied, "since Don started school." I then asked Don if he went home after school and Mr. P quickly explained that Don stayed with one of his friends until he or Mrs. P. I then asked Don how he felt about staying with his friend and Don, again glancing at his father, replied that it was ok. Mr. P looked at his watch, then asked me wlnt they needed to do now that they be! nude an appointment. I wondered out loud why he had glanced at his watch and he explained that he still had a lot of work to do. I asked them wtnt it was like for them to be here today and Don innnediately said he liked it but then quickly glanced at Mr. P. Mrs. P stated that she felt that it was important for people to express their feelings and Mr. P stated that he would do anything -3- to help Don. I explained that I would present the ease to our staff tomorrow morning and tint a worker would be assigned to their case and would call them tomorrow afternoon. I asked them how they felt about caning back and exploring some of the things we talked about today. Mr. P quickly and suspiciously asked who the worker would be, and if they would be assigned a man or a wanen. I explained that I could not answer his questions since it depended on who had openings in their case load. I asked W. P if he had any feelings about that that he would like to share now. He brushed my question aside with a wave of his hand, and asked when the worker would be calling. I assured him the worker would call sometime tomorrow afternoon. He said ok but that they needed to go now. I thanked them for caning and shook everyone's hand. As they left the office, Mr. P was mttering that "it didn't seem like a very efficient way of doing things. " €92 CASE VERSION #2 THE "P" FAMILY Identifying Information Mr. P, age 30 - Graduate student in Business Administration Mrs. P, age 28 - legal secretary mwn, age 6 - First Grade at Baily Elementary School Place: Family and Child Services Referral Reason: The school social worker referred this family in Family and Child Services because the school was having sane behavioral problems with Dawn. She indicated that she felt this might be a "family problem" but she was not certain. She went on to explain that Don's teacher had complained about her behavior. While Dawn was progressing normally academically in school, she was prone to temper tantrums, is easily distracted, and frequently wanders around the room poking at the other children and disrupting class sessions. At times Dawn was seen pushing and fighting with other children during recess and after school. The school social worker also explained that she and mwn's teacher had met yesterday with Dawn's parents in a regularly scheduled conference. She described Mr. P as being domineering, agmssive, and overpowering, and frequently speaking in a punitive tanner. She stated that both she and the teacher found it very hard to work with him. Mrs. P was described as the "shy, quiet, 8003913313 reticent type." The school social worker ended by explaining that both parents had agreed that a family assessment might help everyone understand why Dawn was behaving this way, and that they would contact the agency for a family assessment session. Telephone contact with: Mr. P (two weeks later) Mr. P began the conversation by angrily stating that he had called earlier in the morning and had left a message for him to be contacted. I explained that I led been on a hone visit earlier and that I had Just returned to the office. I wondered out loud what our agency could do for him now that we Ind the opportunity to talk. Mr. P asked if the school had contacted this agency about his daughter Dawn. I explained that while I was not the individual who spoke with school social worker, a referral four: had been completed by one of the other workers. Mr. P remarked that that did not sound like a very efficient way of landling requests but that he guessed he might as well talk to me. He explained that mwn's teacher and social worker both thought it might help if his famin were seen by someone and that he was calling for an appointment so that they wouldn't pick on mwn anymore. I asked him if he could help me understand what he meant by Dawn not being picked on anymore. He stated that he felt if he did not call for an appointment, then the teacher and the social worker would start picking on Dawn and singling her out since they obviously felt it was necessary. I asked Mr. P how he felt about a family session and he defensively explained that he did not say they would not come. I then asked Mr. P if he ever felt "picked on and singled out." Mr. P replied no, then imediately asked if he could make an appointment for his family to case in. I asked him what times during the week could we compare our time schedules on as possible appointment times. Mr. P stated that his work kept him very busy during the day and well into the night, and that he had to schedule around his work. He stated that Thursday afternoon at one would be a good time. I replied that I had that appointment slot open, and would he and his family like to come in this week. Mr. P then suddenly remembered that he Ind an important appointment for lunch tint time this week, and wanted to know if he could make an appointment for the following week. The appointment was confirmed and we hung up. 93 -2- Family Session: Mr. and Mrs. P and Dawn came into the office together and sat down. Mr. P and Dawn sat on the devan while Mrs. P sat near Dawn on a chair next to the devan. Dawn seemed quite excited when they first came in, but then became shy and somewhat withdrawn when they were asked why each of them thought they were here this afternoon. I stated that Dawn seemed a little uncomfortable, and that I was wondering why she thought she was here today. Dawn glanced at Mr. P and shrugged her shoulders. I asked her if she felt uncomfortable talking right now’and she nodded her head yes. Mr. P then stated that he could understand why Dawn felt the way she did about "it", and I asked Mr. P if he could explain what he meant by "it". Mr. P then stated that Dawn was having some problems with her teacher at school and that she felt "picked on". I then asked Dawn if this was how she felt. Dawn again quickly glanced at Mr. P and nodded her head yes. I then turned to Mrs. P, who had been sitting quietly with her eyes downcast, and asked her how she saw them being here today. Mrs. P cleared her throat before she began to speak, and I noticed Dawn glancing at Mr. P. Mrs. P stated that she also thought that Dawn was having some problems at school and she quietly insisted that they were open to any criticism I may have about the way they were raising Dawn. Mr. P immediately‘began explaining that he knew how Dawn felt because he had felt the same way when he was a child, and that the way schools were nowadays, the quality of teachers was pretty low. I then stated that it seemed as though Mr. P and Mrs.P saw things differently as to what might be contributing to Dawn's school behavior. Mr. P defensively insisted that he did not say nothing in the home was contributing to Dawn's behavior. . Mrs. P then looked at me in what I felt was a beseeching manner, and said that she was not disagreeing with Mr. P, and that she really didn't know what was happening at school. I reflected that she seemed to feel pretty helpless about the situation, and Mrs. P allowed that she frequently felt that way with Dawn. Mr. P then explained that Dawn was a pretty active child. He hastily added that Dawn wasn't a hyperactive child, but that she had a lot of energy and was always wanting to be on the move. Mrs. P smiled briefly and said that Dawn takes after Mr. P on that point. When Dawn heard this, she gave a big smile, and I noticed that she seemed pretty pleased when Mrs. P said she was like Mr. P. Dawn glanced at Mr. P, smiled shyly and said yes. I then asked them if they could tell me what it was like for each of them to live in this household. Mr. P asked, with a somewhat suspicious look, what I meant. Mrs. P then explained that I was asking them what it was like for them to live together. She then turned to me and timidly asked if that was what I meant, and I said yes. At this point Dawn loudly and proudly stated that neither she nor Mr. P liked to clean around the house, and she then turned to Mr. P and asked, "Right?". Mr. P replied, "Right!". I asked them if both were working, and Mr. P stated in a challenging manner that with the high prices of food and other household bills, it was necessary that they both work for a while. I asked how long both of them had been working, and Mr. P replied, "since Dawn started school." I then asked Dawn if she went home after school and Mr. P quickly explained that Dawn stayed with one of her friends until he or Mrs.P picked her up. I then asked Dawn how she felt about staying with her friends and Dawn, again glancing at her father, replied that it was ok. Mr. P looked at his watch, then asked me what they needed to do now that they had made an appointment. I wondered out loui why he had glanced at his watch and he explained that he still had a lot of work to do. I asked them what it -3- was like for then to be here today and Dawn imediately said she liked it but then quicka glanced at Mr. P. Mrs. P stated that she felt it was important for people to express their feelings and Mr. P stated that he would do anything to help Dawn. I explained that I would present the case to our staff tomorrow morning and that a worker would be assigxed to their case and would call them tomorrow afternoon. I asked them how they felt about caning back and exploring some of the things we talked about today. Mr. P quickly and suspiciously asked who the worker would be, and if they would be assigned a man or a wanen. I explained that I could not answer his questions since it depended on who had openings in their caseload. I asked Mr. P if he had any feelings about that that he would like to share now. Be brushed av question aside with a wave of his hand, and asked when the worker would be calling. I assured him the worker would call sometime tomorrow afternoon. He said ok but that they needed to go now. I thanked them for coming and shook everyone's hand. As they left the office, Mr. P was muttering ttnt "it didn't seem like a very efficient way of doing things." 95 CASE VERSIOII P 3 THE "P" Plum Identifying Information Mr. P, age 30 - Graduate student in Business Administration Mrs. P, age 28 - Legal secretary Don, age 0 - First Grade at Baily Elementary School Place: Family and Child Services Referral Reason: The school social worker referred this family to Family and d Services because the school was having sane behavioral problems with Don. P She indicated that she felt this might be a "family problem" but she was not ' certain. She went on to explain that Don's teacher had complained about his 1 behavior. While Don was progressing normally academically in school, he was prone to temper tantrums, is easily distracted, and frequently wanders around the roan poking at the other children and disrupting class sessions. At times Don was seen pushing and fighting with other children during recess and after school. The school social worker also explained that she and Don's teacher 1nd met yesterday with Don's parents in a regularly scheduled conference. She described Mrs. P as being danineering, aggressive, and overpowering, and grequently speaking in a punitive manner. She stated that both she and the teacher found it very hard to work with her. Mr. P was described as the "sly, quiet, somewhat reticent type.” The school social worker ended by explaining tint both parents had agreed that a family assessment might help everyone understand wtw Don was behaving this way, and that they would contact the agency for a family assessment session. Telephone contact with: Mrs. P (two weeks later) . P began the conversation by angrily stating that she had called earlier in the morning and had left a message for her to be contacted. I explained tint I Ind been on a hone visit earlier and that I had Just returned to the office. I wondered out loud what our agency could do for her now tint we Ind the opportunity to talk. Mrs. P, asked if the school had contacted this agency about her son Don. I explained that while I was not the individual who spoke with the school social worker, a referral form had been completed by one of the other workers. Mrs. P remarked that that did not sound like a very efficient way of handling requests but that she guessed she might as well talk to me. She explained that Don's teacher and social worker both thought it might help if her family were seen by someone and that she was calling for an appointment so that they wouldn't pick on Don anymore. I asked her if she could help me understand what she meant by Don not being picked on anymore. She stated that she felt if she did not call for an appointment, then the teacher and the social worker would start picking on Don and singling him out since they obviously felt it was necessary. I asked Mrs. P how she felt about a family session and she defensively explained tint she did not say they would not come. I then asked Mrs. P if she ever felt "picked on and singled out." Mrs. P replied no, then immediately asked if she could make an appointment for her family to come in. I asked her what times during the week could we compare our time schedules on as possible appointment times. Mrs. P stated that Mr work kept her very busy during the day and well into the night, and that she had to schedule around her work. She stated that Thursday afternoon at one would be a good time. I replied tint I had that appointment slot open, and would she and her family like to cone in this week. Mrs. P then suddenly runembered that she had an important appointment for lunch that time this week, and wanted to know if she could make an appointment for the follcsring week. The appointment was confined and we hung up. 96 Family Session: . , Mr. and Mrs. P and Don came into the office together and sat down. Mrs. P and Don sat on the devan while Mr. P sat near Don on a chair next to the deven. Don seemed quite excited when they first came in, but then became slv and sanewlnt withdrawn when they were asked why each of then thought they were here this afternoon. I stated that Don seemed a little uncomfortable, and tint I was wondering why he thought he was here today. Don glanced at Mrs. P and shrugged his shoulders. I asked him if he felt uncomfortable talking right now and he nodded his head yes. Mrs. P then stated tint she could mderstand why Don felt the way he did about "it", and I asked Mrs. P if she could explain what she meant by "it". Mrs. P then stated that Don was having some problems with his teacher at school and that he felt "picked on". I then asked Don if this was how he felt. Don again quickly glanced at Mrs. P and nodded his head yes. ' I then turned to Mr. P, who led been sitting quietly with his eyes downcs t, and asked him how he saw them being here today. Mr. P cleared his throat before he began to speak, and I noticed Don glancing at Mrs. P. Mr. P stated that he also thought that Don was having some problems at school and he quietly insisted trmt they were open to any criticism I may have about the way they are raising Don. Mrs. P imediately began explaining that she knew how Don felt because she had felt the same way when she was a child, and that the way schools were nowadays, the quality of teachers was pretty low. I then stated tlnt it seemed as though Mr. and Mrs. P saw things differently as to what might be contributing to Don's school behavior. Mrs. P defensively insisted tint she did not say nothing in the home was contributing to Don's behavior. Mr. P then looked at me in what I felt was a beseeching manner, and said that he was not disagreeing with Mrs. P and that he really didn't know what was- happening at school. I reflected that he seemed to fat-.1 pretty helpless about the situation, and Mr. P allowed that he frequently felt mat way with Don. Mrs. P then explained that Don was a pretty active child. She hastily added that Don wasn't a hyperactive child but that he had a lot of energy and was always wanting to be on the move. Mr. P smiled briefly and said that Don takes after Mrs. P on that point. When Don heard this, he gave a big smile, and I noticed that he seemed pretty pleased when Mr. P said he was like Mrs. P. Don glanced at Mrs. P, smiled shyly and said yes. ' I then asked than if they could tell me what it was like for each of them to live in this household. Mrs. P asked, with a sanewhat suspicious look, um I meant. Mr. P then explained that I was asking them what it was like for them to live together. He then turned to me and timidly asked if that was flat I meant and I said yes. At this point Don loudly and proudly stated tint neither he nor Mrs. P liked to clean around the house, and he then turned to m. P and asked, "maxim". Mrs. P replied, "Right.'". I asked them 11' both were working, and Mrs. P stated in a challenging manner that with the high prices of food and other household bills, it was necessary tint they both worked for awhile. I asked how lmg both of them had been working and Mrs. P replied, "since Don started school". I then asked Don if he went hone after school and Mrs. P quickly explained that Don stayed with one of his friends until she or Mr. P picked him up. I then asked Don how he felt about staying with his friend and Don, again glancing at his mother, replied that it was ok. Mrs. P looked at her watch, then asked me what they needed to do now tint they Ind made an appointment. I wondered out loud why she had glanced at her watch and she explained that she still led a lot of work to do. I asked them what it was like for them to be here today and Don imediately said he liked it but 97 -3- then quickly glanced at Mrs. P. Mr. P stated that he felt it was important for people to express their feelings and Mrs. P stated that she would do anything to help Don. I explained that I would present the case to our staff tomorrow morning and that a worker would be assigxed to their case and would call them tomorrow afternoon. I asked them how they felt about coming back and exploring ease of the things we talked about today. Mrs. P quickly and suspiciously asked who the worker would be and if they would be assigned a man or a woman. I explained that I could not answer her questions since it depended on who had openings in their caseload. I asked Era. P if she had any feelings about tlnt that she would like to share now. She brushed no question aside with a wave of her land and asked when the worker would be calling. I assured her the worker would call sometime tomorrow afternoon. She said ok but that they needed to go now. I thanked them for caning, and shook everyone's hand. As they left the office, Mrs. P was muttering that "it didn't seem like a very efficient way of doing things." case vsssxou M m "r" mm Identgxigg Information Mr. P, age 30 - Graduate student in Business Administration Mrs. P, age 28 - Legal secretary awn, age 6 - First Grade at Baily momentary School Place: Family and Child Services Referral Reason: The school social worker referred this family to Family and Services because the school was having some beinvioral problems with Dawn. She indicated tint she felt this might be a ”family problem" but she was not certain. She went on to explain that Dawn's teacher had complained about her behavior. While Dawn was progressing normally academically in school, she was prone to taper tantrums , is easily distracted, and frequently wanders around t2: ram poking at the other children and disrupting class sessions. At times Dawn as seen pushing and fighting with other children during recess and after school. The school social worker also explained that she and Dawn's teacher had met yesterday with Dawn's parents in a regularly scheduled conference. She described Mn. P as being domineering, aggressive, and overpowering, and frequently speaking in a punitive manner. She stated that both she and the teacher found it very hard to work with her. Mr. P was described as the "shy, quiet, sanewhat reticent type." The school social worker ended by explaining tint both parents had agreed tint a family assessment might help everyone understand why Dawn was behaving this way, and that they would contact the teen-.7 for a family assessment session. Tale hone contact with: Mrs. P two weeks later) Hrs. P began‘the conversation by angrily stating that she had called earlier in the morning and 11nd left a message for her to be contacted. I explained tht I had been on a hose visit earlier and that I bad Just returned to the office. I wondered out loud wht our agency could do for her now that we had the opportunity to talk. Mrs. P asked if the school had contacted this agency about her daughter Dean. I explained that while I was not the individual who spoke with the school social worker, a referral fom 1nd been completed by one of the other workers. Mrs. P remarked tint that did not sound like a very efficient way of landling requests but that she guessed she might as well talk to me. She explained that Ihwn's teacher and social worker both thought it might help if her family were seen by someone and that she was calling for an appointment so that they wouldn't pick on Dawn anymore. I asked her if she could help me understand what she meant by Dawn not being picked on anymore. She stated that she felt if she did not call for an appointment, then the teacher and social worker would start picking on Dawn and singling her out since they obviously felt it was necessary. I asked Mrs. P how she felt about a family session and she defensively explained that she did not say they would not case. I then asked Mrs. P if she ever felt "picked on and singled art." Mrs. P replied no, then inediately asked if she could make an appointment for her family to come in. I asked her what times during the week could we our time schedules on as possible appointment times. Mrs. P stated that tar workkeptherveryb‘asymxringthedayandwell intothe night, andth she lad to schedule around her work. She stated that Thursday afternoon at one would be a good time. I replied that I had that appointment slot open, and would she and her family like to come in this week. Mrs. P then suddenly remembered that she had an important appointment for lunch that time this week, and wanted to know if she could make an appointment for the following week. The appointment was confirmed and we hung up. 99 Family Session : Mr. and Mrs. P and Dawn came into the office together and sat down. Mrs. P and Dawn sat on the devan while Mr. P sat near Down on a chair next to the devan. Dawn seemed quite excited when they first came in, but then became sly and somewhat withdrawn when they were asked why each of them thought they were here this afternoon. I stated that Dawn seemed a little uncomfortable, and flat I was wondering why she thought she was here today. mwn glanced at Mrs. P and shrugged her shoulders. I asked her if she felt uncomfortable talking right now and she nodded her head yes. Mrs. P then stated that she could \mderstand why Dawn felt the way she did about "it", and I asked Mrs. P if she could explain what she meant by "it". Mrs. P then stated that Dawn was raving sane problems with her teacher at school and that she felt "picked on". I then asked Dawn if this was how she felt. Dawn again quickly glanced at Mrs. P and nodded her head yes. I then turned to Mr. P, who tad been sitting quietly with his eyes downcast, and asked him how he saw them being here today. Mr. P cleared his throat before he began to speak, and I noticed Dawn glaning at Mrs. P. Mr. P stated that he also thought that Dawn was having some problems at school and he quietly insisted that they were open to any criticism I may have about the way they were raising Dawn. Mrs. P immediately bean explaining that she knew how Dawn felt because she had felt the some way when she was a child, and that the way schools were nowadays, the quality of teachers was pretty low. I then stated that it seemed as though Mr. and Mrs. P saw things differently as to what might be contributing to Dawn's school behavior. Mrs. P defensively insisted that she did not say nothing in the home was contributing to Dawn's behavior. Mr. P then looked at me in what I felt was a beseeching manner, and said that he was not disagreeing with Mrs. P, and that he really didn't know wint was happening at school. I reflected that he sewed to feel pretty helpless about the situation, and Mr.. P allowed tlmt he frequently felt that way with Dawn. Mrs. P then explained that Dawn was a pretty active child. She hastily added tint Dawn wasnt a torperactive child, but that she had a lot of energy and was always wanting to be on the move. Mr. P smiled briefly and said that Dawn takes after Mrs. P on tint point. when Dawn heard this, she gave a big malls, and I noticed that she seemed pretty pleased when Mr. P said she was like Mrs. P. mwn glanced at We. P, smiled shyly and said yes. I then asked them if they could tell me what it was like for each of them to live in this household. Mrs. P asked, with a somewhat suspicious look, what I meant. Mr. P then explained that I was asking them what it was like for them to live together. He then turned to me and timicl‘ly asked if that _ was what I meant and I said yes. At this point Dawn loudly and proudly stated that neither she nor Mrs. P liked to clean around the house, and she then turned to Mrs. P and asked, "rightf". Mrs. P replied, "Right."‘. I asked them if both were working, and Mrs. P stated in a challenging manner that with the high prices of food and other household bills, it was necessary that they both worked forawhile. Iaaked how long both of thede been worldngandnrs. P replied, ”since Dawn started school." I then asked Dawn if she went home after school and Mrs. P quickly explained that lbwn stayed with one of her friends until she or Mr. P picked her up. I then asked Dawn how she felt about staying with her friend, and Dawn, spin glancing at her mother, replied that it was ok. Mrs. P looked at her watch, then asked me what they needed to do now that the had made an appointment. I wondered out loud why she had glanced at her watch, and she explained that she still had a lot of work to do. I asked them what it was like for them to be here today and Dawn immediately said she liked it but then quickly glanced at Mrs. P. Mr. P stated that he felt it was 100 -3- 1 important for people to express their feelings and Mrs. P stated that she would do anything to help Dawn. I explained that I would present the case to our staff tanorrow morning and that a worker would be assigned to their case and would call then tanorrow afternoon. I asked them how they felt about coming back and exploring some of the things we talked about today. Mrs. P quickly and suspiciously asked whathe worker would be , and if they would be assimed a an or a wanen. I explained that I could not answer her questions since it depended on who had openings in their caseload. I asked Mrs. P if she had any feelings about that that she would like to share now. She brushed nqr question aside with a wave of her hand, and asked when the worker would be calling. I assured her the worker would call sometime tunorrow afternoon. She said ok but that they needed to go now. I thanked them for caning and shook everyone's hand. As they left the office, Mrs. P was muttering that "it didn't seem like a very efficient way of doing things." APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT SCALES 101 102 'Pleaae respond to the following items about the FATHER. Do not refer back to the case history as you complete the items but rely totally on your clinical impressions. 1) Father's emotional maturity 2) Father's overall degree of stabilit: (l) __ Extremely mature (l) __ Extremely stable (2) __ Mature (2) __ Stable (3) __ Somewhat nature (3) __ Somewhat stable (lo) __ Somewhat immature (A) __ Somewhat unstable (5) ____ Immature (5) __ Unstable (6) Extremely immature (6) __ Extremely unstable 3) Father's general level of intelligence 4) Self-reliance does 333 seen to be one of the father's major problems. (l) __ Extremely intelligent (l) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Intelligent (2) __ Agree (3) __ Somewhat intelligent (3) __ Somewhat agree (6) __ Somewhat unintelligible (b) __ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Unintelligible . (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Extremely unintelligible (6) __ Strongly disagree 5) Father's individual prognosis 6) Personal reaction to the father (l) __ Extremely good (l) __ Very positive (2) __ Good O (2) __ Positive (3) __ Somewhat good (3) __ Somewhat positive (lo) __ Somewhat bad (5) __ Somewhat negative (5) _ Bad (5) __ Negative (6) Extremely bad (6) __ Extremely negative 7) Extent of your eagerness to have the 8) The father will probably need to be father as an actual client encouraged to be more self-reliant during treatment (I) __ Extremely eager (1) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Eager (2) __ Agree (3) __ Somewhat eager (3) __ Somewhat agree (b) __ Somewhat reticent (lo) __ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Eeticent (5) _‘___ Disagree (6) __ Extremely reticent (6) __ Strongly disagree 1(23 FAIHER CONTINUED 9) The father will probably need a directive worker during treatment (I) (2) __ Agree (3) (4) (S) (6) 10) Strongly agree __ Somewhat agree __ Somewhat disagree Disagree ______Strongly disagree 11) The father should be encouraged to be more family-oriented (l) Strongly agree 12) (2) __ Agree (3) __ (6) (5) Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Disagree (6) ______Strong1y disagree l3) Extent you would be non-directive vs. directive (I) (2) (3) Extremely nonedirective Non-directive Somewhat non-directive 16) based entirely on your clinical impressions (do please rank the problem areas presented in the following categories. The father will probably need a considerable amount of warmth and support during treatment (l) __ Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Somewhat agree (4) _____.80mewhat disagree (5) __ Disagree (6) _____.Strongly disagree The father needs to be encouraged be more emotionally expressive (1) Strongly agree (2) __ Agree (3) Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat disagree (S) __ Disagree (6) Strongly disagree with the father (4) __ Somewhat directive (5) Directive (6) Extremely directive not refer back to case history), In other words, assign a value of one to the problem area you feel is the father's most problematic problem area and a value of five to least problematic for the father. only once. and be certain to include all of the the problem area that is the Be certain to rank each problem area once and possible categories in your ranking (1) Immature sexual‘ identity (2) Limited object relations (3) Environmental and social problems (4) Passivity (S) Underdeveloped ego skills 101} Please respond to the following items about the MOTHER. Do not refer back to the case history as you complete the items but rely totally on your clinical impressions. 1) Mother' 5 emotional maturity 2) Mother's overall degree of stability (l) __ Extremely mature (l) __ Extremely stable (2) _Mature (2) __ Stable (3) __ Somewhat mature (3) __ Somewhat stable (4) '_ Somewhat inmature (4) _ Somewhat unstable (5) __ Inmature (5) __ Unstable (6) __ Extremely imature ‘ (6) __ Extremely unstable 3) Mother's general level of intelligence 4) Self-reliance does n_9_t seem to be one of the Mother' s major problems. (l) __ Extremely intelligent (l) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Intelligent . ' (2) __ Agree (3) __ Sanewhat intelligent (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat untelligible (4)' __ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Unintelligible (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Extremely unintelligible (6) __ Strongly disagree 5) Mother's individual prognosis 6) Personal reaction to the mother (l) __ Extremely good (l) __ Very positive (2) __ Sood ” (2) __ Positive (3) __ Somewhat good (3) __ Somewhat positive (4) __ Saoewhat bad (4) _ Somewhat negative (5) __ Bad (5) __ Negative (6) __ Extremely bad (6) ._ Extremely negative 7) Extent of your eagerness to have the 8) The mother will probably need to be mother as an actual client encouraged to be more self-reliant (l) __ Extremely eager . dill)“ _i_reaaggggly agree (2) _ Eager (2) __ Agree (3) __ Sanewhat eager (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat reticent (4) __ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Reticent (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Extremely reticent (6) Strongly disagree 105 ‘ MOTHER CONTINUED , 9) The anther will probably need a 10) The mother will probably need a directive worker during treatment considerable amount of warmth and support during treatment (l) __ Strongly agree (1) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Agree (2) __ Agree (3) __ Swewhat agree (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat disagree (4) __ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Disagree (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Strongly disagree } . ‘ (6) __ Strongly disagree ll) The mother should be encouraged to be l2) The anther needs to be encouraged to more family-oriented be more emotionally expressive (l) __ Strongly agree (1) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Agree (2) __ Agree ' (3) __ Somewhat agree (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat disagree (4) __ Somewhat disagree (5). __ Disagree (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Strongly disagree (6) __ Strongly disagree 13) Extent you would be non-directive vrs. directive with the mother (l) __ Extremely non-directive (2) __ Non-directive (3) __ Somewhat non—directive (4) __ Somewhat directive (5) __ Directive (6) __ Extremely directive l4) Based entirely on your clinical impressions (do not refer back to case history). please rank the problem areas presented in the following categories. In other words, assign a value of one to the problem area you feel is the mother's most problematic problem area and a value of five to the problem area that is the least problematic for the mother. Be certain to rank each problem area once and only once. and be certain to include all of the possible categories in your ranking: (l) __ Imature sexual identity (2) __ Limited object relations (3) __ Environmental and social problems (4) __ Passivity (5) Underdevelope'd ego skills 106 Please respond to the following items about the CHILD. Do not refer back to the case history as you complete the items but rely totally on your clinical impressions. l) Child's emotional maturity 3) 5) 7) (l) (2) (3) (4) "(5) (5) __ Extremely mature __ Mature _ Somewhat mature '_ Somewhat inmature __ Inmature Extremely inmature 2) Child's overall degree of stability (l) __ Extremely stable (2) _ Stable (3) __ Somewhat stable (4) __ Somewhat' unstable (5) __ Unstable (6) __ Extremely unstable Child's general level of intelligence 4) Self-reliance does not seem to be (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) __ Extremely intelligent __ Intelligent _ Somewhat intelligent _ Somewhat unintelligible __ Unintelligible _ Extremely unintelligible Child‘s individual prognosis (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Extremely good Good Somewhat good Somewhat bad Bad Extremely bad one of the child's iii-or problems. (1 Strongly agree - (2) _ Agree (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) _ Somewhat disagree (5) __ Disagree (6) __ Strongly disagree 6) Personal reaction to the child (l) _ Very positive (2) __ Positive (3) __ Somewhat positive (4) __ Somewhat negative (5) __ Negative (6) ' __ Extremely negative Extent of your eagerness to have the 8) The child will probably need to be child as an actual client (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) __ Extremely eager _ Eager _ Somewhat eager __ Somewhat reticent _ Reti cent Extremely reticent encouraged to be more self-reliant during treatment . (1) __ Strongly agree (2) __ Agree (3) __ Somewhat agree (4) __ Somewhat disagree ( 5) __ Disagree (6) Strongly disagree 1(T7 CHILD CONTINUED 9) The child will probably need a ID) The child will probably need a directive worker during treatment considerable amount of warmth and su port during treatment (1) Strongly agree (1 Strongly agree (2) Agree (2) Agree (3) Somewhat agree (3) Somewhat agree (4) ' Somewhat disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree ‘ (6) Strongly disagree ll) The child should be encouraged to be l2) The child needs to be encouraged to more family-oriented be more emotionally expressive (l) Strongly agree (l) Strongly agree (2) Agree (2) Agree (3) Somewhat agree (3) Somewhat agree (4) Somewhat disagree (4) Somewhat disagree (5) Disagree (5) Disagree (6) Strongly disagree (6) Strongly disagree l3) Extent you would be non-directive vrs. directive with the child (l) Extremely non-directive (2) Non-directive (3) Somewhat non-directive (4) Somewhat directive (5) Directive (6) Extremely directive l4) Based entirely on your clinical impressions (do not refer back to case history). please rank the problem areas presented in the fellowing categories. In other words. assign a value of one to the problem area you feel is the child's most. problematic problem area and a value of five to the problem area that is the least problematic for the child. Be certain to rank each problem area once and onliionce. and be certain to include gll_of the possible categories in your ran ng: (l) _____Immature sexual identity (2) _____Limited object relations (3) .___; Environmental and social problems (4) __ Passivity (5) _____Underdeveloped ego skills 108 Based entirely on your clinical impressions (do not refer back to the case history). please rank the following problem areas of a marital relationship you feel would illustrate the marital relationship you have just read about. Again. assign a value of 1 (first position) to the marital problem area considered most problematic and a value of S (fifth position) to the marital problem you sense is the least problematic Be certain to rank each problem area once and only once, and be certain to include all of the possible categories in your ranking: What is your impression of the father- (1) (2) ( 3) (4) (5) child relationship: (1) (2) <3) (4) (5) (6) Companionship Handling of finances Household tasks Sex Relations with children What is your impression of the mother- child relationship: __ Extremely healthy (1) __ Extremely healthy __ Healthy (2) __ Healthy ______ Somewhat healthy (3)‘_____ Somewhat healthy ______ Somewhat problematic (6) ______ Somewhat problematic Rroblematic (5) ______ Problematic ______lktremely problematic (6) ______Extremely problematic Prognosis of this family for family therapy: (1) (2) __ (3) (4) (5) (6) Extremely good Good Somewhat good Somewhat bad Bad ______ Extremely bad 109 Please respond to the following items: Sex: (1) Male (2) Female Graduate level: (I) Pirst year (2) Second year Age: (1) __ 18 - 20 Marital status: (2) __ 21 - 23 (3) __ 24 - 26 (ll) __ 27 - 29 (5) ______0ver 29 Is your major social work? Educational status: (1) Freshman (2) __ Sophomore (3) Junior (6) Senior (5) Graduate (1) __ Single (2) __ Married (3) __ Divorced (lo) __ Widowed (5) Other Have you ever had any course work or training in family therapy? (I) Yes (I) Yes — . — (2) [lo ' (2) No (3) Undecided 110 Please respond to the following items: 1) 3) 5) The wife who proves to be the better 2) breadwinner should use extraordinary tact in handling her situation. (1)____ Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree (3)_____ Mildly Agree (h)_____ (5)______ (6)_____ (7)____ A woumn is capable of handling the 11.) responsibilities of a career, marriage, and family similtaneously., (1)_____ Strongly Agree (2)___ Agree (3)___ Mildly A8118 (h)____ (5)_____ (5)_____ (7)____ Strongly Disagree Thachildofawunanwhoworkswill 6) have less maternal emotional support. (1)_____ Strongly Agree (2)___ Agree (3)_____ Mildly Agree (h)__ Undecided (S)_____ (6)____ (7)____ Undecided Mildly Disease Disagree Strongly Disagree Undecided Mildly Disease Disagree Mildly Disease Disease Strongly Disagree No man will ever fully understand a woman's sexual responses. (1) Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree (3)__; Mildly Agree (h)______ Undecided (5)___ Mildly Disease (6)____ Disease (7)______ Strongly Disagree The need to have orgasms for a satisfactory sex life is greater for a man than for a wanen. (l)________ (2) (3)__ (h)______ (5)___ (6)____ (7)___ The maternal instinct is a myth. Strongly Agree Agree Mildly Agree undecided Mildly Disagree Disease Strongly Disagree (l)___._ Strongly Aaee (2 )_______ Agree (3) Mildly Agree (1+)___ Undecided (5)_____ Mildly Disease (6)_______ Disease (7) Strongly Disagree 1) 9) 11) 111 W initial response to a womn is 8) affected by her pin/sisal attractiveness. (1)___ Strongly Aaes (2)____ Agree (3)___ Mildly Agree (h)_____ (5)_____ (6)___ (T)___ Undecided Mildly Disagree Disaaes Strongly Disagree In situations in which both husband and wife are working, housework should be equally shared between them. (1)_____ (2)____ (3)___ (h)___ (5)__ Mildly Disagree <6)__ (7) 10) Strongly Agree A8798 Mildly Aass Unde sided Disease Strongly Disagree Wansn who conform to society's view of the traditional female role will be more satisfied as individuals than those who do not conform. (l)_____ Strongly Agree (2)______ Acres (3)____ Mildly Agree (it)_____ (5)____ (6)___ (7)— 12) Undecided Mildly Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree A woman is necessarily dependent on a man to provide her with complete sexual satisfaction. (l)____ Strongly Agree (2)__ Agree (3)______ Mildly Agree (h)___ Undecided (s)____ Mildly Disease (6)___ Disagree (7) Strongly Disagree (he of the greatest contriblmions society that a woman can make is t successful rearing of nonnal well- adJusted children. (l)_____ Strongly Aase (2)__ Asree (3)__ Mildly Agree (h)__ Undecided (S)____ Mildly Disagree (6)____ Disagree (T)_____ Strongly Disagree Women and men are equally capable of sexual pleasure and satisfacti (l)_____ Strongly Agree (2)___ Asree (3) Mildly Agree (h)__'___ Undecided (5)___ Mildly Disagree (6 )_ Disagree (7) Strongly Disagree 13) 15) l?) 112 Women's freer role in marriage, sex and the family will produce negative results for society in future gen- srations. (l)____ Strongly Agree (2)______ Agree (3)____ Mildly Agree (h)___ (5)____ (6)__ (7)_____ The relinquishing of traditional sex roles is likely to lead to a decrease in sexual interest. (l)__ (2)___ (3)____ 1h) undecided Mildly Disagree Disaase Strongly Disaase l6) Strongly Agree Agree Mildly Aaes (h)___ Undecided (5)____ Mildly Disease (6)____ Disaase (7)_____ Strongly Disagree A certain amount of male dominance is essential for a wanan to feel adequately feminine. (1)___ (2)— (3)____ (M___ (5)___ (5)___ (T)— 18) Strongly Agree Agree Mildly Agree Undecided Mildly Disaase Disagree Strongly Disaase A woman with a 2 year-old child should not be involved in fulltime work outside the home. (l)__ Strongly Agree (2)_____ Agree (3§__Mildly Agree (h)_____ undecided (5) Mildly Disagree (6) Disaase (T) Strongly Disaase A husband should take it for grants that his wife will be responsible for bringing up their children. (l)___ Strongly Agree (2 )______ Agree (3)____ Mild-16' We (1*)— (5)_____ (5)_____ (7)______ The sexual life of a woman is as important or urgent as the sexual life of a man. Undecided Mildly Disagree Disaase Strongly Disaase (l)___ Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree (3)____ Mildly Asree (h)____ Undecided (5)_____ Mildly Disaase (6)_____ Disaase (7) Strongly Disaase 19) It feels stranger when I meet a 23)- The-femals's semialdesire may be , It is. not desirable for ‘aiwoman to '*(7)______ 113 20) woman who is dominant and aggressive than when I meet a man who has the same characteristics. 3. . . (l)___'___; Strongly Agree (2).”.___;__Asreel . .. ' (3)____;_: Mildly Agree (h)____,_ (5)_____ (6) (T) Undecided Mildly Disaase __'_,Disaass +‘ Strongly Disaase 22) derive her identity from .her mate. ""1444 firm-81in". (2) Agree Mildly Agree ' . (h). » undecided (5—)_____ Mildly Disagree (6) Disagree Strongly Disaase 2h) greater than that of _Lthe male. (1);, Strongly Agree (2)___:_, Agree (3)__‘_'_ Mildly Agree (h)___ Undecided (5)_____ miseries... (6) Disagree .. (7) Strongly Disagree The desire to have children is part of alwoman's nature. (l)_____ Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree ' (3.)_____ Mildly Agree (h)____ Undecided (5)_______ Mildly Disagree (6)______ Disagree (7)_____ Strongly Disaase Because of a woman's nature, it is worse for her to be single than it is for a man. (l)___ Strongly Agree '(2)__ Agree ‘ (3)______,M11d1y.Asree (1+)___ Undecided (S)____ Mildly Disagree I (6)____ Disease ' (7)___ Strongly "Disagree The married woman Should adapt hex career plans to meet the needs of her husband's career. (l)____‘_ Strongly Agree ' (2)____ Agree (3)_'____ Mildly Agree (h)__‘__ Undecided (5) Mildly Disagree -(6)__ Disaase (7)____ Strongly Disagree 25) 27) 29) 114 It is in a sun's nature to assume a dominant-agaessivs role and in a woman' s to assmne a submissive- passivs role during sexual inter- course. '(1) (2) (3) (h) (5)____ (6)__ (7)____ The sex-role stereotypes inhibit a wanan from‘expressing her full range of sexual and sensual responses. (1) Strongly Aaee (2)___ Agree (3)__ Mildly Agree (h)____ Undecided (5)____ Mildly Disagree (6)____ Disagree (T)___ In the long run, liberation will occur at the expense of men. (-l)__ (2)_____ Agree (3)____ Mildly Agree (h)__ (5)_____ (5)___ (7)____ 26) Strongly Agree . ASPEe Mildly Agree __ Undecided Mildly Disaase Disaase Strongly Disaase 28) Strongly Disaase Strongly Agree undecided Mildly Disagree Disaase Strongly Disaase . It would be better if therapists thought of some women as "oppressed" rather than ".neurotic' (l)____ Strongly Aaes (2)_.___ Agree - (3)____ Mildly Agree (h)____ Undecided (5)____ Mildly Disagree (6)__ Disagree (7)___ Strongly Disagree If women and movers to be truly equal, than men would find wanen less appealing. (l)___ Strongly Agree (2)___ Agree (3)___ Mildly'Agree (h)__ Undecided (5)___ Mildly Disagree (6)___ Disagree (7)____ Strongly Disagree 111$ 25) It is in a mn's nature to assume a dominant-agaessivs role and in a woman' s to assume a submissive- passive role during sexual inter- course. (1)___ Strongly Aaes (2)_______ Agree (3)___ Mildly Agree. (h)____ Undecided (5)___ Mildly Disaase (6)___ Disaase (7)_____ Strongly Disagree 27) The sex-role stereotypes inhibit a wamn from expressing her full range of sexual and sensual responses. (1)_ Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree (3)__ Mildly Agree (h)___ Undecided (5)____ Mildly Disagree (6)_____ Disagree (7)__ Strongly Disagree 29) In the long run, liberation will occur at the expense of men. (-I)_ Strongly Agree (2)_____ Agree (3)_____ Mildly Agree (h)___ undecided (5)_____ Mildly Disagree (6)_____ Disagree (7) Strongly Disaase 26) 28) . It would be better if therapists thought of some women as "oppressed" rather than "neurotic." (l)_____ Strongly Aaes (2)__‘__ Agree - (3)___ Mildly Agree (t)___ Undecided (5)____ Mildly Disagree (6)_____ Disaase (7)_____ Strongly Disagree If women and men-were to be truly equal, than men would find wansn less appealing. (l)__ Strongly Agree (2)____ Agree (3)___ Mildly'Asree (h)_____ Undecided (5) Mildly Disagree (6)____ Disagree (7)_____ Strongly Disagree APPENDIX. C STATISTICAL TABLES 115 116 a. "no: "“82. a. Home. ”Eoz‘ om.n on.n an; . «fin an." oa.~ a. n we n .an.. .n... .5...“ . .s... aN.n an." mean hden . oaen Wd<=mn~ «on w gave. :6.- Adnev md<§hum . . . 2..." :5 2.“ 2A 8.." xmm . . xmm 3a.. 3a.. 3a.. 3... . 3w; 3... 3a.. 3.... . . . . . mi: . 352 an n on n «a n as n. no u on.n aa.~ :8 wag” on.n .e . n a _ . _ w . ..e n . u . p 20.235 and . _ 2055:. mmeo . $38“ uaumMW—Fuwfl “flaw—uau 25$.— . “Queens- :08 mun—00a suamgeflz atom-nuau n55 3:55:60 .3 23.23 . . 325530 .3 29.2.2 $22: :0... <53 Eeasam. . . $22.“. so”. .53 £2353 « MES . p 33: 117 3; H mm: "whoz. he.“ he.“ ~..n. seen .ea.. .ee.. .eee~.: .nn... no.N 0h.u we.“ Dion. hw.n .ee.. .en.. .n~.~.. .eh.~. .e.« on." an.“ ae.n n..n e a a .F 20_m¢m= mm<0 .h-Zudglaum. .— guru unanzzunh unease m4<2uw m4<2 3:35:60 .ao 2322‘ «.22; con .53 >522: e 39:. xmm «fin oN.n ma<2mu xmm ma<§ s. u was "who: :5 :8 a«.n vo.n 3'; 3a.. 3n; Ann.» «fin on.n «“8. no.n .on.. .vu.. .nm.. ~nn.. oné 2...... a~.n «0.6 ..e a u . p 292;; 33 355 men WhaOUn ZCHmcHLE—a d‘Ln—CAU “29.. mozfimesoo .3 23.23 922.... so”. <56 >523» a use: 118 a. "was "~32. . 2; “mm: "whoz. 2.— 24 3.". :4 3.." 2..." SA 2.. 3.3 .3... .8... a... . 5.: 5.: 5.: 5.: 8.“ 2.4 8." 3.", 2." m4<$mu 2.6 on; 8.. 3.” «fa ma<2mm xum . . . xmm .2... an; .3... .2... :1: 33 5.: 3...: 3.“ 2.... 2.4 24 t on." m4<5 . on." 2..“ 9..." . 8.. 2.. m4<3 .e . a a F , . .e a . ~ . p 2939. was. , 20855 mag. .2932“ 92 3:35. 2520: 95.853. 2. 5.5 332.0»... «Bake a. VP: "59:205. 5.52 3255.60 .3 m.m>._<2< 3255.50 .3 m.m>._<2< $22.... so“. <33 2225:» 922.“. :8 <26 #2225 0 men: m #35 119 zo.m¢m: mm<0. 2. H mm: "who: - a; H mm: ”who: on." e..~ an.“ .e.n .H.n .e.n no.“ me.“ .n... .ee.. .m..- .oo.. .me.. .en.~. .ee.. . .e~.~. on." no." :4 an; 2." m4<2mm «e6 :6 2..” on." SA u4<2mm xmm xmm .ns.~. .en.. .ee.~v .me.. .-.~. .en._ .ee.~. .s... :4 «fie .8." so; 2.— m4<2 2." :6 23 8." 2.« m._..<2< 922: :9. 53 2225:.» 3253300 .no m.m>._<2< 922... can 33 £333 a “.35 a meme: 120 .n "ma: “whoz. he." oe.. ne.~. .ee.~ Sui: .«n.3 an... an; an.“ -.o .e.n so.“ ee.~ 3a.: a... as; an; as." .~.n so.“ an." an." ;v a N w 2055: um525» o. n.3,: xmm no.» nn.n :4 n was. "who: nn.n nu.n oo.n vo.n .2: as: 5...: 5.: «n6 . an.“ nu." $05 3... .8: 5.: a... and nn.v oué 60.0 v n N _p 222:; 33. gusty—09:0 en> gubflfinaozcn; nu. cum—PH “Dang—UHF Inn-8...; m4<2wm xmm m4<5 mo2..<2< 922:. so". 53 #2253 m n.3,: 121 r m4<5wm ma<§ :. "mm: $32- vo.N ~94 n~.N when 3:: s... a... 5.... ma.~ rod 0...— nd.n .h.d :3 83 at: 5.... no; oo.N nu..— vu.N 5'..— v a N .. r 29mm!— 33. Any—Omaha 03‘ Seats. 3. an: nouns—Um... 3:8: 3235300 .3 23.23 #22:. con 53 #2223 a. use: xmm on.n on; m4<§wm xmw m4<5 a.“ H mm: ”302. moé un.n hm; nu.n ants 23.: 3.7: Anni. nQ.N uu.n an.v «has 30.. goat: 3...: 30.. «NJ mud co.m ha; v n N w _ 20.2w... mmeo. 895—03 "tangy—ac. a. tank “30:350.! nun—Eb. mozeigoo .3 9315 M22: :9. <23 35223 2 59:. 122 3.. H mm: .862. . .3 H mm: .302. n..n «n.N an.N . NA.N o~..« eh.n no.0 ho.n an: 8...: 23.: .3: . g 3:: :T: 5.. 3...: 2." 2..“ 3.... an." o... m._<2w..— .. an; 3; z... 2... 2.3 macému gum . xmm 5.: so: a... .3... .3: 3a.: .3: .3... em.~ 3." 8.... 9...". 3.... m._<2 3.... 8.» ené z... on." u4<2 .v a N . w _ . .v a N . w 20.2.9. 33 . a . 292:... mm..<2< 92:... co“. 522...» 922... :9. ._532...» 205cm: .33.. 2. H was "who..- ao.n nu; up; 2...— .p...: .u... ....:. .ou.: a... a... p... .... on.“ ..~... .oo... .nn.. . .m... uo.u hm." can" hm; «.4 .V .w m“ w .2933 92 .525: an. tuba flan-=39 Sun—U 9 A35 20.w¢w> 2.. H mm: .302. oo.m adv up." .nw... ...... .po... mo.n «NJ 2.‘ 3a.. 3a.: 2...: as; oo.n no.n mu m“ w um532...» NN mamu«oux~n .a> m>~suu2~n-2oz. an. aha ”Dan-=0: 9:8 3252260 no 23.22.. 922.“. 29. .56 £52.23 a :92 127 a. 0 mm... 3.82. no." .6.« .o.n .n.u 2...: .9... .3: .2... ZEN oo.n noé no." ....N 2a.: .3... 3a.. 35.: mo.n an." cm.n n... n..« v a N w 29.0.5... mm..<2< 922... 29. <53 £5.23 2.... :9: xmm N... a... 2.. " mm... .302 0H6 «min. a... N«.. .2..- 294 39.: AN... Go.“ on.“ as... .N.. Annoy an... .2... 3°.Hv swim 00.... n... 0..» v n N v 229:... was. m4<2mu xwm u4<§ baa—VJZOHBSHK Dan—Gaza; ho «28¢ acnmuflzfia d‘UuZudO .23. 32522.8 no 22.22.. «.22... 29. 5.3 $3.23 on n.3,: 128 owo v a Np u a... 3.8 n «X .3 u 2 V N V. V V 0 Q 0 N M 0 Op P N N FF 0 p N u v M N c220> c0279.. 9.3.5.. . 6.00 :22; 930 am 2... 5030:. 35a“. .0 5:323 9.25: ON 039—. end v a a. “1.... 3.! n «x ’0 H 2 o o v p v a .m e o n m n v m N 0 or n n p n n N _ :22; no: 8032.. 0:0 mN 030.— :o.a.o> :00 an 1.73 .0 02¢ 8.30:. 5.02 1023.... 129 3.0 v a «r u ...o . '90-. n «x 3 u z a a m s v v o v p a a n a v a o o N p v a u m u m w n w. . u :22; 5.33.. 9.3.33 . . 02.0 :28; ago an _m. 8039... .28: 5 3.3.58 9.25: 3.2.2:. mod vn « n .2. mo 9 n «X 3 n z m o a o o a o m e n u v s 0 ~ u o = a u v n N — :o.2o> 55:: 9.35.. 88 :o.8¢> 030. am 3. 52:0... .059... .0 co::a.2£0 9.3.3: RN 200... 130 and V a a. u .3. 3 o. n «X 3 u z c a a o . c e o u a o .. v n a a v . a c a a a a . a a p n v a N. p :22; 030 £0.33.— ucicou 5.30) 3.5 an _N_ 5032.. 2.5 .o co................ 9.3.5.. on 030... mod v a . N. H .3. 2.2 n «K 3 u z a a n . o p v a m h a o n o w v n a N h a . s a o p m v n N w . :22; 5:30.. ogicou .30 :23; 030 5 $3532.. 2.5 .0 5.39.35 95.5.... «a can» 131 had V a «. u......_. and. n «X 3 u z . o s v a . u v a u .5 .a a a a a a. n o u s n v v , u .p n v a u p 8...... 90.3.03 9.3.38 3-0 :22; 260 an .3 £332.. 2.5 .o 3.3.229 2.2.3: No 039—. 9.0 V a Np u #0 3.2 n «X 3 u z o .4. ~ v a v a. o v n m n m N o n m N n a N N Op — n v n N _ :32; .352... 9.3.5.. .30 :22; 23050 .2 £030... 2...... .o 8.3255 9.2.3: 5 2...: 132 and V a and v a a. u... 2. a. n «X 3 n z m n p — .3 v a m u o o . n o. a a o a a a v p a o. _ n v n N . , — :32; no; 8039... 0:0 up ".2. a; n «X 5 u z m m a o v o a o a n n m o m u e m n o _ v n N F :23; 8.38‘ Ocuficafl .QQO not...) Sou >n 02< 5-39... .2232 .222 $023.... #0 030—. . :22; 030 an 3. 8220..— 2...o .0 5.32.3.0 2.25... an 039—. 133 2.6 V a «w u .3. .. 9.3 n «X 3 u 2 o. a o p p v m. c N o o a 3 m p n o N a p p p o p n v a _ . N w :23; 20:50.. 9.3.3: 030 205.2, 030 an _N_ 8030... on 039—. 3:35 .0 5.22225 2......2... 2... va a. ".2. . 2.2 n «X . S u z o a o a : v « p c o o n u a a o a u o o a u 2 p n v a N p :22; 8...... 9......3. :6 :o.2o> .30 >0 :— £292.. 32...: 5 8.32.35 2......2. ma 03:... 134 86 v... a u ..... vmdp n «X 3 u z p s ¢ 0 v v a o. .m n . a o. . . a N u o o t . v n . N .55.; 20:50.. 95.5.. . 0:0 co...o> 3.5 so Av. £039... 5:32 .o 5.3255 2......2. 8 .3... p— n N— a a o Np a v n N 8.28.. 83...... and v... «. us... a...» n «X 3 u 2 v o N _ :22; 8:0 20....) Sou >9 .2 5030... .2205. .0 cotafizaa 9.3.38 Na .30... 135 Table 39 Ranking Distribution Oi Marital Problem (5) By Case Version Caee Ranking Position Version ‘I 2 3 4 1 a 14 4 2 2 1O 5 6 O 3 8 9 6 O 4 5 7 a 1 N : 91 X“ = 17.71 «1.1.:31é' P < 0.12 LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Abramowitz, S., Abramowitz, C. & Gomes, B. The politics of clinical judgement: what nonliberal examiners infer about women who do not stifle themselves. J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 385-391. Ackerman, Nathan W. Treatinggthe Troubled Famil . New York: Basic Books, 1966. Agel, Jerome. The Radical Therapist. New York: Ballintine Books, 1971. Allen, Bem ‘.& Bough, Karen. Women's changing attitudes. The J. of Psychology, January, 1975. Amundsen, K. The Silenced Majority: Women and American Democracy. New York: Frentice- a , 1. Beck, A.T. 8 Greenberg, R.L. Cognitive therapy with depressed women. In Women in Ther , Franks & Burtle,(eds.) New York: Erunner7flazeI, E974. Bell, John B. Family Therapy, New York: Jason Aronson, 1974. .Bem, S.L. & Bem, D.J. Case study of a nonconscious ideology: training the woman to know her place. Adapted from.Bem, D.J. (ed.), Beliefs, Attitudes and Human Affairs. Belmont, CA: EroEEs7EoIe, I975, 1-11. Bernard, Jessie. Women and the Public Interest. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971. Bernigd, Jessie. The Future of Marriage. New York: World, 72. Bettelheim, B. The commitment required of a woman entering a scientific profession in present day American society. Woman and the Scientific Professions. Cambridge, Mass., Birdwhistell, Ray. The idealized model of the American family. Social Casework, April 1970, 195-198. Blake,‘Williamt The influence of race on diagnosis. Smith College Studies in Social Work, June 1971, 184-192. 136 Block, J.H. Conceptions of sex role: some cross-cultural and longitudinal perspectives. American Psycholgist, Block, J., VonDerLippe, A., 5 Block, J.H. Sex-role and socialization patterns: some personality concomitants- and environmental antecedents. J. of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 41, 321-341. Blood, R.O. & Wolfe, D.M. Husbands and Wives: The games of Married Living. Glencoe: T e Free Press, . Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. 5 Frame, J.L. (eds.). Intensive Family Therapy. New York: Harper & Row, I965. Bowlby, J. Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monogrgph, Geneva, 1951. Bowlby, J. Foreword in Determinants of Infant Behavior, 3. Foss, (ed.). London: Methuen & 50., 1961. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. London: The Hogarth Press mam—Institute of-Psychoanalysis, 1969. Brenton, Myron. The American Male. Greenwick, Conn.: Fawcett, 1966. Brodsky, Annette. The consciousness-raising group as a model for therapy with women. Psychotherapy: Theory, gsearch and Practice, 1973, 10, - . Brogan, Catherine. Changing perspectives on the role of women. Smith Collage Studies in Social Work, February 1972, 155:173. Broverman, I.K., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.B., Rosenkrantz, P.S., :- Vogel, S.R. Sex role stereotypes and clinical judgements of mental helath. J. of Consultingrand Clinical Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M., Clarkson, F.E. a Rosenkrantz, P.S. Sex-role stereotypes: a current appraisal. The J. of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 58-78. Brown, C.R. & Hellinger, M.I.. Therapists attitudes toward women. Social Work, July 1975, 266-270. Carlock, C.J. & Martin, P.Y. Sex composition and the intensive group experience. Social Work, 1977, 22, 58-78. Casler, L. Maternal deprivation: a critical review of the literature. Mon ra hs Soc. Res. Child Development . 1961' 26' l-GTO-i-B I 137 Chesler, Phyllis. Women as psychiatric and psychotherapeutic gggients. J. of Marriage and the Family, November 1971, -759. Chafing3 Phyllis. ngen and Madness. New York: Avon Books, Chesler, Phyllis 5 Cole, R. A word about mental health and women. Mental Health, 1973, 57, 5-7. Committee on the Family Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Treatment of Families in Conflict: The Clinical Study of FEEIIy Process. New York: Science House , 1970 . Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper 8 Row, I975. Daniels, Arlene. Feminist perspectives in sociological research. Another VOice, Marcia Millman 8 Rosabeth Kanter, (eds.§. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1975. DeBeauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf, 1953. Dell, J.L. & Ryan, T.T. Sex-role stereotyping and A-B therapist status: who is more chauvanistic? J. of Consultingand Clinical ngcholggy, 1975, 43, 3993593. Deutigl;5 Helene. The Psychology of Women. New York: Bantam, Devis, Donald. Four useful concepts for family diagnosis and treatment. Social Work, July, 1967. Diangson, Pat. Sex-role stereotyping and social work education. J;_of Education for Social Wbrk, 1975, 44-49. Eastman, P.C. Consciousness-raising as a resocialization process for women. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 1973' 43' 153-183e. Brikson, B. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1963. Brikson, 3. Inner and outer space: reflections on womanhood. Daedalus, 1964, 93. Hrikson, 8. Identity, Youth and Crises. New York: W.W. Norton , 1969? Erikson, G.D. & Hogan, T.P. (eds.) Fami1y_Ther : An Intro- duction to Theory and Technique. ’Mcnterey, 5*: Fro E 7 CoIe, I972. Fabrikant, Benjamin. The psychotherapist and the female patient: perceptions, misperceptions and change. In Women 1 ' Ther , Franks & Burtle (eds.) New York: ErunnerMeI , I9 74 . 138 Finn, Jeremy. A General Model for Multivariate Analysis. New York: HoIt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974. Fischer, J., Dulaney, D., Fazio, R., Hudak, M. & Zivotofsky, E. Are social workers sexists? Social WOrk, 1976, 21, 428-433. Fischer, J. 5 Miller, H. The effect of client race and social class on clinical judgements. Clinical Social‘Work Journal, March 1973, 100-109. Fodor, Iris G. The phobic syndrome in women: implications for treatment. In Women In Ther , Franks and Burtle (eds.). New York: Erunner7fiEEeI, I974. Francis, J. Turner (ed.) Differential Diaggosis and Treatment in Social Work. New Yor T e ree ress, 1968. Franks, V. 8 Burtle, V. (eds.) Women in Therspy, New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1974. Freud, S. Some psychical consequences of the anatomical distinction between the sexes. The Standard Edition of the Comglete Psychological WOrks of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 19, , 7. Freud, S. An autdbiographical study. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of SIgmgnH Freud, VoI. 7, Freud, S. New Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton, 1933. Friedan, B. The Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell, 1963. Fromm, Erich. Sex and character. Psychology, 1943, 6, 21-31. Gingras-Baker, Sylvia. Sex role stereotyping and.marriage gounseling. J. of Marrisge 8 Family Counseling, 1976, , 355-366. Glueck, Sheldon & Glueck, Eleanore. Working mothers and delinquency. Mental Hygiene, 1957, 41, 327-352. Goldberg, Herb. The Hazards of Being Male. New York: Nash, 1966. Gove, Walter R. The relationship between sex roles, marital status and mental illness. Social Forces, 1972, 51, 34-44. Gross, Herbert, et.a1. The effect of race and sex on the variation of diagnosis and disposition in a psychiatric emergency room. The J. of Nervous and Mental Disease, June 1969. , 139 Gurin, G., veroff, J. & Feld, 3. Americans View Their Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, I960. - . Gurman, Alan 5 Rice, David (eds) Couples in Conflict. New York: Jason Aronson, 1975. Haan, N.H. 8 Livson, N.L. Sex differences in the eyes of expert personality assessors: blind spots? J. of Per- ‘sonality Assessment, 1973, 37, 486-492. Haley, Jay & Hoffman, Lynn. Techniques of Family Therapy, New York: Basic Books, 1967. Haley, Jay. Problem-Solving Therapy. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1976: Harlow, H.F. Analysis of discrimination learning by monkeys. J. of Experimental Psychology, 1950, 40, 26-39. Harlow, H.F. Primate learning. In C.P. Stone (ed.) Comparative Psychology, New York: Prentice-Hall, 1951. Harlow, H.F. The nature of love. The American Psychologist, 1958, 13, 673-685. . Harris, L.H. & Lucas, M.E. Sex-role stereotyping. Social Work, Sept. 1976, 390-395. Hicks, Mary & Platt, Marilyn. Marital happiness and stability: a review of research in the sixties. J. of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 32, 553-574. Hirsch, G.T. Non-sexist childrearing: de-mythifying normative data. The Family Coordinator, 1974, 23, 165-170. Hochschild, Arlie. A review of the sex role research. American J. of Sociolggy, Jan. 1973, 78. Hoffman, L.W. Effects of the employment of mothers on parental power relations and the division of household tasks. Marriage and Family Living, 1960, 22, 27-35. Hoffman, L. Early childhood experiences and wanen's achievement motives. J. of Social Issues, 1972, 28, 129-155. Jackubowski-Spector, P. Facilitating the growth of women through assertive traing. The Counseling Psychologist 1973’ 4' 75-86e ’ Johnson, R.C. a Medianus, S.R. Child Ps cholo : Behavior and Development. New York: J. WIIey & 9ons, I967. Jourard, Sidney. Some lethal aspects of the male role. In The Transparent Self by J. Jourard. London: van ostran , . 140 Jung, Emma. 0n the nature of the animus. In Women and Anal sis: Dial ues on Psychoanalytic Views of Femininity. New Iork: fieII, I974. Kayton, R. :- Biller, H. Sex role development and psycho- pathology in adult males. J. of Counsulting and Clinica_1_ Kirsh, Barbara. Consciousness-raising groups as therapy for women. In Women in There , Franks a Burtle (eds.) New York: Brunner aze , . Kohlberg. L.A. A congitive-developmental analysis of ' children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In F. Maccoby (ed.) The Devel ment of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stan or UniversTtTFress, I966. Laws, Judith. A feminist review of marital adjustment literature: the rape of the locks. J. of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 483-516. Laws, Judith. A feminist view of marital adjustment. In Co les in Conflict: New Directions in Marital Ther , an Curman a DavIa ice IedE.’ New Yofi: Jason ARonson, 1975. Lehrman, Louis. The logic of diagnosis. 'Social Casework, May 1954, 192-199. Levin, S. A common type of marital incompatibility. J. of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1969, I D Levine, S.V., Kamin, L.E. 8 Levine, E.L. Sexism and , pgyc§§2try. American J. of OrthOpsychiatgg, 1974, 44, Lidz, Theodore. The Person. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Marmor, Judd. Changing patterns of femininity: psychoanalytic implications. In Jean Baker Miller (ed.) Psychoanalysis and Women. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1973. Mead, Margaret. Male and Famale. New York: Dell, 1972. Mead, Margaret. A cultural anthropologists approach to maternal deprivation. In De rivation of Maternal Care: An Assessment of Its Effects . PEBIIc HeaIEH Papers HI4. neva: or e rgan zation, 1962. Miller, Donna. The influence of the patient's sex on clinical jud ement. Smith Conga Studies in Social Work Feb. 1974, -'1‘00. . -. _. Miller, J.B. & Mothner, I. Psychological consequences of :gmgl inequality. American J. of Orthppsychiatry, 1971, I 67-775e 141 Millet, K. Sexual Politics. New York: Avon Books, 1969. Millman, M. Observations on sex role research. J. of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 772-775. Millman, M. 8 Renter, R.M. (eds.) Another Voice. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1975. Mitcgell, Juliet. ‘Woman's Estate. New York: Vintage Books, 971. Morgan, Robin (ed.) Sisterhood Is Powerful. New York: Vintage Books, 19751 Mussen, Paul H., Conger, John 8 Kagan, Jerome. Child Development and Personality. New York: Harper 8 Row, 1969. Nichols, Jack. Men's Liberation: A New Definition of Masculinity. New YorE: Penguin Books,1975.. Nie, Norman, Hull, C., Jenkins, Jean, Steinbrenner, Karin 8 Bent, Dale. Statistical Packa e For The Social Sciences. New York:.McGraw-HIII, I975. Orlansky, H. Infant care and personality. Psychological Osmond, H., Franks, V. 8 Burtle, V. Changing views of women and therapeutic approaches: some historical considerations. In Women In Thergpy, Franks 8 Burtle, (eds.) , New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1 . Parsons, T. 8 Bales, R.F. Famil Socialization and Inter- action Process. Glencoe, III.: Tfie Free Press, I953. Peal, E. Normal sex roles: an historical analysis. Family Process, 1975, 389-410. Rheingold, Joseph. The Fear of Beinga WOman. New York: Grune and Stratton, I954. Rice, David 8 Rice, Joy. Non-sexist marital therapy. J. of Marriage and Family Counselin , 1977, 3, 3-10. Rollins, B.C. 8 Feldman, H. Marital satisfaction over the gamily life cycle. J. of Marriage and the Family, 1970, ,20-28. t Romero, Det. Biases in gender role research. Social work, Rosaldo, M. 8 Lamphere, L. women Culture and Societ . Stanford, CA.: Stanford finiversityPress, 1975. Rosenkrantz, P.S., Bee, H., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, 1.x. 8 Broverman, DrM. Sex role stereotypes and self concepts in college students. J. of Consulting_and Clinical psychology, 1968, 32, 55772515. 116 Rossi, Alice. Transition to parenthood. J. of Marriage Satir, V., Stachowiak, J., 8 Taschman, H. Helping Families To Changa, New York: Jason Aronson, 1977. Satir, Virginia. Conjoint Family Therapy: A Guide To Theo and Technique. a o to, .: c ence an ehaviOr Boo s, 1967. Sattel, Jack W. The inexpressive male: tragedy or sexual politics? Social Problems, April 1976, 469-477. Schwartz, Mary C. Sexism.in the social work cirriculum. g;_of Education for Social WOrk, Fall 1973, 65-70. Schwartz, Mary C. Importance of the sex of worker and client. Social Work, July 1974, 177-184. Shainess, N. Images of women: past and present, overt and obscured. American J. of Psychotherapy, 1969, 23, 77-97. Sillman, L.R. Femininity and paranoidism. J. of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1966, 143, 163-170. Skolnick, A.S. 8 Skolnick, J.H. Family in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown 8 Co., I971; Slater, Philip. Parental role differentiation. In Coser, R. (ed.) The Famil , Its Structure and Functions. New York: St. Martins, 1 41 . Stannard, U. Adam's rib, or the woman within. Transaction, 1970’ 8' 24-35. Steadler, C.B. Readings in Child Behavior and Development. New York: Harcourt,§race 8 NbrId, I954. Stevens, Barbara. The psychotherapist and women's liberation. Social WOrk, July 1971, 12-18. Tanner, Leslie B. (ed.) voices From.Women's Liberation. New York: Signet, 19 75? Task Force Report. Report of the task force on sex bias and sex-role stereotyping in psychotherapeautic practice. American Psychologist, Dec. 1975, 1169-1175. weisstein, Naomi. 'Kinde, kuche, kirche' as scientific law: psychology constructs the female. In Robin Morgan (ed.) Sisterhood Is Powerful. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. 14.1- wells, R. 8 Christie, L. Living together, an alternative to marriage. The Futurist, 1970, 50-57. Whitely, R.M. WOmen in groups. The ConsultiagPsychologist, 1973, 4, 27-43. WOrtis, Rochelle P. The acceptance of the concept of the maternal role by behavioral scientists: its effect on women. American J. of Orthgpsychiatry, 1971, 4l,'733-746. Zuk, G.H. Family There : A Triadic-Based roach. New York: Pehavioral PEEIIcaEIons, I972. 144 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES (II\IIWIHIIIIHIIHIIII ”NIH!!!” W W m "1 NW 31293103422428