Il/Illlllllllll ll/I/WIUlllllll/IWI/W/l/I/III/l/I/ll LI: i" A 9? 3 1293 10388 5020 'Q g Michigan Stan: i I" I . j w 5'3 University 6.,” ,.,. _ -‘T’T‘ZA This is to certify that the thesis entitled CHIIDREN'S PSYCI-DSOCIAL ADJUS'DVIEN'I' AS RELATED TO FAMILY ALIGM'IENI‘ PATTERNS presented by Yanon Volcani has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph-D- degree in W / ’ Mfé’ professor Date #0 0-7 639 W: 25¢ per day per ite- RETURNING LI RARY MATERIALS: ,\ ‘ ‘ "3‘95"” Place in book netu rnto remove ‘ l W .‘ Jig/’3\\\\‘ s" charge from circulation records CHILDREN'S PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS RELATED TO FAMILY ALIGNMENT PATTERNS BY Yanon Volcani A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1980 l/ 5,. a // n J (0 ABSTRACT CHILDREN'S PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS RELATED TO FAMILY ALIGNMENT PATTERNS BY Yanon Volcani The current investigation explored the relationship be- tween children's psychosocial adjustment and family alignment patterns exhibited by 33 middle-class family triads (mother, father, and child) engaged in two interactional tasks (Free Play and Teach-A—Proverb). The sample was from a previous study by Messé and Stollak and their colleagues (Stollak, Messé, Michaels, Buldain, Catlin, and Paritee, 1977) which examined the relationship between interpersonal perceptual style, family interactions, and adjustment in 4-9 year old "normal" children. Five sets of two-member rater teams independently coded videotapes of the family interactions on dimensions developed by the current g to assess alignment patterns among family members. Building upon Haley's (1967) distinction between alliances-~in which a relationship between two individuals is independent of a third person--and coalitions--wherein a two person relationship actively excludes or extrudes an other-- the current research attempted to delineate such patterns. It was predicted that families whose children were rated as highly adjusted by teachers would exhibit higher amounts of aligning behaviors (i.e. Who-Speaks-To-Whom, Aligning Verbalization, Activity, Physical Proximity, GFV’ .1. ex:e O .1. .E ‘n .4312 r“ l V ' a fit Yanon Volcani Physical Plane, Physical Aligning, as well as ratios reflect- ing greater Aligning than Extruding Verbalization and Physi- cal contact), equally distributed among family members (i.e. low Dispersion Scores), than families of children rated lower on adjustment. Such behaviors were assumed to reflect the former families' ability to form simultaneous, mutual alli- ances among members. In contrast, the latter families were expected to exhibit higher amounts of extruding behaviors (i.e. Extruding Verbalization, Physical Extruding, and ratios reflecting greater Extruding than Aligning Verbalization and Physical contact), and unevenness of aligning and extruding behaviors among family members (i.e. high Dispersion Scores), as compared to the families of "highly” adjusted children. Such behaviors presumably indicated coalitions among family dyads that excluded the third member. Among the many statistically significant findings, Pearson product moment coefficients revealed significant positive relationships between child adjustment and several father-to-child, child-to-father aligning behaviors. Further- more, several of the father-to-mother and mother-to-father aligning behaviors were also positively related to child ad- justment. In contrast, several mother-to-child aligning be- haviors were negatively associated with child adjustment during Free Play. To further examine relationships between child adjust- ment and family alignment patterns, families having children rated in the highest and lowest third on adjustment were Yanon Volcani compared on the various aligning and extruding dimensions. T-test, chi square, and Sign test analyses, as well as the ratios of Aligning to Extruding Verbalization within and across family members, revealed stronger father-child and father-mother alignments in the families of the "healthiest" as compared to the most "poorly adjusted" children. The latter group had stronger mother-child alignments. These findings appeared to support psychodynamic and family systems theories on child deve10pment, wherein strong father-mother and father-child alignments allow the latency-age child to differentiate from the mother. Some differences for sex-of—child were noted. For ex- ample, there were stronger alignments between same-sex as compared with cross-sex parent-child dyads; the positive as- sociation between child competence and father-to-child align- ing behaviors was stronger for father-daughter dyads than father-son; and the negative association between child compe— tence and mother-child aligning was stronger for boys than girls. Task differences were also noted, with the Free Play as compared to the Teach-A-Proverb task eliciting aligning and extruding behaviors that were more evidently related to child adjustment. Furthermore, the tasks appeared to provoke di- vergent socially prescribed role behaviors, with the mother being the "expressive leader," while the father was the "instrumental leader." This dissertation is dedicated with deep love to Big Ben and Tiny Ton' my first alignments ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "I'm really a jazz musician" you have said, so Gary Stollak I thank you for wonderous melodies and improvised, synCOpated ideas that have enchanted and enriched me. I have listened well, memorizing certain rifts, varying others, and most importantly have heard the essential theme--that I must create my own song. It is for this that I am most grateful--your unconditional support and encouragement of my discovering, exploring, and expressing what was of essence. And thus my tune is unique, yet your notes are there, your song continues. Helen Benedict, I thank you for your high standards and commitment to excellence. You have challenged me toward greater clarity and exactitude, gently demanding refinement and precision. Perhaps of still greater importance to me has been your warmth and eagerness to share on many levels. I thank you Lucy Ferguson for your authoritative guidance and calm astuteness. The breadth of your knowledge has been an abundant resource for me, matched only by your generosity in giving of it. Eileen Thompson, your enthusiasm, inquisitiveness, and profuse ideas have both delighted and enlightened me. iii A: 7%. w . Ru A.“ n. u .- e 1, Es N~H ,- “A Vv Your openness and unceasing encouragement has been a gift. For all of this I thank you. ~Joel Aronoff, I have relished your commitment to exploration and discovery, and your astonishing ability to guide others toward what is fundamental. I have been moved by your scholarliness and willingness to provoke in search of illumination. Your integrity and authenticity have inspired me, your humanness has touched me. You have helped me sing my notes with greater purity. Thank you. Once again, I thank you Larry Messé for multiply progressing my understanding of multiple regression and other statistical analyses. I have savored your warmth, wit, and wisdom. My thanks to you David Anderson, technological wizzard, for your invaluable help in editing the videotapes. Your cooperation and competence have been a joy. And my great appreciation and gratitude to you, Grace Akinyemiju, Steve Alpert, Tracy Etzel, Debbie Gash, Gretchen Hensel, Dan Passman, and Michalle Rowser for your unfaltering dedication, perseverance, enthusiasm, and reliability (1) throughout the arduous task of rating the videotapes. One could not find a better back up band! iv () “Tm. .~‘ ~ u‘ D _O_ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHILDREN'S PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT As RELATED TO FAMILY ALIGNMENT PATTERNS . . . . 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . 1 Definitions . . . . . 3 Empirical Evidence for the Relationship between Adjustment and Family Alignments . 6 Coalitions as Related to Individual/ Familial Pathology . . . . . 6 Lack of Stable Alignments . . . . 7 Parental Coalitions Excluding the Child. . . . . 8 Parent-Child Coalitions Excluding the Other Parent . . . 9 Alliances as Related to Individual/ Familial Health . . . . . . 11 HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . 15 METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Subject Selection . . . . . . . 17 Sample Characteristics. . . . . . 17 Procedure . . . . . . . . . l8 Criterion Measures. . . . 21 Children' s Psychosocial Adjustment. . 21 Predictor Measures. . . . . . 23 Family Alignment Patterns . . . . 23 Who—Speaks-To-Whom. . . . . 23 Aligning and Extruding Verbalization. . . . . . 24 Activity . . . . . . . 26 Physical Plane. . . . . . 27 Physical Proximity. . . . . 27 Physical Aligning and Extruding. . . . . . . 28 Dispersion Scores . . . . . 29 Training and Coding Procedure . . 30 Reliability of the Alignment Variables. . 32 V RESULTS Analysis of the Data . . . . . Criterion Measures . . . . Children' s Psychosocial Adjustment . Predictor Variables. . . . Aligning and Extruding Behaviors . Children' s Psychosocial Adjustment and Family Aligning and Extruding Behaviors Children's Adjustment and Triadic Aligning and Extruding Behaviors Children's Adjustment and Family Dispersion Scores . . . . Comparisons between Families of "High" and "Low" Adjusted Children . . . Summary of Results . . . Sex-of—Child, Child Competence and Family Alignment Patterns . . Summary of the Differences for Sex-of- Child, Family Alignment Patterns, and Child Adjustment. . Summary of Task Differences. . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . Relevance of Findings for Hypotheses . Implications of Findings for Functional/ Less Functional Family Alignment Patterns . . . . Relevance of Findings for Theories of the Development of Child Competence . Methodological Considerations . . Directions for Future Research . . Gathering the Data Base. . . Refinement of Alignment Measures Populations Studied. . . Other Related Questions and Methodological Approaches . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . A. Parent Information Form. . . . . B. List of Proverbs . . . C. Measures of Children' s Psychosocial Adjustment. . . D. Family Alignments Coding Manual. . E. Sample Characteristics . . . . . vi Page 33 33 35 35 35 35 37 43 43 45 51 51 65 66 .70 70 76 78 85 89 89 90 92 93 97 97 98 99 119 127 APPENDICES (cont'd.) F. Correlations between Teacher Ratings of Children's Adjustment . . . G. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of Teacher Ratings of Children's Adjustment. . . . . . . . H. Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Frequencies of Family Aligning/ Extruding Behaviors on Tasks l and 2 I. Means, T Ratios, and P Values Comparing Families of "High"/"Low" Adjusted Children on Tasks 1 and 2 . . . J. Means, T Ratios, and P Values Comparing Families of Boys and Girls on Tasks l and 2 . . . . . . . K. Guiding Assumptions. . . . . L. Characteristics Distinguishing "Dysfunctional" from "Normal" Families . . . . . . . M. Characteristics of "Healthy" Families N. Toward a Phenomenology of Alignments FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . vii Page 128 129 130 136 142 148 150 156 159 182 183 .w Jun Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page Inter-rater reliability across the two family interaction tasks . . . . . . 32 Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extruding behaviors for task 1 (child sex/age partialled out) . . . . 38 Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extruding behaviors for task 2 (child sex/age partialled out) . . . . 39 Correlations between child adjustment and triadic aligning/extruding behaviors (child sex/age partialled out) . . . . 40 Correlation between child adjustment and Dispersion Scores (child sex/age partialled out . . . . . . . . 44 Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extruding behaviors for families of boys and girls on task 1 . . . . . 55 Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extruding behaviors for families of boys and girls on task 2 . . . . . S7 Correlations between child adjustment and triadic aligning/extruding behaviors for families of boys and girls . . . . . 59 viii 5&— are and the nav; - W . ‘ ‘ ‘9. boo an: 4‘: Gs Q» cHU ‘a.. due K ‘ :1 4H oft CHILDREN'S PSYCHOSOCIAL ADJUSTMENT AS RELATED TO FAMILY ALIGNMENT PATTERNS INTRODUCTION A pivotal construct in family systems theory is that of alignments-~the forms and expressions of bonds among family members. Indeed, attempts to understand the nature and function of alignments within a family--and particularly the differences between alignment patterns in families having a psychologically disturbed individual as compared with those that did not--was the very bedrock from which family systems theory first evolved. The centrality of the concept, however, has not been matched by a rigor in its ex- plication, delineation, and operalization. Thus, the terms "alignment,” "coalition," "alliance," "subsystem," and others have been used indiscriminately and interchangeably through- out the family theory literature. Furthermore, family alignment patterns either have been assessed through the use of one or two microanalytic dimensions (e.g., frequency counts of who-speaks-to-whom or who-agrees/disagrees-with-whom), or indirectly measured through the study of other seemingly related variables such as "power," ”dominance," or ”support." Such approaches to the measurement of the concept would seem insufficient given 1 oloc iSa 2 the complexity of the phenominon. Indeed, the conceptual ambiguity and overlap between alignments and other related constructs in family research has lead Jacob and Grounds (1978) to conclude: The meaning of and referents for the suggested dimension (term?, concept?, process?) coalition are vague, to say the least, including the possibility of an affective component (parent ++ child + parent ++ parent), and influence component (parent + child vs. parentz) or both (p. 379 . It was precisely this lack of exactitude in the definition, measurement, and explication of family alignment patterns that served as an impetus for the current investigation. One exception to the indiscriminant use of termin- ology, however, has been the work of Haley (1959, 1967), who differentiates between "alliances"--in which the relation- ship between two people is independent of a third person-- and coalitions--defined as "a process of joint action which is against the third person“ (Haley, 1967, p. 16). Sluzki (1975) alludes to this distinction in speaking of "inclusive and exclusive coalitionary structures." The current investi- gation attempted to further clarify this differentiation, assessing numerous aligning/extruding behaviors that would help distinguish alliances and coalitions. In this way, the current research attempted to increase the understanding of family alignments by more fully delineating the subtle Ia fia‘ QNyeH 3 behaviors that punctuate, attenuate, and demarcate the nature and intensity of a given alignment. In addition, it was the current investigator's clinical observation that what constituted "health” in a family system was not merely the predominance of flexible alignments among family members, but the further ability to form various types of simultaneous, mutual alliances between all members of the family. The measures used in the current study attempted to empirically elucidate and test this as- sumption, as will be made clear at a later point. A broader analysis of alliances and coalitions--their nature, origins, function, and possible reasons for their effects-—can be found in Appendix N. The present discusSion will be limited to definitions of the concepts as used in the current research, and a review of empirical findings directly relevant to the relationship between psychosocial adjustment and family alignment patterns. Definitions Wynne (1961) was one of the first family theoreti- cians to put forth a concise definition of alignments. Echo- ing the sociological definitions of the concept (e.g., Caplow, 1956; Heider, 1958; Mills, 1953; Simmel, 1950), Wynne defined alignments as "the perception or experience of two or more persons that they are joined together in a common endeavor, interest, attitude, or set of values, and nu. a» S .HIH A.» L. \\ \‘ 4 that in this sector of their experience they have positive feelings toward one another" (p. 96). Splits, on the other hand, involve a "perception or experience of Opposition, difference, or estrangement, with associated negative feelings" (p. 96). Similar to Wynne's (1961) definition, "alignment" in the current research was used as a generic term for any enjoinment of two or more people--whether it be an alliance or a coalition--based on a shared perception that certain physical and/or psychological needs are being, will be, or could be fulfilled in the relationship, and/or based on mutual valuing and respect. As a further differentiation, two distinct form of alignments--alliances and coalitions-- were defined in the current study as follows: An alliance is a relationship between two or more peeple based on mutual feelings of acknowledgment, appre- ciation, admiration, affection, empathy, respect, like and/ or love for each other. Though there is a shared perception and expectation that certain basic physical and psychological needs (e.g., Murray, 1938) could be, are being, or will be gratified through the alliance, the relationship is not formed primarily to fulfill such needs. Instead, the rela- tionship essentially deve10ps from the mutual enjoyment and appreciation of the qualities, attributes, and characteris- tics of the other, and the pleasure derived from interacting with them. Being a direct response to the other, and '9’ a“. ‘09 «n 5 independent of some external person or entity, alliance rela- tionships potentiate the inclusion of any aspect of the indi- viduals' experiencing. A coalition is a relationship between two or more people based on feelings of fear, ambivalence, conflict, anger, helplessness, and pain aroused by some person or entity external to the coalition relationship. The coalition is formed as a response to this external entity, which is thereby excluded, actively extruded, or in some way colluded against by the members forming the coalition. The relation- ship is based primarily on an attempt to fulfill physical/ psychological needs and thereby assuage distress, rather than derived from a specific enjoyment of the other person. Being a direct reaction to some external factor, coalition relationships necessitate the exclusion or expulsion of some aspect of the individuals’ experiencing. It need be stressed here that, as in the case with any attempt at delineating complex phenomena, the above defi- nitions do not purport to reflect directly the exact nature of alliances and coalitions as they actually occur in human relationships--as if these relationships took on such pure forms. It would seem obvious that an alliance at times would include some reaction to an external entity, and possibly at that moment involve a "collusion" against it. Similarly, coalitions certainly can include feelings of enjoyment and liking for the other person. The nature of the relationship ‘3 r) 0 /w P .o 6 can fluctuate within context and situation. However, what is definitive here is the predominance of qualities that char- acterize the relationship--whether they be mutual apprecia- tion and respect between individuals, or a using of the other to fulfill one's needs. Empirical Evidence for the Relationship_ between Adjustment and Family Alignments It was the central assumption of the current study that positive adjustment in children would be related to mutual alliances among family members, while poor adjustment in children would be associated with coalitions within the family. A more elaborate explication of the theoretical underpinnings for these associations can be found in Appendix N. The empirical evidence supporting these assumptions will be discussed here. Coalitions as Related to Individual/Familial Pathology Typical to tradition in psychological research, most of the studies examining the relationships between individual functioning and family environments was, and to a large extent still is, on family variables associated with path- glggy_in one or more family members. Investigations focus- ing specifically on such pathology and family alignment patterns have consistently found an association between three main forms of coalitions--a lack of stable alignments, a parental coalition excluding the child, and a parent-child 7 coalition excluding the other parent--and psychosomatic, cognitive, and/or psychosocial dysfunction in one or more family members. These various forms of coalitions and their apparent effects will be discussed separately. Lack of Stable Alignments Haley (1959, 1962) was one of the first to note the difficulty some families with a schiZOphrenic have in form- ing stable alignments between members. He speculated that in such families members continually disqualified and dis- confirmed each other's and their own behaviors for fear of taking a stand, and that such communication patterns made it very difficult to form stable alignments. Furthermore, he noted: Family members (of families with a schizo- phrenic) behave as if an alliance between two of them is inevitably a betrayal of the third person. They seem to have difficulty functioning in a two-person relationship, and as a result the separation of any one of the three from the others is a particular threat (Haley, 1959, p. 186). Riskin (1963) corroborates: "In families with schiz- ophrenic children, there is a rule, with quite specific ex- ceptions, that there must be no coalitions (alignments) of any two members to the exclusion of a third" (p. 347). To empirically explore these assumptions, Haley (1962) studied the ability to form and maintain alignments in 30 families having a schizophrenic member and 30 families who did not. Using a push-button interaction game specifically a sQ\ \Ue 8 designed to evoke aligning behaviors, Haley found that the families with a schizophrenic had a significantly harder time than the "normal" families in forming and maintaining dyadic alignments, spending significantly less time in two- person interaction. Such significant differences in align- ing behaviors were not found by Haley, however, in two later studies comparing alignment patterns in disturbed and normal families (Haley, 1963, 1967c). Minuchin's (1967) description of "disengaged" families--wherein members seemed to be emotionally unin- volved and unaffected by each other--appears to be another example of an inability to form stable alignments. Interest- ing to note is that "enmeshed" families, in which individual boundaries were blurred and all members were strongly affected by whatever happened to the other, also had dif- ficulty forming dyadic alignments. As in Haley's (1959) characterization of schizophrenic families, the difficulty here appeared to stem from the sense that any dyadic rela- tionship would exclude some other members of the family and betray some other dyadic relationship. Parental Coalitions Excluding the Child A second coalition pattern frequently discussed in the literature involves the parents forming a coalition which scapegoats the child (e.g., Ackerman, 1958; Boszormenyi- Nagy and Spark, 1973; Bowen, 1960; Haley, 1962, 1964; Satir, 1964; Vogel and Bell, 1960). Coalitions of this sort oer: 4"" In 'J o- 5 0'.) a :0. .e. .73 nd a «(a in,“ "a A C .0 S {L m a S v D. e 2‘ he. ls 9 apparently develop from the parents' inability to give to the child, due to their own esteem needs and lack of indi- viduation (Satir, 1964); out of a need to have the child act out the parents' unconscious impulses (Johnson and Szurek, 1952); out of a loyalty to the parents' own family of origin (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973); and/or out of a need to "triangle" the child in order to stabilize the spouse rela- tionship (Ackerman, 1958; Bowen, 1960; Counts, 1967; Silber- berg, 1976; Vogel and Bell, 1960). For example, in studying the interaction patterns of 30 families with hospitalized schizophrenics, 13 families having a hospitalized psychotic non-schizophrenic, and 26 "normal” families engaged in four interaction tasks (an un- structured coffee break, a twenty-questions game, a group Rorschach, and a discussion of the best/worst family experi- ence), Wild (1977) found that the hospitalized schizophren- ics were excluded from their parents relationship to a significantly greater and more hostile extent than the other groups. Exclusion was assessed using measures of who-speaks- to-whom, length of speech, and content of speech. The parental coalition, however, was "characterized more by mutual disappointment than by satisfaction or intimacy" (p. 69). Parent-Child Coalitions Excluding the Other Parent The most widely discussed coalition pattern observed in dysfunctional families involves a cross generational t 10 parent-child coalition, what Haley (1967) termed the "per- verse triangle," and White (1978) referred to as the "patho- genic triangle system" (Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1976; Bowen, 1960; Cheek, 1964; Cheek and Anthony, 1970; Coleite, 1971; Doane, 1978; Fleck, et al., 1959; Fogarty, 1976; Haley, 1976; Lennard, et al., 1965; Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Lewis, et al., 1976; Lidz, 1963, 1965; Minuchin, 1967; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Murrell, 1971; Satir, 1964; Schuham, 1970, White, 1978; Zuk, 1976). Indeed, the notion of a mother-son coalition against a passive father in the "schizophrenic family" is one of the pivotal dictums in the credo of family theory (e.g., Ackerman, 1958; Bowen, 1960; Lidz, 1963; Satir, 1964; Wynne, 1961). Though this has been found to be the coalition form most common in families having a schizophrenic member (e.g., Bowen, 1960; Cheek and Anthony, 1970; Fleck, et al., 1959; Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Lewis, et al., 1976; Lidz, 1963, 1965; Mishler and Waxler, 1968), such a pattern also has been found to distinguish "psychosomatogenic" families (those having a psychosomatic member) from normal controls (Meissner, 1966; Minuchin, 1976, 1978; Tiller, 1978; White, 1978); to characterize families having behavior disordered czhildren and adolescents (Alexander, 1973; Coleite, 1971); tx> differentiate families with children having reading Lzroblems from those which did not (Morris, 1977; Stackhouse, 11973); to distinguish poorly functioning "normal" families M C J. A. .l a .1 a: C .l 1:. e 9 Fe .1 Tu ‘x V3 ‘1‘ 9 .3 a A. K 11 W e . a . a E e 3 ‘Q .Q Ln d E 2. a mi 1).. «C 11 from adequately functioning ones (Lewis, et al., 1976; Mihalopoulous, 1971; Murrell, 1971; Russell, 1979); and adequately functioning families from those that are particu- larly "healthy" (Kleiman, 1976; Lewis, et al., 1976; Westley and Epstein, 1969) (for a further discussion of the char- acteristics of "healthy" families see Appendix M). Thus Doane (1978), in her review of the literature on family alignment patterns concludes: There is much evidence to support the view that disturbed families are marked by a preponderance of parent-child coalitions and a corresponding weak parental coalition (alliance), as well as a conflicted marital relationship (p. 372). Alliances as Related to Individual/Familial Health That mutual alliance patterns are characteristic of "healthy" families is supported by several studies (e.g., Kleiman, 1976; Lewis, et al., 1976; Westley and Epstein, 1969). For example, in Lewis, et al.‘s (1976) research which, as more fully described in Appendix M, contrasted families independently rated by four psychologists as being ”healthy" with those rated "normal" and “dysfunctional," it was found that in comparison to the other family groups, healthy families exhibited a significantly greater amount of equal, flexible, and positive interactions among all family members-—interaction patterns that would seem to typify mutual alliance formations. Such patterns were assessed through a microanalysis of the families' interactions using 12 Riskin and Faunce's (1970) system, including assessment of who-speaks-to-whom and positive/negative verbalizations. In addition, Lewis and his colleagues (1976) found that the strength of the parental alliance and the lack of parent-child coalitions (as assessed by clinical observa- tions of family interviews) not only differentiated healthy and normal families from dysfunctional ones, but furthermore distinguished healthy families from normal ones. These researchers typified the spouse relationship in optimal families in the following way: These marriages revealed a high degree of complimentarity. There was a "fit" between the parents' varying individual skills, pride in each other's assets, and no strong competitive pulls. As a consequence, there appeared to be little need for emotionally charged alliances (coalitions) with opposite sexed others, whether from outside the family or with one of the children (p. 210). Similar results were found by Westley and Epstein (1969) in studying 20 "healthy," 36 "normal," and 20 "low adjusted" college undergraduates and their families. Here again, a positive spouse alliance differentiated healthy from both normal and low functioning undergraduates, with the authors observing "a direct relationship between the degree of emotional health found in the children and the degree to which the relationship between parents was positive" (p. 112). ate: U ‘L ddi .0 13 Similarly, Kleiman (1976), in contrasting parental interactions of 20 "healthy" and 20 "normal" male adoles- cents whose competence was assessed by self report person- ality inventories, found that, "Effective parental coalitions (alliances) and generational boundaries are a differentiating factor in families of 'healthy' male adolescents when com- pared to the families of 'normal' male adolescents" (p. 4687-B). The conclusions of the above investigators are corrob- orated by the research of Caputo (1963), Farina and Holzberg (1968), Murrell and Stachowiak (1976) and Solvberg and Blakar (1975), all of whom found less spouse conflict in families of normally adjusted children as compared to those with poorly functioning offsprings. That the ability to form mutual alliances is associ- ated with positive family functioning and high psychosocial adjustment in children would appear to be further supported by the myriad of studies which have found families with adequately competent members to be more balanced and flex- ible in their interactions with each other than those families having a disturbed member (e.g., Ferreira, et al., 1966; Ferreira and Winter, 1968; Haley, 1964; Herman and Jones, 1976; Leighton, et al., 1971; Lennard et al., 1965; Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Mishler and Waxler, 1968, 1975; Murrell and Stachowiak, 1967; Solvberg and Blakar, 1975; Winter and Ferreira, 1967, 1969). Interactional flexibility 'h (I) 14 and balance was measured in a variety of ways, including sequencing of who-follows-whom (e.g., Ferreira, et al., 1966; Haley, 1964); frequency of who-speaks-to-whom (e.g., Lennard, et al., 1965); predictability of speaker sequence (e.g., Mishler and Waxler, 1975); rates of triadic over dyadic interactions (e.g., Herman and Jones, 1976) (this in par- ticular would seem to be indicative of the ability to form simultaneous alliances); and rates of speech frequency among family members (e.g., Leighton, et al., 1971; Lennard, et al., 1965; Murrell and Stachowiak, 1967; Winter and Ferreira, 1967, 1969). The fact that these findings emphasized greater mutual interaction among all family members in normal as compared to dysfunctional families would point to a pro- clivity toward simultaneous alliance patterns in such families. These findings also could be interpreted as support- ive of Titchener's (1967) analysis of family development from an Eriksonian (Erikson, 1950) position, in which he states: The capacity to respond to at least two others simultaneously in a triadic com— munication system marks the beginning of the family experience for the growing in- dividual. Prior to the acquisition of this capacity to differentiate and integrate responses to more than one other person, the experience with others are dyadic in form. There must be cases of arrest in development at this level of integration . . . for there are families that appear to be structured along dyadic lines (p. 49). 15 Thus, from this perspective, the inability to form simultaneous, mutual alliances would constitute a develop- mental delay deriving from familial issues of basic mistrust. Here again we return to the assumption that psychological safety--which is fundamentally synonymous with "basic trust" --is the quintessential state necessary for the ability to form mutual alliances. Coalitions, in contrast, arise from the experience of mistrust, that is, the experience of psychological dis-safety. HYPOTHESES From the theoretical positions and research findings previously discussed, the present investigator expected that competent psychosocial adjustment in the children of the present sample would be positively associated with familial interaction patterns exemplifying simultaneous, mutual a1- 1iances between all three family members. In contrast, poor psychosocial adjustment in the children would be positively related to familial interaction patterns reflecting parent- al or parent-child coalitions. More specifically, such a relationship between children's adjustment and family align- ment patterns would be reflected in the current research in the following ways: I. There would be a positive association between teacher ratings indicative of high psychosocial adjustment in a child and: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 16 Amount and equalness of mother-father-child frequencies and ratios of Who-Speaks-To-Whom. Amount and equalness of mother-father-child expressions and ratios of Aligning Verbalization. Amount and equalness of mother-father-child involvement in mutual Activity. Amount and equalness of mother-father-child being on the same Physical Plane. Amount and equalness of mother-father-child Physical Proximity. Amount and equalness of mother-father-child expressions and ratios of Physical Aligning. Low Dispersion Scores between family dyads across the above categories. II. There would be a positive association between teacher ratings indicative of low psychosocial adjustment in a child and: l) 2) 3) Amount of mother-father-child expressions of Extruding Verbalization. Amount of mother-father-child expressions of Physical Extruding. High Dispersion Scores between family dyads for each of the above categories, whereby two family members would engage in these behaviors among themselves to a greater extent than with the third member. METHOD Subject Selection The current investigation used the subject sample and data collected by Messé and Stollak (1976) for their study of the relationships between interpersonal perceptual style, children's adjustment, and family interaction patterns. Subjects for this study were recruited through the East Lansing, Michigan public school system. Kindergarten and first grade students were given letters describing the re- search project to take home to their parents. Included in the letters were stamped, addressed postcards, which the parents were requested to return if they were interested in possibly participating in the study for a $25 payment. Thirty-three two parent families of 4-9 year old children (14 females and 19 males) agreed to participate. Sample Characteristics General demographic information on the children and their families (age and sex of the subject; age and sex of his siblings; ages, occupations, and years of education of both parents) were obtained through a form completed by the parents (see Appendix A). The children (19 males, 14 females) ranged in age from 4-0 to 9-4 years old, with a 17 f) It; 18 mean age of 7-3. Sixty per cent (20) of the children were first born, 15% (5) second born, and 15% (5) third born; the remaining three children were born fourth or fifth. The majority came from two child families (48%, 16), while 18% (6) had two siblings, 15% (5) had three siblings, five were only children, and one had four siblings. The children were living in two-parent, mostly "middle-class" urban families (Group II of the Hollingshead and Redlich (1958) Index), three of which were Black, with the mean education of the fathers being two years of college, and the mean education of the mothers being the completion of high school. The fathers worked in "blue collar" (45%) and "white collar" occupations, while most of the mothers were not employed outside of the home (Appendix E presents a more detailed summary of sample characteristics). Procedure Participating family triads (father, mother, and child) came to an office in the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, where they were met by a research- er and his/her assistant. The Experimenters explained the tasks that the family would be involved in during the ses- sion, assuring their right to refuse to perform any task that they were not comfortable in doing. After signing a consent form for themselves and their children, the parents filled out some questionnaires while their child was with 19 the assistant in a playroom located elsewhere in the building. The parents then engaged in activities related to assessing their interpersonal perceptual style (see Messé and Stollak, 1976, for details), which lasted for about an hour, before joining their child in the playroom. At this point the family was shown the videotaping equipment located behind the one-way mirrors which line one wall of the play- room. The researcher explained that the family would be asked to engage in several tasks as a group, and that they would be videotaped while doing so. These tasks, each lasting for 10 minutes, involved: (1) Free play; (2) Teaching the child the meaning of some proverb; (3) Orally composing stories to two picture cards; and (4) Discussing ”some of the things that all of you disagree about at home." The current research used the first two tasks the families engaged in to assess their alignment patterns, in- dependently examining the relationships between criterion and predictor variables for each task. The Free Play and Teach-A-Proverb tasks were selected since they appeared to involve a useful contrast between a more spontaneous situ- ation which potentially emphasized triadic family alignments, and a more structured situation which potentially would elicit a parental alignment in fulfilling what was asked. Of relevance here is a research of Henggeler, Borduin, Rodnick, and Tavormina (1979) who studied 64 "well TEE 20 adjusted" family triads using two unrevealed differences discussion tasks, in which the content of one focused on instrumental/external family issues (e.g., where to go on vacation), while the other involved expressive/internal issues (e.g., the biggest family problem). Though the task content did not effect measures of family affect or domi- nance, the instrumental/external task evoked significantly greater family conflict than the expressive/internal task. The researchers point out the potentially differing effects a task can have on family interactions, though other in- vestigators have found such interaction patterns to be stable across experimental tasks (e.g., Drechsler and Shapiro, 1963; Haley, 1967; Jacob and Davis, 1973; Murrell and Stachowiak, 1967). Perhaps the divergence here is due to the nature of the measures used in the different studies. The specific instructions for the Free Play and Teach-A-Proverb tasks were as follows: Free Play--As you can see, this is a playroom and on this wall over here we have a one-way mirror. The one—way mirror allows us to observe and make videotapes of what happens in the room. During our time together now we will be doing several different kinds of things, and will be videotaping all of you as you do them. Later on we will be going back and looking at the videotapes in order to learn more about what families do when they are together. We're going to ask you to be involved in four dif- ferent tasks for us, each one of which takes about 10 minutes to complete. We're pretty sure that all of them will be interesting and we hope that they'll be enjoyable and fun for you to do together. The first task is very simple, we're just interested in your playing together. During the next ten minutes we would like you to do whatever 21 you would like to do in here. I'm going to leave now and will return in ten minutes and we'll go on with the next task. Are there any questions? (The research assistant leaves the room.) Teach-A—Proverb--Mr. and Mrs. , here are lists of proverbs (the research ass1stant hands one list to each parent) (see Appendix B for proverbs list). What we would like you to do is to select at least two proverbs from the list of ten, and teach them to to your satisfaction. So first you should look at the list and decide which two proverbs you'd like to teach. Again, you can teach more if you wish. Maybe the best way to begin is just to select two now, and then if you wiSh to go back to teach other ones, you can select those that you might find interesting. We all know that parents and teachers often have different ways of helping children learn difficult things, such as proverbs and rules for living, and we're interested in finding out how you help your child learn some- thing difficult. Are there any questions? I'll be back in ten minutes. (The research assistant leaves the room.) Criterion Measures Children's Psychosocial Adjustment After obtaining permission from the parents, Messé and Stollak (1976) had research assistants distribute packets containing the inventories used to assess children's adjustment to the teachers of the children participating in their research. The measures used were the following: 1) An abridged form of the Children's Behavior Checklist (CBC) (Ferguson, et al., 1974) (see Appendix C), which yields cumulative scores of positive and dysfunctional adjustment, based on 27 items assessing positive (e.g., "makes friends quickly and easily") and 25 items assessing negative (e.g., "seems sad and unhappy") behaviors. For an ‘ Mm." ‘oo U » soc: item are of t) "Pie: ”AW 1' ble. minds 22 item to be counted in the cumulative score in the current study, it had to be designated as being "characteristic" of the child, rather than merely "applying." 2) An abridged version of the Besell-Palomare Rating Form (B-P) (Besell and Palomares, 1967) (see Appendix C), an inventory specifically designed to assess competent, pro- social behaviors in children. The B-P gives a single, glob- al score of positive psychosocial adjustment derived from 10 items characteristic of competent child behaviors. There are five descriptions per item, ranging from the antithesis of the behavior to the optimal example of it (e.g., for "Flexibility" the range is from "Rigid. Very unresponsive to new information or demands. Cannot shift." to "Very flexi- ble. Adapts readily and easily to new information and de- mands. Participation continues with undiminished interest."). 3) The Aggressiveness, Moodiness, and Learning Prob- 1ems Behavior Rating Scale (AML) (Cowen, et al., 1975) (see Appendix C), an inventory designed to assess the degree of classroom maladjustment, yielding a single, global score of problem behaviors. Teachers rated the children on each of the 43 descriptive items (e.g., "disruptive in class") using a five point scale which ranged from "not a problem" to "very serious problem." Since these measures of child adjustment significantly intercorrelated in the expected directions (see Appendix F), they were collapsed to form a single, composite score of PM 3 .9» {rs n .. MW RU Na. ursfifl :. “:1 V\ we at P. 8 a.» a. LU a 54. Hue 23 child competence which was used in the data analyses.* Predictor Measures Family Alignment Patterns Communications that align or disengage are made up of multifarious channels or components that define and delineate the nature, degree, intensity, and quality of the joining or separation. Thus, the content of the verbalization, the tone and inflection of voice, the facial and body positioning, posturing, and gesturing, the silences, interruptions, and yieldings all serve to punctuate and qualify the meaning of a communication. The current research assessed family align- ments through the use of several of these channels of verbal and nonverbal communications that serve to join or separate. Specifically, these were the following six categories rated from videotapes of the families engaged in experimental tasks (see Appendix D for the coding manual): 1) Who-Speaks-To-Whom--This is the measure most frequently used to ascertain family alignment patterns (e.g., *The composite score was calculated by the following formula: (25 (w/50 + x/27 - 25 (y/25 + z/225)) + 50; where w is the score obtained on the B-P, x is the score obtained on the CBC positive, y is the score obtained on the CBC negative, and z is the score obtained on the AML. It will be noticed that obtaining all the possible positive ratings and no negative ratings would result in a composite adjust- ment score of 100; receiving no positive ratings and the maximum negative ratings would result in a composite adjust- ment score of 0; while receiving equal positive and negative ratings would result in a composite adjustment score of 50. p 24 Alexander, 1973; Lennard, et al., 1965; Lennard and Bern- stein, 1969; Lewis, et al., 1976; Minuchin, et al., 1967; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Murrell, 1971; Murrell and Sta- chowiak, 1967; Riskin and Faunce, 1970a, 1970b; Wild, 1977). In the current study, specific scores of Who-Speaks-To-Whom, total dyad verbal interchanges (e.g., totals of mother-to- son and son-to-mother interchanges), and ratios of the amount of speech between members (e.g., mother-speaking-to- child divided by child-speaking-to-mother) were assessed. The unit of measure was a full statement made by an indi- vidual to another--that is, all the words spoken by a person to a target person before someone else spoke. 2) Aligning and Extruding Verbalization--Several studies have get found distributions of Who-Speaks-To-Whom to differentiate dysfunctional from normal families (e.g., Ferreira, et al., 1966; Riskin and Faunce, 1970b. As Haley (1963), Jacob and Grounds (1978), and Wild (1977) stress, what is being said is as crucial to the determination of aligning and extruding communications as whg it is being said to. That is, a mother's high rate of endearing, sup- portive verbalization to the father would have a very dif- ferent meaning than an equally high rate of criticism and rebuke, though the Who-Speaks-To-Whom frequency score would be the same. In the current study, presence/absence of Aligning and Extruding Verbalization during each ten second interval, as well as ratios of Aligning to Extruding 25 Verbalization* is for each member (e.g., mother-to-child Aligning Verbalization divided by mother-to-child Extruding Verbalization), and across members (e.g., mother-to-child Aligning Verbalization divided by child-to-mother Aligning Verbalization) were scored both in terms of individual who- to-whom and cumulative dyad totals. Aligning Verbalization was defined as any verbaliza- tion that expressed care, valuing, support, empathy, concern, warmeth, appreciation, admiration, enjoyment of, identifica- tion with, and a desire to maintain or increase contact with an other. Examples here were direct expressions of valuing and endearment (e.g., "I love you"; "you sweetie"); compli- menting (e.g., "you're great"; "you did that very well"); agreement (e.g., "you're right"); showing concern (”I would- n't want you to get hurt"); identifying with the other (e.g., "I have a shirt just like that"); seeking contact (e.g., "let's play checkers"). It was assumed that such verbaliza- tions serve to, or at least attempt to, maintain or increase emotional contact and intimacy, and thereby join with an other. Extruding Verbalization was defined as any verbaliza- tion that expressed devaluing, dislike, rejection, rebuke, disdain, lack of concern, hostility, resentment, disagree- ment, disidentification, and a wish to decrease contact with, * That is, the amount of Aligning Verbalization divided by the amount of Extruding Verbalization. 26 or separate from an other, or make contact in a hostile manner. Examples here were direct statements of dislike (e.g., "I hate you"); disdain (e.g., "you turkey"); criticism (e.g., "that's not the way to do it, stupid"); resentment (e.g., "you always get to do what you want"); disagreement (e.g., "you're wrong"); disidentification/differentiation (e.g., "I don't like ice cream as much as you do"); or a wish to decrease contact (e.g., "I don't want to sit next to you"). It was assumed that such statements serve to, or are attempts at, decreasing contact, separating from the other, and/or making contact in a hostile manner, possibly as a means of attenuating the degree of intimacy expressed. One could make a statement that was simultaneously aligning and extruding, e.g., "You never spend enough time with me," which would be scored both as aligning (since there is an implied wish for more contact) and extruding (since it is a criticism and implies a possible difference between the in- dividuals in regards to desire and action). 3) Activity--Though rarely used as a formal measure of family alignments in past research, it would seem clear that one way of making contact with an other is through en- gaging in a mutual activity together. "Activity" was defined in the current study as mutual participation in a game or join enterprise (e.g., playing checkers, building something together, trying to fix something together, looking at toys together). Coders rated presence/absence of participation 27 in mutual activity during each ten second interval for all family dyads (mother-child, father-child, father-mother), as well as for family triads (mother-father-child playing to- gether). 4) Physical Plane--This is a measure that has not been previously used as a formal means of assessing family alignments, though many of the clinical techniques used in family therapy--such as having the parents sit in chairs while the children sit on the couch--points to an acute awareness of the significance of this dimension as a means of forming alignments (e.g., Haley and Hoffman, 1967; Minuchin, 1967, 1974; Satir, 1964). ”Physical Plane" in the current study was defined as either standing, sitting in chairs, or sit- ting/lying on the floor. Coders rated presence/absence of family dyads and triads being on the same physical plane when the videotape was stopped at each ten second interval. All members being on a different plane also was scored. 5) Physical Proximity--Though being used as a meas- ure of "social distance" in studies of social development and social interaction (e.g., cross-cultural research), prox- imity has not been used to assess family alignments. Here again, however, the clinical literature is replete with ex- amples of the use of physical proximity as a means to enjoin or disengage family members (e.g., Haley and Hoffman, 1967; Minuchin, 1967, 1974; Satir, 1964). The works of Ekman and Freisen (1968), Hall (1966), Mahl (1966), Scheflen (1964), 28 and others on the significance of nonverbal behavior, fur- ther indicate the importance of this dimension in communi- cating emotional closeness or distance. Physical promimity was measured in the current investigation using a four point rating scale scored for degree of closeness between each family dyad when the videotape was stopped at each ten second interval. Definitions for each point on the scale were as follows: a) Being farther than ten feet away (roughly half of the room). b) Being within five feet of each other (roughly one-fourth of the room). c) Being within physical reach when one individual has his/her arm extended. d) Being in direct physical contact (e.g., sitting with arm around the other person or sitting in someone's lap). The higher the dyad's score, the higher the assumed movement toward aligning. 6) Physical Aligning and Extruding--As with verbal- ization, in which both structure and content are important, the guality of physical contact also is a crucial expression of joining or separation. Though some studies have assessed this dimension in relation to expression of affection in families (e.g., Lewis, et al., 1976), none have used it ex- plicitly as a measure of family alignments. The current 29 research assessed presence/absence of Physical Aligning and Extruding between family dyads during each ten second inter- val, measuring both directionality of the behavior (e.g., father-to-son), and totals for each dyad (e.g., father-to- son and son-to-father). In addition, a ratio of Physical Aligning to Extruding was determined for individual members and between family dyads. Physical Alignihg was defined in the current study as any physical expression of care, valuing, warmth, affection, and a wish to increase contact with an other (e.g., kissing, hugging, stroking, holding hands, putting an arm around an other). Physical Extruding was defined as an physical expres- sion of dislike, hostility, anger, rejection, and aggression (e.g., hitting, pushing, biting, poking, pulling, throwing something in an attempt to physically hurt the other). 7) Dispersion Scores--Using a procedure similar to Murrell (1971), Dispersion Scores for each of the above cat- egories, as well as a global Score summed across all the categories, were determined. The procedure, as exemplified by the global Dispersion Score, was as follows: Dyadic scores on the above six dimensions were summed, yielding a degree of alignment score for each dyad. The mean of these three scores was then derived and subtracted from each, there- by giving a deviation score. The square root of the sum of of the squares of the three deviation scores yielded a 30 single Dispersion Score for family alignments. A higher score indicated a greater unevenness between dyadic family alignments, and thus theoretically pointed to a greater occurrence of coalition patterns in the family, and a lesser degree of mutual alliances. Training and Coding Procedure Two sets of two raters each (rater teams D and E), and one set of three raters (which were divided into three, two-member teams (A, B, and C), were trained by the current E to code for the six alignment categories using practice videotapes of family interactions. Training involved several group meetings in which a scoring manual defining the categories and coding procedure (see Appendix D) was read aloud, discussed, and revised as needed. The raters kept their manuals to further familiarize themselves with the categories. After coding practice videotapes as a group--thereby refining scoring criterias and procedures until consensual agreement was reached--each rater independently scored a videotape, with his/her rating being compared with the h who served as expert. Individual meetings with raters were used to clarify any further problems. An additional practice ‘videotape was scored independently by each rater, with these :scores being compared between raters, and with the E, there- }:y determin-inter-rater reliability using a Pearson 3 (see 31 Table l). Rater reliability was periodically checked throughout the coding process, unbeknown to the raters. Unaware of the hypotheses of the current investiga- tion, or the adjustment of the children in the videotapes, the raters coded two seven minute segments of the 33 family interaction videotapes (though each task was to be of ten minute duration, some were terminated early; the first seven minutes of each task were coded in the current study since all families engaged in the two tasks for at least that duration of time). Ten second intervals were used in the coding, signaled by a "beep" that was dubbed into the video- tapes. Ratings were made by each rater individually viewing his/her assigned videotape, as well as by rater teams simul- taneously observing and coding their assigned videotapes. In both situations ratings were made independently and with- out consultation. The current § operated the videotape equipment, stopping the tape at each ten second interval. One set of three raters divided up into three, two- member rating teams (A, B, and C) to code the two verbal categories, viewing the videotape separately for each cate- gory. The other two sets of raters coded the four nonverbal categories (Physical Plane and Activity were coded simul- taneously by one set of raters with the videotape frame "frozen” at each ten second interval, while the other set of raters simultaneously coded Physical Proximity and Physical 32 Aligning/Extruding--the former dimension being measured while the videotape was "frozen" at each ten second interval, and the latter being coded for presence/absence during each ten second interval). Raters' means for individual cate- gories were used in the data analysis. Reliability of the Alignment Variables Table 1 presents the correlations of the scores of each rater team over the two family interaction tasks. The values are based on the scores of the seven raters, inde- pendently rating their assigned videotapes on their desig- nated variables. Each rater was compared to his/her team member in deriving the intercoder reliability. Reliabilities for all the variables reached at least the p < .01 level and thus were deemed sufficient to be used in the subsequent analyses. Table l. Inter-rater reliability across the two family interaction tasks. Variable A B C D E Who-Speaks-To-Whom .91 .99 .94 Aligning Verbalization .84 .80 .85 Extruding Verbalization .84 .84 .81 Activity .97 Physical Plane .99 Physical Proximity .96 Physical Aligning .95 Physical Extruding .93 RESULTS Analysis of the Data The data were analyzed as follows: 1) Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were derived to examine relationships between the predictor and criterion measures, as well as relationships within the predictor and criterion measures themselves. Thus, the three measures of children's adjustment--the B-P, CBC (with its prosocial/problematic behavior subscores), and AML-- were intercorrelated, and, having shown sufficient inter— relationships in the expected directions (see Appendix F), were collapsed to form a single composite score of adjustment (see description of criterion measures on the procedure section for computational formula). This composite score was correlated with the original predictor variables, and with new variables that were subsequently created from the originals, to further clarify possible associations between children's adjustment and alignment patterns. Since sex-of- child with males designated "1" and females "2" correlated r 8 .45; p < .004 with child adjustment, it was partialed out of all subsequent correlational analyses of the data. Furthermore, though age-of—child did not correlate with 33 34 child adjustment to a statistically significant extent (r=.17; N.S.), it too was controlled for to help discern the clearest relationships between child competence and the predictor variables. 2) The total sample of children were divided into "high" and "low" adjustment groups based on adjustment scores in the highest and lowest third of the sample. Thus 12 children whose composite adjustment scores ranged from 82-93 (Y=96.33) formed the "high" adjustment group, while 11 children with adjustment scores ranging 33-56 (E =45.82) made up the "low" adjustment group. Two-tailed E-tests were performed to discern whether there were significant differ- ences between the two groups on the predictor variables. A sign test, and a chi square using Yates' correction were also performed to examine differences between groups in the patterns of predictor variables. Pearson product moment correlations--partialling out for sex and age of child--were performed separately for each group to explore the differ- ences between interrelationships among predictor variables in the two groups. 3) Effects of sex-of-child were examined using a two-tailed Eftest to assess if there were statistically sig- nificant differences on the predictor variables for families having a male or female child. Comparisons of the inter- correlations among predictor variables for each group also were performed. 35 Criterion Measures Children's Psyghosocial Adjustment Appendix G shows the means, standard deviations, and ranges of the teacher ratings of the children's psychosocial adjustment in the current sample. Scores indicate that the sample was composed of children perceived by their teachers as exhibiting a diverse range of competence. Thus, compos- ite adjustment scores ranged from 33 to 93 (0-100 possible; higher score indicative of positive adjustment), with a mean of 68.64. Predictor Variables Aligning and ExtrudinghBehaviors Appendix H presents the means, standard deviations, ranges, and frequencies of the measures of family alignment patterns on the two interaction tasks. Poor audio recording necessitated not coding Who-Speaks-To-Whom for one family, and Aligning and Extruding Verbalizations for two families. The appendix indicates that the families engaged in a wide range of aligning and extruding behaviors, though displaying very few expressions of Physical Aligning and Extruding. Variables whose frequencies of occurrence were less than five were not used in the data analyses, thus of the Phy- sical Aligning and Extruding behaviors only mother-to-child and child-to-mother Physical Aligning and Physical Extruding behaviors for the Free Play task, child-to-father Physical 36 Extruding for this task, and mother-to-child, father-to- child, and child-to-father Physical Aligning behaviors on the Teach-A-Proverb task were related to the other variables. It is clear that parent-child verbal interchanges were far more frequent than parent-parent verbal exchanges in both tasks (e.g., the mean for mother-to-child Who-Speaks-To-Whom on the Free Play task was 29.40, the mean for father-to- child Who-Speaks-To-Whom on the Free Play task was 31.05, while the means for father-to-mother and mother-to-father Who-Speaks-To-Whom during Free Play were 7.00 and 6.29 respectively). As predicted, the two tasks elicited different align- ing and extruding behaviors from the family members. For example, both parents engaged in more aligning behaviors toward each other and their child during the Teach-A-Proverb task as compared with the Free Play task. Furthermore, in contrast to the Free Play situation, fathers spoke more to their children than mothers did during the Teach-A-Proverb task, perhaps taking on a more culturally prescribed "instru- mental" leader role in this didactic exercise. The greater aligning between parents during the Teach-A-Proverb task is consistent with the original assumption that this activity would invoke greater parental cooperation in order to ac- complish what was asked. 37 Children's Psychosocial Adjustment and Family Alignihg and Extruding Behaviors Coefficients of correlation between the composite score of children's psychosocial adjustment and measures of aligning and extruding behaviors on the two tasks--partial- ling out for sex and age of child--are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4. Several interesting trends are evident. First, there was a consistent, positive association between chil- dren's aligning behaviors toward their fathers and high adjustment. For example, the frequency of child-speaking- to-father and child-to-father Aligning Verbalization, as well as the ratio of child-to-father Aligning to Extruding Verbalization,* positively correlated with child adjustment in both tasks (child-to-father Who-Speaks-To-Whom correlated £38 .69; p <.001 and .42; p <.01 with adjustment in the Free Play and Teach-A-Proverb tasks respectively; child-to-father Aligning Verbalization correlated £s=.52; p <.002 and .29; p <.06 with adjustment in both tasks respectively; ratio of child-to-father Aligning to Extruding Verbalization corre— lated £s=.3l; p <.05 and .26; p <.08 with adjustment in the two respective tasks). Second, fathers' aligning behaviors toward their children also tended to positively relate with children's * That is, child-to-father Aligning Verbalization divided by child-to-father Extruding Verbalization. Table 2 . 38 Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extrtxiing behaviors for task 1 (child sex/age partialled out). Variable M-cl C-M F-C C-F F-M M—F Mb-Speaks-Tb-Mlan -.11 -.09 .55@@ .69@@@ -.02 .14 Aligning Verbalization -.33** -.09 .19 .52@@ .22 .18 Ebctnfling Verbalization -.16 —.13 .23 .30* -.lo -.05 Activity -.33** .20 -.20 Physical Plane .22 -.22 -.14 physical Proximity .28 .28 .11 Physical Aligning -.40***-.26 — - - - Physical mtnrling -.18 -.2o - .06 - — 539$ WW- -.22 -.3s** -.33** Ratio of Aligning/ Ehttruding Verbalization3 -.33** -.16 .02 .31* .22 .32** Ratio of Aligning $331,1me -.62@@@ .06 -.34** Ratio of mtruding Verbalization between fanily umberss -.44@ -.01 .27 --Frequency of occurrence insufficient for use in data analysis. JM-Cindicatesthatthemtherwastheactorarxithechildthe target, etc. 21hr exanple, mther—speaking—to-child divided by child-speaking-to-«mther 3 For example, M-C Aligning Verbalization divided by M—C Ebctruding Verbalization . 4For example, M-C Aligning Verbalization divided by C-M Aligning Verbalization. 5'For example, M—C Extruding Verbalization divided by C-M Extruding Verbalization. *p<. 05 @pc. 007 **p<. 04 @@p<. 002 ***p<. 02 @@@p<. 001 39 Table 3. Correlations between child adjustment and aligning/extruding behaviors for task 2 (child sex/age partialled out). Variable M-Cl C-M F-C C—F F-M M-F Wo-Speaks—lb—th .06 -.19 .51@@@ .42@ --.14 .04 Aligning Verbalization -.06 -.15 .37*** .29 .33** .24 Ebctruding Verbalization -.15 —.07 -.02 .43@ -.08 .11 Physical Plane .01 .32* -.25 Physical Proximity .08 -.12 .07 Physical Aligning -.00 -- -.06 .30 - -- Physical Extruding -- - - - -- -- Ratio of Mic-Speaks- ToeWhomQ .47@@ .01 -.44@@ Ratio of Aligning/ Extruding verbalization3 -.16 .02 .09 .26 .29 -.13 Ratio of Aligning Verbalization between family members4 -.06 .33** .08 Ratio of Ehctruding Verbalization between family mnberss .18 .20 -.00 -Frequency of occurrence insufficient for use in data analysis. 1M—C indicates that the anther was the actor and the child the target, etc. 2For exanple, motherbspeaking-to—child divided by child-speaking-to-mother. 3For exanple, M—C Aligning Verbalization divided by M-C Eactruding Verbalization. 4For example, M-C Aligning Verbalization divided by C—M Aligning Verbalization. 51hr exanple, M-C Extnrling Verbalization divided by C-M Extruding Verbalization. *p<.05 @p<.01 **p(. 04 @@p<. 007 ***p<.03 @@@p<.002 40 Table 4. Correlations between child adjustment and triadic aligning/extruding behaviors (child sex/age partialled out). Variable Child Adjustment task 1 task 2 Activity: Father-Mother-Child .22 (only coded in task 1) Physical Plane: Father-Mother-Child .11 -.01 Physical Plane: Father-Mother-Child Separate .08 -.02 adjustment. Thus, father-speaking-to-child positively cor- related with child adjustment in both tasks (£s=.52; p <.002 and .51; p <.002 respectively), while father-to-child Align- ing Verbalization positively related to competence in the Teach-A-Proverb task (5;.37; p <.03). The positive associa- tion between father-speaking-to-child and child competence probably is in part a function of the positive relationship between child-speaking-to-father and high adjustment, and the strong, positive correlation between child-speaking-to- father and father-speaking-to-child (£s=.87; E <.001 and .88; p <.001 for the two tasks respectively). Nonetheless, the current findings show a strong, positive relationship between a high degree of father-to-child verbal interchange --one measure of an alignment--and child competence. Im- portant to note is that the ratio of father-speaking-to- 4l child/child-speaking-to-father* negatively related to adjust- ment in the first task (gs-.35; p <.03), perhaps reflecting a situation in which the father verbally dominated his child. A similar negative association was also found between child competence and the ratio of father-spaaking-to-mother/ mother-speaking-to-father in both tasks (£s=-.33; p <.04 and -.44; p <.007 for tasks 1 and 2 respectively). Here again the results might reflect a situation in which the husband is verbally dominating his wife. The importance of a bal- ance in aligning behaviors between family members was also highlighted by the negative correlation on the Free Play task between adjustment and the ratio of father-to-mother/ mother-to-father Aligning Verbalization** (£?"343 2 <.03). The singular measure of father-to-mother Aligning Verbaliza- tion, however, positivehy related to children's competence in the Teach-A-Proverb task (£§.33; p <.04). Thus, in con~ trasting directions, the extent of father-to-mother verbal aligning and the evenness of balance between fathers' and mothers' aligning verbalizations to each other were signif- icantly related to child adjustment in the current investiga- tion. * That is, father-speaking-to—child divided by child- speaking-to-father. ** That is, father-to-mother Aligning Verbalization divided by mother-to-father Aligning Verbalization. 42 Mothers' aligning and extruding behaviors toward fa- thers significantly correlated with child adjustment in only one measure, that being the positive relationship between adjustment and the ratio of mother-to-father Aligning to Ex- truding Verbalization in the Free Play task (£§.32; p«<.04). Perhaps the most striking result was the consistent, negative relationship on the Free Play task between mothers' aligning behaviors toward their children and child adjustment. Thus, seven of the nine measures reflecting maternal align- ing behaviors toward their children were negatively associ- ated with child competence, five of these being statistically significant (i.e., mother-to-child Aligning Verbalization, £=-,33; p <.04; mother-child Activity, £=.33; p <.04; mother- to-child Physical Aligning, £=-.40; E < .02; ratio of mother- to-child Aligning to Extruding Verbalization, £?-.33; p <.04; and ratio of mother-to-chi1d/child-to-mother Aligning Verbal- ization, £3-.62; p <.001). These findings are in contrast to the initial pre- diction of a positive association between mother-to-child aligning and child adjustment, a discrepancy that will be examined in the Discussion section. However, the ratio of mother-to-child/child-to-mother Extruding Verbalization also negatively related to child adjustment in the Free Play task (£§-.44; p <.007) as hypothesized. The ratio of mother- speaking-to-chi1d/child-speaking-to-mother in the Teach-A- Proverb task was the only mother-to-child variable that 43 positively related to child competence (£=.47; p <.004). There were no strong, significant correlations be- tween child adjustment and child-to-mother aligning and extruding behaviors. The trend, however, was in the nega- tive direction for both aligning and extruding behaviors during the first task; with child-to-mother Physical Align- ing having the strongest negative association to competence (ES—.26; p <.09). It need be noted that 32% (15/47) and 21% (9/42) of the correlations were significant in Tables 2 and 3 respec- tively, thus the relationships here would appear not merely to be due to chance. ghildren's_Adjustment and Triadic Aligning and Extruding Behaviors Measures of triadic family aligning and extruding be- haviors--father-mother-child engaging in a mutual Activity, being on the same Physical Plane, or each being on a sepa- rate plane--corre1ated with child adjustment as presented in Table 4. As is shown, there were no statistically signifi- cant associations between these variables and child adjustment. Children's Adjustment and Familnyispersion Scores Dispersion scores reflecting the degree of unevenness of distribution between family dyads for each of the six aligning and extruding categories, as well as a global Dispersion Score summing across all six variables, were 44 computed and correlated with children's adjustment. As can be seen in Table 5, the trends are variegated, with some re- lationships being in the expected negative direction, though reaching only marginal statistical significance (e.g., Dis- persion of Aligning Verbalization (£?-.23; p <.10); Disper- sion of Physical Plane (Es-.26; p <.08); and Dispersion of Physical Aligning (Es-.27, p <.07); all on the Free Play task), while others were in contrast to the initial hypothes- es. For example, greater unevenness of Who-Speaks-To-Whom positively related to child adjustment on both tasks (£5=.27; p <.07 and .35; p <.03 respectively), as did the global Dispersion Score during Free Play (£=.26; p <.08). Table 5. Correlation between child adjustment and Dis- persion Scores (child sex/age partialled out). Variable Child Adjustment task 1 task 2 Dispersion Score: Who-Speaks-To-Whom .21 .35* Aligning Verbalization -.23 .04 Extruding Verbalization -.14 -.13 Activity .13 (only coded in task 1) Physical Plane -.26 .09 Physical Proximity -.06 -.02 Physical Aligning -.27 -.01 Physical Extruding -.08 -- Total Dispersion .26 .13 Frequency of occurrence insufficient for use in data analysis. * p <.03 45 A factor probably affecting these results was the large skewedness in the distribution of dyadic verbalizations due to the greater parent-to-child than parent-to-parent inter- changes, as will be further explored in the Discussion section. Compgrisons beEween Families of "High" and "Low" Agjusted Children To further examine possible relationships between children's psychosocial adjustment and family alignment patterns, those children rated in the highest and lowest third on competence in the current sample were compared on the various aligning and extruding dimensions. Twelve chil- dren were in the ”high" adjustment group, having a mean com- posite adjustment score on a 0-100 scale (100 indicating maximum adjustment) of 86.33, with a standard deviation of 4.19, and a range of 82-93; 11 children were in the "low" adjustment group, with a mean of 45.82, standard deviation of 7.60, and range of 33-56. A E-test comparison between the mean adjustment scores of the two groups was statistical- ly significant (Es-15.64; p <.001). Appendix I presents means and E-ratios for the two groups on the aligning and extruding variables for the Free Play and Teach-A-Proverb tasks. Only two differences be- tween groups reached statistical significance, these being the greater amounts of father-to-mother Aligning Verbaliza- tion and father-mother-child mutual Activity in families 46 having a "high" as compared to "low" adjusted child (hs= -2.29; p <.04 and -2.41; p <.03 respectively). Greater amounts of father-to-mother and mother-to-father Aligning Verbalization in the families of "high" adjusted versus ”low" adjusted children were marginally significant during the second task (Es2-l.92; p <.07 and -1.77; p <.09 respec- tively), as was the ratio of mother-speaking-to-child/child- speaking-to-mother, with families of "healthy" children dis- playing more mother-to-child verbalization (h=-2.03; p <.06). Father-child Physical Proximity in families of "competent” children was greater to a marginally significant extent than in families of "low functioning" children during the first task (he-2.01; p <.06). Though being few in number, and not over what would be expected by chance, these results were consistent with the initial assumption that families of competent children would engage in more aligning behaviors than those of poorly adjusted children. The lack of more consistent, significant differences between groups is likely due to the relative homogeneity of the sample. Thus, though there was a significant difference between means of competence ratings for the two groups, all of the children were "normally" functioning individuals with- out any history of formal psychopathology or contact with mental health services. Of still greater interest, however, are the dramat- ically divergent patterns of aligning and extruding behaviors 47 in the two groups, despite their relative homogeneity. For example, when examining the categories measuring father- child and mother-child alignments (i.e., Who-Speaks-To-Whom, Aligning Verbalization, Activity, Physical Plane, Proximity, and Physical Aligning), one notices that means for father- child alignments were greater in families of "healthy" children as compared to "poorly functioning" children for six out of the seven categories in the Free Play task, and six out of the eight measures in the Teach-A-Proverb task, a difference significant at the .02 level as determined by a sign test. In contrast, though not reaching statistical significance, means for mother-child alignment measures were greater for five out of the eight categories in both tasks in families having a "low" as compared to "high" adjusted child. Furthermore, when comparing the incidences in which father-a1igning-with-child were greater than mother-aligning- with-child (e.g., father-to-child Aligning Verbalization being greater than mother-to-child Aligning Verbalization), one finds that this occurred in four out of the seven align- ing measures during the first task for families of "healthy" children, while occurring only once in families of "low functioning" children. Similarly, during the second task father-to-child aligning was greater than mother-to-child aligning in families of "competent" children for four of the eight measures, while only being so in two measures for 48 families of "low" adjusted children. These differences in patterns between the two groups were found to reach marginal statistical significance by a chi square using Yates' cor- rection (3.74 at 1 d.f., where 3.84 is significant at the .05 level). The data here seems to further highlight the pattern that emerged in correlating the children's adjustment score with aligning/extruding variables, whereby child competence was positively associated with father-to-child and child-to- father aligning behaviors, and negatively related with mother-to-child aligning behaviors. Thus, in the current sample, families which had "competent" children exhibited strong father-child alignments that were stronger than the mother-child alignments on the measures here used, while in families of "low" functioning children the Opposite was true. This pattern is made still more evident when contrast- ing the various ratio scores between family members on align- ing and extruding behaviors in the two groups. Thus, while the absolute numerical differences between mean ratio scores of Who-Speaks-To-Whom, Aligning to Extruding Verbalization, and ratios of Aligning and Extruding Verbalization between family members were not significantly different for the two groups (see Tables 9 and 10), differences in what was indicat- ed by each specific ratio were quite dramatic. For example, in regards to father-child alignments, the results show that child-to-father Aligning Verbalization was greater than child- 49 to-father Extruding Verbalization in families of "high" children (mean ratio 1.35), while child-to-father Extrudihg Verbalization was two times greater than Aligning Verbaliza- tion in families of "poorly" adjusted children during the Free Play task (mean ratio .51). Furthermore, the mean ratio of father-to-child/child-to-father Aligning Verbaliza- tion was greater in the families of "competent" than "low" functioning children, during the Teach-A-Proverb task (2.14 vs. 1.60). The ratio of mother-to-child Aligning to Extruding Verbalization was greater for mothers of ”poorly" adjusted children than for those of "competent" children in the Free Play task (5.02 vs. 3.10). In addition, the ratio of child- to-mother Aligning to Extruding Verbalization also was greater in "low" as opposed to "high" functioning children during both tasks, with "healthy" children in fact display- ing greater Extruding than Aligning Verbalization toward their mothers in the Teach-A-Proverb task, while "poorly" functioning children exhibited greater Aligning than Extrud- ing Verbalization (mean ratios .83 vs. 1.54). Mothers of "low" functioning children verbally aligned more than three times as much with their children than their children did with them in the Free Play task (mean ratio 3.26), while the situation was greatly reversed in families of "high” func- tioning children, with the children here engaging in more Aligning Verbalization toward their mothers than their 50 mothers did toward them (mean ratio .81). Furthermore, mothers of "low" adjustment children exhibited slightly more Extruding Verbalization toward their children than their children did toward them (mean ratio 1.04), while, conversely, "high" functioning children displayed nearly twice as much Extruding Verbalization toward their mothers than their mothers did toward them (mean ratio .53). In regards to father-mother interactions, both fathers and mothers of "healthy" children spoke more often to each other in the Free Play task, and engaged in more Aligning Verbalization during both tasks, than spouses of "low" adjustment children. In addition, the spouses in the former group exhibited more Aligning than Extruding Verbaliza- tion toward each other in the Free Play task, while the re- verse was true for spouses in the latter group. Thus, in families of "poorly" adjusted children, husbands and wives displayed greater amounts of Extruding than Aligning Verbal- ization toward each other. This was particularly true in regards to the wives, who engaged in four times as many Extruding than Aligning Verbalizations toward their husbands (mean ratio .25). The trends here lend support to the initial predic- tion that there would be greater aligning between spouses in families of "competent" as compared to "poorly functioning" children, while spouses in this latter group would display more extruding than aligning behaviors toward each other. 51 Interesting to note is that these differences were not as evident in terms of absolute amounts of aligning and extrud- ing behaviors, but rather in the ratios of these behaviors. Summary of Results The current findings revealed three distinct alignment patterns to be associated with children's psychosocial adjust- ment: (1) Strong child-to-father and father-to-child align- ments positively related to child competence; (2) Strong father-to-mother and, to a lesser extent, mother-to-father alignments positively related to child competence; (3) Strong child-to-mother and, in particular, mother-to-child align- ments negatively related to child competence. A synthesis of these three patterns into an interrelated systems model of family functioning will be explicated in the Discussion section. Sex-of-Child, Child Competence and Family Alignment Patterns The current sample was made up of 19 families having a male child, and 14 families having a female child. Means for the composite scores of psychosocial adjustment were 61.63 and 78.14 for the boys and girls respectively. Thus, the girls in the current sample were perceived by their teachers as exhibiting more prosocial, competent behaviors than the boys, a difference that was statistically signifi- cant using a E-test of mean comparisons (Es-3.06; p <.005). 52 As previously noted, a product moment correlation coefficient revealed that sex-of-child correlated Es.45; p <.004 with children's adjustment. That latency age girls were experi- enced by their teachers as being more competent than their male classmates was consistent with past research (e.g., Allen, 1977; Lauvenitis, 1976), presumably due to the social- ized differences in sex-role behaviors for girls and boys. To explore possible differences in alignment patterns of families having a girl or a boy, h-tests were performed on each of the aligning and extruding variables for both tasks (see Appendix J). There were three statistically sig- nificant differences between groups in the first task: (1) Fathers of girls exhibited greater ratios of father-speaking- to-daughter/daughter-speaking-to-father as compared with father-to-son/son-to-father verbalizations (Es-2.31; p <.04); (2) fathers of girls spoke proportionately more to their wives than their wives did to them, as compared with father- mother verbal interchanges in families having a male child (he-2.09; p <.05); (3) fathers of girls expressed a greater proportion of Aligning than Extruding Verbalization toward their daughters, as compared with fathers toward their sons (he-2.17; p <.04). Furthermore, in families having a female child, fathers and mothers tended to be more often on the same Physical Plane (E=-l.80; p <.08). (Since only 5% (3/57) of the correlations for task one in Appendix J were statis- tically significant, it is possible that the significance 53 here was simply due to chance). In the Teach-A-Proverb task, fathers spoke to their sons significantly more than did fathers to their daughters (532.27; E <.03), with sons, in turn, speaking more to their fathers than did daughters (532.66; p <.01). Fathers of boys also expressed more Extruding Verbalizations toward their sons than did fathers toward their daughters (£22.25; 2 <.03). In addition, the ratio of father-to-child Aligning to Extruding Verbalization was greater for fathers of boys than girls to a marginally significant extent (231.91; p <.07). (Again, since only 6% (3/51) of the correlations here were statistically significant, mere chance significance cannot be ruled out.) More generally, it is apparent that fathers and sons tended to engage in more aligning behaviors than did fathers and daughters, while mother-daughter alignments were more evident than mothers and sons. Thus, father-son and son- father verbal interchanges and Aligning (as well as Extrud- ing) Verbalization were greater than father-daughter and daughter-father interactions on these variables in both tasks, while interactions on these variables in the second task were greater for mothers and daughters as opposed to mothers and sons. In contrast, cross-sex parent-child align- ing was more prevalent for engaging in an Activity. There was some indication of greater father-mother aligning in families of girls as compared to family of boys, 54 as exemplified by the greater father-to-mother and mother- to-father Aligning Verbalization scores in both tasks, and greater ratios of father-to-mother Aligning to Extruding Verbalization in the Free Play task. This tendency was reversed, however, in the Teach-A-Proverb task, in which there were higher father-mother Activity score, and greater ratio of father-to-mother Aligning to Extruding Verbaliza- tion for families of boys rather than girls. Furthermore, families with daughters tended to engage in more mutual Activity than did families with sons. Dispersion Scores in the latter group were greater than in the former for five of the nine aligning and extruding measures on the first task, and for all these measures on the second task, indicating a tendency toward greater unevenness of dyadic interactions in families of boys than girls. Turning to possible differences in the relationships between aligning and extruding variables and child competence, the following patterns were evident, as is presented in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9: First, fathers' aligning with children related to child competence to a greater degree for girls than for boys. For example, while father-speaking-to-child positively asso- ciated with child adjustment for both girls and boys in the Free Play task (£s=.47; p <.04 and .46; p <.03 respectively), it was only significantly associated with girls psychosocial functioning in the Teach-A-Proverb task (£=.58; p <.01). 55 moi. «ecom.l «acedw.l «reef mo.l om.l Nag-OB ham-ass o0 086m I I I I 2. .8.- I I team.- 3.- emf emf mag 839cc .- I - - I I I I eef flfooomaf m...- oficmflc mongoose oof mm. «me. E. 2. roe. Epic-E Enamels mof omf S. Rf :. S. 86$ Rosanna Sf omf 2. 2. omf 2. 5882 me. emf eof 2.- ea. .38. aof em. co. mm.- 2. rmf 8383881, 9:985 fl. om. He. 2. S. coco. «tom. 3. df 8f omf amf 83838.61, 8832 cm. ao. om. flf 3.988. :3. :3. 8. cu.- mo. Rf ens-8.8.889: Ego s8 ES 8o 38 s8 EB an ER >8 38 So all are .m-o mecca-PS Ulh SID HUI: A anon co 2.....8 com also no unmade-ow new 30.3932 §\§fim Em ”Em—Bushman 320 c8953 figumHmUB .m 0.35. 56 . Q HCOoéQQ Ho V **.¢* Noc .VQ®® No .vmf: boo .VQ vo .vmaa a mo .vce .cofimNHHBHQw 05.95% 2.6 3 ©8938 camouflage, g 0-2 .39on Mom -.n 86383881, c5834 :0 >8 8698 5382688 65882 o-z .28on n8 88882881, page “Y: >8 coon/8 83838.81, 68834 v.2 .6368 won .nthrB-mcfiomcm-odfi >8 883.6 Sitting-888 .8980 comm .88 .8888 8: ofifi of Ho young 05 83 agree 65 85 88689: If .mwmwaocm Boo 5 mm: H8 ”.533ng mocmpusooo mo avocado-E MQ' R. R. omf om. S. oomf manosfia >318 5953 GQHDMNAHBUNV @5955 no 9.38 2. fee.- «$5. mof emf camf e836,: >868. ~89.an ccfiuoNfiHmonNV 8882 no 888 mm. mm. tram. mof mmf om. em. if 3. mm.- oef omf mcoflooflofig gasses \msnaada co oflnm aha >8 the >8 can >8 Ea >8 8.8 >8 Ea >8 n-z are no vi :0 o-z 638.3, Agfiucav .m wanna. 57 2. 1:.- mm. mm. mm. am. 2. ea. 3. mo.- c... R..- mcofiomfioonot, wagon B5882 «0 omega emf armef 2. mm.- co. :8. mans-pa Inseam-9L3 mo 038 fig 23.98. I I I - om. mm. mo. S.- I I mm. 2.- 98882 Romania 2.- emf oo. mmf am. emf 58286 26888 8. 2f omf mm. 2. mo.- 862 2028a mm. mof oof 2f .3. ts. oo. mo. mmf mo. mm. mm.- 8888289, 8358 EV. mm. «on. em. om. om. em. am. om. mm.- mm. emf 83828.81, 8982 mm. 3f oo. amf 2.. mm. «2.8. mm. mo. mm.- mm. 2f Saba-8889s., 28 >8 28 >8 Ema >8 28 >8 28 >8 28 >8 .a-z z-m .m-o vi :0 mo-z 628.8, .m one» 8 38.8 86 .68 «0 momma-mm How meow; goo-DUEHHM 86 8:88:86 398 89.88 3838.88 .A 628. 58 HO.VQ««« mo .8... ea 48.. 888632889 82588 2-8 >8 8822 838828861, 82.52 o-z .8288 .88 In 888832889 8232 :-o >8 8822 882828882, 8232 o-z .3888 .88 e 88.882888.» 852562 0.: >8 822 82832888 8232 o-z .88on 808m . 8588-8288-8820 >8 822,2 Betta-82688858 .3888 88m .30 Joann-u on”. 2.20 on» can uouoo m5 983 .8939: on» pg move-.33 UIZH .mwmaamsw Soc 5 mm: 88 “8:33:35 mason-8000 mo >285on 8f mo.- 8. S. 8. m8. 288.88 >828 .8253 savanna—.25 Managua mo 038m em. oof mm. mm. 2. omf 288.8. >888 goo Sflgwamnum> 88:32 2 628 22 >8 22 >8 22 >8 22 >8 22 >8 22 >8 .8-2 2-8 n-o o1... z-o o-z 383.82, 8032389 . N. 0.369 59 Table 8. Correlations between child adjustment and triadic aligning/acmlding behaviors for families of boys and girls. Variable task 1 task 2 boy girl boy girl Activity: Father-Dbther-Child .16 .29 (only coded in task 1) Physical Plane: Father-Mather-Qlild . 36 -. 00 . 08 -. 09 Physical Plane: Fatherthher—Cnu'ld Separate .01 -. 36 -. 07 .14 Table 9. Correlation between child adjusment and Dispersion Scores for families of boys and girls. Variable task 1 task 2 boy girl boy girl Diqaersion Score: Mao-Speaks—Ib-Mun . 19 -. 06 . 28 . 31 Aligning Verbalization -.12 -.53* -.14 .37 Extruding Verbalization -.17 .12 -.26 .28 Activity .21 -.05 (only coded in task 1) Physical Plane -.37 .11 .14 .02 Physical Proximity -.09 .23 -.21 .12 Physical Aligning -.14 -.70** -.ll .01 Physical Extruding -.15 -.01 -- - 'Ibtal Dispersicn .15 .51* —.08 .40 «Frequency of occurrence insufficient for use in data analysis *p<.03 **p<.oo3 ' 60 Likewise, father-to-child Aligning Verbalization in the Free Play task only significantly related to girls' competence (£3.56; 2 <.02), while being marginally significant for both girls and boys in the Teach-AeProverb task (£s=.37; p <.09 and .38; p <.07 respectively). In contrast, fathers' Extrud- ing Verbalization toward their sons--but not their daughters --positively related to children's adjustment in the Free Play task (£3.37; 3 <.07). The ratio of father-Speaking-to- child/child-sPeaking-to-father negatively correlated with adjustment in the first task for both girls and boys (gs- -.61; E.<-01 and -.44; p <.03 respectively), while positive- ly relating to girls' competence in the Teach-A-Proverb task (gs.4l; p <.07). Lastly, the ratio of father-to-child/child- to-father Aligning Verbalization was positively associated with girls' competence in the Free Play task (£§.75; p <.02). Second, the strong positive association between chil- dren's aligning behaviors toward their fathers and child ad- justment was more consistent for boys than girls in the first task, as reflected in the positive correlations between boys speaking to, and verbally aligning with, their fathers and child competence (£38.68; 2 <.001 and .66; p <.002 respec- tively). The ratio of boys' Aligning to Extruding Verbal- izations toward their fathers in task 1 also marginally cor- related with psychological health (Es.36; p <.07). Interest- ingly, boys' Extruding Verbalization toward their fathers were also positively related to competence in both tasks 6l (£s=.45; p <.04 and .44; B <.04 respectively). In contrast, marginally significant associations were found between child adjustment and amount of speaking-to-father for girls, but not boys, in the two tasks (£s=.44; p <.06 and .43; p <.06 respectively). Third, the negative relationship between child func- tioning and mothers' aligning behaviors toward their children was more consistent for boys than girls. Thus, mothers' speaking to their sons negatively correlated with adjustment to a marginal degree in the Free Play task (Es-.31; E.<'l°)' as did their verbally aligning with them (£?’-393.E <.06). In addition, the ratio of mothers' Aligning to Extruding Verbalization toward their sons negatively related with ad- justment to a marginal extent on both tasks (£s=-.36; p <.07 and -.37; p <.06), and the ratio of mother-to-son/son-to- mother Aligning Verbalization also negatively correlated with adjustment in the Free Play task (£?‘-573 2 <.005). A strong negative association was found on this task between child adjustment and the ratio of mother-to-son/son-to- mother Extruding Verbalization (gs-.56; p <.007). Further- more, there was a negative, though not statistically signif- icant, relationship between adjustment and all but one of the eight mother-to-son aligning behaviors in the Teach-A- Proverb task--measures that positively related to girls' psychosocial competence, though again not to a statistically significant extent. 62 In contrast, mother-to-daughter aligning negatively related with adjustment to a greater degree than mother-to- son aligning on three measures, these being: (1) The ratio of mothers' Aligning to Extruding Verbalization toward their daughters in the Free Play task (53-.40; p <.08); (2) Mother- daughter engaging in an Activity together (53-.36; p <.lO): and (3) Mothers' Physically Aligning with their daughters in the Free Play task (£3-.78; E <.001). The only mother-aligning-with-chi1d variables that positively associated with child adjustment were the ratio of mother-speaking-to-chi1d/child-speaking-to-mother in the Teach-A-Proverb task for both girls and boys (£83.40; 2 <.08 and .46; E <.02 respectively), and the ratio of mother-to- daughter/daughter-to-mother Aligning Verbalization in the Teach-A-Proverb task (£3.41; 3 <.07). Similar to the above trends, children's aligning be- haviors toward mothers tend to be more negatively related with competence for boys than for girls, though none of the correlations reached statistical significance. Thus, all of the four variables explicitly measuring child-to-mother aligning behaviors in the Free Play task (i.e., Who-Speaks- To-Whom, Aligning Verbalization, Physical Aligning, and the ratio of Aligning to Extruding Verbalization), as well as the three variables assessing this dimension in the Teach-A- Proverb task (i.e., Who-Speaks-To-Whom, Aligning Verbaliza- tion, and the ratio of Aligning to Extruding Verbalization) 63 negatively related to child competence for boys, while only two of these measures did so for girls. In fact, daughter- to-mother aligning behaviors positively related to adjustment in the Teach-A-Proverb task, though not to a statistically significant degree. However, daughters' Physical Extruding behaviors toward their mothers did significantly negatively relate to adjustment in the Free Play task (£3-.58; p <.02). In regards to the positive associations between child adjustment and father-mother aligning behaviors, such rela- tionships were somewhat stronger in families of girls than boys. For example, in the former group fathers' Aligning Verbalization toward mothers positively related with compe- tence in both tasks to a greater extent than in the latter families (£3.41; 2 <.07 vs. £3.15; N.S. and £3.50; 2 <.04 vs. £3.30; N.S. respectively). In addition, the ratio of fathers' Aligning to Extruding Verbalization toward mothers significantly related to child adjustment in the Free Play task for families having girls but not for families of boys (£3.58; 2 <.02 vs. £3-.03; N.S.). In contrast, the ratio of father-speaking-to-mother/mother-speaking-to-father was neg- atively associated with child adjustment in both tasks for boys (£s=-.SO; E <.02 and -.48; p <.02), and marginally so for girls in the Teach-A-Proverb task (£3-.39; p <.09). Likewise, the small positive association between mothers' aligning with fathers and child psychological health was more apparent in families of girls than boys. Thus, 64 mothers' Aligning Verbalization toward fathers in the Teach- A-Proverb task correlated with adjustment to a greater de— gree for girls than boys (£3.47; 2 <.04 vs. £3.15; N.S.). Noteworthy, mothers' Extruding Verbalization toward fathers also was positively related with child adjustment for fami- lies with girls (£S3.43; p <.06 and .38; E <.09), while being slightly negatively related to adjustment in families with boys during the Free Play task (£3-.26; N.S.). It need be pointed out that the significant relation- ships here made up 14% (24/178) of the total correlations in Tables 6 and 7, and thus would seem not solely to be due to chance. Lastly, there appeared to be a variegated pattern of relationships between child adjustment and Dispersion Scores in the current sample of families, with the predicted nega- tive relationship being somewhat stronger for boys than girls (see Table 9). Thus, seven of the nine Dispersion Scores in the Free Play task, and five of the seven scores in the Teach-A-Proverb task were negatively related to com- petence for boys (though none were statistically signifi- cnat), whereas only five of these scores in the Free Play task were negatively related to competence in families of girls. All seven Dispersion measures were in fact positive- 1y associated with adjustment during the Teach-A-Proverb task for these latter families, though here again none of these relationships were statistically significant. However, though Total Dispersion Scores for both tasks in families 65 having girls positively related to adjustment (£33.51; 3 <.03 and .40; p <.08 respectively), Dispersion of Aligning Verbalization and Physical Aligning for girls in the Free Play task was significantly negatively related to child ad- justment (£33-.53; p <.03 and -.70; p <.003 respectively). (The significant correlations here made up 9% (3/32) of the total in Table 9, thus being slightly more than expected by chance.) . gummary of the Differences for gex-of-Child, Family Alignment Patterns, and Child Adjustment The following differences in the relationship between child adjustment and alignment patterns in families of girls and boys were evident in the current results: (1) Stronger alignments were found between same-sex parent and child than for cross-sex parent-child dyads; (2) The positive relation- ship between child adjustment and fathers' aligning behaviors toward their children was somewhat stronger for father- daughter dyads than father-son; (3) The positive relationship between child competence and children's aligning behaviors toward their fathers was more consistent for boys than girls; (4) The negative relationship between adjustment and mother- child alignments was stronger for boys than girls; (5) The positive association between child adjustment and father- mother alignments tended to be more consistent for girls than for boys; (6) The predicted negative relationships be- tween adjustment and Dispersion Scores were more often found 66 in families of boys than girls, though the two negative cor- relations that reached statistical significance were in families having girls. Summary of Task Differences It is clear from the results reported here that the Free Play and Teach-A-Proverb tasks tended to evoke differ- ent aligning/extruding behaviors between family members, with such behaviors in some instances having different rela- tionships to child adjustment. The findings thus support Henggeler's et a1. (1979) research, previously discussed, wherein the content of two unrevealed differences discussion tasks affected the interaction patterns among family members. More specifically, the differences between tasks in the current investigation were as follows: (1) Parents engaged in more aligning behaviors toward each other and their child in the Teach-A-Proverb task than the Free Play task; (2) Fathers spoke more to their children than mothers did during the Teach-A-Proverb task, while the reverse was true during the Free Play task; (3) There were more statistically sig- nificant relationships between mother-child aligning/extrud- ing behaviors and child adjustment in the Free Play task as compared to the Teach-A-Proverb task, while the number of significant relationships between father-child aligning/ extruding behaviors and child adjustment were the same for both tasks, though in some instances being different he- haviors; father-mother aligning/extruding behaviors 67 significantly related to child adjustment in three instances during the Free Play task as compared to two in the Teach-A- Proverb task, with two of these significant relationships being in regards to different behaviors. Thus, it would appear that the Free Play situation, as compared with the Teach-A-Proverb task, provided a setting which elicited aligning/extruding behaviors among family members that were more evidently related to children's adjustment. In addi- tion, the tasks appeared to provoke divergent socially pre- scribed role behaviors, with the mother being the "expressive leader," while the father was the "instrumental leader.” Several points need be noted here. First, it could well be that the specific areas of a child's psychological strengths or weaknesses affect his/ her behaviors during certain tasks, thereby affecting all the family members' behaviors. For example, children having difficulties in the areas of interpersonal relating and im- pulse control, but having effective cognitive learning skills, would be expected to exhibit more problematic be- haviors in the Free Play situation than during the teaching of a proverb. The reverse might be true for those children having learning difficulties while having good interpersonal skills. Indeed, most of the children in the current sample were functioning at a pre-operational cognitive level (Piaget, 1957) and had difficulty learning the proverbs-- difficulties that varied across subjects and created 68 differing amounts of task evoked frustration and stress among members. Furthermore, parents might be more or less comfort- able in the different situations, some preferring the un- structured Free Play context while others feeling more confident in the adult teaching role demanded by the Teach- A-Proverb task. Such preferences also are likely to affect the transactions between family members. Thus, not only are such things as the cognitive capacities of the children and parents potential confounding factors in family interaction research, but the nature of the task can also be an impor- tant intervening variable--a variable that needs to be more extensively studied and carefully controlled for. DISCUSSION Relevance of Findings for Hypotheses The current findings reflected a complex, yet seem- ingly coherent, pattern of relationships between children's psychosocial functioning and family alignment patterns. Indeed, the associations between criterion and predictor variables appeared to be far more intricate than initially postulated-~in some instances being contrary to expectations. The first differentiation highlighted by the findings was the separate, often divergent, relationships between child competence and fathers' versus mothers' aligning and extrud- ing behaviors, as well as the importance of the directional- ity of the behavior (e.g., father-to-child vs. child-to- father). Secondly, it became evident that these relation- ships were affected by the sex of the child. The first aspect will here be discussed, leaving the effects of sex- of-child on alignment patterns and adjustment to a later section. The initial assumption that there would be a positive association between child competence and the amount of align- ing behaviors between family members proved to be too 69 70 simplistic. This relationship indeed was found for some measures of fathers aligning with their children, fathers aligning with mothers, and, in particular, for children aligning with their fathers, yet this predicted association was strongly contradicted by the negative relationship be- tween child adjustment and mothers' aligning behaviors to- ward their children. Similarly, the predicted negative relationship between child competence and extruding behaviors was not consistently supported, but in fact contradicted by the positive relationship between adjustment and children expressing Extruding Verbalization toward their fathers. The pivotal assumption of a positive association be- tween children's competence and the equalness of expression of aligning and extruding behaviors between family members-- theoretically a means of measuring mutual alliances between family members as opposed to dyadic coalitions--was not strongly supported. Thus, greater unevenness between dyadic expression of Aligning Verbalization and Physical Alligning in families having girls during the first task, and uneven- ness of being on the same Physical Plane for families of boys in the first task, did relate significantly negatively to child competence. However, the amount of dispersion be- tween family dyads across all of the measured behaviors summed together positively related to children's psycholog- ical health for girls. Several reasons could account for this. 71 First, it was clear from the large disparity in means for Who-Speaks-To-Whom--wherein parent—child interchanges far exceeded parent-parent exchanges--that parents in the current sample generally oriented their behaviors in the two tasks toward their children. This, as previously discussed, greatly skewed the distribution of dyadic verbalizations and the total Dispersion Score, possibly diffusing the relation- ship between unevenness of family alignments and child psycho- social functioning. However, a more fundamental issue would appear to be involved here, and that is the difficulty in differentiating "pseudo-alliances"--what Lidz and his colleagues (1965) re- ferred to as "pseudo-mutuality"--from mutual alliances as defined in the Introduction of the current investigation. Wynne, et a1. (1958), as previously noted, and Lidz and his associates (1965) found that families with a schizophrenic often exhibited what appeared to be feigned agreement and harmony among members, expressing greater amounts of such be- haviors than normal controls. Such findings have been cor- roborated by other researchers (e.g., Cheek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b; Haley, 1959, 1962; Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Riskin, 1963; Riskin and Faunce, 1970a, 1970b). For example, Haley (1959, 1962) and Riskin (1963) found that families with a schizophrenic member had greater difficulty forming stable dyadic alignments than normal controls. These families instead tended to continually 72 shift alignments between family members in an apparent des- perate attempt to avoid dyadic relationships which seemingly were experienced as inevitably excluding the third member. These researchers speculated that the proclivity for "pseudo" aligning in dysfunctional families derived from the pervas- ive lack of strong, underlying cohesiveness between family members, whereby an disagreement and/or disbalance in align- ments was experienced as a potential total dissolution of the family. From this perspective, mutual alignments in dysfunc- tional families are based on a shared fear of extrusion and abandonment--on a shared sense of psychological g£§3safety-- rather than a shared sense of security and bondedness. By the definitions previously delineated, such alignment pat- terns would more accurately be termed "mutual coalitions," in contrast to "mutual alliances." The difficulty, of course, is to develop measures that would be able to discriminate between these two highly disparate forms of mutual aligning. Such measures would have to involve assessing the guality of the aligning and extruding behaviors, as well as the quantity. Thus, ratings of the intensity, in addition to frequency, of aligning and extruding behaviors would need to be derived. Furthermore, projective techniques--i.e., family Rorshach or TAT proto- cols scored for content and structure--might help discern the family's ”unconscious" concerns which, theoretically, form 73 the substructure for the manifested alignment patterns. The current measures of aligning and extruding behaviors, though being more thorough than those used in previous research, would nonetheless seem to lack the precision necessary to make the fine differentiation between mutual coalitions and mutual alliances. To summarize, one possible factor involved in the positive relationship between the low total Dispersion Score and pgg£ psychosocial adjustment in the children in the cur- rent study may be the proclivity for poorly functioning families to form "mutual coalitions" for fear of excluding, or being excluded by, the other members. The measures used to assess alignments in the current research perhaps were not sensitive enough to discriminate such mutual coalitions from the mutual alliances purported to be characteristic of ”healthy" families. Yet another issue parallels this discussion, deriving from the tennet most central to the current investigation-- that family and individual psychological health is quin- tessentially characterized by the ability to be separately together, having well defined, yet permeable, intra/inter- personal boundaries. Bowen (1966), from a theoretical per- spective, and Minuchin (1974), in his clinical practice, have been the family theoreticians who have most adamantly stressed the importance of the differentiation of each indi- ‘Vidual within the family, as well as the differentiation of 74 family subgroups from one another. Thus, the ability on occasion to interact explicitly dyadically--not necessarily at the exclusion of other family members, but rather without their intrusion--is considered by these theorists to be par- amount to healthy family functioning. In fact, many of Minuchin's (1974, 1980) therapy techniques in work with en- meshed families are specifically designed to assure dyadic transactions to occur without the intervention of other family members. Thus, the ability to interact dyadically-- presumably alternating between family members--is in fact a characteristic of healthy family systems. That in two seven tasks the degree of dyadic interchanges were not as equally distributed among dyads in families of high function- ing children perhaps merely reflected the former families ability to engage in dyadic alignments, cushioned by the security of their ongoing mutual relationships. A further point must be noted here. It was initially hypothesized that verbal and physical extruding behaviors would be negatively associated with child adjustment, an assumption that was only partially supported by the current results. In contrast, however, child-to-father Extruding Verbalization positively related to competence in both tasks, and families of "healthy" children showed higher means on other extruding behaviors than families having "poorly" adjusted children (e.g., mother-to-father Extruding Verbal- ization in tasks 1 and 2). Perhaps this, too, reflects a 75 security within the familial relationships that allows for disagreement between members, and other behaviors that dif- ferentiate self from other. As was previously reviewed, healthy families exhibited an ability to openly express and negotiate differences between members (e.g., Lewis, et al., 1976). Indeed, to have labeled such behaviors "extruding" in the current research might have been a misnomer; instead, such behaviors more accurately might have been referred to as "differentiating" behaviors. Again, the issue of intensity arises here, for it may well be--as the literature suggests--that dysfunctional families manifest greater amounts of behaviors that are hos- tile and truly extruding than competent families, being the only means possible to separate or, paradoxically, make con- tact in such systems (see review by Doane, 1978). A rating scale assessing the intensity of extruding behaviors might more accurately discriminate "extruding” from "differentiat- ing” behaviors. It is important to reiterate, however, that though ex- hibiting greater "differentiating" behaviors and greater dis- persion between family dyads on some variables, families having competent children generally did engage in more mutu- ally aligning behaviors than families having "low" function- ing children (i.e., participating in significantly more mutual Activity together). Such results are consistent with the initial hypotheses of the current investigation, as well as previous research (e.g., Cheek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b; 76 Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Lewis, et al., 1976; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Murrell, 1971; Riskin and Faunce, 1970a, 1970b, 1972). To further clarify the relationships thus far discussed, a systems model of "healthy" and "less optimal" family alignment patterns presently will be developed, as suggested by a synthesis of the current results. Implications of Findings for FunctionalZLess Functional Family Alignment Patterns The relatively consistent, contrasting patterns of family alignments exhibited by families with competent and less competent children in the current sample strongly sug- gest a model of functional/less functional family alignment patterns. As will become clear, the model is highly consist- ent with both dynamic and systems theories of child and fami- ly development. Stated most succinctly, the model is as follows: Competent psychosocial functioning in latency age children would seem to involve three interrelated family alignment patterns, the first being a strong, reciprocal child-father alignment; the second being a strong father- mother alignment; and the third being an attenuation of the mother-child alignment, especially in regards to the mother's aligning behaviors toward the child. Though one can only speculate at the sequential directionality of the interrela- tionships between these patterns of alignments, it would seem plausible that an interplaying process evolves in healthy families during the latency period whereby a strong father- 77 mother alignment fulfills the psychoemotional need of the spouses and frees the mother to allow the child to differen- tiate from her. Concomitantly, father's aligning behaviors toward the child facilitate and interact with the child's aligning, or "identifying" (e.g., Freud, 1953), with the father, thereby fulfilling psychoemotional needs in both individuals, and aiding the child to individuate from the mother. Schematically the relationships are as follows: Eadmmfidfildlfligmmym. 3::Chikitfifflaen- thn2£.flnm1modmm FaflnnFMouEnrAlnnment \mther allows child tocfiifenanfiate Furthermore, as is stressed in the discussion of the importance of the parental alignment for children's identity and sex role development (see Appendix N), a strong father- mother alliance serves as an affirmation of the child's gender identity--since s/he observes the same-sex parent being valued by the other parent--as well as a model of com- petent intimacy behaviors exhibiting self/other care and respect. Living in a family system based on alliances, the child learns this as the basic form of relating. Contrastingly, in families with poorly adjusted chil- dren the mother attempts to fulfill identity and intimacy needs through her relationship with the child, since these are not being met in her relationship with her husband. The 78 child, also not having a firm alignment with the father, remains in a "hostile-dependent" relationship with the mother. The "engulfing" mother-child relationship here be- comes a comment upon, and function of, the mother-father relationship, being precisely what was defined in the Intro- duction as a coalition--that is, a relationship based on the arousal and attempted fulfillment of psychological safety needs. The child here observes a disvaluing of the same-sex parent by the other parent--potentially evoking concerns about his/her own gender identity--and only has a conflict laden relationship as a model for intimacy. Living in a family system which revolves around coalitionary relation- ships, the child learns this as being the central means of human relating. Relevance of Findings for Theories of the Development of Child Competence The model of family functioning suggested by the cur- rent findings clearly is consistent with one of the most widely held theories of child development, postulated by a diverse spectrum of psychological thought, from psycho- analytic to family systems (e.g., Bowen, 1966; Erikson, 1950; Freud, 1953; Jung, 1971; Minuchin, 1974; Neuman, 1976; Satir, 1974). Indeed, the findings support the fundamental assumption of neo-psychoanalytic theory that the latency age child differentiates from the mother through his/her ”identi- fication" with the father (e.g., Erikson, 1950). Explicating 79 this developmental process in more transpersonal terms from a Jungian perspective, Neuman (1976) writes: In our culture the necessary development by which the child emerges from the primal re- lationship (with the mother) to achieve greater independence corresponds to a trans- ition from the psychological matriarchate in which the mother archetype is dominant to the psychological patriarchate in which the father archetype is dominant (p. 95). Thus, as previously discussed in regards to the path- ogenic effects of a mother-child coalition through the inter- ference with identity and role formation, an alignment with the father would appear to be crucial for Optimal psycho- social development in latency age children. Such an assump- tion is further supported by a growing body of literature exploring the importance of the father in child development (e.g., Blanchard and Biller, 1971; Hetherington, 1972; Lamb, 1976, 1979; Love and Kaswan, 1974; Lynn, 1974; St. Pierre, Stollak, Ferguson, and Messé, 1971; Volcani, 1980). For example, St. Pierre, et a1. (1971), in examining interaction patterns between parents and first or second grade boys rated as "normal" or "problem“ children by their teachers, found that mothers' behaviors did not significantly differ across the two groups, while fathers of poorly ad- justed boys exhibited more negative behaviors than did fathers of normal boys. Similarly, Volcani (1980) found that fathers' self reports of caregiving attitudes and prac- tices were more highly related to latency age boys' 5‘1 80 adjustment--as ascertained by teacher ratings-~than did mothers' self reports of their caregiving attitudes and behaviors. Interestingly, the current results point to the im- portance of a father-child alignment in the develOpment of competence in girls, as well as boys. The process would seem to be similar to that delineated for boys, wherein father aligning with their daughters attenuates the mother- daughter bond, allowing the daughter to further differentiate from the mother. Thus, while the amount of mother-daughter interaction was consistently greater than father-daughter interchanges, daughters' competence positively related to fathers' aligning behavior toward them, while in some instances negatively related with mother-to-daughter align- ing behaviors. Such results are corroborative of recent work examining the father's impact on the psychosocial de- velopment of girls (e.g., Hetherington, 1972; Lamb, Owen, and Chase-Lansdale, 1979). Hetherington, for example, found that father absence was predictive of poor adjustment in girls, though the effects were often not manifested until adolescence (such effects appeared much earlier for boys). That strong father-mother alignments were positively related to children's competence is highly consistent with previous research and theory in this area (e.g., Ferguson and Allen, 1978; Haley, 1963; Kleiman, 1976; Lamb, 1976, 1979; Lewis, et al., 1976; Lidz, 1965; Minuchin, 1974; Satir, 81 1964; Westley and Epstein, 1969). For example, in studying child adjustment of 95 5-7 year old children as related to congruence of parental perception and marital satisfaction-- assessed by self report inventories--Ferguson and Allen (1978) found a significant positive relationship between child adjustment and marital satisfaction. Such a positive associ- ation between child competence and parental alignment was also strongly found by Kleiman (1976), and Westley and Epstein (1969), previously discussed. As was stressed in the review of the literature, a central tennet of family systems theory is that the spouse subsystem forms the nucleus of the family, influencing the perceptions, attitudes, values, behaviors, and intra/inter- personal relationships family members have to themselves, each other, and the external environment (e.g., Ackerman, 1958; Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1967; Bowen, 1966; Haley, 1967; Minuchin, 1974; Palazzdi, 1978; Satir, 1964). These theories view all symptomatology in the family--from psychosomatic disorders to poor school adjustment--as being a manifestation of a dysfunctional parental alignment, serving to gauge the degree of parental intimacy, and/or maintain parental ident- ity and esteem. Thus, numerous researchers have found greater parental disharmony and conflict--in this sense a lack of positive parental a1igning--in families having a member considered to be in psychological distress as com- pared with those deemed "normal" or "healthy" (e.g., Caputo, 82 1963; Doane, 1978; Farina and Holzberg, 1968; Ferguson and Allen, 1978; Gassner and Murray, 1969; McCord, McCord, and Howard, 1961; Murrell and Stachowiak, 1967; Lewis, et al., 1976; Riskin and Faunce, 1972; Solvberg and Blakar, 1975: Vogel and Bell, 1960; Vogel and Lauterbach, 1965). The current findings further highlighted the impor- tance of a reciprocal balance between father-mother aligning behaviors in regards to child competence. Thus, fathers speaking to mothers to a greater extent than mothers to fathers--perhaps reflecting father dominance—-negatively re- lated to child adjustment to a significant extent in both tasks. Conversely, fathers verbally aligning with mothers to a greater degree than mothers with fathers--perhaps sig- nifying an obsequious stance--also negatively related with competence to a significant extent in the Free Play task. Furthermore, mothers speaking to their children more than their children did to them in the Teach-A-Proverb task posi- tively associated with children's psychological health. Such a situation perhaps occurred in spouse subsystems in which the mother was allowed equal status with the father in taking on a teaching role. The interrelated effects of alignment patterns within the family as purported in the current investigation clearly is congruent with the assumptions postulated by family systems theory, particularly those theorists that have em- phasized a developmental approach to the family (e.g., 83 Barnhill and Longo, 1978; Du Vall, 1957; Hill, 1964; Hill and Hansen, 1960; Lennard and Bernstein, 1969; Minuchin, 1967; Rodgers, 1962; Solomon, 1973; Titchener, 1967). The position here is that individual developmental stages (e.g., Erikson, 1950; Freud, 1953) would be characterized more accurately as being familial developmental stages, in which certain concerns and tasks must be addressed and resolved. The current sample consisted of children in the laten- cy stage of development. This is an important phase for the family as a whole, involving the budding individuation of the child from the parents--and the parents from the child-- as s/he turns greater attention toward the external world of school and peers (e.g., Erikson, 1950). As Solomon (1973) notes in regard to this stage: The family must move from the gratification and need-satisfaction involved in the basic- ally dependent, pre-school child to a differ- ent parenting pattern based on the quasi- dependent relationships forced by the child's beginning socialization experience. In this sense parental expectations and demands of the child must allow for individuation and pro- gressive independent functioning (p. 185). Such individuation can only occur in a family milieu in which parental identity, esteem, and intimacy needs are being gratified through the spouses' alignment and other external involvements, rather than through their relation- ship with the child (e.g., Minuchin, 1974; Satir, 1964). It ‘would appear that the fathers of highly adjusted children in the current sample fostered the individuation of the child, 84 particularly in the differentiation from the mother toward the father in the transition to the external world. While being remarkably congruent with past theory and research on family alignment patterns and children's adjust- ment, the current findings do suggest a need to modify one central assumption initially postulated in this study. Though families having "competent" childen did mutually align in some respects to a greater extent than families of "low" adjusted children, the proclivity for closer father- child than mother-child alignments in "healthy" families somewhat contradicts the assumption that health is related to mutual, nonexcluding alliances. It seems likely that during certain developmental phases specific dyadic align— ments intensify while others wane. Such intensification may even involve the exclusion of the third member. What would seem crucial here is that the member that is being aligned with does not also exclude the third person, thereby forming a coalition. Thus, rather than there being a single, opti- mal pattern of family alignments which is universally related to children's psychosocial health, the type of alignment patterns most condusive to child competence would appear to be related to the developmental epoch the family is in, among other possible factors. 85 Methodological Considerations Several factors would appear to attenuate the signif- icance and generalizability of the current results. First, the artificiality of the laboratory setting, with the knowl- edge of being videotaped for future analyses, could have influenced the behaviors of the family members, who would thereby be on their "best behavior." Indeed, O'Rourke (1963), and Riskin and Faunce (1972) found that families behaved differently in the laboratory than in the home, displaying more socially desirable behaviors in the former setting. Thus, these researchers emphasize that caution must be taken in generalizing from findings of family interaction research conducted in a laboratory. Furthermore, the short duration of time and narrow range of activities in which the families engaged, provided a very united sample of behaviors with which to study family alignment patterns. Indeed, that sig- nificant results were found through assessing only two tasks of such short duration is quite remarkable. Second, though teacher ratings of children's psycho- social functioning have been found to be highly accurate (e.g., Bower, 1969; Brownbridge and VanVleet, 1969; Cowen, Dorr, and Orged, 1971; Eisenberg, Landowne, Wilner, and Imber, 1962; Harth and Glavin, 1971; Lambert, 1967; Liem, Yellott, Cowen, Trost, and 1220, 1969; Maes, 1966), it is clear that such a means of determining child competence is very limited, assessing only one facet of the child's life space (e.g., 86 Volcani, 1980). Furthermore, since such measures are based on the teachers' perceptions of the children, they are sus— ceptible to potential biases of the teachers' differing interpersonal perceptual styles (e.g., Messé, et al., 1979). More accurate assessment of children's functioning would be gleaned by using trained raters to code children's be- haviors in a myriad of settings and situations. A further constraint stems from one of the central assumptions of the current research, which is that the family is a single, unified, intricately balanced and inex— tricably interrelated organism, whose members' behaviors are a function of the system as a whole, Yet alignment patterns here were assessed only for family triads, without the par- ticipation of other family members. It would seem likely that alignment patterns might alter significantly if all family members had been present, with an entirely new mosaic of family constellations being displayed. In this regard, Haley (1967c) and Young (1976) found that "dysfunctional" family tetrad manifested an increase in pathological be- haviors than when triads of these families were studied in interactional tasks, while "normal" families displayed greater support when the additional member was present. Thus, generalizing from family triadic interactions can be precarious. In addition, it has been previously stressed that family alignment patterns and their effects on children's 87 adjustment are highly related to the developmental stage or stages--since families can be simultaneously in various stages (e.g., having an infant and an adolescent at the same time)--the family is in (e.g., Solomon, 1973; Titchener, 1967). As Hill (1964) cautions: Any research which seeks to generalize about families without taking into account the variation due to the stages of family development represented in the sample will have tremendous variance un- accounted for (p. 190). Though the specific children involved in this study were generally between 5-7 years old, the families were not controlled for developmental stage pg£ s3, since some had infants while others had adolescents. Thus here, too,'gen- eralizability of the results is possibly weakened. Lastly, the correlational analyses used in the cur- rent investigation do not clarify the directionality of effects. Clearly, children have a profound impact on their parents and the family environment (e.g., Bell and Harper, 1977; Lerner and Spanier, 1978; Thomas, Chess, and Birch, 1968), effects that have been studied far less than those of the parents on their children. It would seem probable that children's psychosocial competence influences the nature and quality of alignment patterns within the family, wherein a "healthy" child would more readily be aligned with by both parents and would not disrupt parental alignments through recalcitrant behaviors that demand constant attention and 88 disciplining. Studies having a larger subject pool to allow for multiple regression analysis, along with longitudinal designs that would permit cross-lagged panel and path analy- ses (e.g., Kenny, 1979) would help ascertain the direction- ality of causation. Summarizing from what has been stated thus far, it is clear that the relationship between child adjustment and family alignment patterns involves a complex interplay be- ~ tween a myriad of variables. Thus, in regards to statements of "causation," it would seem most accurate to say that certain kinds of coalition or alliance patterns (e.g., cross- sexed or same-sexed parent-child alignments) in certain kinds of families (e.g., of certain SES, ethnic background, size, structure, parental caregiving styles), at certain familial developmental stages (e.g., the first child going to school or an adolescent preparing to leave the home), may be deleterious or beneficial to psychological functioning in certain children having certain characteristics (e.g., sex, temperament, biologically/experiencially shaped means of perceiving and responding to the environment), during certain individual developmental stages (e.g., latency, adolescence). living in a certain environment (e.g., the immediate social environment of the home, school, and neighborhood), within a larger social-cultural-historical context (e.g., Berkeley, California circa 1970 or Tucumcari, New Mexico circa 1958). These deleterious or beneficial effects on psychosocial 89 competence may be highly limited and context—situational specific or more global in nature. Directions for Future Research Though assessing alignment patterns from a wider range of perspectives than past research, the current in- vestigation is still only a first step, given the complexity of the phenomenon. Numerous methodological improvements and areas for future exploration are suggested by this study, as will presently be discussed. Gathering the Data Base As previously noted, the validity of teacher ratings of children's psychosocial functioning is weakened by the limited domain of the child's behaviors that the teacher ob- serves, as well as the potential biases of perceptual style (e.g., Messé, et al., 1979). To gain greater objectification and accuracy in determining children's adjustment would necessitate the use of trained raters who would assess the child across a multitude of situations and settings. Similarly, to glean a more accurate sample of the family's alignment patterns home observations could be made. For example, the family's breakfast and dinner time interac- tions could be audio recorded for a one week period using a tape recorder with an authomatic timer that would be fasten- ed under the table. To assess each members perceptions of the familial alignments, a self-report inventory, such as an 90 abridged version of Olson's (1979) Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, could be administered. Such measures of perceived alignments could be related to chil- dren's functioning as well as to the observed alignment be- haviors of the family members. Refinement of Alignment Measures It would seem apparent from the current research that distinguishing between family "alliances" and "coalitions" in a nonclinic population necessitates the measurement of highly subtle behaviors. Several means of refining the cur- rent measures to yield more precise assessment of alignment patterns are as follows: 1) Rating scales of the intensipy of verbal and phys— ical aligning/differentiating behaviors would increase the precision of measurement. Thus, stating "I love you and want to spend more time with you” might be a qualitatively different aligning expression than "I like chocolate too," though in the current coding system both would be scored with equal weight. Furthermore, whether aligning/differen- tiating behaviors are expressed directly (i.e. "Your're beau- tiful”) or indirectly (i.e. "Isn't our daughter beautiful") --thereby effecting the intensity of impact--might highlight important differences in families' aligning styles. There— fore a coding for direct/indirect aligning/differentiating behaviors need be derived. Lastly, all aligning/differen- tiating behaviors were equally weighted in the current 91 investigation, yet it would seem apparent that different be- haviors augment or attenuate the intensity of intimacy to varying degrees. That is, there would seem to be a hierarchy of degrees of aligning/differentiating behaviors, with direct physical contact and verbalization being the most intense means of expression, while being or not being on the same physical plane would be the least. It might be useful to devise a means of differentially weighting these behaviors. 2) Family interactions are a system of interdepend- ent exchanges, wherein each behavior is both a response to a previous event, and a stimulus for behaviors that follow. Such transactions are exquisitely interbalanced like spheres in a mobile. To more fully assess this stream of interrelat- ed exchanges, a sequential analysis of the ongoing process of behaviors need be made. For example, an aligning behavior from father to son followed by a differentiating behavior from mother to father might have a different significance than the reverse sequence. Indeed, except in the case of severely disturbed families, it might well be that what best distinguishes the differences in alignment patterns of opti- mal and less well functioning families is the sequence of aligning/differentiating behaviors rather than their frequen- cy. 3) More specific evaluation of verbal mutual align- ing could be derived by coding the frequency and duration of individuals speaking to other family members simultaneously, 92 and/or speaking of the family as a whole (e.g., "We're a great group"). Simpler still might be to code the frequency of individual and family usage of "we" as compared with "I" and "you" (e.g., Cheek and Anthony, 1970). In addition, a separate coding for verbalizations that simultaneously align with one family member while extruding another (e.g., "I want to play with you dad, not mom") might more explicitly measure coalition behaviors. The ratios of all of these be- haviors within (e.g., father-to-child aligning behaviors divided by father-to-child extruding behavior) and between (e.g., father-to-child aligning behaviors divided by child- to-father aligning behaviors) family members and to other aligning and differentiating behaviors would appear to be important, given the significant relationships often found between child adjustment and ratios of alignment and differ- entiating behaviors within and between family members in the current research. Populations Studied To more fully understand the nature and effects of family alignment patterns it would be important to study aligning/differentiating behaviors between all family mem- bers rather than only family triads selected for age-of- child. Furthermore, to more clearly delineate alliance and coalition formations and their separate effects, it would be useful to study extreme groups, such as specific types of clinic and nonclinic families (e.g., families having a 93 schizophrenic, delinquent, or psychosomatic member), and/or families selected as being exceptionally competent or having an unusually well adjusted child (e.g., Leighton, et al., 1971; Lewis, et al., 1976). It would be expected that such groups would manifest more striking differences in their alignment patterns. It would be of further interest to ex- plore alignment formations in various types of family struc- tures, such as single parent, reconstituted, and foster families. Other Related Questions and Methodological Approaches A plethora of possible issues are suggested by the current study. First, the importance of the family's de- velopmental stage in relation to alignment patterns and their effects has been emphasized on several occasions. Clearly, this relationship should be more fully examined, as for example by studying differences in alignment patterns of families during different developmental phases, and/or by longitudinallyhinvestigating changes in alignments as families progress through various developmental milestones. Second, the nuclear family is a subsystem that inter- faces an ever widening network of other social subsystems, such as the extended family, friends and neighbors, the schools, churches/synagogues, and other community organiza- tions, the city, state, and national governmental agencies, and the culture/society as a whole (e.g., Speck and Attneave, 1973). The nature and effects of the family members' 94 alignments with these other subsystems--effects in regards to self, child, marital, and family functioning--are crucial areas for empirical exploration. The relationship between family alignments and other areas of child functioning would be fruitful areas of re- search. For example, various dimensions of family life-- such as caregiving behaviors and home environment--have been associated with children's cognitive functioning (e.g., Bayley and Schaefer, 1964; Caldwell and Richmond, 1967; Hess and Shipman, 1965; Honzik, 1967; Kagan and Moss, 1962; Radin, 1971, 1973; Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957). In addition, several studies have found that parent-child coalitions were related to poor reading performance in children (e.g., Morris, 1977; Stackhouse, 1973). Broader, more precise in- vestigations of the relationships between family alignment patterns and various aspects of children's cognitive func- tioning would be important. In addition, it will be recalled that the current sample originally was studied to examine the effects of parental interpersonal perceptual style (IPS) on parent- child interactions (Stollak, et al., 1977). Several signif- icant relationships were found; for example, fathers being less negatively biased was associated with children‘s open expression of antagonistic behaviors toward their parents. A second study, reported in the same paper, found that fathers' IPS were associated with teacher and peer ratings 95 of children's adjustment, specifically that fathers of "problem" children were more negative perceivers than those of "normal" or "highly adjusted" children. One next step here would be to eXplore the relationship between IPS and family alignment patterns. Thus, do negative perceivers have more difficulty aligning with other members and exhibit more extruding behaviors; do they tend to form coalitions rather than alliances? The subtle distinctions between "mutual alliances" and "mutual coalitions" perhaps could be better differen- tiated through the use of projective techniques such as family Rorschach (e.g., Wynne and Singer, 1963) or family TAT (e.g., Winter, Ferreira, and Olson, 1965) tasks. It would be expected that themes of isolation, abandonment, loss, and/or engulfment would be more frequent in the proto- cols of families exhibiting mutual coalitions than those en- gaged in mutual alliances (e.g., Rabin, 1968; Tomkins, 1943). Such a study would shed light on the larger issue of the relationship between the "intrapsychic" and interpersonal domain--how does the family's intrapsychic life relate to the interpersonal behaviors between its members? To better ascertain causal links between family align- ment patterns and children's competence, one would need to have a large enough sample size to allow for the use of multiple regression analysis to pinpoint more clearly the specific aligning/differentiating behaviors that best 96 predict child functioning. Furthermore, longitudinal designs which would permit the use of cross-lagged panel and path analyses (e.g., Kenny, 1979) would specify such rela- tionships to a still more powerful extent. The current investigation strongly suggests that any such causal chains would be highly complex indeed, necessi- tating the meticulous analyses of the separate effects of each parent in interaction with the sex of the child, the developmental stage the family is in, and the situational context within which the family is being studied. It is only then that we will better understand the exquisite, intricately choreographed dance of family alignments. APPENDIX A Parent Infonnation Form APPENDIX A Parent Information Form Code Number Nane Age—Telephone No . Present Address writal Status Occupation Years in Occupation Highest level of Education Completed (circle one) : elarentary grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 junior high school: 7 8 9 high school: , 10 ll 12 college: lyear 2years 3years4yearsdegreegranted M.A. degree . Ph.D. degree other degrees or certificates (e.g., M.D., D.D.S., D.O., law or high school certificates indicating completion of vocational training) : Narres and Ages of Children Children's Grades in School Other People in Household and Relationship to Children Note: Chly this questionnaire will cnntain your name. The checklists you will complete will contain only the code number noted in the @per right-hand corner. This questionnaire will be removed and kept in a separate locked file and your answers will be kept completely mnfidential. 97 APPENDIX B List of Proverbs APPENDIX B List of Proverbs Look before you leap. The early bird catches the worm. He who hesitates is lost. Don't cross your bridges 'til you cone to them. Don't coimt your chickens until they're hatched. A stitch in tine saves nine. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Foolsrushinwhereangels feartotread. Dm't put off until tcn'orrcw what you can do today. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 98 APPENDIX C Measures of Children's Psychosocial Adjustment Pupil Date Sex of Pupil M F (circle one) Grade of Pupil School leader's Nane Wewould likeyoutoindicatehowcftenymhaveobsenedcertainbe— haviors in the classroom of the child named above. To help you inter- pret the five rating points, brief descriptions are provided for each. (1) Never—You have literally never observed this behavior in this child. (2) Seldom—You have observed this behavior once or twice in the past three months. (3) mderate frequency—You have seen this behavior nore often than once a month but less often than once a week. (4) Often—You have seen the behavior nore often than once a seek but less often than daily. (5) Must or all of the tine—You have seen the behavior with great frequency, averaging once a day or nore often. Tao things should be kept in mind while completing the ML: (a) Work rapidly and don't fret too much about making fine discrinu'nations, (b) It is extrenely inportant that your ratings realistically reflect problem that the child evidences. Please make yom' ratings reflect problem as you have perceived than. 'Ihank you for your attention. 99 10 0 Section I. Please rate every item on the following scale: 1. not a problem 3. moderate problem 5. very serious problem 2. very mild problem 4. serious problem Child's Classroom Behavior: Other Behaviors: __disruptive in class __lacks self-mfideme __fidgety, hyperactive, can’t _overly sensitive to criticism stay in seat __reacts poorly to disappointnent __talks out of turn, disturbs others while they are working __depends too such on others constantly seeks attentia'x, pretends to be ill _"clowns around" _other, specify: __‘poor groaning or personal __overly aggressive to peers, (fights, is overbearing, belligerent) hygiene __defiant, obstinate, Stubborn Child's Academic Perforzronce: __in'pulsive, is unable to delay __underachieving (not working L; to potential) __withdrawn __poorly motivated to achieve _shy, timid poor work habits _does not make friends __difficulty follom'ng directions _over conforms to rules r concentration, limited __daydreams, is preoccupied, attention span "off in another world" __notor coordination problem _other, specify: __unable to express feelings __anxious Child has specific academic __mrried, frightened, tense problems in: __depressed __reading_ua th__nunbers __cries easily, pouts, sulks _writing_colcrs__ooncepts does not trust others __language skills problems, shows other signs of "nervous- specify: ' ness," specify: specific fears specify : lOl PLEASE RATE “ii-ES PUPIL'S BEEN/ICE AS YOU HAVE OBSERVED AND new IT: Moderately .Vost or all Never Selden Often Often of the time This Pupil— (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1. Gets into fights or quarrelswi’diother students () () () () () 2. Hastobecoaxedor forcedtoworkor play with other pupils ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3. Isrestless () () () () () 4. Isunhappyordepressed() () () () () 5. Disrupts class discipline ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 6 . Becomes sick when faced with a difficult school probleu or situation ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 7. Isobstinate () ()_ () () () 8. Feelshurtwhen ‘ criticized () () () () () 9. Isinpulsive () () () () () 10. Isnoody () () () () () ll. Hasdifficulty learning () () () () () Below, we have listed specific behavior and adaptation problems which my appear to you as interfering with this child's ability to profit from his/her school experieme. Please rate every item in Section I on the following scale of problen severity: 1. not a problem 4. serious problem 2. very mild problem 5. very serious problem 3 . noderate problem Specific instructions are provided for Sections II and III. 102 Section II. From your experiences with this child, please check (/) any of the following which you believe relate tL. the problems you have reported: _separation or divorce of parents __econcmic difficulties __illness or death of a family _under family pressure to neither succeed _1ack of educational stimulation _fandly difficulties in the home Section III. From your experiences with this child, please check (/) where she/he would lie on the following dimensions taking into account the direction of each iten: Know child well Barely lam child 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Child seems easy Child seems to like difficult to like 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 Child has significant Child has on school school adjustment problems adjustment problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 103 f B - P RatingiScales Name of Person Being Rated Name of Rater Date (5) Rated 104 AWARENESS OF SELF The aware person (child or adult) knows how he or she feels, what he thinks, and what he is doing. Although he is conscious of himself, he is not self-conscious, insecure or enbarrassed. This awareness dies not pro- duce anxiety. He accepts and can admowledge how he really feels, thinks, and acts. RATING Very aware; always conscious of his feelings, wishes, fears, and the meaning of his behavior (positive or negative) . Mast of the time aware, ready to ackmwledge what he feels, thinks, and does. Only occasionally uses denial. Often aware of his feelings, tloughts and behavior, and willing to recognize then as such. However, often re- acts without awareness or uses denial. Usually unconscious or unaware of himself; denies his real feelings and thoughts, and cannot recognize his own actions for what they are. Unconscious; full of denial, completely unable to recog- nize his true feelings, thoughts, or behavior. ACTIONSJUSTIFYDERATING 105 mmms The considerate person cares about the well-being of others . He adjusts his be- havior in ways that are thoughtful and beneficial to others . RATING Ehctrerely considerate. Always thoughtful and spon- taneously mncerned with the other person's welfare. Very considerate. Most of the time he is thoughtful and deals constructively with others. Somewhat considerate, but sometimes inconsiderate about what is good for another person. Seldom considers the well-being of other people. Only rarely takes into account what others may feel. Tends to be thoughtless, indifferent. Rarely considers the other person. Tends to pursue his behavior no matter how it may affect the other person.- ACI'ICNS JUSTIPYIN'S RATING 106 ms The effective person copes appropriately . He readily tries and is successful in his efforts to hxplement his own desires or to meet the external demands of the environmait. RATING Very effective. Always deals appropriately and success- fullywithhisinnerneeds andexternaldemands. Always meets and responds effectively to a problem situation. Mostly effective. Typically gets his needs met and handles challenge successfully. Moderately effective. Often successful, but often fails togethismedsmetortocopewithproblamswith success. Nbstly ineffective . But occasionally successful in his efforts. Rarely succeeds in his efforts. Inadequate. Ineffective. ACTIONS JUSTIFYING RATING 107 mm The flexible person can shift his viewpoint or behavior in accordance with new informa- tion or new demands of the people. He is adaptive, but shifts because of anviction rather than became of passive- ly submitting to persuasion. When changing he cmtinues with the same degree of interest and involvement. RATING Very flexible. Adapts readily and easily to new informa- tion and demands. Participation continues with mxdimiru’sh— ed interest. Very frequently flexible. Mast of the time adapts althoughshowsscme tendenqtopersistevenintheface of new information or new expectations. Reasonably flexible, but often clings to his original viewpoint or behavior. At times flexible, but usually unable to adapt to new in- formation or demands. Rigid. Very unresponsive to new information or demands. Cannot shift. ACTIONS JUSTIFYING RATING 1 0 8 DJTERPERSOHAL COMPREI-EISION This trait assesses the person's mderstanding of how one person's behavior causes approval or dis- approval of that behavior in another person. RATING Very high mmprehension. Person almost always remg- nizes the effect of any given behavior. Usually comprehends what time semnd person's reaction will be to the first person's behavior. Sometimes perceives the interpersonal effects, but just as often fails to cexprehend how one person's behavior affects another person's attitude. Seldem ccmprehends interpersonal interaction. Usually ataloss inbeingabletoseehowoneperson'sbe- havior affects another person's reactions. Virtually no comprehension of how a person's behavior causes attitudes in other people. Almost always fails to comprehend the interaction. ACTIONS JUSTIFYINGRATING 109 sans-comm The confident person be- ~ lieves that he is able and behaves with a calm assured manner. He is self-assured and realistic when coping with new challenges. RATING Realistically very confident. Approaches challenge with assurance. Possible failure does not $ter action. Confident most of the time with realistic challenges. Only mild caution with unfamiliar tasks. While often confident, in many instances is unsure of his ability to cope with realistic challenge. Some degree of confidence with familiar things, but often expects to meet with failure with challenge. Virtually no self-confidence. Unable or willing to try. Almost always behaves as though he expects to fail with new challenges. PCI‘IQIS J'LBTIFYINGRATING 109 SELF-comm 'Ihe confident person be- - lieves that he is able and behaves with a calm assured manner. He is self-assured and realistic when coping with new challenges. RATING Realistically very confident. Approaches challenge with assurance. Possible failure does not deter action. Confident trust of the time with realistic challenges. Only mild caution with unfamiliar tasks. While often confident, in many instances is unsure of his ability to cope with realistic challenge. Sate degree of confidence with familiar things. but often expects to meet with failure with challenge. Virtually no self-confidence. Unable or willing to try. Alnost always behaves as though he expects to fail with new challenges. PCI'ICNS JUSTIFYINGRATING 110 SENSITIVITY TD OTHERS the sensitive person is aware and concerned about the welfare of other people. He readily ascer- tains what the other person is feeling and what would be in their best interest. RATING Acutely aware and concerned about people's feelings and reactions. mstofthetineawareandcancemedaboutmothers are truly feeling and reacting. Often aware and concerned, but in many insznces seeps unaware and relatively mooncerned about other peOple's feelings and reactions. Usually unaware and disinterested in what other people are feeling, but can recognize what is going on in others when it is directly called to his attention. Insensitive and unconcerned as to what is going on in and with other people. Deals with them as though they were devoid of feelings. PCPIWSJUSI‘IFY'DERATING lll TOLERANCE The tolerant person recognizes and accepts individual differ- ences . He accepts and gives full regard to others who have different feelings , thoughts , and reactions than his own. But he does not recessarily approve or yield to their influence . RATING Extremely tolerant. Understands and accepts differences as natural. 'Iblerates a very broad spectrum of feeling, thoughts , and behavior in others . Reasonably tolerant about individual differences. Mildly tolerant, but tends to not accept certain natural variations. Usually intolerant. lends to regard people who differ from him as being unacceptable, even wrong. Very intolerant. His way of feeling, thinking, and re— acting is the only way that he can accept. People who are different are completely unacceptable. Very narrow. ACI'IONS JUSTIFYING PATING ‘ 11.2 SPCNERNEITY The spontaneous person is natural. His acceptance of hineelf is high and permits freedom of expression. He is uninhibited, but not dramatic or exhibitionistic. RATING Always highly spontaneous. Very natural and free in his expressions. . Very often spontaneous. Mast of the time reacts freely and natmrally, but on occasion is inhibited. Usually spontaneois . While he frequently expresses himself naturally he is inhibited on many occasions. Shows spontaneity on occasion, but more often inhibited, constricted, and stilted in his response. Many strong inhibitions, very constricted. Almost never spontaneous; not natural. ACTICNS JUSTIFYDIG RATING 113 mam ‘me stable person is emotional- ly balanced. He remains com- posed in the face of stressful events. He remains involved and cbes not find it necessary to shift his direction. RATING Very stable. Not easily upset by change or disappoint- Rent. Usually stable. Accepts and adjusts well to changing circumstances, but occasionally loses his calmness and direction. Nbderately stable. Often retains his equilibrium, but rather easily upset and loses his direcn'bn. Sometimes shows stability, calm and direction, but fre- quently is upset and loses his bearings when ciretmetances change. Unstable. m little capacity to accommdate to change. Ebccimble or immobilized by new demands. PCPIONS JUSTE'YINGRATEG 114 The eager person likes to try new things or take on a new problems He is eager'to over- come, to engage, and to try to master'a.new'problenn RATDWS Loves challengE; eager to try anthing that is new. Delights in testing his ability. Frequently seeks out and meets new and.challenging situ- ations. Shows little hesitancy. Often rises to a challenge that is presented.to him, but does not seek out challenging situations of his own. Shows some hesitancy. Tends to shy away from.challenges much of the time, but ‘will deal with themxwhen encouraged. .Almost always shies away from challenge. Requires a great deal of encouragement, befbre he reluctantly tries. ACTIONS JUSTIFYING RATING 115 Gwen's BEHAVIOR CEQQIS’I‘ POPM A Name of child: Age: Date: Name of person filling out checklist: Relationship to child named above (mother, father, teacher, etc.) : This is a list of items describing many aspects of children's behavior—things that children Cb or ways they have been described by others. Not all of the items will apply to the particular child you are describing, but quite a few of them will. First, go through the list and at a checkmerk M in the first column by each item which applies to this child. If you feel that the item does not apply to the child, put a zero (0) in the first column. After you have gone through the list, please go back through those items youhave checkedandput anothercheckmark (v’) inthe second column opposite those that are now most characteristic of this child, that describe l'nw he (she) is most of the time. mes this Is it diar- apply at all? acteristic? 1. Is happy when h/she does a "good job. I! 2. Gets carried away by his/her feelings . 3. Is tidy and neat, perhaps even a little bit fussy about it. 4. Can't wait - wants to have things immediately. 5. Is concerned about the feelings _B_ of adults . A 7. Feelings are apparent in his/her facial expression. 8. Plays with toys in a rough way. B 9. Handles small objects skillfully. A 1°. Ibesn't pay attention to what others say. 5. Gets irritated or angry easily. g __ A 116 Does this apply at all? Is it char- acteristic? 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. . 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Activity is focused on a particular purpose, seems to accomplish.what he/she sets out to do. Looks awkward when he/she moves around. Accepts new ideas without getting upset. Acts in ways that makes adults not like him/her. Shows pride in accomplishment. Appears stiff in walking or moving about. Seems comfortable in new situations. Has trouble finding the right words to say what he/she means. wants very much to be approved.of.' Seems to do things just to get adults angry at hither. Pbmes gracefully - well coordinated. Has a characteristic mannerism.or nervous habit. Plays to win. Quickly loses interest in an activity. Does what persons ask hither'to do. Never gets excited about anything, even when you expected hither’to be pleased with something. Makes friends quickly and easily. Seems sad.and unhappy. Selfeconfident. __£L__ B m t m I I... I’H’M 117 Is it char- acteristic? Does this apply at all? 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Tends to go too far unless reminded of rules. Talks all the time. Often has to be reminded of what he/she can and can't do. Affectionate - enjoys being physically close to adults. Threatens to hit or hurt others. Is able to stand up for himself/ herself. Seems out of touch with what is going on around him/her - off in his/her own world. Is polite and cooperative. Has uncontrollable outbursts of tatpter. Is easily embarrassed. Often breaks the rules in games. Is careful in explanation - precise. When told to do something he/she doesn't want to do, he/she becomes angry. Is curious about things. Plays aimlessly, doesn't seem to make or accomplish anything. Prefers competitive games . Sears selfish, always wants his/ her com way. ' Shosed appreciation when others helped or did things for him/her. Seldom laughs or smiles. NH” m f” ’tl °° f” °° f” Does this Is it char- apply at all? acteristic? 49. Energetic. A 50. Doesn't seem to care about how he/ she looks - often looks sloppy. B Sl. Asks sensible questions. A 52. Blows up very easily when bothered. B 53. Shows pleasure and involvement in ' most things he/she does. a 54. Fidgety and restless. B 55. Is competitive. a 56. Acts as if adults are against him/her. B 57. Pitches in when things have to be done. A 58. Often seems angry for no particular reason, expresses it in many different ways. 59. Quick and clever. A 60. Aggressive and overpowering. 61. learns quickly. 62. Bossy. __ A 63. Likes to do things well. __ __ 64. Tires easily in activities. Scoring key: A = Positive Behavior B = Negative Behavior APPENDIX D Family Alignments Coding Manual APPENDIX D Family Alignments Coding Manual Nature of the Research The current research involves studying patterns of family align- ments in father-mofiier-child triads. The focus is on the degree of emtional closeness between family mariners and how they balance this closeness among themselves while engaged in two 7 minute tasks (free play and teaching a proverb). The degree of emotional closeness will be assessed by rating the freqlency of occurrence of 6 categories of behaviors (Mao-Speaks-Tb-thm: Alignirlg/Ebctmding Verbalizations; Activity; Physical Plane; Proximity; and Aligning/Extruding Physical Contact) . This coding manual will define these categories and explain the procedure for assessing them. General Coding Procedmre Each rater team will be responsible for independently rating two categories. Rate each of these categories individually, that is, code theentire 7minutetask foronecategory, thenrewindthetapeand code the segment again for the other category before going on to code the second task. Put the videotape code #, task # (l for the free play, _2 for the teaching of proverbs), and your initials in the Space provided on the coding sheet. Start coding when you hear the first "beep" after the g on the video tape leaves the room, and continue until the last one (there are 119 120 42 "beeps" per task which coincide with the 42 Lmit boxes on your coding sheets). Stop the tape at each 10 sec. "beep" to mark all codings not marked during the interval. W, YOUAIWAYSCANS‘IUPTEE'MPEAND/ORREMINDITATANYTIME IFYOU'REI‘UI‘SUHSAHDUI‘ACODDIGU 121 Category Definitions Win-Speaks-Tb-th: This is a frequency count of the ntmber of times family members speak to each other (fatter-to-mother, mother-to-father; father-to—child, child-to-father; motter-to-child, child-to-mother) . Theunitofmeasureisafull statementmadebyanindividualtoan other—that is, allthewords spokenbyaperscntothetargetperscn before someone else speaks, or before the person speaks to a different family member (a mere grunt of "uh-huh" constitutes a unit!) . Place a slash (v) in the appropriate box on the coding sheet (mother-father, mother-child; father-mother, fatter-Child; child-father, child-mother) for each statement made by one member to an other. Statements from one member to an other that are longer than 10 secondsandproceedinto thenexttimeintervalarecodedbyanother ""' being placed in the appropriate who-to-wham box on the coding sheet for every 10 sec. unit length (i.e. a staterent from mother to father that lasted 30 sec. would be scored by "' ' "' being placed in the mother- father coding box). Determination of who is speaking to whom is made by eye contact between members, content of speech, use of name, and other cues general- lymedmascertaintlatsameoreisspeakingtosareoneelse. If itis mtglegarfiobxdowmtrememberisspeakingto, DOECODETHE WE. If the person is clearly speaking to both other members si- multaneously, code a ""' in each of the members' coding box. Do git; code laughter; do code all verbal interchanges that occur during fantasy play (i.e. child's puppet speaks to father's puppet is scored as child- father verbali zation) . l 2 2 Category Definitions MigfingWVemaizauom: This category is designed to measure the degree family members becale emotionally closer or more distant through what they say to each other. The symbols, coded in the appropri- ate unit box on the coding sheet, are as follows: Aligning Verbali zation = + Extruding Verbalization = - Code only the presence/absence of the occurrence of these verbaliz- ations ONCE per l0 sec. unit, though, of course, if both + and - Verbal- izationsoccurinone 10 sec. interval youwouldcode thateachhas occurred (i.e. the unit box on the coding sheet might look like this- + - ). Aligning/Extniding Verbalization simultaneously made to both other members is coded individually in each marber's Lmit box. All Aligning/Dctmding Vemalization occurring during fantasy play are coded based on who is verbally aligning/extruding with whom in the play (i.e. the father's puppet says, "You are a beautiful queen" to the mother's puppet would be scored father-mother Aligning Verbalization) . Aligning Verbalizations are any statements that attempt or serve to maintain or increase emotional contact and closeness with an other. They are any verbal expressions of care, valuing, support, empathy, concern, warmth, appreciation, admiration, agreement, enjoyment of, and desire to maintain or increase contact with an other. Such statements can either be made directly to an other, or indirectly through fantasy play or in Speaking to one family member about the other (i.e. "What a great kid we've got") . Examples of + Verbalizations are as follow: endearments - "You sweetie" "I love you" 123 compliments - "You're wonderful" "Good" (in response to satething someone did) "You're father is a wonderful man" (coded mother-father + even though the mother is speak- ingtothechild,sincesheispraisingthe father) support/concern - "Are you ok?" "let me help" "I don't want you to ‘ get hurt" "Avmw" (as empathic response to other's dis- pleasure) agreerent - (Note: code this as + only when a clear agreement with satething that is directly related to the other person, i.e. a subjective attitude, opinion, value, desire, feeling, nor when merely an agreetent with an ob'ective fact. The agree— menthereexpresses eidea tthepersonis somehow like the other) . "I like ice cream" "Me too" "I think we ought to play Bingo" "0k" "Beautiful day, huh?" "It sure is" "Your father is right" (mother to child) identification - "I'm wearing jeans just like yours" "Someday I'll be big like you" "We both hate pickles" "We're both kinda oaffy satetines" (notice this is coded + even though it is slightly derogatory, since it serves to align the people together) seeking contact/support - "Come here" "Sit on my lap" "Listen to me" "Will you play with me?" "Watch me" "Do you agree with me?" "I'll miss you" Extruding Verbalizations are any statements that function to de- crease etotional contact, to distance or separate oneself from an other, or make contact in a hostile manner. They include expressions of devalu- ing, dislike, disdain, rejection, disagreement, differences, rebuke, criticism, lack of support or concern, and/or a wish to decrease contact. Examples are: "That's a stupid thing to do" "You turkey" "I don't want to sit next to you" "I hate you" "My way is better than yours" "I wouldn't wear slacks like yours" "Don't be silly" "You're wrong" "Came here" "No" "That kid of ours is driving me 124 bonkers" (father to mother) note that this would be scored both father-child—AND father-mother +since itservestounifybothparentsaround having something in camon) "Your mother is wrong" "You never spend enough time with me" (scored both-(since it is a criticism and statement that one experiences the situation different than the other) AND + (since there is a request for more contact)) Category Definitions Physical Plane: Defined as either standing, sitting in chairs, or being on the floor (whether kneeling, squatting, lying, etc.) . If one person is in another's lap or being held then score as plane; if person is ' positioned on some other object in the room (i.e. the heater radiator) then score as different plane. Stop the tape at the 10 sec. "beep" and place an "+" in the appropriate unit box (motherbchild, father-child, father-mother, father-mother—chi 1d, father/mother/child (indicating none are on the same plane)),-depending on which family members on are on the sate plane. Place a "/" in all the other mit boxes that do not desig- nate the correct plane arrangerent (thus there will always be one, and only one, "+" per 10 sec. unit). If a member is stopped in the middle ofmoving, codetotheplanetheyaremovingtowards iftheyare 3/4ths or more of the way changed (i.e. a member is 3/4ths out of his/her chair andthusccdedasifstanding). Ifyoucannotseeamember, codeon plane last seen. Activity: Defined as any mutual participation in a joint enterprise such as a game fantasy play, building something, fixing something, play- ing music together. The mariners have to be obviousy, actively involved 125 together out of an apparent desire to make contact with one another. Actively exploring objects/toys together, where both or all 3 members are clearly mutually involved is scored as Activity. Mutually talking and planningtcfulfillataskrequestedbythegdoesmrconstimtebeing engaged in an Activity together. Stop the tape at the 10 sec. "beep" and place an "+" in the appropriate mnit box to indicate the praence of marber's being dyadically or triadically engaged in an Activity together. Place a "/" in all other bones, or in all the boxes if mmbers are not engaged in anActivity together. Physical Proximity: This is a measure of emotional closeness between family members based on their physical distance from each other. Stop the tape at each 10 sec. "beep" and place the appropriate rating # for each family dyad (mother-child, father-child, father-mother) . Ratings are as follows: 1 = (WT) Nelrbers are at least an outstretched legs le_n—gth_-fr_tm each other—that is, they could touch only if both stretched out their legs (about l0 feet from each other) . 2 = Matbers could touch if one had his/her legs outstretched (about 5 feet) . 3 = barber‘s could touch if one had his/her arms outstretched (about 2 feet). 4 = (CLOSEST‘) Direct physical contact with another member: was body touching (i.e. sitting side by side with arms around each other; sitting in lap; hugging); or face within 6" of the other's face. PhYSical Aligning/Dctruding: This is a measure of family members' ero- tional closeness based on the $131.31 of physical contact. Rate the Preserve/absence of physical Aligning/Extruding ONCE per 10 second Lmnit 126 (if both types of contact occur in one 10 sec. period, then there would be 232 codings in the unit box—one for Aligning and one for Extrtxiing) . Physical Aligning/Ebctruiing made to both other members is coded individ- ually on each member's unit box. All physical Aligning/Extruding be- haviors occurring during fantasy play are coded based on who is physical- ly aligning/extruding with whcm on the play (e.g., the child's puppet hugs the mother's puppet would be scored child-mother Physical Aligning). The symbols are: Physical Aligning = + Physical Extruding = - Physical Aligning is any physical expression of warmth, affection, care, valuing, and increasing emotional contact. Elamples are hugging, kissing, stroking, physically helping an other (i.e. holding them up; tying shoe), blowing a kiss. Pmsical Ebctnding is any physical expression of hostility, aggres- sion, disvaluing, rejection, emotionally distancing. Examples are hitting, kicking, biting, pulling, pushing, throwing, sticking tongue out, shooting at an other, tripping, and any other means of physically/ emotionally hurting an other, and/or expressing a difference between than in a physical manner (i.e yanking an object from them). APPENDIX E Sample Characteristics APPENDIX E Sample Characteristics Age, Distribution by Sex 1) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) 4 years O'mos.-5 years 0 mos. 5 years 1 mos.-6 years 0 mos. 6 years 1 mos.-7 years 0 mos. 7 years 1 mos.-8 years 0 mos. 8 years 1 mos.-9 years 0 mos. 9 years 1 mos.-9 years 6 mos. NUmber of Sibling§_and Birth Order l) 2) 3) 4) S) 6) 7) Only child Che sibling (younger) One sibling (older) TWO siblings (younger) Two siblings (older) Two siblings (middle child) Three siblings or more Parents' level of Education 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Parents' level of Occupation 0) Unemployed I) Professional 4-6 years of school 7-9 years of school 10-12 years of school 13-14 years of school 15-16 years of school 17 years of school 1 II) Business or Managerial III) Administrative, Technical, or Cierical IV) Semdeskilled or Skilled .Manual worker V) unskilled Manual‘WCrker VI) Housewife VII) College Student (full-time) *Missing one case lAdapted from Hollingshead and Redlich (1958). Males Females Total n 2 0 2 0 3 3 5 3 8 7 6 13 2 2 4 3 O 3 m S 13 3 2 3 1 6 thher (n) Father (n) 1 0 0 2 15 9 14 11 3 9 0 2 Mother (n) Father (n)* 2 l O 3 3 11 0 1 8 6 O 9 l8 0 2 l 127 APPENDIX F Correlations between Tieacher ratings of Children ' s Adjustment APPENDIX F Correlations between teacher ratings of children's adjustment. CBC Positive CBC Negative AML B-P .75 -.71 -.92 CBC Positive -.48 -.7S CBC Negative .80 128 APPENDIXG m, Staldard Deviatims, and Ranges of Teacher Ratings of Childral's Adjmtmmt APPENDIX G Means, standard deviations, and ranges of teacher ratings of children's adjustment. Inventory X 8.0. mnge a—pl 34.93 10.33 12-50 cac Positivez 12.28 6.45 1-23 cac Negative3 3.38 5.10 0-19 AMI.4 55.46 45.74 o-134 Composite Scores 68.64 18.48 33-93 1 10-50 possible, higher score signifies Esitive adjustment. 20-27 possible, higher score signifies Esitive adjustment. 30-25 possible, higher score signifies nggtive adjustment. 4415-225 possible, higher score signifies Eative adjustment. 50-100 possible, higher score signifies msitive adjustment. 129 APPENDIX}! Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges, and Frequencies of Family Aligning/Eactruding Behaviors on Tasks l and 2 APPENDIX Ha Means, standard deviations, ranges, and frequencies of family aligning/actruding behaviors on task 1. Variable X S.D. Range Frequency. Mn-Speaks-‘Ib-Wlum: Mather-Child 33.30 15.13 3-84.5 32 (missing Child-Mother 22.31 13.58 1-75.5 32 one case) Father-Child 31. 89 13 . 46 6-70 32 Child-Father 22 . 55 10 . 84 1-48 32 Fatherbmther 9 . 25 5 . 66 1-22 32 thher-Father 9.44 5.01 2-19.5 32 Aligning Verbaliza- tion: Matter-(mild 3.60 3.03 0-13 29 (missing Child-vbther 2.79 2.98 0—15 28 tuccases) Father-Child 3 . 26 2 . 35 0-9 . 5 29 Child-Father 1. 71 l. 55 0-6 . O 24 Father-Mother 2 . 40 2 . 34 0-10 25 Matter-Father 2.10 1.85 0-6.S 27 Ehctruding Verbali- zation: Mather-Child .95 1.04 0-4 22 (missing Child-Matter 1.11 1.37 0-5 19 twocases) Father-Child 1. 31 l . 46 0-5 21 Child-Father 1 . 23 1 . 52 0-6 21 Father-Mather . 89 1 . 11 0-3 . 5 17 Mather-Father .82 1.35 0-4.S 12 Activityl: Mower-Child 5.89 8.23 0-39 26 Father-Child 8.46 11.27 0-39 28 Patter-miner 1. 12 2. 68 0-14 . 5 15 Father-thher Child 14 . 05 13 . 30 0-42 17 130 131 APPENDIX Ha (conumed' ) Variable )7: S.D. Range Frequency Physical Planez: Hither-Child 6.68 10.29 0—38 20 Father-Child 4. 49 9 . 32 0-41 21 Father-Mather 17 . 58 14 . 70 0—41 30 Fatler-muler- Child 10. 61 13. 61 0-39 24 Father-Mother- Child Separate 2.65 4.13 0-17.5 20 Physical Proximity3: Mother-Child 103.11 22.22 47.5-135.5 33 Father-Child 101 . 20 19 . 56 55 . 5-127 33 Father-Mather 91. 83 23 . 94 46 . 5-142 33 Physiml Aligning: matter-Child .58 1.33 0-5 8 Child-Moder .30 .91 0-5 7 Father-Child .18 .57 0-2.5 4 Child-Father . 06 . 24 0—1 2 Father-mther .02 .09 0-.5 l Mather-Father .02 .09 0-.5 1 Physical Extruding: Mother-Child .17 .50 0-2.5 5 Child-thher .67 1.94 0-10.5 9 Father-Child . 32 1. 31 0-7 3 Child-Father . 45 l. 25 0-5 . 5 5 Fatter—thher 0 0 0 0 mther-Fatrer .03 .17 0-1 1 mtio of Who-Speaks- 'Ib-Wl'nm: M-C/C-M 1.65 .80 0-4.56 Not Applicable F—C/C-F 1.60 .99 0—6 F-M/M-F .94 .41 0-1.80 132 APPENDH Ha (antinued) Variable i S.D. Range Frequency Ratio of Aligning/ Extruding Verbaliza- tion: mther-Qlild 3.12 5.43 0-26 Not Applicable Child-Mather 1. 31 2. 17 0-10 Father—Clild l . 68 1 . 87 0-8 Child-Father 1. 25 2 . 35 0-12 Fatler-thher 1 . 27 2 . 24 0-9 Mather-Father . 69 2 . 32 0-13 Ratio of Aligning Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M-C/C-M 1.75 2.44 0-13 Not Applicable F—C/C-P 1 . 41 1. 53 0-6 . 33 F-M/‘M—F 1.12 1.32 0—6 Ratio of Extnfiing Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M-C/C-M .62 .95 0-4 Not Applicable F-C/F-C . 79 1. 84 0-10 F-M/M-F .45 .96 0-5 Dispersion Score: Who-weeks-To-Wham 37.28 20.63 0-108.46 Not Applicable Aligning Verbalization 3.53 2.90 0-13.68 Ektruding Verbalization 2.10 1.72 0-6.98 Activity 9 . 81 9 . 17 0-31. 84 Physical Plane 17.49 11.35 1.41-33.48 Physical Proximity 25.67 12.69 4.95-60.52 Physical Aligning .83 1.61 0-7.38 Physical Ebctruding 1.01 2.31 0-9.90 'Ibtal Dispersion 446.80 79.76 253.27-586.93 lo-42 possible. 20-42 possible. 30-168 possible. 133 APPENDH Hb Means, staldard deviations, ranges, and frequencies of family aligning/extmding behaviors on task 2. Variable i S.D. Range Frequency Vbo—Speaks—‘Ib—Mum: mther-Child 29.40 10.42 12-50 33 Glild-thher 17.26 8.15 3.5-34.5 33 Father—Child 31. 05 14 . 96 1-67 . 5 33 Child-Father 19 . 80 13 . 55 0—56 32 Father-thher 6 . 29 4 . 91 0-26 32 Mather-Father 7 . 00 4 . 53 1-21 33 Aligning Verbaliza- tion: Mather-Child 4 . 39 2 . 90 0-12 30 Child-Mother 2 . 27 2 . 25 0-7 22 Father-Child 3. 69 2 . 88 0-13 . 5 29 Child-Father 1.60 1.78 0-7.5 22 Father-Mather 4 . 03 2 . 77 0-10 . 5 29 Mather-Father 4 . 00 2 . 54 0-11 29 Extruding Verbali- zation: Mather-Child 1.79 2.53 0-10.5 18 (mild-mam .47 .66 0-2 13 Father-Child 1. 31 1 . 18 0-4 . 5 21 Child-Father . 55 . 64 0-2 16 Father-Mather .61 1.00 0-3 12 Mather-Father . 89 1. 08 0-3 . 5 17 Physical Planel: Matter-Gum 2. 36 7 . 98 0-42 8 Father-Child 1.83 7.52 0-42 6 Father-Moder 6. 12 11. 54 0—41 19 Father—lbther Child 28.20 16.67 0—42 27 Father-Mother- Child Separate 3.35 10.45 0-42 7 134 APPENDIX Hb (mntinued) Variable i S.D. Ralge Frequency Physical Proximityz: Mather-Child 109.65 26.40 43-154 33 Patter-Child 98 . 03 30 . 66 42-146 33 Fatherfibther 99 . 72 23 . 36 42-150 . 5 33 Physical Aligning: mtherHC‘hild 2.65 4.50 0-23.5 19 Child-mther .36 1.20 0-5.5 4 Father-Child 1.15 2.85 0-13.5 10 Child-Father . 68 2 . 04 0-10 7 Father-Mather 0 0 O 0 Mather-Father 0 0 0 0 Physical Extnfling: MatherChild .38 2.09 0—12 2 Child-thher .14 .46 0-2 3 Father-Child .05 .19 0-1 2 mild-Father . 03 . 12 0-. 5 2 Fatter-bbther .02 .09 0-.5 1 Mather-Father 0 0 0 0 Ratio of Winn-Speaks- ‘lb-hham: M—C/C-M 1.94 .80 1.10-5.14 Not Applicable F-C/C-F 1.78 .77 0—4.23 F—WM—F .91 .44 0—2.00 mtio of Aligning/ Ebctruding Verbaliza- tion: Mother-Child 1.68 2.64 0—10 Not Applicable Child-thher 1.27 2.81 0-14 Father—Child 1 . 30 1 . 53 0-6 . 75 Child-Father 1. 06 1 . 91 0-7 . 5 Fatherlbther 1.49 3.23 0-15 Mather-Patter 1 . 95 2 . 96 0-11 135 APPENDIX Hb (continued) Variable X S.D. Range Frequency Ratio of Aligning Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M-C/C-M 1.61 1.88 0-7 Not Applicable F-C/C-F 1 . 74 2 . 94 0-16 F-M/M-F 1.01 .93 0-4.25 Ratio of Extruding Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M—C/C-M . 84 1. 70 0-6 Not Applicable F-C/C-F .65 1.06 0-5 F-M/M-F .39 .81 0—3 Dispersicn Score: Mo—Speaks—‘Ib-an 38.30 16.35 4.95-82.30 Not Applicable Aligning Verbalization 4.66 3.35 0-12.05 Extruding Verbalization 1.98 1.63 0-6.01 Physical Plane 10.35 16.10 0-59.40 Physical Proximity 41.86 98.11 0-324.04 Physical Aligning 3.15 4.30 0-19.19 Physical Extruding .47 1.99 0-11.43 'Ibtal Dispersion 385.02 83.50 241.85-563.37 10-42 2 0—168 APPENDIX I m, gRatios, and P Values Oatparing Families of "High"/"Iow" Adjusted (1111er m Tasks 1 ad 2 Means, t ratios, and p values comparing APPENDH Ia families of "high"/"Low" adjusted children for task 1. variable X t p High. Irnv 'Who-Speaks-Ttrwfirxm: Mother-Child 30.77 31.32 .11 .91 Child-Mbther 18.73 22.95 1.08 .29 Father~Chi1d 37.05 25.77 -1.84 .08 ChildrFather 26.36 18.36 -1.71 .11 Father-Mother 10.77 9.23 - .60 .56 Motheerather 11.45 8.73 -1.30 .21 Aligning verbaliza- tion: Mother-Child 3.55 4.64 .77 .45 Child-Mother 2.65 3.18 .37 .71 Father—Child 4.10 3.14 - .90 .38 ChildrFather 2.05 1.05 -1.51 .15 FathereMother 3.50 1.59 -2.29 .04 .Mother—Father 2.80 1.64 -1.41 .18 Extruding verball- zation: .Mother-Child 1.05 1.09 .09 .93 ChildsMother .75 1.45 1.18 .26 FathereChild 1.40 1.05 - .59 .56 Child-Father 1.55 .95 - .83 .42 FatherbMother 1.00 1.18 .33 .74 Mother-Father 1.35 .82 - .77 .45 Activity : MotherbChild 9.17 5.27 - .85 .40 Father-Child 4.75 6.86 .58 .57 FathereMother .38 2.00 1.23 .25 FatherfiMother— Child 18.13 7.23 -2.41 .03 136 137 APPENDIX Ia (continued) Variable X t p High Low Physical Plae: thher—Child 10.33 6.00 - .94 .36 Father-Child 2.75 7.14 .96 .36 Father-Dimmer 15.00 14.77 - .04 .97 Father-Mother- Child 12.63 10.05 - .44 .67 Father-Pbther- Child Separate 1.29 4.05 1.52 .16 Physical Proximity: Mather-Child 111.04 95.95 -1.72 .11 Father-Child 107 . 83 90 . 73 -2 . 01 . 06 Patter-mum 91.29 81.82 - .92 .37 Physical Aligning: Mother-Child .21 1.00 1.42 .18 Child-Dbther" . 13 .23 . 67 . 51 Physical Extruding: Guild-Mather“ .08 1.45 1.40 .19 Ratio of Who-Speaks- To-M'nm: M—C/C—M 1.65 1.60 - .14 .89 F—C/C-F 1. 39 1. 77 . 82 . 43 F—M/M-F .82 1.00 1.04 .31 mtio of Aligning/ Ectruiing Verbaliza- tion: muerGIild 3.10 5.02 .71 .49 Child-Mather 1.25 1.74 .46 .65 Father-Child 1.78 1.25 - .69 .50 Child—Father 1.35 .51 - .84 .42 Father-Mather 2. 46 . 78 -1. 67 .11 Matter-Patter 1. 52 . 25 -1 .16 . 27 138 APPENDIX Ia (continued) Variable X t p High low Ratio of Aligning Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M—C/C-M .81 3.26 2.16 .05 F-C/C-F 1.60 1.53 - .09 .93 F-M/M—F .90 1.45 .90 .38 Ratio of Ebrtruding Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M—C/C-M .53 1.04 1.12 .28 F—C/C-F . 31 . 42 . 45 . 66 F—M/M-F .65 .32 - .76 .46 Dispersion Score: Wo—Speaks-‘Ib—Vmam 34.94 32.56 - .31 .76 Aligning Verbalization 3.04 4.58 1.10 .29 Ebctnfling Verbalization 1.78 2.44 .90 .38 Activity 10.49 9.13 - .35 .73 Physical Plane 17.08 17.08 .00 .00 Physical Proximity 26.69 27.37 .12 .90 Physical Aligning .41 1.02 1.19 .26 Physical Extruiing .79 1.45 .59 .56 Total Dispersion 467.52 407.20 —1.77 .09 *Frequency of occurrence of other Physical Aligning/Molding variables insufficient for use in data analysis. 139 APPENDIX Ib Means, g ratios, and p values comparing families of "high"/"low" adjusted children for task 2. Variable 3': t p High low Wto—Speaks-Tb—Whan: Matter-Child 29.33 27.36 - .51 .62 Guild-umber 16.25 17.82 .49 .62 Father-Child 33.63 29.36 - .71 .49 Guild-Father 20.71 19.18 - .30 .77 Father-Mather 4.79 7.45 1.20 .25 Mather-Father 5.63 7.18 .88 .39 Aligning Verbaliza- tion: thher-Giild 4.65 .18 - .33 .74 Guild-Mather 1.85 2.23 .40 .69 Father-Child 4.30 3.18 -1.10 .29 Gold-Father 1.85 1.18 - .95 .36 Fatier-Fbther 5.20 2.95 -1.92 .07 Mother-Father 5 . 20 3 . 18 -1 . 77 . 09 Extruding Verball- zation: bother-Gold 1.45 2.32 .73 .47 Child-thher .40 .59 .64 .53 Father-Child 1 . 00 1. 64 1. 21 . 24 Guild-Father .75 .45 - .96 .35 Father-Potter . 30 . 55 . 65 . 53 mtheerather 1.00 .73 - .60 .56 Physical Plane: Mather-Gold 2.08 .91 - .67 .51 Father-Guild 3 . 83 . 23 -1 . 04 . 32 Father-Mother 5.08 7.81 .52 .61 Father-Mather Child 25.75 28.50 .37 .72 Father-Mother- Child Separate 5.25 4.14 - .21 .84 140 APPENDIX D) (mntinued) Variable X t p High low Physical Proximity: bother-Guild 106. 25 111. 09 . 47 . 65 Father-Child 86 . 38 105 . 68 1 . 64 . 12 Father-thher 96 . 71 98 . 64 . 20 . 85 Physical Aligning: Mather-Guild 1.75 4.45 1.24 .24 Father-Gold . 42 2 . 27 1. 31 . 22 Guild-Father“ .67 .27 - .70 .49 (Physical Inn-truding” Ratio of (ho-Speaks- 'Ib-Mrm: M—C/C-M 2.09 1.60 -2.03 .06 F-C/C-F 1.93 1.58 -1.02 .32 F-M/M—F .82 1.11 1.54 .14 Ratio of Aligning/ Extnriim Verbaliza- tion: Mother-Child 1.98 2.05 .05 .96 Gold-Mather .83 1.54 .53 .60 Father-Guild 1.10 1.53 .80 .43 Guild-Father . 91 . 95 . 06 . 95 Father-Mother .60 .36 - .43 .67 Plotter-Father 1.19 1.80 .48 .63 Ratio of Aligning Verbalization bet- ween family mem- bers: M—C/C-M 1.55 2.02 .53 .60 F-C/C-F 2.14 1.60 - .38 .71 F—M/M-F .95 .95 .01 .99 141 APPENDIX Ib (continued) Variable X t p High low Ratio of actrudnag Verbalization bet- ween family man- bers: M—C/C-M .88 .48 - .65 .52 F-C/C-F .53 .73 .39 .71 F-M/M—F .25 .16 - .41 .69 Dispersion Score: Mo—Speaks—Tb-Mnm 40 . 58 33 . 89 -1 . 10 . 28 Aligning Verbalization 4.23 4.34 .08 .93 Extruding Verbalization 1.82 2.16 .49 .63 Physical Plane 8.58 6.22 - .49 .63 Physical Proximity 28.82 71.60 .83 .42 Physical Aligning 1.65 4.51 1.45 .17 (Physical Extruding") 'Ibtal Dispersion 367.77 390.23 .67 .51 *Frequency of occurrence of other Physical Aligning and of all Physical Extruding variables insufficient for use in data analysis . APPENDIXJ Means, Tinting, andPValuas Chrparing FamilieeofBoysandGirls m'raskslandZ- APPENDIX Ja mans, t ratios, and p values culparing families' of boys and girls for task 1. XI Variable t p boy girl MD-Speaks-‘Ib-th: Mather-Child 28 . 58 37 . 07 -1 . 53 . 14 Child-mther 20.78 24.29 - .67 .51 Father-Child 32 . 06 31 . 68 . 08 . 94 G'lild-Father 24 . 78 19 . 68 1 . 36 . 18 Father-Mather 8.42 10.32 - .92 .37 thheeratrer 9.17 9.79 - .33 .74 Aligning Verbaliza- tion: PtherG'lild 3.24 4.04 - .70 .49 Glild-rvbther 2.26 3.43 -1.14 .27 Father-Child 3.35 3.14 .26 .80 Child-Father 1. 91 1. 46 . 81 . 42 Fatler-Dbther 1.82 3.11 -1.48 .16 Mather-Father 1 . 71 2 . 57 -1 . 32 . 20 Ebrtnriing Verbali- zation: Mather-Gold .91 1.00 - .23 .82 Child-Mother 1 . 26 . 93 . 69 . 50 Father-Guild 1.41 1.18 .44 .66 Child-Father 1 . 24 1 . 21 . 04 . 97 Father-mther . 91 . 86 . 14 . 89 Khmer-Father .68 1.00 - .64 .53 Activity: led 5.97 5.79 .07 .95 Father-Child 7.84 9.29 - .37 .72 Fatherflbther 1 . 29 . 89 . 46 . 65 Father-Mather- (11in 11.79 17.12 -l.16 .26 142 143 APPENDIX Ja (continued) Variable X t p boy girl Physical Plane: Mother-Guild 7.00 6.25 .20 .84 Father-Child 5.53 3.07 .80 .43 Patter-mther 13.66 22.89 -1.80 .08 Father-Mather Guild 12.32 8.29 .86 .40 Patter-Mother- Child Separate 3.50 1.50 1.54 .14 Physical Proximity: Mather-Child 103.26 102.89 .05 .96 Father-Child 99.50 104.07 - .72 .48 Father-mtrer 92 . 50 90 . 93 . 18 . 86 Physical Aligning: EDWId .42 .79 - .71 .49 Guild-Mather” .18 .46 - .76 .46 Physical Earl-riding: Gold-Mather” 1.00 .21 1.34 .20 mtio of Vin-Speaks- lib-Wan: M—C/C-M 1.53 1.82 --1.10 .28 F—C/C-F 1 . 25 2 . 08 -2 . 31 . 04 F-M/M—F .82 1.11 -2.09 .05 mtio of Aligning/ Ectruding Verbaliza tion: mtherhChild 2.07 4.53 -1.17 .26 Child-Mather 1.09 1.60 - .67 .51 Father-Child 1. 07 2 . 52 -2 . 17 . 04 Gold-Father 1 . 52 . 89 . 83 . 42 Father-Pbther .70 2.05 -1.59 .13 Mather-Father . 93 . 37 . 78 .44 144 APPENDIX Ja (continued) Variable X t p boy girl Ratio of Aligning verbalization.bet- ween family memr bers: M—C/C-M 2.17 1.18 1.32 .20 FECVC-F 1.42 1.40 .05 .96 F-M/M-F 1. 16 1 . 06 . 22 . 83 Ratio of Extruding verbalization bets ween family memr bers: bk<343dn .69 .53 .48 .63 FPCYC+F .65 .99 - .46 .65 Fknvwki‘ .55 .31 .80 .43 Dispersion Score: Who-Speaks-‘Io-Wham 35.16 40.17 - .67 .51 Aligning Verbalization 3.25 3.90 - .62 .54 Extruding verbalization 2.20 1.96 .39 .70 Activity 10.29 9.15 .37 .72 Physical Plane 15.22 20.56 -1.34 .19 Physical Proximity 25.83 25.44 .09 .93 Physical Aligning .62 1.11 - .79 .44 Physical Extruding 1.14 .82 .41 .69 Total Dispersion 196.68 191.76 .28 .78 *Frequency of occurrence of other Physical Aligning/Extruding variables insufficient for use in data analysis. 145 APPENDIX Jb Means, t ratios, aid p values cnmparing families of boys and girls for task 2. XI Variable t p boy girl Mo-Speaks-‘lb—th: Mather-Guild 28.03 31.29 - .83 .41 Glild-mther 16.00 18.96 -l.00 .33 Father-Guild 35 . 55 24 . 93 2 . 27 . 03 Glild-Father 24.47 13.46 2.66 .01 Patter-Mother 6.63 5.82 .48 .63 Mather-Father 7.55 6.25 .85 .40 Aligning Verbaliza- tion: thher-Crfild 4.12 4.71 - .55 .59 Child-mther 2.12 2.46 — .43 .67 Father-Guild 4.12 3.18 .92 .37 mild-Father 1.65 1.54 .17 .87 Father-Mother 3.65 4.50 - .82 .42 Mattethather 3.85 4.18 - .34 .74 Ebctruding Verbali- zaticn: Mather-mild 2.29 1.18 1.30 .21 Gold-Mather .44 .50 - .24 .81 Father-Child 1.71 .82 2.25 .03 Gold-Father . 62 . 46 . 68 . 50 Father-mam . 44 . 82 -1 . 04 . 31 Mather-Father .74 1.07 - .84 .41 Physical Plane: Mather-Child 2.84 1.71 .43 .67 Father-Child 2. 45 1. 00 . 61 . 55 Father-Mather 6.81 5.18 .41 .68 Father-bother Child 27.47 29.18 - .29 .77 Father-mther- Child Separate 2.45 4.57 - .55 .59 146 APPE‘JDIX Jb (continued) Variable X t p boy girl Physical Proximity: Mather-Child 112.84 105.32 .75 .46 Father-Guld 99.34 96.25 .28 .78 Father-Mather 98.87 100.89 - .23 .82 Physical Aligning: Mather-Child 3.26 1.82 1.02 .32 Father-Child 1.76 .32 1.68 .11 Guild-Father" 1.00 .25 1.21 .24 (Physical Extruding") Ratio of Who-Speaks- Clo-Mm: M-C/C-M 2.07 1.77 1.17 .25 F—C/C-F 1. 60 2 . 01 -1 . 40 . 18 F-M/M-F .91 .91 - .03 .97 Ratio of Aligning/ Extnriing Verbaliza- tion: Mather-Child 1.53 1.89 - .37 .71 Giild-thher 1.19 1.38 - .20 .84 FatherChild 1. 70 . 75 1 . 91 . 07 Guild-Father 1. 13 . 96 . 25 . 80 Father-Mather 1.73 1.15 .56 .58 Mather-Father 1.96 1.95 .01 .99 Ratio of Aligning Verbalization bet- ween family man- bers: M—C/C-M 1.70 1.50 .31 .76 F-C/C-F 2.34 .93 1.56 .13 F-M/M-F .97 1.06 - .26 .80 147 APPEbDIX Jb (mntinued) Variable X t p boy girl Ratio of Extruding Verbalization bet- wea'l family mem- bers: M—C/C-M . 95 . 69 . 44 . 67 F-C/C-F . 76 . 50 . 74 . 47 F—M/M—F .17 .69 -1.63 .12 Dispersion Scare: Mo-Speaks-‘Io-Wrnm 40.22 35.70 .83 .41 Aligning Verbalization 4.47 4.93 - .38 .71 Eat-truding Verbalization 2.02 1.93 .17 .87 Physical Plane 12.33 7.67 .89 .38 Physical Proximity 55.89 22.82 1.11 .28 Physical Aligning 3.78 2.29 1.10 .28 (Physical Banding") Total Dispersion 401.29 362.93 1.37 .18 *Frequency of occurrence of other Physical Aligning ad of all Physical Extruding variables insufficient for use in data analysis. APPENDIX K APPENDIX K Guiding Assumptions Four assumptions serve as a foundation for the current inventiga— tion. The first mo are truths held to be self-evident, these being that, (1) all hutan beings initially develop in the context of a family, and, (2) family life has a profound effect on the subsequent developrent of the individual. Though perhaps disagreeing as to the nature ad degree of this effect, it would appear that all schools of psychological thought—be they social learning or psychoanalytic, behavioral or huran- istic--in general would agree with these two premises. The third assumption is that the maintenance of optimal psycholog— ical promimity that is , the augmentation and attenuation of the intens- ity of intimacy—is one of the central dimensions of all huran inter- action (e.g., Bowen, 1966: Fairbairn, 1952: Guntrip, 1969; Karpel, 1976: Kernberg, 1976) . This monitoring of self-other boundary through the continual gauging of the degree of psychological contact is of particu- lar importance in families, being a key determinant of family alignment patterns (e.g., Bowen, 1966; Minuchin, 1974). The fourth assumption pivotal to the current research is the in- disputably unprovable tenet that human beings are basically "good. " That is, given a context which is physically and psychologically safe (Stollak, 1978) (and often in situations that are not so characterized). human beings will display kindness, benevolence, empathy ad altruism, both toward therselves and others.1 Furthermore, irrespective of the 148 149 circumstances, individuals are flmdarentally motivated by a will toward growth, persisting to this end through whatever means available, includ- ing psychopathology and even death (Jung, 1971: laing, 1969). Thus, as theroselomsnootherthantostrivetmlarditsbloaming, sohumaflcird know no other than to strive toward the actualization of its possibil- ity. It is engrained in the biology of the organism (Jung, 1971; Wilson, 1975) . To carry the analogy further, if the irdividual is the rose, then the family environment is the garden, ad the family caregivers are the gardeners whose responsibility it is to provide a fertile soil, proper irrigtion, ad appropriate lighting. Family therapists and theoreti- cians here would serve as agrorumists of the soul, whose expertise involves helping the crops to flourish and the lad to bloom. APPENDIX L Characteristics Distinguishing "Dysfunctional" from "Normal" Families APPENDIX L Characteristics Distinguishing "Dysfunctional" fram "Normal" Families Commmmication Style Bateson and his colleagues, frcm their initial research on cannin- ication patterns in schizophrenic families, derived their well known theory of the "double bind" (Bateson, et al., 1956) . It was noticed that members in these families—particularly the parents—communicated in such a way so that messages on one communication level were directly contradicted by a message on another cammmication level. Symptmatol- ogy, it was hypothesized, was a desperate means of attempting to escape the field or somehow comply with both messages . Wynne ad Singer (1963) , in a thorough analysis of munication patterns of schizophrenic families engaged in a conjoint Ibrschach task, discovered specific types of "munication deviances" that differen- tiated such families from normal controls. For example, these families exhibited a high degree of "unclarity" ard "fragmentation" in the com- munication between family matbers . Other researchers have generally corroborated the works of Bateson et a1. (1956) and Wynne ad Singer (1963) , finding that members of dys- functional families tend not to listen to each other; not to speak directly to each other; not to finish sentences or put a closure to the topic at had (e.g., Ferreira ad Winter, 1968; Friedman and Friedman, 1970; Goldstein, et al., 1968; lennard ad Bernstein, 1969; lewis, et al., 1976; McPherson, et al., 1973; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; O'Connor 150 151 and Stachowiak, 1971; Riskin and Faunce, 1970a, 1970b) . Affective Environment met research assessing the affective environment of dysfunctional families has characterized it as being generally more negative, hostile, nonsupportive, and less harmoniols than that of normal families (Alex- ander, 1973; Caputo, 1963; Cheek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b: Doane, 1978; Farina ad Dunham, 1963: Friedman and Friedman, 1970; leighton, Stollak and Ferguson, 1971; Lennard ad Bernstein, 1969; Levis, et al., 1976: McPherson, 1970; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Riskin ad Faunce, 1970a, 1970b, 1972: Schuham, 1970: Schulman, et al., 1962). There are general- ly less humor, levity ad laughter, and more disagreerents ad "irresolv- able conflict," particularly between the spouses (Caputo, 1963: Doane, 1978; Farina and Holzberg, 1968: lewis, et al., 1976; Murrell ard Stachowiak, 1967; Ft’skin ad Faunce, 1972; Solvberg ad Blakar, 1975). Wynne ad his colleagues (1958) , however, fourd that schizophrenic families often exhibited a "psuedo-mutuality"—a feigned agreement ad harmony among mariners theoretically necessitated by the fragility of the family structure. Irdeed, several researchers have found dysfunctional families to display greater amounts of agreerent than normal controls (Gleek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b: Lennard and Bernstein, 1969: Mishler and Waxler, 1968: Riskin ad Faunce, 1970a, 1970b). Thus, on the specific dimension of agreement/disagreement, disturbed families appear to be at either extrene. However, in tents of the overall feeling tone of the group, dysfunctional families consistently seem more disharmonious than normal families, with a high prevalence of animosity between family timbers. 152 In noting anther characteristic of the affective environment in dysfunctional families, Minuchin (1967: 1974) points out the rigidity in regards to the type and intensity of feelings allowed in smh families, for example only permitting the expression of extrae anger without allowing any expression of sadness. Satir (1964) further cements on this, observing that in such families the expression of specific feel- ings seam to be delegated to certain family mariners. Beavers (1977) ad Levis, et a1. (1976) have also fourd evidence to support this point. Structure Bowen (1960) , in his early observations of the families of hos- pitalized schizophrenics, noted the frequent role confusion ad reversal between the husbands and wives in these families. Thus, the mother would be the dominant, aggressive merber of the family, while the father withdrew into passive carpliancy. Lidz, et a1. (1965) also pointed to this as being a salient characteristic of such families. Other research- ers who have assessed this dimension have concurred (Gmeek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b: Coe, 1969; Farina, 1960, Farina and Dunham, 1963; leighton, et al., 1971; Odom, 1971; Riskin ad Famce, 1972). However, Caputo (1963) ad Haley (1967c) did not fird such role reversals when studying parental dominance in normal ad disturbed families. Thus, as with a1y of the characteristics seaming to differentiate various types of fam- ilies, research findings must be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. Mare central for Bowen was the observation that members of schizo- phrenic families seemed to lack clearly defined interpersonal bourdaries that delineated themselvsn from each other. The diffuse, amorphous 153 distinctions between individuals in these families led Bowen to postur late the concept of an "undifferentiated family ego mess" (Bowen, 1966). The construct describes the inextricable web of psychoemotional ties between family members governing the extent to which members have an effect upon each other. Such intertwined relationships typified.famdlies that.Minuchin and his associates (1967) tented "enmeshed," when comparing the interaction- al patterns of low income families having an institutionalized delinquent adolescent with moral controls. 'Jhey, too, were struck by the lack of separation and individuation between family members in such cases, and the extent tO'which.cne:member's thoughts, feelings, and.acticns imr pacted.the entire group. .Minuchin, et.a1. also found the antithesis of suCh family enmeshment in.some of the other families studied. These families-referred.to as being "disengaged"-dwere characterized by rigid impermeable interpersonal boundaries, which resulted in an apparent lack of emotional connectedness between members, who were surprisingly une responsive to cash other's needs and.predicaments. The degreelof psychoemotional connectedness within a family and the permeability of intra/interpersonal boundaries between family members, is indeed a central dimension of family structure, having been explored by nmerous theoreticians of family process. Thus, what Bowen (1966) referred to as the continuum between "emotional divorce" and an "un- differentiated family ego mess," ad Minuchin et a1. (1967) termed "disengagement"-"enmeshment," Hess and Handel (1959) labeled "connected- ness"-"separateness"; Olson (1979) called."high connectedness”-"1ow W38"; Reiss (1971) described as "consensus sensitive"- 154 "interpersonal distance sensitive"; Rosenblatt (1976) named "together- ness"-"apartness": Stierlin (1974) explained as "centripetal birding"- "centrifugal expelling"; ad Wynne, et a1. (1958) conceived as "pseudo- rmztuality"-"pseucb-hostility." Kantor ad lehr's (1975) discussion of "bounding, " Lidz's et a1 (1957) description of "schisms" and "skews," ad Vogel ad Bell's (1960) elucidation of "scapegoating," all examine this sate dimension. The centrality of this concept lies in the fact that the process of all human development perhaps could be conceived as involving a continu- ous vacillation ad balancing between two bi-polar states—that of com- plete merger with other, ad that of total severance fram other. This is a process ardently addressed by Psychoanalytic ad bloc-Psychoanalytic thought (e.g., Freud, 1953; Fenichel, 1945; I-brney, 1950; Klein, 1932): by Analytic Psychology (e.g., Jung, 1971; Neuman, 1976); and by Object Relations 'ITeory (e.g., Fairbairn, 1952; Guntrip, 1969: Kernberg, 1976). As Karpel (1976) notes, "The process of individuation from fusion (is) a miversal developrental and existential struggle ad . . . a funda- mental organizing principle of human growth" (p. 67) . It is the pivotal dilemma of the hmen condition; an issue of particular difficulty for disturbed families. From this perspective, family dysfunction would seem to involve a failure of irdividuation, that is, a failure for merbers to be separate, unique individuals, with their own thoughts, feelings, and experiences, while also maintaining a shared sense of commmality ad interrelated- ness. Such a dysfunction entails a disturbance of intrapersonal, inter- personal, intrasystem (i.e., between family subsystems) ad intersystem 155 (i.e., the family in relation to the outside world) boundary fonration ad managetent, whereby self-other boundaries are either too diffuse and amorphous, or too rigid ad impermeable. Imperative to note is that en- meshment and disengagement are derivations of the sate phenomenon, being desperate, ineffective attetpts at solving the arduous enigma of self- hood. We are all voyagers that must navigate between the perilous abode of Scylla—self obliteration by abadorment and isolation—ad Glarybdis -—se1f annihilation by engulfment. Thus, family dysfunction at its basis involves an impairment in the ability for family members to be separate- ly together. It is important to note here that the "normal" families in most of the research cited above were defined as such simply by the fact that no member had sought psychological help. Clearly, such a broad criterion for normalcy potentiates a wide spectrum of possible functioning. In light of having smh a heterogeneous control sample, the significant differences fourd between these ad "clinic" families becares more convincing . APPENDIX M G'laracteristics of "Healthy" Families APPENDIX M Characteristics of "Healthy" Families Psychological health in the individual, as exemplified by a high degree of intra/interpersonal skills that involve the ability to master- fully respond to and act upon the internal/external environment, has been a concept explored by a relatively small group of theorists (A11- port, 1960: Besell ad Palomares, 1970; Foote ad Cottrell, 1955; Jahoda, 1958; Lirdemann, 1955; Maslow, 1962; Stollak, 1978; White, (1959). The concept is even more nascent in the area of family studies. Thus, as has previously been noted, the vast majority of family research has focxsed on the characteristics of family dysfunction rather than @31- Perhaps the most thorough step in the latter direction, however, was initiated by lewis ad his colleagues in their six year, systems oriented research project at Timberlan (Beavers, 1977; Lewis, et al., 1976) . In this project, four psychologists independently rated families on a global health rating, selecting the six "healthiest" families out of the thirty-three that volunteered, for a more exacting analysis of dimensions that would distinguish the two groups. Both sets of families were also compared with sixty clinic families. All groups engaged in videotaped interaction tasks that were irdependently assessed by two sets of coders. Global rating scales of such variables as family struc- ture, affect, autonomy, and task efficiency, as well as frequency comts of who-speaks-to—wham, agreeient/disagreement, and nmber of interrup- tions were used to discern relevant factors. In addition, each family was seen by two experienced therapists for two, ninety-minute interviews. 156 157 These interviews were scored on a clinical basis, observing such aspects as affiliativeness, spontaneity, and Openness of communication. Trough discovering "there is no single thread which, by itself, pre- dicts the upper levels of health" (lewis, et al., 1976, p. 149), optimal families were characterized by: (l) A high degree of support, empathy, and affiliativeness; (2) Clear, direct, open cormmication between all family members, along with the ability to negotiate differences effec- tively; (3) Well delineated role differentiation, with power hierarch- ically distributed by age—the parents here displaying a strong, though egalitarian, leadership; (4) An ability to adapt flexibly to charge (what Speer (1970) referred to as "morphogenisis") , while maintaining a firm sense of group identity ("morphostasis"); (5) A pervasive sense of optimism ad hope.2 lewis and his cohorts further stressed the ability of healthy families to maintain a sense of "we-ness" while concomitantly encouraging individual autonomy and respecting individual differences ad divergent viewpoints arong family members. It would appear that such families had mastered the dilemma of being separately together, creating a milieu that, to use Kaflca's (1971) phrase, "educates for differentiation."3 Nbst relevant for the present investigation is lewis' et a1. find- ing that individual and familial adjustment is highly associated with patterns of alliances and coalitions arong family members. Nbre specifi- cally, high child, parent, and family competency was found to be posi- tively related to a strong, stable parental alliance that was clearly differentiated from, yet pemeable to, other familial subsystems—partic- ularly those of the children. Thus lewis, et al., typify the optimal 158 family as having "a firm parental coalition (alliance) without evidence of carpeting parent-child coalitions" (p. 202) . This factor not only significantly discriminated normal from disturbed families, but it also distinguished.healthy fnomrxnmefl.ibmilies. The strong relationship between psychosocial adjustment and family alliance/coalition patterns-dwherein high adjustment is associated with flexible parental alliances and low adjustment with various-forms of coalitions-has been consistently found.throughout:much of the family interaction research. Thus, studies contrasting varying degrees and types of dysfunctional families (Coleite, 1971:.McPherson, et al., 1973; Mishler ad Waxler, 1968; Wild, 1977) , studies comparing dysfuncr tional and normal families (Bowen, 1960; Caputo, 1963; Cheek, 1964, 1965a, 1965b: Cheek and Anthony, 1970; Fleck, 1960, 1976; Haley, 1959, 1962, 1964: Lennard, et al., 1965; lennard ad Bernstein, 1969: Lewis, et al., 1976; Lidz, et al., 1963, 1965; McLean, 1972; Minuchin, 1967; Mishler ard Waxler, 1968; O'Cbnnor ad Stachowiak, 1971; Riskin and Faunce, 1970a, 1970b, 1972; Schuhamh 1970; Wild, 1971; Wynne, 1961), as well as studies comparing normal and healthy families (Kleiman, 1976; lewis, et al., 1976; Murrell, 1971; Odom, et al., 1971; mssell, 1979; Westley ad Epstein, 1969) have all noted this relationship. APPENDIX N Toward a Pkenorenology of Alignments APPENDIX N Toward a Phenrenology of Alignments Possible Origins ad Bases for. Alignments Few living organisms are able to provide for their physiological nads indeperdeitly during the early stages of their developtent. One of the most flmdarental mechanism apparently biologically engrained to aid in survival during this period of vulnerability is the neonates "drive" to orient and seek cmtact with a mothering figure, and for such afigure, inturn, toprovide thereonatewiththose thingsnecessaryto sustain life and protote growth (e.g., Bovlby, 1969: lorenz, 1967) . Humanbeingsmuldseemtoberoexception. Inchsd, Bovlby (1969) likens attachment behavior in huran infants to the imprinting response in sub-human mammals. The term "imprinting" here is used to describe an innate, highly integrated system of behaviors activated by a specific stimulus (the attachment-figure) , having a specific goal (maintenalce of physical proximity with the attachment- figure) , and predictable outoote (engaging in behaviors that maintain such proximity ad contact). Such a behavioral system in hurans has been developed ad maintained due to its preservatory adaptiveness, originally functioning, according to Bowlby, as protection from preda- tors, as well as a means of obtaining sustenance and protection from the eiviroment. Such primitive attachment behaviors fit the rudimentary char- acteristies of what is currently defined as aligning behaviors , ad thus infant-mother attachment perhaps could be a biologically based substrate and prototype for the later developrent of alignments. 159 160 From a more purely psychological perspective, the basis of the proclivity for identification and alignment-with-other is elucidated by Psychoanalytic ad Object Relation theories in postulating that the early development of self involves a process of "narcissistic identifi- cation"—that is, assuring the other to be like the self ad vice versa (e.g., Fairbairn, 1952; Freud, 1953: Guntrip, 1969; Kernberg, 1976; Mahler, 1975). Furthermore, it would appear that Piaget's (1957) ob- servations of the infant's "drive" toward imitation, as well as the Social learning theorists' concept of modeling (e.g., Baidura, 1969: Dollard ad Miller, 1950) , also could be interpreted as prototypic signs of a "will toward aligning," for here, too, we see the desire to be like other, ad thereby joined. In more global terms, melon (1962) has spoken of "Love ad Belongingness Needs"-needs also explicated by Erikson (1950)—which again would appear to involve the "drive" to align. Thus, it would be interesting to explore further i.e. possibility that the propensity to align is innately engrained in the "biological equip- ment" of the human organism, serving a basic preservatory function in our adaptation to life (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Wilson, 1975) . Further clarification of the bases for alignmelts can be fourd in the sociological research on small group interaction ad the process of identification and groups formation (Cartwright ad Harary, 1956; Davis, 1963; Durkheim, 1947: Heider, 1946, 1958; Homans, 1950; Festinger, 1957; lazarsfeld and Merton, 1954; Sirmrel, 1950) . Giving sociological cred- eice to the adage "birds of a feather flock together," investigators of small group process found that the sense of joining between two or more individuals was related to the degree of mutually perceived similarities 161 along them. These perceived similarities, having what Heider (1958) referred to as "unit forcing characteristics," could involve an infinite nurber of mutually shared attributes ad characteristics, e.g. , atti- tudes, beliefs, affects, needs, interests, experiences, capacities, activities, physical characteristics, tastes, objects, ad most alything else that two people could have in comon. The strength of an"a11i- ane"-here defined as the joining together in some activity in pursuit of a comron goal—from this perspective is related to the sum of all“'the attributesperceivedtobelnldincormon, inprOportiontoallthose perceived as divergent. Clearly, such a mathematical formulation of the perceiveddegreeofaligmentinall likeliinoddoesrntdirectlymatch the experiential reality of it, trnugh such formulations have proven quite accurate in predicting small group behavior within a laboratory setting. (e.g., Caplow, 1956; Mills, 1953, 1954; Vinacke ad Arkoff, 1957) , as well as family behavior in such circumstances (Alexander, 1973) . The Nature of the Phenmenon: I . Small Gron Theories Simnel (1950) , the eminent sociologist, was one of the earliest to point out "an elerentary differentiating terdency in the threesore; nately, segregation into a gig, ad an ping" (Mills, 1953, p. 351) . Simmel further speculated that small differences in "power," "activity," and other characteristics of the members influenced the formation and persistence of such "coalitions. " Several sociologists in the early 1950 's attempted to find empirical evidence for these observations, by studying coalition formation in ad hoc triadic interactions (e.g. Caplow, 162 1956; Mills, 1953, 1954: Vinacke and Arkoff, 1957) . Mills (1953) , for example, had college students who were grouped into triads make up TAT stories, scoring their interaction using Bales' (1950) system to derive coalition patterns. As predicted by Simmel, the two most active merbers formed a "solidary Alliance" (coalition), while the least active member was "relatively isolated." This pattern appeared to solidify over time, becoming increasingly rigid ad polar- ized. Interestingly, when the two most active members did rnt fonm a reciprocal relationship ad were carpeting for cmtrol, both attempted to align with the third member, creating a highly unstable situation of shifting coalitions. In a later study, Mills (1954) found similar results while using college students who were alternately manipulated into a coalition/isola- tion position during a group discussion task. Coalition patterns were fourd to be more rigid whel the isolated member was "inseolre" (as de- termined by a pre-test TAT assesstent) . In this situation, the insecure member would becore defensive ad further isolate him/herself rather than any joining gestures toward the two aligned melbers. Caplow (1956) expanded on Mills' work, differentiating types of possible triadic relationships based on varying distributions of irdi- vidual "power" between members. He further speculated on the probabili- ties of coalitions being formed in each case. He prefaced his predic— tions with several assumptions: (1) Members in a triad can differ in "strength" (the ability to influence each other ad/or an outccme); stronger individuals can, ad will, seek to control other; (2) Each member of a triad seeks control over the other two; control over two 163 others is preferred, though control over one is preferred to none: (3) Strength is additive, that is, the strength of a coalition is equal to thesumof thestrengthsofthetwomerbers. From these assumptions Caplow delineated six types of triadic situ- ations, ad the likelihood of coalitions being formed in each. In a Type I situation, all members (A, B, ad C) have equal power, each thus tryingtofonmacoalitionwithantherwherein theycanshareequal strengthadbestra'igerthantheisolatedthirdmerber. Ina'IypeII triad, metberAis strongerthanBadC, whileBadCareequalandin carbiration strongerthanA. HereBadCarelikelytofonmacoali— tionagainstA. Type III involvesAadeeingequal instrength, with C being weaker. Caplow suggests that in this situation A ad B will be carpeting foracoalitialwitthogainpowerovertheotherone. In TypeIV, AisstrongerthanBandCcombined, thusnocoalitionis like- lytobefonredsirnexnthingistobeovertlygained. TypeVisa situation where no two members are equal, but a carbination of any two is stronger than the third. Here there will be a variety of possible coalition formations, with the strongest two members vying to align with thethird. The lastcase, TypeVI, is oneinwhichAis strongerthan B, who is strmgerthanc, withAbeingstrongerthanBandCcarbined. Here again there will be little reason for coalitioning since rnthing istobegainedintermsofpower. To clarify these patterns ad the likelihood of which members will form a coalition in each situation, the various types of triads will here be diagramed: (arrows indicate a moverent toward forming a coalition). 164 various co- alitions likely A . A=B;B>C A&Blikelyto A>B+C; B=C In malitions likely TypeV ISPEVI A>B>C; A>B+C rncoalitions likely A>B>C; AB>C ad A>B+C). The findings generally confined Caplow's predictions as to when and which types of coalitions would be formed. 'me authors further rnted that, "as the games continued, each metber of this alliance (coalition) became increasingly reluctant to make overtures or entertain offers from the third member of the triad, since to do so would, as each openly expressed it, invite his ally to do likewise, with the result that security would be disrupted. . . . The third member of the triad attempted to break the alliance (coalition) , even to theextent of offeringto formacoalitionwheihedrewthe un- beatable position in Type IV or VI, but to rn avail" (p. 414) . The description here certainly would seem to fit one type of coalition pattern fourd in sale dysfunctional families. No points need be made. First, as Haley (1962) , lennard ad Bern- stein (1969), Strodbeck (1954) and others have stressed, families are very different from ad hoc groups, since there are strong erotional, historical, and experiential ties betweel members. Thus, generalizing from ad hoc group behavior to families is likely to be very precarious . Irdeed, Strodtbeck (1954) fourd family triads did _nel strictly fit Mills' (1953) predicted patterns of coalition behavior, instead showing less of a tendency to form dyadic coalitions against a third member (these 166 were rnnclinic families). (On the other had, Alexander (1973) , in specifically studying the applicability of small group theory to fami- lies, found that such theories in fact were highly predictive of family behavior.) Second, Simel's (1950), Mills' (1953) , and Caplow's (1956) fonmu- lations all imply a human propensity (drive?) for domination—that is , a desire to have control and power over others. It was argued through- out the current investigation that such behaviors are elicited in situa- tions where the individual feels "psyctnlogically unsafe" (Stollak, 1978) . To reiterate the fourth assunption stated in the introduction of the present work, human beings are presumed to exhibit optimal intra/ interpersonal behaviors when they feel psyd'nlogically safe—when they feel that their tlnughts , feelings , perceptions , and experiencing of self, other, ad environment are validated and valued by others (Stollak, 1978) . It was postulated in the current stLdy that healthy families foster this sense of psyclnlogical safety among their metbers, and fins one would not expect to fird the patterns explicated by the above tlnoreticians in these families (note Strodbeck's (1954) findings). It was further proposed in the current investigation that the degree of dysfunction in a family is an expression of the degree that the family environment is not experienced as psyctnlogically safe by its members. Thus one liquid expect to find coalition patterns similar to ttnse described by Caplow (1956) in dysfunctional families. Here the motbl would seem to fit quite well, for in such families "power issues" indeed appear to prevail, playing a major role in the formation of the coalition patterns that these families exhibit (see reviews by Beckman- 167 Brindley ad Tavormina (1978) and Olson, et a1. (1975)) . Thus, by changing Caplow's (1956) designations of "A," "B," and "C" to "Father," "thiner," ad "Gnild," one perhaps could characterize the various family coalition patterns described in the family theory litera- ture. For example, Haley's (1959, 1962) supposition that dysfunctional families are unable to form strong alignments, and instead form ever shifting, highly unstable coalitions between merbers, might reflect a Type I situation. This would imply that the "power" between menbers is equal, with the child being as influencial as the parents—a condition sane researchers have observed in disturbed families (e.g., Haley, 1959, 1962; Mimnhin, et al., 1967). Bowen's (1960), Lidz's, et a1. (1963), and others' (e.g., Ackerman, 1958; Satir, 1964; Wynne, 1961) well lo'nwn description of the mother-son coalition against a withdrawn father in the "schizophrenic family," would seem to fit a Type II situation. The mother's coalition with the son here presumably would derive from her cancernthat the fatherwasinfactmorepowerfulthanher. TypeIII and V patterns might reflect the more "neurotic" families described by Satir (1964) and others (e.g., Beavers, 1977; Tiller, 1978), wherein spouses have relatively equal "power," yet are nnt fulfilling each others' psychoenotional needs. Both parents thus turn to the child to meet these needs, thereby carpeting to form a coalition with him/her. The child here is also used as a means of expressing anger toward the ungratifying spouse. Having thus far reviewed sane of the early sociological theories and research on triadic interaction patterns, a discussion of the major family theorists who have written on the subject will be given at this 16 8 point. The theories reviewed essentially speculate on the possible factors motivating the formation of coalitions, leaving out the possible factors involved in the developnent of alliances. Thus, after suma- rizing tiese theories on coalitions, the present investigator will ex- plicate his own assunptions on the nature of alliances and coalitions. 'linugh different theories will be outlined here, it should be made clear that the varions factors discussed are at assured to be mutually ex- clusive, but instead are likely to be interrelated ad interactive. II . Family Systems Theories Coalitions as Deriving from Esteem Issues Virginia Satir (1964) , in a fainion reminiscent of Sullivan (1953) ad Kohut (1978) , bases her theory of hunan relationships on the need for esteem. Intra/interpersonal health, from her perspective, is equated with a strong sense of self worth, while intra/interpersonal discord is assured to arise from a lowered sense of esteem. 'IhLB, low self worth—particularly between the marital dyad—is interpreted to be the sin _qua nnn for family dysfunction, leading to inappropriate cross- generational coalitions. Since both parents lack a strong sense of self esteemanddornthelptofoster thisintheother, eachturnstothe children to "satisfy their unmet needs in the marital relationship" ' (Satir, 1964, p. 58) . A parent-child coalition is thus formed in an attempt to gratify parental esteem needs. The child, in turn, is continually pulled between the two parents. nnt being able to align, or not align, with either parent for fear of losing one or both of them. Psychoenotionnal pathology is the likely outcane, being an "$06 about his parents' pain and the resulting family 169 imbalance" (Satir, 1964, p. 2). As previously nnted, this situation resenbles Caplow's Type III ad V coalition patterns, wherein two con- flictedmenrbers carpete to formacoalitionwith thethirdsoas to gain power over the other and nnt feel isolated. Coalitions as Deriving from Power Issues Of the recent fannily theorists, Haley (1963) probably has most thoroughly elucidated the dimension of power in human interaction. Steeped in the ideas of Bateson (1958) , Jackson (1965) , Watzlawick (1964) , and others of the "Palo Alto group," Haley views "power" as the ability to define one's relationship with annther. He furthermore stresses that all hunan communication involves a meta-level that defines the nature of the relationship. In a manner similar to the sociologists previously discussed, Haley assumes that all human beings seek to have control over this ability 1:) define one's relationships with others. Individual, marital, and familial dysfunction here are viewed as involving a conflict over who will be allowed to define the relationship. Coalitions, from this perspective, are interpreted as being a means of atterpting to gain such power. In a similar vein to Caplow (1956) , Haley assures power to be cumulative, and that family members—particu- larly the spouses—are covertly competing to form coalitions so as not to be left powerless ad isolated. However, the members' disqualifying and disconfirnming behaviors, storming from a fear of taking a stand, result in tiese families having great difficulties in fornming such coalitions. The triadic pattern manifested here would appear to be similar to Caplow's (1956) Type I situation. 170 In a later article, Haley (1967d) describes the proclivity in dis- turbed families for the parents to forrm a coalition which scapegoats the child. This is a situation not predicted by Caplcw (1956) , unless one assures that the parents here experience the child to be more power- fulthaneitheroftiem, adthus uniteagainsthim/heraswouldbe expectedinaTypeII case. ATypeIIpatternisexplicitlyreferredto in Haley's (1967d) description of the "perverse triangle," which in- volves a cross-generational coalition against the other parent. Such triangles could also reflect Type III or V circumstances. 'n'nattieconceptsofpowerandcoalitionsareoftenseentobe highly related is made clear by the fact that many researciers have used the same measures to assess both (e.g., Caputo, 1963; Mishler and Waxler, 1968; Riskin ad Faunce, 1970a, 1970b, l972)-a practice that Jacob and Grounds (1978) latent. Coalitions as Deriving from Identity Issnes "Identification and confirmation of self . . . is one of the singu- larly important functions of human interaction" (Mead, 1934, p. 56) . Mead here is noting an existential fact later developed by Sullivan (1953) into an entire scinol of psycinlogy. Goffman (1959) , Szaz (1961) , ad others have evolved this concept further from a sociological per- spective, examining the intricate relationship between the personal and social self—that is, the degree to which intrapersonal identity de- rives from interpersonal social roles. Buber (1970) has eloquently explored this process from the perspective of philosophy. 171 Mimnhin (1967; 1974) bases much of his understanding of family interaction on this issue of identity. Thus, he writes, "The family imprints its members with selfinod . . . (being) the matrix of identity" (Minuchin, et al., 1967, p. 47) . Identity is more explicitly developed, according to Minuchin, through one's involverent in different family subsystems.* Thus, in experiencing oneself in different role relation- ships through the participation in different family subgroups (i.e. a boy's being simnultaneorsly part of the cinildren's subsystem, the male's subsystem, and the older siblings' subsystem), one's individual sense of self differentiates and evolves. Minuchin (1967) writes: "The subsystem organization of a family provides valuable training in the process of maintaining the differentiated 'I am' while exercising inten- personal skills at different levels" (p. 53) . What is the fundamental disturbance in dysfunctional families, Minuchin (1967) proposes, is the spouses' poorly developed sense of identity, which necessitates the fornration and perpetuation of certain coalitions to define oneself. Thus, spouses "attenpt to resolve the primary problem of defining a basic self-identity through the role of parent" (p. 220). A coalition with the children, or a specific child, is formed, therefore, in which the offsprings must remain in the role of cinildren in order to fulfill the parents' identity needs. *Tie terms "subsystem" and " subgroup" is used interchangeably in the current study to dennte a grouping of two or more family members based on certain shared cinaracteristics, attributes, and/or role func- tions (i.e., parental subsystem based on role; child subgroup based on age). 172 Coalitions as Deriving from BoundaerIVanagenent Issues Bowen (1960, 1966) , like Minuchin (1976) , also places identify at the center of his conceptualization of family dynamim. His emphasis, however, is explicitly on the struggle for individuals to emancipate from the entwined psychoemtional bonds within their family of origin-— what he refers to as the ”undifferentiated family ego mass." ‘Ihe process here involves the universal struggle between merger and isola- tion previously discussed. Bowen's focus in on the mechanisms indi- viduals and families use to maintain a balance between these two states -how individuals manage their boundaries to maintain a comfortable psychological distance between self and other. This subjectively per- ceived optimal distance greatly varies between individuals, and is de- pendent upcn person, time, and context.4 A major way of gauging psychological distance between two individ- uals, according to Bowen, is through the use of a third entity, whether it be an activity, an i$ology, a concern, or, more often, another person. It is through this "triangling" process (Bowen, 1976) that the intensity of intimacy can be managed. Here the third entity is used both as a means of bringing the dyad closer together-through the shared focusing on an object of mutual interest—and/or as a way of increasing distance by diverting attention off of the dyad an onto the external entity. Bowen (1966) sumarizes: "'Ihe basic building block of any emotional system is the 'triangle.‘ When emotional tension in a two- person system exceeds a certain level, it 'triangles' a third person, permitting fine tension to shift about within the triangle" (p. 368) . 173 Such triangling involves the formation of coalitions , and thus, from this perspective, coalitions serve to control the intensity of ego fusion within the family ego mass, particularly between the spouses. 'Iherefore, when the degree of intimacy between spouses is too great, onespousecanformacoalitionwithachildandtherebyincreasethe psychoemtional distance with the other spouse. Similarly, when ero- tional relatedness is too weak, the spouses can fonm a coalition against the child, thereby creating a mutual source of connectedness. The child in this way beoones the monitor of parental difficulties along the "closeness-distance axis" (Hoffman, 1976) , modulating the intensity of parental contact. 'Ihat coalitions serve to manage interpersonal boundaries , particu- larly as a means of increasing a sense of being joirned, is stressed by O'Connor and Stachowiak (1971) . Coalitions here are theorized to be "a frantic attempt by family members to recreate cohesion and solidarity by forming coalitions in any manner that might gain control, assuming an earlier failure of the initial parental dyad to generate a cohesive total group" (p. 241). _Cgalitiggs and Alliances as Deriving from Psychological Safety Issues Building on the theories of Maslow (1962) and Ragers (1961) , Stollak (1978) has proposed that optimal hunan functioning occurs when one feels "psychologically safe "--when one perceives that his/her thoughts, feelings, and experiencing of the intra/interpersonal environ- ment are validated and valued by others. Concomitantly, psych0pathology is here interpreted to derive from a state of psychological dis-safety, 174 and that issues of esteem, power, identity, or boundary managenent, all involve the more fundamental issue of psychological safety. rIhus, what would seem to be cormon annd quintessential to all familial dysfunction is the failure to foster annd maintain an environment that is experienced as psychologically safe by its members. Coalitions, from this perspective, can be understood as deriving from a sense of psychological dis-safety—whether it be manifested in terms of esteem, power, identity, and/or boundary issues—and as being an attenpt to assuage the resultant angst annd duress. By their very nature, rowever, coalitions only perpetuate and exacerbate the sense of psychological dis-safety, for all family menbers are left in a precari- ous state of shifting allegiances, ever being the betrayer or the be- trayed (Boszormenyi-Nagy and Spark, 1973) , and never knoving vdnen they will be the isolated member. Alliances, in contrast, would appear to arise in a context of psy- chological safety. Being, by definition, relationships based on feel- ings of enjoyment and respect between two or more people, and explicitly _ngt involving the exclteion, extrusion, or alignment against a third person or entity, alliances are not an expression of psychological deficit—whether this be a lack of "esteem," "power," "identity," and/ or "boundary" that is being aroused in reaction to some external entity. Instead, alliances are simply an expression of a desire for relatedness with an other due to an appreciation for his/her qualities, attributes, and characteristics. The, alliannces do not involve "triangling" (Bowen, 1976) in the sense of fonming annd perpetuating a relationship based on colluding against sone external other. They are a direct 175 exploration, celebration, and confirmation of the uniqueness of each individual, what Buber (1970) referred to as an "I-Thou" relationship. Similar to Fromm's (1956) description of love, alliances are created cutofanadmirationfortl'eotl'er, radnerthananeedfortheotherto fulfill sore longing in oneself.5 Possible Explanations for the Pathogenic Effects of Coalitions Coalitions can be postulated as being pathogenic for individual and family functioning from a diversity of perspectives, be they psycho- analytic or social learning theories . The focus of the present discus- sion will be specifically on the detrimental effects on Chile-en's psychosocial adjustment. Conflict Arousal As Haley (1967), Satir (1964) , and others have noted, a parent- child coalition necessitates that the child be placed in a perpetual state of conflict, since he/sle constantly is being pulled between the two parents. The child is not able to side with either parent for fear of losing the other, and yet cannot choose not to side for fear of los— ing both parents. Goldstein, Freud and Solnit's (1973) contents, though addressed to the possible consequences of divorce on children—where denands for coalitions against the other parent are likely to be more overt—are pertinent here: Children have difficulty in relating positively to, profiting from, and maintaining the contact with two psycl'elogical parents who are nnot in positive contact with eaon otter. Loyalty conflicts are common and rnormal under such conditions and may have devastating consequences by destroying the child's relationship to both parents (p. 38). 176 One scorn realizes, as Haley (1967) points out, that the Oedipal complex-the raison d' etre for all neurotic behavior, according to psychoanalytic thought (e.g., Freud, 1953; Fenicl'el, l945)-actually involves a cross-generational parent-child coalition. Thus, tre guilt, "castration anxiety, " fear of abandonment, and other conflicts presum- ably evoked by the Oedipal situation and accounting for symptomatology , would appear to be aroused by a real or imagined parent-child coalition. Furthemore, such feelinngs would be excerbated by the parent's seductive behaviors toward the child, which collude with the child's unconscious impulses while not supplanting the developnent of his/her super-ego—a component of the psycne highly dependent on parental behaviors. In this regard, Lidz annd Fleck (1967) write: "Parents who are irreconcilable in reality can give rise to irreconcilable introjects that create vary- ing degrees of intrapsychic conflict and even of splitting of the personality with alternative 'ego' and 'superego' fonnations suited to each parent" (p. 44). Lidz and Fleck 's observation could be expanded from an obj ect- relation perspective, leading to the speculation that a parent-child coalition, which by necessity reflects the lack of a parental alliance, would truncate the crucial development of internal object constellations (e.g., Fairbairn, 1952; Guntrip, 1969; Kernberg, 1976; Mahler, 1975). 'nnus, coalitions are pathogenic since, according to object relation theory, the child introjects his/her relationship with the parents, as well as his/her perception of the parents ' relationship to each other, arnd ttereby forms and develops internalized object representations which define oneself and determine one 's perceptions and reactions to the 177 world (e.g., Kernberg, 1976; Mahler, 1975) . A disruption in the extern- al relationships, results in a disruptions at the internal level, which theoretically leads to dysfunctional psychosocial adjustment. Interference with IdentitLand R318 Floatation A pivotal assumption of most schools of psychological thought is that sex and role identity developnent is crucially influenced by He parent-child relationship (e.g., Bandura, 1969; Dollard and Miller, 1950; Freud, 1953; Kernberg, 1976; Satir, 1964: Stollak, 1978). Through identification with (e.g., Freud, 1953), and/or modeling after (e.g., Bandura, 1969; Dollard and Miller, 1950) , the same semd parent—in addition to observing how the parents interact with each other-the child forms his/her sense of sexual/role identity. In relating this to family alignments, Lennard and Bernstein (1969) write: ”Ible learning occurs . . . both through participation in a family subsystem and also through observing the Operation of other family snbsystens. Deficits in communication between motrer and father . . . lessen a child's cp- portunity to learn or to internalize the respective role status involved" (p. 102). The importance of positive parental relations for identity forma- tion and self valuing discussed by Satir (1964) , is further stressed by Lidz and Fleck (1967) , who state, "The essential identification of the child with the parent of the same sex provides self-esteem only if the object of identification is acceptable to the other parent who should be a basic object choice of the child" (p. 44). To this Boszormenyi- Nagy (1967) adds, "In order to become a man, the boy must establish a role position in opposition to the motler, and not find a role in 178 imitiation of the father aloe" (p. 69) . It becones clear that a cross-sexed parent-child coalition, formed asareactiontoapcorparentalalliance, thwartsthedevelopmentofa strong sex-role identity by inhibiting the child 's identification with the same-sexed parent, since such an identification would be a betrayal of the coalition with the other parent. Furthermore, trere would be a devaluing of one's sex, generated by the internalization of the cross- sened parent's negative reaction toward his/her spouse. Coalitions disrupt identity development in a more general way, by confininng the child to a set role tl'at fulfills parental needs. As previonely discussed, Minuzl'nin (1967) has emphasized this fact in his analysis of the role of tie family sybsystems in the development of the individual. Here involverent in different family subgroups is explicated as being crucial for identity formation and the acquisition of intra/ interpersonal skills. Minuo‘nin further points out that, "Interpersonal Skills achieved in tiese subsystem is predicated on the subsystem's freedom from interference by other snbsystems" (1974, p. 54) . Taking an Eriksonian (Erikson, 1950) develognental perspective of families, Titdener (1967) writes in this regard: The family's major contribution to ego epigenisis is toward a crucial organization of ego functions. This stage in development depends upon modes of perceiving otters in relation to the self, upon perceiving others in relation to others, and finally upon the delineation of the self and others. These accomplishments can only be conpleted in the network of family relations and only in a family that has at least partially resolved tie issne of basic trust vs. basic mistrLet . . . per- mitting higher forms of relating than dyadic (p. 103) . 179 Since coalitions, by their very nature, preclude the existence of a diverse, flenc'ble alliance network between all family members that is necessary for optimal ego/self development, they severly hinder such identity formation annd the acquisition of ego skills. Though taking a very different position on the development of the inndividual , Jungian thought is also relevant to understanding the pos- sible deleterious effects of coalitions, particularly those involving a motI'erh-child exclusion of the father (Jung, 1971; Neunan, 1976) . Central here is the assumption that development follows certain arche- typal stages, with the mother initially bringing the infant physically and psychologically into tie world, while the father brings the child into the society (Neuman, 1976) . This transition is crucial, for it is tie relationship with the father that pulls the child from the potential engulfment of the womb, mirroring the intrapsychic energennce of the ego from the all-encompassing Self. In this way, a mother-child coalition dangerously threatens the burgeoning forth of the child's ego, by heightening the pull toward the mother/Self, while stultifyinng the form- ation of an alliance with tne father necessary for the liberation of ego. In a similar vein, Kernnberg (1976), Iecwald (1951), Mahler (1975), and others have also stressed the importance of the child-father relation- ship for intrapsychic/interpersonal development from an object relation stanndpoint. Pertinent to nnote l'ere is the research of Kellam (1977) and his colleagues who studied the relationship between adjustment and the com- bination of adults present in the home using a sample of several thousand latency age children. There was found to be a significant positive 180 association between high child adjustment and the presence of the bio- logical father, or sore otter adult, in the home, whereas maladjustment was most strongly related to mothers rearing a child alone. Certainly tlere are a myriad of possible extraneous variables that could confound any conclusions drawn from these results, nonetteless the findings would appear to support the importance of the father's presence in tie home, an importance emphasized by Hamilton (1977), Lamb (1976, 1979). and Stein (1977) in their recent examinations of the subject. Coalitions as Entropic Systems Coalitionswculdseemtobedysfunctional fromamoregeeral sys- tene ttecry viewpoint—from the fundamental tennet that entropy increas- es in relation to a systems impermeability to external input (Ashby, 1960; Buckley, 1968; Gray, et al., 1969; Miller, 1969; Von Bertalanffy, 1968) . As Hoffman (1975) notes, "A system too much connected with it- self will nnot be able to follow a path of trial and error and accumulate adaptations in a short amount of time" (p. 466) . Witlout free exchange of information across subsystem boundaries, "deviation-amplifying processes" (Hoffman, 1971) are likely to ensue, whereby maladaptive responding between system components (e.g., merbers in a coaltiion) increases. Coalitions involve such boundary rigidification which limits information exchange between individuals, family subsystems , and the outside world, and thereby stultify flexible adaptiveness. III. Possible Egalanations for the Salutary Effects of Alliarnces In contrast to coalitions, alliances are based on a respect and valuing of the integrity and uniqueness of the individuals in the 181 relationship. They are quintessentially a celebration and cultivation of self, annd thereby foster esteem, autonomy, annd individuation. Thougn the literature has ubiquitously stressed the importance of a positive spcnee alliance and the lack of a parent-child coalition for the de- velopment and maintenance of psychoemotional health in tie child (e.g., Beavers, 1977; Boszormenyi-Nagy, 1967;Bowen, 1976; Haley, 1967; Lennard annd Bernstein, 1969; Lewis, et al., 1976; Minuchin, 1974; Satir, 1964), tte present investigator again would like to enphasize his observation that l'ealth in family is characterized more specifically by the ability for family menbers to fonm _mu_t_ual_, simultaneous alliannces among them- selves . Such relationships are appropriately differentiated in terms of ageandroleintl'efamily, andarenotbasedonarespcnsetoanother who is excluded or extruded from the snbgroup. In this way, the child is allowed to experience a variety of roles annd functions in different family subsystems , thereby fostering a sense of identity annd enhancing intra/interpersonal skills (Minuchin, 1967) . Furthermore, the child's senmal identity is validated through observing tie parents' valuing of each other (Leonhard and Bernstein, 1969; Lidz and Fleck, 1967; Satir, 1964) , as well as through their direct valuing of him or her. Observance of positive parental behaviors also increases ego skills via modeling (Bandura, 1969; Dollard and Miller, 1950) . 182 lRecently, Edward 0. Wilson (1975) , the controversial sociobiologist who has explored this snbject from a biological perspective, has argued that such behaviors serve a preservatory function and thus are genetically predisposed. Hoffman (1975) has argued along similar lines, speaking of an ornate enpathic distress response. Z'D'e results of Lewis' et a1. research here are corroborative of the most of the studies previonely cited which used "rental" controls broadly defined as not having a member who has sought psychological help. It may be that mmnch of tie variance that distinguisl'ed this gronp from dysfunctional families, and many of the behaviors that were found to typify tteir interaction patternns, could be accounted for by the few highly conpetent families that inadvertently took part in these stuiies. 3Notewortl'ny here is that caregiver behaviors hypothesized by Stollak (1978) as being conducive to the development and maintenance of corpetence in children would appear to augment this individuation process. Thus, in clarifying and validating the child's thoughts, feelings, and experiencing, while expressing oe's own, the caregiver is highlighting differences between the child and him/herself while valuing the uniqueness of both. 4Feldman (1979) has discussed the issue of the fear of intimacy, delineating five possible reasons for this fear, tiese being: (1) a fear of merger; (2) a fear of being exposed and rejected for one's flaws; (3) a fear of attack, either due to intimacy having been as- sociated with an early distressful environment or Oedipal fears ; (4) a fear of abandonment, whereby in gainning one object the person fears tie loss of the other object (i.e. in gaining mother, one fears losing father); (5) a fear of one's own destructive impulses and the ensuing loss of the object. 5'It could be argued here that admiration for an other always involves reongnition of, and/or striving toward, sone repressed aspect of the self (e.g., Jung, 1971)—indeed, alliances are based at least in part on sore mutually perceived commonality and identification. However trne this may be, such relatedness does not derive from a deficit motivation (i.e. a fear that one will perish if they are not like the other) , but rather from an actualization motivation (i .e. , the striv- ing to be more of what one is (Jung, 1971; Maslow, 1962)) . Clearly, we have moved into the realm of philosophy here, a realm surfeit with equivocalities and exceptions . BIBLICIERAPHY BIBLICISRAPHY Ackerman, N.W. Tne Psychodynamics of Family Life. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Allen, D.R. Congruence of parental perception, marital satisfaction and child adjustment. unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Alexander, J.F. Defensive and supportive ccmmmmicaticn in normal and deviant families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycho- lggy, 1973, Q, 223-231. Allpcrt, G.W. Personality and Social Encounter. New York: Beacon, 1960. Ashby, W.R. Design for a Brain. London: Chapnan and Hall, 1960. Bales, R.F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addi- son-Wesley, I950. Bandura, A. Princijnles of Behavior Ibdification. New York: Holt, Rinehart afi Winston, I969. Barnhill, L.R. Dimensions of realthy family interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, 1975. Barnhill, L.R. and Logo, D. Fixation and regression in the family life cycle. Family Process, 1978, 11, 469-478. Bateson, G. Naven. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958. Bateson, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine, 1972. Bateson, G., Jackson, D.D., Haley, J., and Weakland, J. Toward a tleory of schizophrenia. Behavior Science, 1956, l, 251- 264. Baumrind, D. Child care practices anteceding three patterns of pre- school behavior. Cnild DeveLngnent, 1967, 25, 43-88. Baumrird , D. Current patterns of parental authority . Developmental Psychology monographs, 1971, 4, No. 1. 183 184 Baumrind, D. and Black, A.E. Socialization practices associated with dimension of competence in preschool boys and girls. Child Bayley, N. and Schaefer, E.S. Correlations of maternal and child beha- viors with the development of mental abilities: Data from the Berkeley Growth Study. anographs of tie Society for Research in Child Development, 1964, _2_9_ (6, Whole No. 97). Beavers, W.R. W and Growth: A Fanily Systems Perspective. New York: Brunner-MazeE—l977. Becker, W. Consequences of defferent kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman and L.W. Hoffinan (Eds.) , Review of Child Develm- ment Research. New York: Russel Sage, 1964. Beckman-Brindley, S. and Tavormina, J.B. Power relationships in fari- 1ies: A social-exchange perspective. Family Process, 1978, 17, 423-436. Bell, R.Q. and Harper, L.V. Child Effects on Adults. New York: Law- rence Erlbamm, 1977. Besell, H. and Palcmares, U.H. Methcds in Human DeveEEnTt: Rating Scale Booklet. San Diego: Hunan Developtent Ti'alnlng Insti- tute, I967. Blanchard, R.W. and Biller, H.B. Fatler availability and academic performance amog third-grade boys. Developnental Psycho- m, 1971, 4, 301-305. Brownbridge, R. and VanVleet, P. (Fds.). Investmgts in Prevention: The Prevention of Learningr and Behavior Problemsfiln Young anildren. San Franncisco: Pace ID Center, 1969. Boszornmenyi-Nagy, I. mlational modes and meaning. In G.H. Zuk and I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Fds.) Family T'nerapy and Disturbed Famil- i_e_s_. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1967. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. and Frano, J.L. Intensive Family T‘ierapy. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. and Spark, G.M. Invisible Loyalties: Recipro— cigy in Intergenerational Family—Therapy. New York: Harper lbw, 1973. Bowen, M. Tie role of the fatl'er in families with a schizophrenic patient. In A. Anerback (Fd.) Schichhrenia: An Integrated Approach. New York: Rnnald Press, 1959. 185 Bowen, M. Family concept of schizophrenia. In D.D. Jackson (Ed.) Tie Etiology of Schizophrenia. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Bowen, M. The use of family theory in clinical practice. _Cgprehen- sive Psychiatg, 1966, 1, 345-374. Bowen, M. Family Therapy in Clinnical Practice. New York: Jason Aron- son,7.978. — Bower, E.M. Earl Identification of Emotionally Handicapped_Children in School, Secondidition. Spfingfield, 111.: C.C. Thomas, Bowlby, J. Attachnent and Loss: Attachment (Volume I) and Separation (Volume?) . New York: Basic Books, 1969. Buber, M. I and Thou. New York: Scribner, 1970. Buckley, W. (Fd.) Modern Systems research for the Behavioral Scientist. Gnicago: Adline, 19687 Caldwell, B.M. and Richmond, J.B. Social Class Level and Siimulation Potential of the Hare. Seattle: Special Gnild, 1967. Calholn S.H. Power relations in the setting of family pathology: Align- ments and oppositions. Unpublisl'ed doctoral dissertation, North- western University, 1970. Caplow, T. A tlecry of coalitions in tle triad. American Sociological Review, 1956, 2_l_, 489-493. Caputo, D. The parents of tie schizophrenic. Family Process, 1963, 2, 339-356. Cartwright, D. and Harary, F. Structural balance: A generalization of Heider's tleory. Psycholgy Review, 1956, _§3_, 277-293. Geek, F.E. A serendipitols finding: Sex role and schizophrenia. Jolrnal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, Q, 392-400. Geek, F.E. Tie "schizophrenogenic" motner in word and m. Family Process, 1964, 3_, 155-177. Geek, F.E. Family interaction patterns and convalescent adjustment of the schizophrenic. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965a, 13, 138-147. Geek, F.E. The function of tie schizophrenic: Tie function of a per- ipheral role. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965b, _1_3_, 336- 345. i 186 Cheek, F.E. and Anthonny, R. Personal pronoun usage in families of schizophrenics and social space utilization. Family Process , 1970, 9, 431-447. Coe, W.C., Olrry, A.E., and Kessler, D.R. Family interaction of psy- chotic inpatients. Familvarccess, 1969, 8, 119-130. Coleite, G.I.. Patterns of interaction in families of disulrbed adoles- cents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calif- ornia, Los Angeles, 1971. Cocpersnmith, S. Tie Antecedents of Self-Esteem. San Francisco: W.R. Freenann, 196 7. Counts, R.M. Family crises and tie impulsive adolescent. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1967, l_7_, 64-71. Cowen, E.L., Dorr, D.A., andOrgel, AR. Interrelations among screen- ing measures for early detection of school dysfunction. Psy- chology in He Schools, 1971, 8,135-139. Cowen, E.L., Trost, M.A., Izzo, L.D., Iorion, R.P., Dorr, D., and Isa- acson, R.V. New Wa in School mental Health. New York: Hu- man Sciences Press, 1975. Davis, J.A. Structural balance, meoanical solidarity, and interper- sonal relations. American Journal of Sociology) 1963, 68, 444- 462. Doane, J.A. Family interaction and communication deviannce in disturbed and nonmal families: A review of research. Family Process, 1978, 11, 357-376. Dollard, J. and Miller, N.E. Personality and Psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Drechsler, R.J. and Shapiro, M.L. Two methods of analysis of family diagnostic data. Family Process, 1963, 3, 367-379. Durkleim, E. Tne Division of Labor in Society. Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1947. DuVall, E. Family Develcgnent. Chicago: Lippincott, 1957. Eisenberg, L., Landowne, E.J., Wilner, D.M., and Imber, S.D. The use of teaclner ratings in a mental realth study: A method for meas- uring the effectiveness of a therapeutic nursery program. Amer- ican Jolrnal of Public Health, 1962, 2' 18-28. 187 Ekman, P. and Friesen, W.V. Nonverbal behavior in psychotherapy re- search. In J. Shlien (1221.) Research in Psychotherapy. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, Inc., 1968. Erikscn, E. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1950. Fairbairn, W.R.D. Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. London: Tavistock, 1952. Farina, A. and Dunham, R.M. Measurenent of family relationships and their effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 9, 64-73. Farinna, A. and Holzberg, J. Interaction patterns of parents and hospi- talized sons. Jolrnal of Abnormal Psyci'ology, 1968, _‘7_3_, 114-118. Feldnan, L.B. Marital conflict and marital intimacy. Family Process, 1979, 18, 69-78. Fenictel, D. The Psghoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: Norton, 1945. Ferguson, L.R. and Allen, D.R. Congruence of parental perception, marital satisfaction and child adjustment. Journal of Con- sulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 39, 345-346. Ferguson, L.R., Partyka, L., and Lester, B.M. Patterns of parent perception differentiating clinic from non-clinic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2_, 169-181. Ferreira, A.J. and Winter, W. Stability of interactional variables in family decision-making. Archive of General Psighiatry, 1966, 14, 352-355. Ferreira, A.J. and Winter, W. Decision-making in normal and abnormal two child families. Family Process, 1968a, 1, 17-36. Ferreira, A.J. and Winter, W. Information exchange and silence in normal and abnormal families. Family Process, 1968b, 1, 251-276. Festinger, L. A Tneory of Cognitive Dissonance. ENanston, 111.: Row- Peterson, 1957. Fleck, S. Sole aspects of communication in families of schizophrenic patients. Paper presented at the American Psychiatric Associa- tion meeting, Philadelphia, 1959. Fleck, S. Family dynamics and origin of schizophrenia. Psychosomatic Fleck, S. A geeral systems approach to severe family pathology. Amer- ican Journal of Psychiatry, 1976, 1_33, 669-673. 188 Fogarty, T.F. System concepts and the dimensions of self. In P.J. Guerin Family Tnerapy: Theory and Practice. New York: Gard- ner, 1976. Foote, N. and Cottrell, L. Identity and Integpersonal Carpetence: A New Direction in Family Research. Gnicago: University of Gnic- ago Press, 1955. Frend, S. A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York: Pocket Books, 1953. Friedman, C.J. and Friedman, A.S. Gnaracteristics of schizophrenic families during a join family story-telling task. Family Pro- cess, 1970, 2, 333-354. Fromm, E. Tie Art of Loving. New York: Harper, 1956. Gassner, S. and Mirray, E. Dominance and conflict in the interactions between parents of noonal and neurotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, :7_4_, 33-41. Goffman, E. Ti‘e Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday, 1959. Goldstein, J., Fred, A., and Solnit, A.J. Beyond Ere Best Interests of the Gnild. New York: The Free Press, 1973. Goldstein, M.J., Judd, L.L., Rodnick, E.H., Alkire, A.H., and Gould, E. A method for studying social influence and coping patterns with- in families of disturbed adolescents. Jolrnal of Nervous and mental Diseases, 1968, 1:11, 233-251. Gray, W., Dlhl, P.J., and Rizzo, N.D. (Fds.) General Systems Theory and Psychiatry. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Gunntrip, H. Schizoid Phencmena, (inject Relation and Self. New York: International University Press , 1969 . Haley, J. Tie family of the schizophrenic: A model system. Jolrnal of Nervous and Nantal Diseases, 1959, 12_9_, 357-374. Haley, J. Strategies of Psychotherapy. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1963. Haley, J. Cross-cultural experimentation: An initial attempt. Human Organization, 1967a, _2_6_, 110-117. Haley, J. Experiment with abnormal families. Archives of General Psy- ch y, 1967b, _11, 53-63. 189 Haley, J. Speech sequences of normal and abnnonnal families with two children present. Family Process, 1967c, 6, 81-97. Haley, J. Towards a theory of pathological systems. In G. Zuk and I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.) Family Therapy and Disturbed Fami- lies. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Bodks ,—1967. Haley, J. Changing Families: A Family Tierspy Reader. New York: Grue and Stratton, T971. Haley, J. Critical overview of the present status of family inter- action research. In J.L. Frano A Dialcgue Between Famil 1e- searchers and Famiiy Therapists. New York: Springer, 197 . Haley, J. and Hoffman, L. Techniques of Family 'nerapy. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Hall, E.T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday, 1966. Hamilton, M.L. Father's Influence on Children. Gnicago: Nelson- Hall, 1977. Harth, R. and Glavin, J.P. Validity of teacher ratings as a subtest for screening erotionally disturbed children. Eb:ceptional Gnild- _re_n_, 1971, a, 605-606. Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organizations. Journal of Psychology, 1946, a, 107-112. Heider, F. The Psychology of Integpersonal Elations. New York: John Wiley EH Sons, 195?. Henggeler, S.W., Borduin, C.M., Ibdick, J.D., and Tavormina, J.B. Importance of task content for family interaction research. Developgental Psychology, 1979, _12, 660-661. Hennan, B. and Joes, J.E. Lack of adcncwledgenent in the family Rnrschachs of families with a child at risk for schizophrenia. Family Process, 1976, _15, 289-302. Hess, R. and Handel, G. Family Worlds: A Psychological Approach to Family Life. Gnicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Hess, R.S. and Shipman, V.C. Early experiences and the socialization of cognitive modes in children. Gnild Development, 1965, _3_6_, 631-648. _ mtlerington, E.M. Effects of fatter absence on personality develcp- Ient—in adolescent gi-rIS- Winner. 1972, 1, 313-326. 190 Hill, R. Metrodological issues in family development research. Fa_m_- ily Process, 1964, _3_, 186-206. Hill, R. Nbdern systems treory and the family. Social Science Inform- atim' 1971' 1:9, 7-26. Hill, R. and Hansen, D. The identification of conceptual franeworks utilized in family study. Marrisge and Family Living, 1960, 23, 299-311. Hill, R. and Rndgers, R. Tie developnental approach. In H. Gnristen- sen (Ed.) Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Gnicago: Rand NbNally, 1964. Hill, R. and Waller, W. T‘l'e Famiyy A MC Interpretation. New York: Dryden Press, 1951. Hoffman, L. Deviation-anplifying processes in natural groups. In J. Haley (Ed.) Changing Families: A Family Therapy Reader. New York: Grue and Stratton, 1971. Hoffman, L. "Buesbnent" and tie too richly cross-joined system. an_m- ily Process, 1975, 11, 457-468. Hoffman, L. Breaking tie homeostatic cycle. In P.J. Gnlerin (Fd.) ifl' _i__1_y T'herapy: Tneory and Practice. New York: Gardner Press, 1976. Hoffman, M.L. Gnild-rearing practices and moral develqnent, generali- zation from enpirical research. Child Development, 1963, 31, 295-318. Hollingsnead, A.B. and Redlich, F.C. Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: Wiley, 1958. Homans, G.C. T’ne Hunan Group. New York: Harconrt, Brace and Co., 1950. Homans, G.C. Social Behavior: Its Elenentary Fornms. New York: Har- colrt, Brace andWofld,1961. Honzik, M.P. Environmental correlates of mental growth: Prediction from be family at tnenty-oe months. Gnild Development, 1967, 38, 337-364. Honey, K. Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: N.W. Norton, 1950. Jackson, D.D. T‘he study of tie family. Family Process, 1965, 9:1! 1-20. Jackson, D.D. Tl'e question of family honeostasis. In D.D. Jackson Com— munication, Family and Marriage. Palo Alto: Science and BehE—vior Books,_1974. 191 Jackson, D.D., Riskin, J., and Satir, V. Amethod of analysis of a family interaction. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1961, §_, 321-339. Jacob, T. and Davis, J. Family interaction as a function of experi- mental task. Family Process, 1973, 12, 415-427. Jacob, T. and Grolnds, L. Confusions and conclusions: A response to Doane. Family Process, 1978, l_7_, 377-387 Jacobson, E. TiefiSlef and tie Object World. New York: International University Press,1.96?[. Jahoda, M. Olrrent Concepts of Positive Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, 1938. Johnson, A. and Szurek, S. The genisis of antisocial acting wt in children and adults. Psychoanalytic Quartery, 1952, 21, 323- 343. Jung, C.G. Tie Portable Jung. (J. Campbell, Ed.). New York: Vik- ing, 1971. Kafka, J .S. Ambiguity for individuation: A critiqne and reformation of dolble bind treory. Archive of General Psychiatry, 1971, _2_5_, 232-239. ' Kagan, L. and Moss, H. Birth to Maturity: A Stugy of Pflchological Develgpnent. New York': Elam—1962. Kantor, D. and Lehr, W. Inside tre Family. San Francisco: Jossie- Bass, 1975. Karpel, M. Individuation: From fusion to dialogue. Family Process, 1976, g, 65-82. Kellam, S.G., Ehsminger, M.E., and Turner, R.J. Family structure and the mental health of children. Archives of General Psychiata, Kenpler, W. Primacy 1es of Gestalt Fanily 'nerapy. Oslo: A.S. Joh. Nordahls Whi, I973. Kenny, D.A. Correlation and Causality. New York: Wiley, 1979. Kernberg, O. (inject Relation Theogy and Clinical Psychoanalysis. New York: Aronscn, 1976. Kleiman, J .I . Tie relationship of family structure to psychosocial lealth in "healthy" and "normal" adolescent males. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Adelphi University, 1976. 192 Klein, M. Tie Psychoanalysis of Children. London: Hogarth Press, 1932. ‘ Kohut, H. The Search for tie Self: Selected Writings of Heinz Kohut, 1950-1978 (Vqunes I and IIY. New York: International Univer- snty Press, i978. Krige , P. Patterns of interaction in family triads with high-achieving and low-achieving children. Psyclnological Reports, 1976, 3, 1291-1299. Laing, R.D. Tie Politics of tle Family. Toronto: CBC Publications, 1969. Laing, R.D. and Esterson, A. SanityL Madness and the Family. London: Tavistock Publications , i964 . Lamb, M. Tie Rule of tie Fatler in Gnild Develsgnent. New York: Wiley Interscience, 1976. Lamb, M. T'ne developnent of parental preferences in tie first two years of life. Sex Ibles, 1977, _3, 495-497. Lamb, M. Paternal influences and tie fatler's role. American Psy- cholgist, 1979, 2.! 938-943. Lamb, M., Owen, M.T., and Gase-Lansdale, L. Tie father-danghter rela- tionship: Past, present, and future. In C.B. Kopp and M. Kirk- patrick (Ede) BecomingFEnmale. New York: Plenum, 1979. Lambert, N. Predicting and evaluating effectiveess of children in sclncol. In E.M. Bower and W.G. Hollister Behavioral Science Foundations in Education. New York: Wiley, 1967. Langsley, D.G., Kaplan, D.M., Pittman, F.S., Macl'notka, P., Florenhaft, K., and DeYolng, C.D. Tie Treatment of Families in Crisis. New York: Grue and Stratton, i968. Laurenitis, L.R. Parents' perceptions of their children, parents' child- rearing practices, and children's interpersonal behavior with an adult. Unpublisted doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1976. Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Merton, R.K. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, and C.H. Page (Eds.) Freedom and Control in modern Society. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, i954. Leighton, L., Stollak, G , and Ferguson, L.R. Patterns of communication in normal and clinic families. Jolrnal of ConsultinLand Clinical Psychology, 1971, 3_6, 252-256. 193 Lennard, N.L., Beaulieu, M.R., and merey, N.G. Interaction in families with a schizophrenic child. Archives of General Pscyiatry, 1965, 12, 166-183. Lennard, N.L. and Bernstein, A. Patternns in Human Interaction. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. Leowald, H.W. Ego and reality. Internatioal Jolrnal of Psychoanaysis, 1951, 3_2_, 10-18. Lerner, R.M. and Spanier, G.B. (Fds.) . gnild Influences on Marital and Family Interaction: A Life gen Perspective. New York: Academi Press, i978. Lewis, J.M., Beavn rs, W.R., Gossett, J.T., and Phillips, V.A. No Sin 1e Thread: Psychological Health in Family Systems. New YoPE: Brun- mr-mzei,j976. Liberman, M., Stollak, G.E., and Dennner, B. Dimensions of psychological nealth in family play interactions. Paper presented at the meet- ing of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit, Michigan, 1971. Lidz, T. 'Ihe Familyand Human Adaptation. New York: International Universnty Pmss,1963. Lidz, T., Cornelison, A., Fleck, S., and Tterry, D. Intrafamial environ- ment of schizophrenic patients, II: marital schism and screw. American Jolrnal of Psychiatry, 1957, 114, 241-248. Lidz, T. and Fleck, S. Sore explored and partially explored solrces of psychopathology. In G.H. Zuk and I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Fds.) Famil Then and Disturbed Families. Palo Alto: Science and Eha—leor Bong, 1967. Lidz, T., Fleck, 5., and Cornelison, A. Family studies and a tleory of schizophrenia. In T. Lidz, S. Fleck, and A. Cornelison (Eds.) Schizophrenia and tie Family. New York: International University Press,j.965. Liem, G.R., Yellott, A.W., Coven, E.L., Trost, M.A., and 1220, L.D. Sane correlates of early detected erotional dysfunction in de schools. American Jolrnal of Orthcpsychiatry, 1969, 3_9_, 619-626. Lindemann, E. Mental realth: Fundanentals to a dynamic epidemiology of health. In T. Goldston (Ed.) The Epidemiology of Health. New York: Academy of Medicine, 1955. Lorenz, K. Lyolution and Nbdification of Behavior. Gnicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, i967. 194 Love, L.F. and Kaswan, J.W. Troubled Gnildren. New York: Wiley, 1974. Lynn, D.B. Tie Father: His Role in Child Development. Monterey: Brooks-Cole, 1974. Maes, W.R. The identification of enotioally disturbed e mentary school children. Exceptional Gnildren, 1966, 33, 607-609. Mahl, G.F. Gestures and body movenents in interviews. In J. Shlien (Ed.) Research in Psychotleram', Volune III. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1968 . Mahler, M.S., Pine, F., and Bergman, A. Tie Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Bock—s, i975. Mark, R.A. Paraneters of normal family communnication in tie dyad. Unn- publisned doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Mnslow, A. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand, 1962. Masserman, J.H. (Ed.). Individual and Fatilial Wes. New York: Grue and Stratton 71959. McCord, W., McCord, J., and Howard, A. Familial correlates of aggression in non-deliquent male children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholqu, 1961, §_2_, 79-93. McLean, A.L.H. A comparative study of communication patterns in ambula- tory and identified families. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tulane University, 1972. NbIenore, C.W. Applications of balance tleory to family relations. Colnselingsychology, 1973, 2_0_, 181-184. McPherson, S.R., Goldstein, M.J., and mdnick, E.H. Who listens? Who communicates? How? Archives of General PsEhiatry, 1973, 28, 393-399. Mead, G.H. Mind, Self, and Society. Gnicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. Meissner, W.W. Family dynamics and psychosonatic processes. Family Process, 1966, _5_, 142-161. Messe, L.A., Stollak, G.E., Larson, R.W., and Micl'aels, G.Y. Inter- personal consequences of person perception processes in two social contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, _31, 369-379. 19S Milhalopoulos, N.G. A conparative study of normal nuclear families and problem nuclear families. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University of Utah, 1971. Miller, J.G. Living systems: Basic concepts. In W. Gray, P.J. Duhl, and N.D. Rizzo (Fds.) General Systems Theory ad Psychiatry. Boston: Little Brown, 1969. Mills, T.M. Power relations in three person groups. American Socio- lggical Review, 1953, 18_, 351-357. Mills, T.M. Tie coalition pattern in three person groups. American Sociological Review, 1954, 19, 657-667. Minuchin, S. Families and Family Therapy. Carbridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974. Minuchin, 8. "Structural Family Therapy." Workshop given at Michigan State University, April, 1980. Minuchin, S., antalvo, B., Guerney, B.G., Rosman, B.L., and Schurer, F. Families of the Slums. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Minuchin, S. and lbsman B.L. Psychosonatic Families: Angexia Nervosa in Context. Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press, 1978. Mishler, E. and Waxler, N. Interaction in Families. New York: Wiley, 1968. Mishler, E. and Waxler, N. The sequential patterning of interaction in normal and schizophrenic families. Fanily Process, 1975, 11, 17- 50. Moos, R.H. anndcs, B.S. A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 1976, _1§_, 357-371. Norris, C. Parental coalition and son's reading achievenent: An appli- cation of family systems theory. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, New York University, 1977. Murray, H.A. Escplorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Murrell, S.A. Family interaction variables and adjustment of nonclinic boys. Gnild Developnent, 1971, 4_2_, 1485-1494. Mirrell, S.A. and Stachowiak, J.G. Consistency, rigidity, and power in tie interaction patterns of clinic and nonclinic families. Jour- nal of Abnormal and Social Psycholgy, 1967, Z_2_, 265-272. 196 Missen, P.H. (Fd.). Manual of Gnild Psychology: Volune II. New York: Wiley, 1970. Neuman, E. The Gnild. New York: Harper, 1976. Newirth, J .W. Self-esteem and family interaction patternns: An experi- mental approach. Unpublisned doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1970. O'Connor, W.A. ad Stachowiak, J.G. Patterns of interaction in families with high adjusted, low adjusted, and mentally retarded members. Family Process, 1971, E, 229-241. Odom, L., Seaman, J., and Newbrolgh, J.R. A study of family communica- tion patterns and personality integration in children. Gnild Psychiatry ad Human Developnent, 1971, 1, 275-285. Olson, D.H., Cromwell, R.E., and Klein, D.M. Beyod family power. In R.E. Cromell and D.H. Olson (Fds.) Power in Families. New York: Halstead Press, 1975. Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D.H., and Russell, C.S. Circumplex model of mari- tal ad family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 1979, L8, 3-28. O'Rourke, V. Field and laboratory: The decision-making behavior of family grolps in two experimental conditions. Socionetry, 1963, 26, 422-435. Palazzoli, M., Boscclo, L., Cecchin, G., ad Prata, G. Paradox ad Counnter- pa_n;adox. New York: Jason Aronson, 1978. Parsons, T. and Bales, R.E. Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955. Piaget, J. Play, Dreams and Imitation in Gnildlnocd. New York: Norton, 1957. Tobin, A.I. (Ed.). Projective Techniques in Personality Assesanennt. New York: Springer, 19(8. ladin, N. maternal wanmth, achieverent motivation, and cognitive func- tioning in lower-class preschool children. Gnild Development, 1971, 43, 1560-1565. Radin, N. Observed paternal behaviors as antecedents of intellectual functioning in young boys. Developmental Psychology, 1973, _8_, 369-376. 197 Reiss, D. Varieties of consensual experience: I. A theory for relating family interaction to individual thinking. Family Process, 1971, 10, 1-35. Reiss, D. Tie family and schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1976, 133, 181-185. Riskin, J. Metl'odology for studying fanily interaction. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, _8_, 343-348. Riskin, J. Family interaction scales. Archives of -&neral Psychiatry, 1964, l_1_, 484-494. Riskin, J. and Faunce, E.E. Family interaction scales: I. Tteoretical franework and method. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970a, 2_2_, 504-512. Riskin, J. and Faunce, E.E. Family interaction scales: III. Discus- sion of mettodology and substative findings. Archives of Geeral Riskin, J. ad Faunce, E.E. An evaluative review of family interaction research. Family Process, 1972, 11, 365-455. mgers, C. on Becoming a Person. Boston: Mifflin, 1961. Rogers, L.E. Dyadic systems ad transactioal communication in a fanily context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univ- ersity, 1972. Rosenblatt, P. and Titus, S. Togetler ad apart in families. Humanitas, Russell, C. Circumplex model of family systens: III. Empirical evalua- tion with families. Family Process, 1979, l_8_, 29-45. Satir, V. Conjoint Famin T‘lerany. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1963. Scieflen, T. Quasi-courtship behavior in psychotherapy. Psychiatry, Schuham, A. Power relations in enotionally disturbed ad normal family triads. Jolrnal of Abonnal and Social Psychology, 1970, 22, 30-37. Schulman, R., Sloenaker, D., and Moetis, D. Laboratory measurement of parental behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1962, _2_6_, 109-114. 198 Sears, R.R., Maccoby, E.E., and Levin, H. Patterns of Childrearing. Evanston, Ill.: Raw, Peterson and Co., 1957. Sears, R.R., Whiting, J.W.M., Ncwlis, V., and Sears, P. Sane child- rearing antecedents of aggression and dependency in young children. Genetic Psmnolcgy monographs, 1953, _41, 135-234. Silberberg, C.G. An investigation of family interaction patterns: Similarities and differences among families with adolescents designated normal, enotionally disturbed, or drug abusing. Unpublisred doctoral dissertation, Bryn Mawr College, 1976. Simmel, G. Tie Sociolggy of George Sinmnel. (K.H. Wolff, Fd.). Glen- coe, I .: Free Press,T950. Skynner, A.C.R. System of Family ad Marital Psychotherapy. New - York: Brunner-Mazel,1.976. Sluzki, C.E. T'ne coalitionary process in initiating family tlerapy. Family Process, 1975, l_4, 67-77. Solonon, M.A. A developmental, conceptual premis for family therapy. Solvberg, H. ad Blakar, R. Communication effeciency in colples with and without a schizophrenic offspring. Fanily Process, 1975, .l_4_, 515-534. Speck, R.V. ad Attneave, C.L. Family Networks. New York: Pantleon Books, 1973. Speer, D.C. Family systems: Nbrptostasis and morphogenisis, or "Is honeostasis eongh?" Family Process, 1970, _9_, 259-278. Stackl'ouse, T.W. A communication analysis of the art of being stupid: A family systems and communication approach to the stndy of families with children having reading problens. Unpublisl‘ed doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973. Stierlin, H. Separating Parents ad Adolescents. New York: Quad- rangle, 1974a. Stierlin, H. Psycroanalytic approaches to schizophrenia in the light of a family model. Internatioal Review of Psycl'oanalysis, 1974b, 1, 169-178. Stierlin, H. Tie dynnamics of owning and disowning: Psychoanalytic and family perspectives. FamilLProcess, 1976, 1_S_, 277-288. 199 Stein, E.V. (Ed.). Fatlering: Fact or Fable. Nashville: Abingdon, 1977. St. Pierre, 8., Stollak, G.E., Ferguson, L.R., and basse, L.A. Dif- ferences in interaction patternns of families with first or secod grade sons rated high or low in classroom adjustment. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psyclological Association, Detroit, Michigan, 1971. Stollak, G.E. Until We Are Six. New York: Krieger, 1978. Stollak, G.E., Messe, L.A., Michaels, G.Y., Hildain, R., Catlin, R.T., ad Paritee, F. Parental interpersonal perceptual style, child adjustment , ad parent-child interactions . Paper presented at tie meeting of the American Psychological Association, 1977. Strodtbeck, F.L. The family as a three person group. American Socio- logical Review, 1954, 18, 351-357. Sullivan, H.S. Tie Interpersonal Treory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton, 1933. Szasz, T. The Myth of Mental Illness. New York: Harper, 1966. Thonas, A., Gess, S., and Birch, H.G. Wt and Behayior Dis- orders in Gnildren. New York: New York University Press, 1968. Tiller, J.W.G. Brief fanily tlerapy for childlood tic syndrore. Esm- ily Process, 1978, l_7, 217-223. Titclener, J.L. Family system as a model for ego system. In G.H Zuk ad I. Boszonmenyi-Nagy (Eds.) Familj T‘nerapyand Disturbed Fann- ilies. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1967. Tomkins, S.S. Tie Thenatic Apperception Test. Cambridge, Mass.: Har- vard Universnty Press, 1943. Vinacke, W.E. and Arkoff, A. An experimental study of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 1957, 2_2_, 406-414. Vogel, E.F. and Bell, N.W. The emotioally disturbed child as the family scapegoat. In N.W. Bell and E.F. Vogel (Eds.) The Family. Glen- coe, 111.: Tie Free Press, 1960. Vogel, W. ad Lauterbach, C.G. Ielationships between normal and disturbed sons' perceptions of treir parents' belavior, and personality at- tributes of tne parents and sons. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1965, l_9_, 52-56. 200 Volcani, Y. Children's fantasy play as related to parents' and child- ren's perceptions of parental caregiving behaviors and children's psycnosocial adjustment. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1980. Von Bertalanffy, L. Geeral Systems Theory. New York: G. Braziller, 1968. Watzlawick, P. Ag Anthology of Human Communication. Palo Alto: Sci- ence ad Behavior Books, 1961. Westley, W.A. and Epstein, N.B. Tie Silent Majority. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969. White, M. Structure and strategic approaches to psychosomatic families. Family Process, 1978, l_7, 303-314. White, R.W. motivation reconsidered: T‘l'e concept of competence. Efl‘ clological Review, 1959, _6_6_, 297-333. Wiener, J.G. Study of family and peer relationships as trey affect identity and interdepedence of 5-year old children in group day care centers . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1973. Wild, C.M. Communication patterns and role structure in families of male schizophrenics. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1977, .31, 58-700 Wilson, IE.O. Sociobiolggy: Tie New Syntresis. Cambridge, Mass.: Bellcnap Pres , . Winter, W. Family tterapy: msearch and theory. Current Topics in Clinical and Community Psychology, 1971, _3_, 95-121. Winter, W. ad Ferreira, A.J. (Eds.). _Igsearch in Family Interaction. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, i967. Winter, W. and Ferreira, A.J. Talking time as an index of intrafamilial similarity in normal ad abnormal families. Journal of Abomal ad Social Psycrology, 1969, l_4, 574-575. Winter, W., Ferreira, A.J., and Olson, J.L. Story sequence analysis of fanily TATs. Journal of Projective Techniques and Persoality Wynne, L.C. Tie stndy of intrafamilial alignnments ad splits in explor- atory family therapy. In N.W. Ackerman (Fd.) Exploring the Base for Family Tnerapy. New York: Family Service Assoc.,—l96i. Wynne, Wynne, 201 L.C. methodological and conceptual issues in the study of schizo- phrenics and their families. Journal of Psychiatry Research, 1968a, 6, 185-199. L.C. Concennsus Porshachs and related procedures for studying inter- personal patternns. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968b, 3;, 352-356. L.C. Communication disorders and tie quest for relatedness in fam- ilies of schizophrenics. American Jolrnal of Psychoanalysis, 1970, 50, loo-114. L.C., Ryckoff, L., Day, J., and Hirsch, S. Pseudomltuality in Ge family relations of schizophrenics. Psychiatry, 1958, 21, 205-222. L.C. and Singer, M.T. Thought disorder and fanily relations of schizophrenics: I. A research strategy; II. A classification of forms of thinking. Archives of Geeral Psychiatry, 1963, 9, 191- 206. Yarrow, M.R., Canpbell, J.D., and Burton, R.V. Child Young , . : An . into Research and Nathods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, I968. C.D. Interaction patterns in normal ad enotionally disturbed fam- ilies as a function of family group size. Unnpublisl'ed doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1976. Zuk, G.H. Family Therapy: A Triadic-Based Approach. New York: Behav- ioraI Publishers , i972 . Zuk, G.H. Progress and Practice in Fanily Tnerapy. Haverford, Pa.: Psychiatry and BeHaVioral Science Books, 1975. Zuk, G.H. Farily tl'erapy: Clinical hodge-podge or clinical science? Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1976 , _2_, 299-303. Zuk, G.H. ad Boszormenyi-Nagy, I. Family Therapy and Disturbed Families. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior 8001(3,T967.