1% . \IvAlJ: , A _ . "a: 1\ .uA1..A(. h...|t. vsAmQNAWu. I . ...I a tn 0731.13 “Maj? kamlgalhm.” ‘11“. .v. 1.. t. A .A.. I . o .- :AV A ...? ¢~.IL. .‘IAAVA ..A . . . A . A. c. . . A . A A A A... r truffflcfiku .. ....A...n.. AA A. GMQAIOLV‘\\|J‘ I (I ...” . . x (A u - AAA. $.51:th - A 3 .2” AanquAAAuAA .. A. I AA ... .. . . .. . - A. . A... A ...anun A Afi (p A. .A. ... A...A.....\un...AAAlu—du: vans ... .. w A u . A. . ....AZ'A. A 5.41‘. ‘uxfi. \ )0 .A.\ V. . . .v..A. ru‘QnilflAr 1!. .32.. 1.1) )fllfi A _ o . . o. c A. ‘ 1. .4 . .... A I ‘4‘ AMI .‘I “DI-’7 ‘4 i ‘ . L I u w .... v. 011 " A A {‘1‘}. . A. ~ A v ,. Ac\ J) ‘A ~ A . z. a. yon. st'lonA‘lfiu5AL I . .‘iJ... , . .A A .A . ”cu... :- . .w A .5 AAA a . a . - .\LAm.IH\H¢AuhHMA\nuA.z-flp , 3Afivnymmwn 0 A u. c i a . ......Mw... WWW. A Ahwwhnnw . A1gfifi- A . .32 ...: ..A.... » NH. _NuAHAA(HAAv1~AHmA.o Lvlu; - .1” 'M n3n.aw~id ‘I‘WWIR..V ... (1.: . \ v- . 44V 3: ...Aruuflflstfltu A. .... . A . HUN}... .A. AA .HMVtIV-hofmr. OF. .... . .-.Au (.... A , .....AJAJAA .FAAAVAAA A . A :A ..AA..A ., 1:. AA: vA A. ......AAA'AVAff..AA.. , .. I . . A A ..n .r.AA Ain’t—(.... .....tdAAtuAU» . . AA .A :1 31153.0 .27. A. 7. A. r .A. . I : A, a v . ...Iutlt lmuu¢pw00.‘. ‘ (lo-AHIJHKJufit.‘ a... A 1 A ‘_§v\ Album“ (2941.. Lg“ . a 0‘ v A! ¢ ¢ ! .I I ivv . I ~ . A .A.A.. “If ”11 «Au». 35: .91....Alpwvulhid via} . . AAA ... .1 . ~ .2 . .s F. .. A .AAAA A on A L tidavllkx. H rthArA A 7: HPY\ I‘I‘I‘th‘ti . vku. A ‘1 - C9 .‘ . 1 o . - .A . AA... AA . A . ow. m4». .x... “LA... 1.1 «A .mfi m. AMA . A 1 h. «‘3 . .A A . A I . I f .0 ... ‘ A ..A I JAVA .le 611%. IE. I. ..A ... . ... . "33?. .54 . . AA 1. A. AA . A: ... . A. IAIN: ....Awnhwn HALL nu... . ammmxbwfi ...... . A A AA . ... a A d..A.Avtr.A... . A . A... A A. A A. . A .2. 3A .1. ..AA .. .-., .. c, . . v ..wAl V .-r 1 out . n. .0 I fit... . ..A . A . . . A . . . A l t v ... .A |.~( A.LU.. ...H,| .:A A. . .. _ .. . . Wham} AAAAAMAAAIIAAA A h: . T A. A ‘1?AAH%'VY1 (’3'; A .v. . s . . 1 Atllsz 4P;Li.cr .13 1 Man... u . I A .A in“! hflnrhufiuwwmmniAa AU. . flmywwmn . .. . AAA 1"! O Av P: {.1 A). A l. '1’! I 'l a t. v .nAt |\l.i.lil.44v)bup' Huts-I. . in 100.! It I. A! .AuuAmnAAthSAAAAuuWVAAA «In. 35%». .- .r....._r AA". A. . . - A AAUAAAAAAF.UA1LH . .utfihhflm .. I)? AQA. .A t . . ... . lug»: -vulfi . ..A{A|.A:.v\41 IA Wu“. A. A... .- AI? . 10".. u. 3.2.2.. A. 3.3.5.... 1%.. 1.93.4.4“!!! .1: A ‘1.“ . . 3 A. . vrlAAl..YIaonnls(.oflnflfl .HJANHUIHAJ‘ . - - All! Ill“! 0 A (‘1‘ A A‘t. , 5. ”O“! A . .l at.“ v H n p I? II lull) JfiA 5“! , I10 v? I -0¢1§ v 5.3 ti... 0.. a". O D' . o v. .v. ...- t. A Apt . I. I . A. . A A A. A . . ,. Sash A . .. A. A _ 33!. . A . . A A. \ it on v Av, . 1...} L . AA. ...A. A. 9 A v'l f‘AAIJnrA. 3!. A. A : A. . .. 1|.AAInAAIo.)1.. k .Ar ' o .- vWO} .0 l v . . A v 3‘ A or. n UO< .tlflCh-IAIOIIO I gfikmmflonflt. .34... A ... ,A. AATAAP.I)ll.LAAAA A . ....«holvfrt .r-..u1.A.s..u4.APfl..AAA. A : In . 2 1.19.1.1... 1., A. A. nu...suf.~.dw A; . .. 1A. A, a u .Ptl . u-P!~O.VI‘A.I\.. 0 v . I FZI. a a . a :1 149- . 1' A. . . . A {A ...Kflvvvr ... ... . LAT. A tau!» ..IVAAH. .A. «o .0 0v c .1: \JQA D .Iu uly...ufil‘6.ovl».A ..--Lam . 7 . c 1 ott.v.: A A I! II & d v 4 G D IV VA A\ A . l. .1 l. 0.....1 |' “.42{9’||'I A A.“JAO ~ H...'..\(|.sl O I 10. A. A .fl... ..4 VHF! ~ A.-. :1 .11.- ....... I ' \ I A H 1 It‘agi‘A-t {1313?} ‘2‘: .I 1 f“ ‘ :.,f . “H {192‘ I .. A}. ’iévArtzAAu :gthi‘, . .‘gi: ,fi u 0 r II 1.] A. . Low“! uuol , I? ‘4‘. A i :.v.!; D .. II". . ..flflvflb‘o. It’ll: 3!. (flit‘lfilm L515? Autillrulc Al . . “@2111: A . . l l I...|A 11.; Av‘ll, rliblll .¢A.o.. UNII .‘.o I 'I‘cn'70bIl-HULV‘ a”. 1AA. \cwt . 4 A.» OMAN-h) no Alfill‘l v1.l.L. v. . \ A .n l. K... It:0...!A|-r -' Avon. 71.1.15; 3A... A A. II IAOIQI....)CII .v. I 0‘. All.iuq.... 1 ... A. ..1, I111; t a 0V3: ..ih‘wtvtluaO‘v tH' .dal I. i ...“ ¢|.A ......Uthucxtfvnh .ll «nah. [abort—44.. “I!!! . A !HA\.\N\.!UIIv1 ’5".U\.a...v‘1A If»; A. It‘ll o Er: A .3 ..r....v . it...)...‘ \ A. )\. A 'I v.11”...\lvolsovu.’N”aA. L. ‘Afi Y. 1A. 0‘! » I~<§1ibl Q: [(0 0!. it v\ .UIIKLHIQDI: .I .1 J A. I; ..I 1v I‘ll}! . A. . A! J. vAAA‘AonAAAAuA- 1:0: ...A.A .o . Iv. ..65vbtatfzbyvigu ...A .At A‘ A A AA 0.: lL. it“: l.|c .I‘lAbM“ A in. .v o . v 5‘. IRA! . ... ..A .AA. . A. ..Jllfin..h.€ L r viva C ~ ~ {A n..uln<\\ .-.:\A¢l DI . A A It {A . 1.... I A {A .n g'ovu .43 A .1 : .2u. Ivvrlaufllrv’ufl 11.... {iAnnn V‘A‘! . D. IAA...A A A ‘ A. . ..l Jll'fi‘ .1AVI)AA .I‘o“{‘.‘. v'01VA All. \ul [bl 141! 14 to a. . I A I .- dgvlu vll‘ . Q A I A» I/‘IIAOAZ A. g. 11.-.! I A A A... A. . v: . .: .IT b1 A’I‘fll AA ! lino iT‘Jvlilalkalb vv-l‘lb. $1. I . otIIL. £15.01nvl2hflvlivs l J ., .c. A .. A i A o A A. UnluzF All: . . A A . .' v .A I: a ADOAIA , n A A .1. AA A. » AI..¢.A. . A incl. .11. lillllguc IAA .1 {film .. 1. 13.: I stun-tut?” u..¢.¢tu:.1¢l - p' a ..v o. AA . . ua . . 1.!!1113‘4 Eh lllu'l‘ llvllpir v's‘l .IAIZVIvAI: .v.l lll..lil.. vA A.. o... no a I .....A 11.1.5. 3 . A A 'lo )1 1:411: ..‘nll‘.l .1 .10.. 9...: A\|\ , . a- Alla-AA ..-! . . . ‘9! 2 ’1- ‘5’» I! "l. at In! .xvll..At oAlqO: (3'. ‘.‘4. A ..u. A} o ..i: ... ‘0 .A 7 alIlu ’t‘xuu? 1:1]! 1 AVJEA .1}. A. A.AA AKA ...: A . . 111:1..- ....v A o . 3“}; AI... 2' .v . . A? Au A ....Acu ....Inl ull.‘ o. I .A . I A 1: IA A A ... . u o (flu... "I!“ clan!) . it. 100‘: . Ila II‘IIh'L‘cl‘II'I' v ero IAA|Ilvb~ i uvibo.AAn|AAvw0 A v . A A. . v A A 31531. fllllfllllllllllllUlllllllHIIIIIIHHIIHIIIIHllJllllllllllll 3 1293 10429 3885 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ADOLESCENT SEPARATION: PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY ADAPTABlLlTY AND SEPARATION RESPONSE presented by WESLEY GENE NOVAK, has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA. degree in MY L r? '/ g an“ . 41‘1qu Major professor Date ‘RAO‘N‘v‘ ”(Ag/Q 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ADOLESCENT SEPARATION: PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY ADAPTABILITY AND SEPARATION RESPONSE By NesTey Novak A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiITment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of PsychoTogy 1982 ABSTRACT ADOLESCENT SEPARATION: PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY ADAPTABILITY AND SEPARATION RESPONSE By Wesley Novak The focus of the study is on the individual confronting the issue of separating from his/her family during adolescence. Specifically, this study explores the relationship between college freshman's percep- tions of family adaptability and their affective responses to a present separation experience. Adaptability is defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to a developmental stress. The present separation experience is conceptualized as both going away to college and the second individuation process of mid-late adolescence. Five pat- terns of separation response are studied: attachment, individuation, hostility, tension, and defensive process. One-hundred and eighty freshmen (103 females and 77 males) under- graduates provided the data. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales are used to assess college freshmen's perceptions of family adaptability. The Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) is used to assess college freshmen's separation responses. A major purpose of this study is to assess the SAT as a dependent measure of normative separation pat- terns. Wesley Novak Analyses of variance are employed in testing the hypotheses. No support is found for a relationship between perceived level of family adaptability and attachment and individuation separation responses. Perceptions of family adaptability are significantly related to the in- tensity and quality of affective states in a separation experience. Specifically, individuals who perceived their family as high on adapt- ability showed less tension and hostility in present separation response. Additional findings revealed sex differences in separation response. This investigation supports the use of the SAT as a dependent mea- sure of normative separation response. It appears that the two affect scales (hostility and tension) and defensive process best differentiate normative separation patterns. It appears that perceptions of family adaptability and gender are useful predictors of normative separation responses, but not pathological reactions. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My work on this study brought me in contact with many individuals whose impact and assistance I wish to acknowledge. A special thanks to all three of my committee members. I know at times my investment to construct this project in my own characteristic style made some of our interactions conflictual. I have learned through our struggles and have grown both personally and professionally. John, your excitement, enthusiasm and openness to exchange ideas made for some meaningful and joyful moments. I look forward to future scholarly ex- change. As chairperson, a special thanks for your support and guidance in "overseeing" this project to an end. Lucy, your clarity of thought was helpful in getting this study off the ground. Your thorough reading of the final draft made for a better final product. Terry, your unre- lenting challenges to dig deeper into statistical thought, while at times frustrating, have made me a more knowledgeable researcher. Also, I appreciate your availability to teach at a moment's notice. Gersh, without your support, guidance and love, I wonder whether I would have stayed in this academic world. Your innermost belief in me released the courage to be myself within a sometimes crazy and strange academic environment. A special thanks to Devi. Your willingness to share your personal struggles as a separation researcher made my own more understandable. ii Finally, to the Friday morning basketball crew; it was nice to have an outlet for the pent-up aggression. It's nice to be finished! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page. Introduction .......... . ................. 1 Separation Responses ....................... 2 Family Background and Adolescent Separation ........... 8 Theoretical Support for Investigating the Relationship between Adaptability and Separation ............... 10 Empirical Support for Investigating Adaptability and the Separation Process ...................... 12 A Measure of Adaptability .................... 13 Summary ............................. 14 Hypotheses ............................ 14 Method ............................... 17 Subjects ............................. 17 Measurement Instruments ..................... 18 Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) ......................... 18 Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) ................. 22 Procedure ............................ 25 Results .............................. 27 (Formation of Subject Groups by Adaptability Levels ........ 27 Preliminary Investigation of Separation Anxiety Test ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 27 Hypothesis I ................... . ....... 33 Hypothesis II ................. . ........ 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Page. Additional Findings ....................... 42 Discussion ........ . .................... 44 Preliminary Investigation of the SAT ............... 44 Perceptions of Family Adaptability and Attachment- Individuation Separation Responses ................ 47 The Relationship between Perceptions of Family Adaptability and Separation Responses of Hostility, Tension, and Defensive Process .................. 50 Sex Differences ......................... 54 Directions for Future Research .................. 55 Summary and Conclusions ...................... 57 List of References ......................... 61 Appendices ............................. 64 A Additional Analyses of Data: Sex Differences ...... . . 64 B Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales ...... 66 C Separation Anxiety Test ................... 72 D Personal History ....................... 85 Table 8a 8b 10 11 12 13a LIST OF TABLES Page Seven Subscales of Family Adaptability ........... 20 Formation of Subject Groups by Adaptability Levels ........................... 28 Correlation Matrix of Attachment, Individuation, Hostility, Tension and Defensive Process Percentage Scale Scores with College Freshmen ............. 30 Correlation Matrix of Attachment, Individuation, Hostility, Tension, and Defensive Process Percentage Scale Scores with 12—14 year old Adolescents ........ 30 Hansburg's Normative Range for SAT Measures ......... 31 Mean Percentage Scale Scores for SAT Measures with College Freshmen ...................... 32 Total Mean Percentage Score for Strong Separation Scenes, Mild Separation Scenes, Strong-Mild Dif- ference Score, and Hansburg's Normative Scores ....... 33 Mean Percentage Scores and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Adaptability Levels ............. 34 Strong Separation Scenes Only: Mean Percentage Scores and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Adaptability Levels . . . .................. 34 Analysis of Variance for Attachment Scores by Adapt— ability Levels and Sex ................... 36 Analysis of Variance for Individuation Scores by Adaptability Levels and Sex ....... . ......... 36 Analysis of Variance for Attachment-Individuation Balance Scores by Adaptability Levels and Sex . . . . . . ... 37 Analysis of Variance for Hostility Scores by Adapt- ability Levels and Sex ....... . ........... 39 Analysis of Variance for Tension Scores by Adapt— ability ........................... 41 vi Table 13b 14 15 16 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Mean Tension Scores and Standard Deviations by Adaptability Levels and Sex ............... Analysis of Variance for Defensive Process Scores by Adaptability Levels and Sex ............... Means and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Sex ........................... Strong Separation Scenes Only: Means and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Sex ............. vii INTRODUCTION Separation may be viewed from two different perspectives. First, it can be thought of as primarily an intrapsychic phenomenon, where the process consists of 'working through' infantile attachments or internal representations of the family of origin that bind one's own feeling of self. Successful resolution results in increased perceptions of choices and the capacity to explore and utilize more fully one's own unique in- ternal capacities. Second, separation may be viewed as an external phenomenon focused by instances of physical separations from one's im- portant 'loved ones' or attachment figures. The intrapsychic aspect of separation gradually occurs throughout the life cycle and has been hy- pothesized to be of primary importance in adolescence since it leads to the initial consolidation of one's identity (Erikson, 1959). One‘s re- sponses to actual experiences of physical separation from primary at- tachment figures has been proposed to be of major importance in the development of self-reliance in the adult personality (John Bowlby, 1973). This study of the separation reactions of college freshmen provides an exciting opportunity to study the normative separation process while both of its components are in 'full gear'. Going away to college is, for many individuals, a major and/or first physical separation from the family. As late adolescents, college freshman are involved with what Blos (1967) refers to as the "second individuation" process. The task of individuation is to gain distance and differentiation from 1 2 internalized parents; that is, to transcend infantile ties to the family of origin. The physical separation from home influences the individua- tion process and the process of individuation effects the adolescent's experience of his physical separation from home. It is the examination of the 'fitting together' of these developmentally important intra- psychic and external experiences of separation which is the underlying theme of this project. The curious paucity of research on adolescent separation as well as my personal interest in the adolescent experience led to the formulation of this study: the effect of adolescents' perceptions of their families' adaptability on their present response to separation. Separation re- sponses have been more thoroughly investigated at other points in the life cycle (Ainsworth, 1970; Parkes, 1971), though adolescent separation is deemed no less important. Theoretical formulations have been made about an adolescent's normative separation from the family (Blos, 1967; Erikson, 1969; Bowlby, 1973), but few studies have empirically investi- gated these formulations. These few studies have used levels of autono- my (Murphey, et al., 1963), levels of relatedness (Murphy et al., 1963), engagement styles (Hotch, 1979) and feeling states (Sherry, 1980) to as- sess normative adolescent reactions. In this study, a semi-projective measure of feeling states will be used as a measure of college freshmen's responses to a present separation. Separation Responses The extensive empirical work which investigates infants' reactions to separations from mother provides an "exploratory model" for individual differences in the adolescent's response to separation. Ainsworth (1970), classified infants' responses to separation using two critical criteria: 3 (a) the extent to which the infant explores when in different situations and (b) how the infant treats his mother when she is present, when she departs, and when she returns. Ainsworth (1970) combines these two criteria to define an important dimension of attachment, i.e., the security of a child's attachment. The 'secure child' is defined as one who can explore fairly freely in a strange situation, using his mother as a secure base; who is not distressed by a stranger; who shows aware- ness of mother's whereabouts during her absence; and who greets her on her return. Conversely, infants rated as 'insecurely attached', do not explore even when mother is present; are alarmed by a stranger; crumbled into helpless and unoriented distress in mother's absence, and may not greet mother when she returns. Ainsworth describes four general response patterns for each of the two main criteria. The exploration patterns are: (1) infants show much exploration but little discrimination in environments, that is, they ex- plore equally in strange or familiar environments; (2) infants show little ability or interest in exploration (withdrawn behavior), (3) in- fants show inconsistent or reversed patterns of exploration, that is, much or little exploration at times or more exploration in the strange environment than in a familiar environment; (4) infants show active ex- ploration with good discrimination, that is, they generally explore more in familiar environments than in strange environments. The four general patterns of mother-infant relationships are: (1) excessive reliance on mother in which the child is markedly anxious when mother is not present and spends much time clinging with her when she is there; (2) consistent happy exchanges between infant and mother, with occasional instances of the infant engaging in contact with the mother; (3) inconsistent or ambivalent patterns of relationship between 4 infant and mother, e.g., the infant alternately ignores mother defiantly and clings to her excessively; (4) infants showing little interest in mother and not interested in contact with her. In formulating this study, the exploration and attachment patterns of infants are hypothe- sized to be precursors of adolescent patterns of response to separation. Ainsworth's (1970) two original criteria for infant attachment be- havior in response to separation experiences can be thought of more generally as (1) self-reliance (exploratory behavior) and (2) reliance on others (attachment behavior with mother). It is hypothesized that the balance between these two general systems make for a variety of po- tential adolescent separation styles. An underlying theme of this study is an investigation of the attachment (reliance on others) and individu- ation (reliance on self) systems of college freshmen in their response to a present separation. The underlying assumption is that a truly self- reliant person has the capacity to rely upon others when the occasion demands in addition to the ability to use his own internal resources. It is postulated that an adequate response to separation necessitates a balance between the attachment and individuation responses. Individuals displaying extremes on either one of these dimensions are postulated to have more difficulty with the separation process. A variety of separation styles arise from variations in the attachment-individuation balance. A withdrawn style of separation may be evidenced by both low attachment and low individuation responses to separation. An artificially or prematurely self-sufficient style of separation may be evidenced by a high individuation response and a low attachment response. These separation styles (feeling states) may be expanded further by identifying the individual's reactions to stress placed on his own unique balance of attachment-individuation. When stress is placed on the attachment-individuation balance (as during 5 adolescence) the most universal forms of reaction are (1) hostility, (2) painful tension, (3) avoidance of reality, (4) loss of self-esteem, (5) identity crisis, and (6) imbalances in intellectual functioning (Hansburg, 1972). For instance, one could have a hostile, withdrawn reaction to separation or an anxious, self-sufficient style of separa- tion. The studies of infant separation experiences from attachment figures have the advantage of using actual behaviors around separation experiences as indicators of the underlying affect of the infant. The behavioral indexes of clinging, protest, crying, withdrawal, smiling, eye contact, and exploring are less disguised and more easily attained with infants. By adolescence, the personality is more fully molded and defensive patterns of behavior may make affect less apparent. In short, it is more difficult to get an index of emotional reaction around separa- tion with adolescents than with infants. The feelings around separation in adolescence are less available to the individual and very often are defended against. For this reason, a semi-projective measure of feeling states (Hansburg, 1972) around separation experiences will be used to assess the adolescent's response to a present separation. What potentially emerges from the examination of an individual's protocal is a dynamic picture of how an individual handles separation experiences and what emotional traits and character- istics have evolved as part of his general personality structure (Hansburg, 1980). Taking as his starting point measures of how a person responds to separation, Hansburg (1972), developed a projective test of separation experiences. The test consists of a dozen pictures, all but three of which depict a situation in which either a child is leaving his parents 6 or a parent is leaving his child. Some of the pictures, such as a child going to school or mother leaving child at bedtime, portray milder separation experiences. Others picture a more severe type of separation, such as a mother being taken by ambulance to a hospital or a boy and his father standing at his mother's coffin. Adaptive responses for mild separation experiences is to favor self-reliance responses over at- tachment responses (reliance on others). For strong separation scenes, the more adaptive reaction favors attachment responses over self- reliance responses. In addition to measuring response levels of attach- ment and individuation within the individual, the test investigates the 'discriminatory use' of such responses. Ainsworth's (1970) study of in- fants' responses to separation found varying levels of attachment and individuation by discriminating between strange and familiar environ- ments. Following each separation scene is a series of seventeen state- ments which describes ways a child might be expected to feel in such a situation. The respondent is invited to select as many of these state- ments as he thinks would fit. Although the seventeen statements are phrased slightly differently for each picture, the range of feelings described is similar. Each particular response is postulated as being part of one of the eight different psychological systems; attachment, individuation, painful tension (fear-anxiety-pain), hostility, defensive process, self-esteem, self-love, and identity stress. A major focus of this investigation is the investigation of the SAT as a dependent measure of normative separation reactions. This study will investigate two sides of an important aspect of life; separation-individuation and attachment, interdependency, and in- teraction. This balanced aspect of development is an important subject for the study of separation reactions. Capacities for separateness and 7 capacities for relatedness are more entrenched in adolescents than they are in infants. The adolescent uses individual feeling states to ward off extra disturbance in his own developing separation-attachment bal- ance. In other words, adaptive affective responses (feeling states) are used by the individual to keep a capacity for balancing a reliance on self and reliance on others intact during times of separation. For this purpose the feeling states of hostility, painful tension, and defensive process will also be examined. The theoretical base for looking at such states has been previously discussed (Hansburg, 1972). Additionally, if one refers back to the infant studies of separation (Ainsworth, 1970), one can see behavioral antecedents in the infants for these later feeling states in the adolescent. For instance, the crying response of the in- fant is represented in the adolescent experiences of anger (hostility) or painful tension. The withdrawal response of the infant parallels the adolescent's reality avoidance behavior. Experience of any of these feeling states is not indicative of an inadequate adjustment to separa- tion. It is only when one particular feeling state, e.g., hostility, dominates an individual's emotional world, that one suspects an adjust- ment problem. The experiencing of moderate levels of any or all of these feeling states is indicative of an adequate adjustment to present separa- tion. Pathology in the affect area is of definite importance and becomes significant if there are weaknesses in the attachment and individuation systems of the individual. In summary, empirical investigations of infant responses to separa- tion have been numerous (Bowlby, 1973), while investigations of the adolescent separation process have been rare. The two criteria used in delineating infant separation responses are (1) the capacity for reliance upon self (individuation) and (2) the capacity for reliance upon others 8 (attachment). These same two criteria are hypothesized to be of primary importance for the adolescent separation process (Blos, 1967; Erikson, 1959; Bowlby, 1973). Infants' individuation responses were examined through observation of exploratory behaviors, while attachment responses were examined by observing the interactions between infant and mother. In this study, the individuation and attachment responses to separation will be measured by a semi-projective measure of emotional responses to separation. The assumption of this model is that adequate adjustment to separation necessitates a balance between acceptance of the separation (individuation) and reliance upon others (attachment). The psychological systems involved in separation (defensive process, hostility, and pain- ful tension) stemming from object relation theory will also be investi- gated. When any one of these particular feeling states dominates an individual's emotional world, a more difficult adjustment may be sus- pected. Family Background and Adolescent Separation Theoretical formulations and empirical investigations of adolescent development consistently look at family background variables and their influence on the adolescent's development. A variety of studies have empirically examined influences on the separation process. These in- fluences include: patterns of interactions between students and parents during the transition from high school to college (Murphey et al., 1963), levels of self sufficiency and relatedness within family of origin (Hotch, 1979), identifications with mother (Ponto, 1980),past real life losses of father through death and divorce (Sherry, 1980) and daughters' and mothers' perception of themselves and of their styles of interacting with each other (Smith, 1980). The variety of measures used to assess 9 the adolescent style or response to separation makes comparisons across studies difficult. This project is another pioneer study in the area of adolescent separation and will take a phenomenological and family systems approach to separation. I propose to investigate the effect of college freshmen's perception of their families' adaptability on their present separation. Bowlby's (1973) theoretical work on separation postulates that re- sponses to separation are affected by the availability of support from primary attachment figures in an individual's life. In the early years of life, the physical absence or presence of attachment figures is deemed of primary importance. But, after the first three years of life, the individual begins to develop what Bowlby calls a "working model" of the world and of the self. This model encompasses expectations of the individual's attachment figures such as where they may be found and how they may be expected to respond, how accessible and responsive his at- tachment figures are likely to be,should he turn to them for support. At issue here is the person's level of confidence that an attachment figure not actually present will, none the less, be available--namely accessible and responsive. Bowlby's "working model" theory highlights the importance of cognitive processes and current perceptions in an in- dividual's response to separation. I propose to inspect one particular "working model'I of the adolescent during the separation process, the in- dividual's perception of the family system from which he is separating. Separation in adolescence is a developmental task which impacts upon the entire family (Elson, 1964; Olson, et al., 1979; Stierlin, 1974; Shapiro, 1974). A family systems approach to separation is taken here: families are viewed as capable of change, adaptation and reorder- ing of their structure. It is postulated that the adolescent's 10 perception of his family system will influence his present adjustment to separation. His present perception of his family, regardless of the reality base of his perception, will affect his ability to separate. In particular, this study will examine college freshmen's perceptions of their families on the dimension of adaptability and the influence of these perceptions upon their present separation from home. After conceptually clustering numerous concepts from family therapy and other related fields, Olson, et al., (1979), found adaptability to be one of the two major dimensions of family behavior: the other is co— hesion. Adaptability is defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role relationships and rules in response to a developmental stress (such as separation). The specific family variables encompassed by the dimension of adaptability are family power structure (assertiveness and control), negotiation styles, role relationships, re- lationship rules, and feedback systems (positive and negative). Families with very low levels of adaptability would be described as rigid; those moderately low as structured; those moderately high as flexible; and families with very high levels as chaotic. Rigid and chaotic families represent the low and high extremes of adaptability, while structured and flexible families represent the moderate levels of adaptability. The extremes of family chaos and family rigidity are typically found to be problematic for both individual and family functioning. Theoretical support for investigating the relationship between adaptability and separation: Stierlin (1971, 1974, 1977) presents a fascinating conceptual model of the adolescent separation process. The model is primarily suited to convey what goes on between parents and adolescents who seek psychiatric 11 help, but also applies to all other families. Stierlin describes three modes of parent-child interaction which influence the adolescent separa- tion process: binding, expelling, and delegating. These modes represent a classification of family forces that either pull family members to- gether (centripedal) or push them apart (centrifugal). The modes are characteristic of all families at some time during the lifelong process of separation. All the pathological forces exist in normal families but in healthy separations these dynamic inward and outward forces are more evenly balanced. The three major modes become pathological only when they are used extensively by families, and thus inhibit the adolescent's individual growth through separation. The major difference between health and pathological family environments separation is in the rigidity of the patterns. When any of the family forces become "too rigid", the separation process is predicted to go awry. Stierlin's theoretical model is appropriate for the investigation of the rigidity of family patterns as an important variable in the adolescent separation drama. The inves- tigation of the adolescent's perception of the family dimension of adapt- ability is such an attempt. Hansburg discusses the relationship between the structure and per- missiveness of the environment and the attachment-individuation balance of the adolescent. From his work with the Separation Anxiety Test with young adolescents, Hansburg (1972) formulates the theory that definitive structure in the environment and a degree of permissiveness produce the best attachment—individuation balance in younger adolescents; however, neither the structure nor the permissiveness should be excessive. The next best balance is produced by the most structure and least permissive- ness (rigid on adaptability) and poorest balance is produced in those environments in which there is the least structure and most 12 permissiveness (chaotic on adaptability). Permissiveness and structure are concepts equivalent to the 'rules and discipline' concepts in the family adaptability dimension. Empirical support for investigating adaptability and the separation process: Empirical support for the importance of adaptability as a covariant of the adolescent separation process is suggested by two studies outside the area of adolescent development (Hill, 1949; Peck and Havighurst, 1960). In Families Under Stress (1949), Reuben Hill studied the reaction of 135 families to wartime separation and reunion. Hill used two dimen- sions of family behavior (similar to Olson's adaptability and cohesion) which Hill called adaptability and integration. The adaptability dimen- sion concerns the families' ability to function as a unit and includes such factors as its flexibility in meeting difficulties, its readiness to adjust to changes, and its manner of making decisions. The integra- tion dimension deals with the bonds of coherance and unity running through family life of which common interests, affection, and a sense of economic interdependence are perhaps the most prominent (Hill, 1949, p. 15). Hill found that family integration was highly significant in predicting success in adjustment to both separation and reunion, but its relationship was more primary with reunion adjustments. Family adapt- ability related more directly to adjustment to separation than to reunion. Family adaptability appears then to be the more primary variable for pre- dicting separation adjustment, at least so far as the family is concerned. In this study, an individual's adjustment to separation from the family is being examined. 13 Peck and Havighurst (1960) studied 34 adolescents and their families over a seven year period. Among other things, they investigated the in- fluence of family background on level of maturity (character type) of the adolescent. Through factor analysis, they arrived at four general family characteristics which related to the overall ego strength or character type of the adolescent: (1) consistency in family life (in- cluding parental control); (2) democracy-autocracy (decision-making process); (3) mutual trust and approval among family members; and (4) parental severity (severity of parental control). Factor one (con- sistency in family life), factor two (democracy-autocracy), and factor four (parental severity) are concepts related to the Olsen, et al., (1979) adaptability dimension. Factor three (mutual trust and approval) is related to Olson's family cohesion dimension. The authors found that an autocratic home atmosphere prevents the development of anything better than rigid conformity. 'Rigid" families are less favorable environments for the adolescent's separation; there's an expected imbalance between the attachment and individuation responses to the separation process. A Measure of Adaptability: The conceptual clustering of numerous concepts from family therapy and other social science fields reveals two significant dimensions of family behavior: cohesion and adaptability. These two dimensions are placed in a circumplex that is used to identify sixteen types of marital and family systems. Olson (1979) proposes that a balanced level of both cohesion and adaptability is the most functional to family development (Olson, et. al., 1979). The authors developed a 111 item self-report 14 scale based upon these two dimensions of family behavior. There are seven subscales within the adaptability dimension, which allow for the classification of each family into one of four types on the adaptability dimension: chaotic, flexible, structured, or rigid. Summary Bowlby's (1973), concept of 'working models' pointed to the potential for investigating adolescents' present perceptions of their family of origin in order to predict the adolescents' present response to separa- tion. The empirical investigation of Hotch (1979) further supports the utility of looking at the perceptual processes of the adolescent during separation. The perception of interest for this investigation is the adolescent's perception of his family's adaptability. There is both theoretical support (Stierlin, 1974; Hansburg, 1972) and empirical sup- port (Hill, 1949; Peck and Havighurst, 1960) for an examination of the adaptability dimension and its relationship to the adolescent separation process. Hypotheses The focus of the present study is on the individual who confronts the issue of separating from his or her family at the end of adolescence. Specifically, I want to examine the effect of perceptions of one's 'fam- ily adaptability' on college freshmen's responses to a particular separa- tion experience. The separation experience consists of both going away to college and the individuation process of late adolescence (Blos, 1967). An adequate adjustment to separation consists of a balance 15 between.the need for separation (individuation) and the need for contact (attachment). This adjustment might include a complex of feeling-states and defensive operations such as hostility, tension, fear, somaticizing, and denial of the separation. Separation difficulty is manifested by a distortion in the separation-attachment balance and/or the predominate experience of a particular feeling state or defensive operation by the individual. Adaptability is defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in re— sponse to a developmental stress (such as the adolescent's separation). The assumption is that an adaptive system requires balancing the ability to change with stability. The focus of this study is upon the adoles- cent's perception of his family's adaptability and the impact of this perception on his style of separating. It is hypothesized that the adolescent's perception of his family's ability to accept and to respond to his separation will influence the balance between his need for con- tact and need for separateness in the present separation experience. An individual who perceives his family as more rigid or chaotic on the adaptability dimension will have more difficulty with his separation since he perceives imbalance in the family's ability to change and remain stable. An individual who perceives his family as maintaining a balance between change and stability (flexible and structured adaptability) will experience less difficulty in separating. The preceeding discussion has led to the formulation of the following hypotheses for investigation: Hypothesis Ia—Individuals who perceive their family as rigid or chaotic on the adaptability dimension will respond to their present separation 16 with a greater imbalance between the attachment need and the individua- tion need than individuals who perceive their family as structured or flexible on the adaptability dimension. Hypothesis Ila-Individuals who perceive their family as rigid or chaotic on the adaptability dimension will show more hostility, tension and de- fensive process in their present separation response than individuals who perceive their family as flexible or structured on the adaptability dimension. 17 METHOD Subjects One hundred and eighty freshmen from the student population of Michigan State University served as subjects for this study. Of the 180 subjects, there were 103 females and 77 males. The subjects ranged in age from 18 to 20 years with an average age of 18.4 years. Three individ- uals came from divorced or separated families; all other subjects came from intact families. All subjects had entered college in September; they were tested in January or February of their freshmen year after they had been at Michigan State University for between five and six months. Sign-up sheets for subject participation, which contained dates, location, and time of study, were posted in undergraduate psychology classes. The sheets indicated that the author wished to conduct a study of family relationships which would require two hours of their time. Criteria for subject participation were that the individual: (1) was currently living in a residence hall on campus, (2) was between 17 and 20 years of age, (3) had natural parents who were living, (4) was living with his parents prior to leaving for school. Since separation may be seen as a two step process, moving away from one environment and adapta- tion to a new environment, criteria three and four are intended to mini- mize the variety of environments from which the adolescents were separat- ing. Criteria one is an attempt to control for the variety of environ- ments towards which the adolescents were moving. Criteria two attempts to ensure the normative nature of the subjects in lieu of the individua- tion aspect of separation. 18 Measurement Instruments The two principal variables investigated were adolescents' percep- tions of their families' adaptability and adolescents' reactions to a present separation experience. The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978) was used to assess college freshmen's perceptions of family adaptability. The Separation Anxiety Test (Hansburg, 1972) was used to assess college freshmen's feeling reactions to a present separation. In addition, a personal history questionnaire designed by the experimenter was employed to gather background information about the subjects. Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) After conceptually clustering numerous concepts from family therapy and other social science fields, Olson, et al., (1978), found two sig- nificant dimensions of family behavior, cohesion and adaptability. The authors developed a Ill-item self-report instrument which was designed to systematically assess levels of family cohesion and adaptability. The instrument (Appendix B) was based on the circumplex model (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979) which uses these two dimensions. The model generates four levels of family cohesion and four levels of family adapt- ability which in turn leads to 16 (4 x 4) possible family typologies. In this study, the full 111;item questionnaire was given, but only the adaptability dimension was analyzed. Family adaptability is defined as the ability of a family to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress. There are seven subscales within the adaptability dimension (Table 1): assertiveness, discipline, negotiation, roles, rules, and 19 system feedback. Levels were initially constructed through counselor ratings of items (on a scale of 1-10) and were later empirically vali— dated through factor analysis (Olson, 1979). In total, there were 42 items for adaptability. Normative data and cutting points were developed from a study (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978) of 84 problem families and 117 non- problem families. The husband, wife, and adolescents of each family took FACES, producing data from 402 adults and 201 adolescents. The cutting points on each dimension of the FACES were based on the mean and standard deviation for each scale. To derive adaptability scores, one standard deviation above the mean were assigned to the highest level (chaotic) and scores less than one standard deviation were assigned to the lowest level (rigid). The specific cutting points and the percentage of individuals for each of the four levels of adaptability were: Chaotic (14%)--199-236; Flexible (35%)--183-198; Structured (37%)--167-182; Rigid (13%)--109-166. The internal consistency (alpha) reliability for the total score for adaptability was high (r=.75, n+603). The split reli- ability for each of the subscales was very low. The subject completes each item on the basis of its applicability to their family or origin using a 4 point scale: 4= true all of the time; 3= true most of the time; 2= true some of the time; 1= true none of the time. For purposes of this study only the total scores for adaptability were used, rather than relying upon individual subscales. The FACES data were computer scored in accordance with the scoring template and in- structions provided in the FACES manual (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978). 20 .mrmmcm>mg mpog uwcmgoam .mmpog mo momcmgu uwaPa .mcwxas .umgmgm ma xms .mmpog quxuomcmum .maewgm «Poe uwpasaea new Savanna a_om “an .mpnmom maFom .zowupmwa m_om WMSOa .mcowuzpom con: .mcowp:_om .cmmonew cowpapom .mcowpzpom m>wm—:QEH cmmem< .mcowymwpomw: mpnmcommmm .mcowu .mcowumwpomm: .mcowumwuomm: mmmpucm mpnwxmpu .m:w>_om -mwuommc umczpuzgum cmpvswA .mcw>Pom .mcw>Pom Empaoca Loom Empnoca noou .mcw>Pom Empnocq voou Empnogn Loom onhwm -mmcmmm meme zpwz .commmmgmmm meow saw: so mmpzum m>mm -mmcmmm use m>wmmma m>wucmmmm appmzuzz m>wpemmmm >__mgmcmo -mmcmmmnm>wmmma mmmzm>HHmmmm< unpoacu a_nwxa_a weapozgum mpmgmuoz cwmwm xpw_wnapamu< »_Peau we mmpmumnsm cm>mm H m_nae 21 .maoo_ m>wummmc 3m; mmaoop m>wuwmoa xpwcmswga .maoo_ m>wpmmwc can» m>wpmmoa mcoz .maoop m>wuwmoa cusp m>wummmc mcoz .maoop m>wpmmon zoo mmaoop m>wp -mmmc apwgmswgm xum .umucom 1cm xpwgmcuawcm mmpam .mmpzc awowpasw 3mm .mmng pTUPFme xcmz .mmmcmsu mpzc owpmsmco .umucoe -cm xpcwmm mmpzm .mmpzc awow—asw zed .mmpzc uwuepaxm meow .mwmcmgo mops; meow .umucow 1cm xpscmw mmpzm .mmng “wuwpqsw meow .mmpze “wumpaxm Xcmz .mwmcmgo ops; 3mm .vmucomcm xppowcum mmpam .mmng “wowpasm xcmz .mmng pmompaxm ace: .mapza weave mmJDm owooagu an_xa_L mcauuzcum .mumcmcoz cwm_m A.n.ucouv H mpnmp 22 Separation Anxiety Test (SAT) The Separation Anxiety Test (Appendix C) was originally devised for the study of pre and early adolescent (12-14 years of age) separation experiences. Although the SAT was standardized for early adolescent youngsters, it has been found to be useful in clinical evaluations of parents and other adults who found the test easy to take (Hansburg, 1976). It has also been successful in examining emotional reactions of second term college freshman who have left home to attend college (Sherry, 1980). The SAT consists of a series of 12 pictures in which young prota- gonists are seen separating from significant adults, either involuntari- ly or by choice. There are both a male and female series of separation scenes which differ only in the sex of the protagonist in the pictures. Accompanying each picture is a title describing the scene, a pair of questions designed to create a mental set for the separation situations and a series of 17 statements describing the possible feelings and reac- tions of the protagonist in the picture. The statements are relatively similar for each picture, but arranged in different order and with slightly altered wording to suit the content of the picture. The 17 statements are classified into patterns of eight fundamental psychological systems: 1) attachment, 2) individuation, 3) hostility, 4) painful tension, 5) reality avoidance (defensive process), 6) separa- tion identity stress, 7) separation self-love loss, 8) and self-esteem preoccupation. For the purposes of this study only the response themes indicative of attachment, individuation, hostility, tension, and reality avoidance were considered. 23 Each psychological system (response theme) consists of three items. Attachment needs are shown in the SAT responses of loneliness ("all alone and unhappy"), rejection ("nobody likes him anymore"), and empathy ("sorry for his mother"). In the face of separation, the individuation pattern is evidenced in the SAT through adaptive reactions ("he will do his best to get along“), feelings of well-being responses (”he will be much happier now") and sublimation responses ("reading a book"). The attachment index is a percentage obtained by dividing the total number of responses on the test into the total number of rejection, loneliness, and empathy reactions. The individuation index is a percentage obtained by dividing the total number of responses on the test into the sum of adaptation, well-being, and sublimation reactions. A primary assumption underlying the SAT is that in separation situations the attachment reac- tion would be somewhat stronger than the individuation reaction. Thus, it is expected that better adjusted individuals will show a lower in- dividuation than attachment index on the SAT. The psychological systems of hostility, painful tension, and reali- ty avoidance (defensive process) are each represented by a complex of three feeling responses on the SAT: anger, projection, and intrapuni- tive feelings make up the hostility system; anxiety, phobic reaction, and somatic reaction make up the separation tension system; and with- drawal, fantasy (denial), and evasion responses form the defensive sys- tem. SAT indexes for any of these three psychological systems is ob- tained by computing a percentage score: the total number of responses on the test is divided into the combined total of the three feeling re- sponses in the particular system. In this study, the SAT was administered to groups ranging in size from 20 to 30 individuals. The SAT separation scenes were projected 24 onto a screen through use of an overhead projector. Separate testing rooms were used for male and female subjects so that each could view the appropriate gender specific form of the SAT. Each subject was presented with a package of 12 answer sheets (see Appendix C) on which they were to circle their answers for each picture. Each SAT picture was shown on the screen for 16 seconds. The examiner proceeded to the next picture when he had seen that all subjects had responded. Each subject was asked to empathize with the protagonist in each of the 12 depicted SAT separation experiences. Next, they were asked to select from the 17 reactions the ones they considered representative of the protagonist's feelings. They could select as many reactions as they wished. Each subject's SAT response sheets thus contained endorsements of numerous reactions chosen for the 12 SAT situations. The SAT data were computer scored in accordance with the SAT scoring format (Hansburg, 1972). The data was transcribed from Subject's response forms to the SAT Tabulation Sheet. First, the total number of responses to the SAT was calculated. Next, the total number of attachment, in- dividuation, hostility, tension, and reality avoidant responses were de- termined by totaling the number of items associated with each response pattern. Percentages were then computed. Thus, each subject's protocal produced 5 scores: 1) attachment percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of attachment; 2) individuation percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of individuation, 3) hostility percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indica- tive of hostility; 4) tension percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of tension; and 5) reality avoidance percentage, which was the percentage of SAT responses indicative of reality avoidance. 25 The test is divided into two parts; a group of pictures which re- presented typical or mild separation and another group which depicted more severe and traumatic separations. The selected statements can be totaled separately for each group of pictures. Such a scoring procedure results in two percentage scores on each of the 5 SAT patterns investi— gated. Procedure Subjects were tested in groups of 20-30 individuals for approxi- mately 90 minutes. Males and females were tested in separate rooms. Subjects were first given a statement of informed consent which they were asked to read and sign before they were allowed to participate in the study. The author then explained the directions for completion of the FACES. Subjects were given approximately 20 to 30 minutes to com- plete the FACES. All of the subjects completed the questionnaire within the time alloted. Next, the examiner gave the subjects directions for the SAT. The following directions were read aloud by the examiner while the subjects followed along on their SAT response cover sheet: "This is not a test nor are there any right or wrong answers. WE are only interested in the pictures we are about to present to you. I am going to show you 12 pic- tures, one at a time on the overhead screen, each for 15 seconds. You will have as much time as you need to respond completely to each picture. WE are asking you to imagine that you are a child and to react as if the situation had occurred or might have occurred when you were a child. For each picture there will be a number of statements about the child in the picture and you will be asked to select as many statements as you 26 wish which indicate how the child feels. You merely have to read the statements on the response sheet to yourself and circle the numbers next to the statements you have selected - for each of the pictures. If you think of other feelings not mentioned, feel free to write them down in the space provided. Relax, imagine yourself as the child. Now let's begin with the first picture." Upon completion of the administration of the SAT, all subjects com- pleted the Personal History questionnaire (Appendix D). 27 RESULTS The results will be presented in four separate sections. First, the formation of subject groups will be presented. The second section will contain a preliminary investigation of the Separation Anxiety Test, the instrument used to assess all dependent variables under investigation. The third section presents the results sequentially as they bear on each hypothesis. The final section will examine the data for sex dif- ferences for which no hypotheses were offered. Formation of Subject Groups by Adaptability Levels Following the procedure of Olson et al., (1978), three independent groups were established on the basis of the mean and standard deviation of the distribution of adaptability scores within the sample. The dis- tribution of adaptability scores for the entire sample yielded a mean of 182.26 and a standard deviation of 15.06. The internal consistency (alpha) reliability of the total scores (using weighted items) for adapt- ability was r = .52. Extreme groups on adaptability (rigid and chaotic) were comprised of individuals who scored one standard deviation above or below the mean (Table 2). Preliminary Investigation of Separation Anxiety Test An analysis of variance performed on the dependent variable Total SAT score (S's total number of responses on SAT revealed a highly signi- ficant difference among the five SAT measures of attachment, individua- tion, hostility, tension, and defensive process (F = 73.87, p < .001). 28 omfi n : moH u c Nu u : wmm 1 omH «N n = NH n : NH u c wmm . nmfi owuomcu mNH n c an n : om u c mmfi . mofl mpmcmuoz a u c 2 n c 8 u c m: - 2: Pa; Fmpoh mpmemd mpmz magma azocw mpm>w4 xpwpwnmpamv< An maaogu pumwnam mo cowumELom N mpnmk 29 The reliability of SAT scales were computed using frequency of scale responses instead of percentage scores. The five scales (attachment, in- dividuation, hostility, tension, and defensive process) were split into two halves, with each half containing three mild and three strong separa- tion scenes (Scenes 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 compared with Scenes 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12). The Guttman split half reliabilities were: attachment (.72), individuation (.54), hostility (.68), tension (.76), and defensive pro- cess (.77). Table 3 presents the pearson product moment correlations among the percentage scale scores used on the Separation Anxiety Test. The results show that the individuation scale score is negatively correlated with all other scale scores. The lowest correlations tend to occur among the two affect scales (hostility and tension) and the defensive process scale, the three scales examined in hypothesis 2. The intercorrelations among the three indicate that only the hostility and tension scales are sig- nificantly correlated and this correlation is low. Table 4 presents the intercorrelations among the five SAT scales which Hansburg (1972) found with 12-14 year old adolescents. Table 5 shows Hansburg's normative ranges from the attachment, in- dividuation, hostility, tension, and defensive process SAT measures. Table 6 presents the percentage mean scale scores of the five SAT scales for the sample of the present study. According to Hansburg, a mild anxious attachment pattern should be considered typical of individuals relatively free of pathology during times of actual or threatened separations. If one assumes that generally a normal separation process is occurring in college freshmen, then the expected average separation pattern is mild anxious attachment. 30 Table 3 Correlation Matrix of Attachment, Individuation, Hostility, and Defensive Process Percentage Scale Scores with College Freshmen* ATT IND HOS TEN Individuation -.3O Hostility +.13 -.34 Tension +.02 -.58 -.15 Defensive -.24 -.39 -.O8 +.01 Process *Data from present study. Table 4 Correlation Matrix of Attachment, Individuation, Hostility, Tension, and Defensive Process Percentage Scale Scores with 12 - 14 year old adolescents* ATT IND HOS TEN Individuation -.59 Hostility +.37 -.20 Tension +.94 -.35 -.11 Defensive +.58 -.38 +.36 . +.67 Process *Data from Hansburg (1972) 31 The SAT pattern associated with mild anxious attachment consists of high percentages of both attachment and separation pain, with the attach- ment higher than the individuation percentage. Further, the separation tension precentage is higher than the norm and higher than the percentage of hostility responses. For mild anxious attachment to be present, all other scales in the test must be within the norms, except possibly for lower individuation percentages (Hansburg, 1980). Table 5 Hansburg's Normative Range for SAT Measures Normative Range Percentage of Attachment Responses 20 - 25 Percentage of Individuation Responses 16 - 28 Percentage of Hostility Responses 12 - 14 Percentage of Tension Responses 15 - 17 Percentage of Defensive Process Responses 10 - 13 By comparing the mean percentage scores of our sample of college freshmen (Table 6 with Hansburg's norms on the SAT (Table 5), a pattern of mild anxious attachment emerges as the "average" of the sample. The attachment (23.9%) and individuation (16.7%) mean percentage scores both fall within Hansburg's normative range for the scales. The hostility and defensive process scores fall slightly above the norms. The tension (21.9%) scale falls in the high range and is higher than the hostility (14.1%) mean percentage score. This "average" pattern indicates that our sample of college freshmen show, on the average, a healthy pattern of separation response, rather than a pathological pattern. 32 Table 6 Mean Percentage Scale Scores for SAT Measures with College Freshmen Mean Percentage Scale Score Attachment 23.9 Individuation 16.7 Hostility 14.1 Tension 21.9 Defensive 14.9 Process For interpretive purposes the SAT is divided into two equal parts, scores for mild separation pictures and for strong separation pictures. It is expected that the strong pictures should produce a greater response frequency and more intense responses (Hansburg, 1980). About 60 percent of all responses will be elicited by the strong pictures and 40 percent by the mild pictures despite the fact that pictures themselves, are equally divided between strong and mild. A difference between 20 and 30 percent between the strong and mild pictures has a healthy significance and is found in individuals with good strong attachments to their families. The mean percentage scores for the strong separation scenes, mild separation scenes, and strong-mild difference scores are shown in Table 7, along with Hansburg's reported norms for these scores. The sample's mild- strong difference score of 29 percent, a sign of generally health attach- ment, indicates a higher response rate to strong separation pictures and a lower response rate to mild separation pictures than for Hansburg's normative sample. Again, our sample as a whole shows a pattern 33 characterized by Hansburg as that of a healthy response to separation. Table 7 Total Mean Percentage Score for Strong Separation Scenes, Mild Separation Scenes, Strong-Mild Difference Score, and Hansburg's Normative Scores Sample Hansburg's Norms Strong Separation 64.5% 60% Scenes Mild Separation 35.5% 40% Scenes Strong-Mild 29% 20% Difference A two-way analysis of variance was performed for each of the depen- dent measures of separation response with adaptability level and sex as independent factors. Additionally, the subjects' high response rate to strong separation scenes suggested that analysis of separation responses using only the strong separation scenes of the SAT be undertaken. Table 8a contains the mean percentage scores, standard deviations, F-ratios and significance levels for the five SAT dependent measures of separation response by adaptability levels. Table 8b contains the means, standards deviations, F-ratios and significance levels for each of the five SAT scales using only the strong separation scenes. Hypothesis I "Individuals who perceive their family as rigid or chaotic on the adaptability dimension will respond to their present separation with a 34 Table 8a Mean Percentage Scores and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Adaptability Levels Rigid Moderate Chaotic (n=27) (n=129) (n=24) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Significance Attachment 23.1 4.5 24.0 5.7 24.7 6.2 .37 .69 Individuation 15.5 9.8 16.6 9.6 18.6 12.5 .60 .54 Hostility 16.1 3.9 13.9 5.2 12.8 5.7 2.53 .08 Tension 21.0 7.2 22.5 7.4 19.6 5.5 1.55 .22 Defensive 14.6 7.0 13.8 5.5 14.6 4.4 .61 .54 Process Table 8b -- Strong Separation Scenes Only -- Mean Percentage Scores and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Adaptability Levels Rigid Moderate Chaotic (n=27) (n=129) (n=24) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F Significance Attachment 17.5 3.7 18.8 5.0 18.6 4.5 .76 .47 Individuation 4.3 4.0 4.9 4.6 6.2 5.5 1.10 .34 Hostility 13.2 3.2 11.9 4.4 10.1 4.5 3.21 .04 Tension 11.3 5.2 12.7 4.4 10.6 4.1 2.31 .10 Defensive 10.3 5.2 10.1 4.7 10.7 3.6 .49 .62 Process 35 greater imbalance between the attachment need and the individuation need than individuals who perceive their family as moderate on the adaptability dimension." Analyses of variance were performed on the SAT dependent measures of attachment and individuation using adaptability level and sex as indepen- dent factors. The results (Table 9 and Table 10) indicate no significant effects for sex, adaptability level, or their interaction on either the attachment or individuation scales. An attachment-individuation balance score was computed for each sub- ject. The balance score is a measure of the relative balance between the attachment and individuation scores based upon the intensity of the separation stimulus (strong versus mild). An analysis of variance (Table 11) showed no significant effects for sex, adaptability level or their interaction on the attachment-individuation balance scores. Additionally, analyses of variance were performed on the SAT depen- dent measures of attachment and individuation using only the strong separation scenes of the SAT. Again, the results indicated no signifi- cant effect for sex, adaptability level, or their interaction on either the attachment or individuation scales. In sum, all analyses performed on the attachment and individuation measures revealed no significant differences among adaptability levels. Hence, Hypothesis I was not supported. Hypothesis II ”Individuals who perceive their family as rigid or chaotic on the adaptability dimension will show more hostility, tension, and defensive 36 Table 9 Analysis of Variance for Attachment Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Significance Sex 14.19 1 .45 .50 Adaptability Level 11.62 2 .37 .69 Interaction 51.77 2 1.64 .20 Error 31.57 174 Table 10 Analysis of Variance for Individuation Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Significance Sex 1.08 1 .01 .92 Adaptability Level 62.37 2 .60 .55 Interaction 10.83 2 .10 .90 Error 103.24 174 37 Table 11 Analysis of Variance for Attachment-Individuation Balance Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean.Square DF F Significance Sex 57.80 1 .15 .70 Adaptability Level 331.00 2 .87 .42 Interaction 362.50 2 .96 .39 Error 379.22 174 38 process in their present separation response than individuals who per- ceive their family as moderate on the adaptability dimension." The results will be reported by pattern of separation response. Hostility: A brief inspection of the means (Table 8a) reveals that the rigid group showed more hostility as hypothesized, but the chaotic group differed slightly in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. An analysis of variance (Table 12) suggested a main effect for adaptabil- ity level (F=2.53, p=.O8). Individual comparisons of hostility scores were carried out between the moderate and each of the extreme groups (rigid and chaotic) on adaptability, using the moderate group as a pivot group. The comparisons found the difference between the rigid and moder- ate adaptability levels (F=2.96, p=.09) to be almost significant. No difference was indicated between the moderate and chaotic adaptability groups (F=1.32, p=.25) for the hostility measure. Using only the strong separation scenes, the difference between the moderate and chaotic groups (F=3.83, p=.05) was barely significant in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. It appears that college freshmen who perceived their family as chaotic on adaptability showed le§§_hostility responses than the moderate adaptability group. Tension: An inspection of the mean tension scores (Table 8a and 8b) revealed that the extreme groups on adaptability (rigid and chaotic) showed less tension responses than the moderate group, instead of more tension as hypothesized. Analysis of variance (Table 13a) of the tension scores revealed a significant interaction of adaptability level by sex (F=3.07, p=.05). A simple analysis of variance of female tension scores revealed a significant main effect for adaptability (F=3.523, p=.03). An 39 Table 12 Analysis of Variance for Hostility Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Significance Sex 62.645 1 2.49 .12 Adaptability Level 63.452 2 2.53 .08 Interaction 9.571 2 .38 .68 Error 25.124 174 4O inspection of the mean tension scores by adaptability levels and sex (Table 13b) show that females who perceive their family as moderate on adaptability show more tension than females in either the rigid or chaotic groups. Individual comparisons between the moderate and each of the ex- treme adaptability groups revealed a significant difference between the rigid and moderate groups (F=5.82, p=.02). A simple analysis of variance of male's tension scores by adaptability level revealed no significant differences (F=1.174, p=.32). An analysis of variance using only the strong separation scenes as a measure of tension suggested a main effect of adaptability level be- tween the moderate and chaotic groups (F=3.79, p=.05). That is, individ- uals who perceived their family as chaotic on adaptability showed less tension on the strong separation scenes of the SAT than individuals who perceived their family as moderate on adaptability. Defensive Process: An inspection of the mean defensive process scores (Table 8a) by adaptability groups revealed the relationship hy- pothesized; that extreme groups on adaptability (rigid and chaotic) show more defensive process responses than the moderate adaptability group. However, an analysis of variance (Table 14) revealed no significant differences among adaptability groups (F=.613, p=.54). Individual com- parisons between the moderate and each of the extreme adaptability groups revealed no significant differences. An analysis of variance using only the strong separation scenes as a measure of defensive pro- cess indicated no significant differences by adaptability levels. 41 Table 13a Analysis of Variance for Tension Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Significance Sex 5.421 1 .11 .74 Adaptability Level 78.512 2 1.55 .22 Interaction 155.174 2 3.07 .05 Error 50.551 174 Table 13b Mean Tension Scores and Standard Deviations by Adaptability Level and Sex Adaptability Level Tension Score Mean SD Male (n = 15) 23.2 5.3 Rigid Female (n = 12) 18.2 8.6 Male (n = 50) 21.0 7.7 Moderate ‘ Female (n = 79) 23.4 7.2 Male (n = 12) 19.1 6.1 Chaotic Female (n = 12) 20.2 4.7 42 Table 14 Analysis of Variance for Defensive Process Scores by Adaptability Level and Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Significance Sex 43.10 1 1.39 .24 Adaptability Level 18.99 2 .61 .54 Interaction 48.99 2 1.58 .21 Error 30.99 174 1.23 Additional Findings Sex differences: I did not make predictions based on sex differences though sex differences were not unexpected. Table 15 (Appendix A) sum- marizes the means, standard deviations, F-ratios and levels of signifi- cance for the SAT measures by sex. By inspection of the means, it is quite apparent that males select more hostility responses than females. A one-way analysis of variance on the dependent measure of hostility by sex revealed a significant main effect of sex (F=7.106, p=.OO8). Additional sex differences were revealed through separate analyses of the strong separation scenes. One-way analysis of variance were con- ducted on five SAT measures (attachment, individuation, hostility, ten- sion, and defensive process) using only the strong separation scenes Table 16 (Appendix A) analysis of variances revealed that females select significantly more tension responses (F=4.05, p=.05) and more defensive process responses (F=8.63, p=.004) and a trend for less hostility re- sponses (F=2.64, p=.11) than males on the SAT. For the strong separation scenes the analyses of variances revealed no significant differences 43 between males and females on the attachment and individuation measures of the SAT. 44 DISCUSSION The focus of the study was the individual confronting the issue of separating from his or her family during adolescence. Specifically, I examined the relationship between college freshmen's perceptions of family adaptability and their affective responses to a particular separa- tion experience. The separation experience was conceptualized as both the going away to college and the normative intrapsychic individuation process of mid-late adolescence. The feelings around separation in adolescence are quite often not conscious to the individual and frequent- ly defended against. For this reason, a semi-projective measure of feeling states (Hansburg, 1972) around separation experiences was used to assess the present separation response of college freshmen. The results of the present study revealed the utility of the Separa- tion Anxiety Test for understanding the separation experience of college freshmen. One of the two major hypotheses was partially supported by the data. A number of additional findings provide insights into, and raise many questions about the separation experience of college freshmen. In this section, a review of the results is presented. Directions for future research will be discussed. Preliminary Investigation of the SAT Conspicuous by their absence in the review of the literature are studies of normative separation reactions. Partially, this is due to the absence of an adequate separation response measure. A major purpose of this study was to assess the SAT as a dependent measure of normative separation patterns. The SAT has been found effective in revealing pathological separation reactions, that is understanding separation 45 disorders. Normative ranges for interpreting SAT profiles were estab- lished with adolescents between the ages of 12-14 (Hansburg, 1972), and have more recently been found effective with college freshmen and special adult populations (Sherry, 1980). Three findings from the correlational analysis of the SAT scales will be discussed. First, though the mean percentage scores for the SAT of this college freshmen sample were similar to Hansburg's norms for 12- 14 year old adolescents, the correlations among the five scales are quite different. One explanation for this finding follows from a consideration of separation as a developmental process. The notion of development pre- supposes that there will be a change in the relationship among psycho- logical systems during different developmental periods - as in this case between early and late adolescence. It also indicates the need for further validity work with the SAT. The scales were originally created on a theoretical basis and validated by clinical case histories. If the relationship among the systems is different, we can not be certain that we are assessing the same phenomenon supported by Hansburg's research. Second, the individuation scale was highly correlated in a negative direction with all other SAT scales. (The less individuation, the more affect). This finding leads one to consider exactly what we are measuring with this scale in this p0pulation. It may be that the SAT dependent measure of individuation is not useful for assessing college freshmen's separation experience. The fact that its reliability was the lowest of the five SAT measures supports this notion. Another possibility is that the affect scales (tension and hostility) along with the defensive process scale are being used instead of individuation. If this is so, then this sample of college freshmen may be struggling with the task of relying on 46 others during this time in their separation experience. Third, the correlational analysis reveals that the three scales on which suggestive differences were found (tension, hostility, and defen— sive process) have low intercorrelations. This supports the independent nature of these positive findings. According to Hansburg (1972), differences in response rate between the mild and strong separation scenes are an important indicator of separation response. It is noteworthy that within this normative sample the response rates, relative to Hansburg's norms, were high for the strong separation scenes and low for the mild separation scenes. Besides indicating healthy attachment, this finding shows a response bias in favor of strong separation scenes. It was felt that the low response rate on the mild separation scenes may confound potentially significant differences in separation responses. Thus, separate analyses were done for the strong separation scenes on all five SAT scales. The data from this study support the normative nature of the popula- tion sampled. First, the "average" SAT profile reveals a pattern of mild anxious attachment. College freshmen in the midst of a separation from home would be expected to show such a pattern. Second, the data show that the affect systems aroused by a concern over separation (hostility and tension) are offset by a healthy balance between attachment- individuation levels. So, the affect levels aroused are used adaptively - that is to keep intact reliance upon self and reliance upon others. These normative findings support the validity of the SAT as a measure of separa- tion feeling states in college freshmen. In sum, the preliminary investigation of the SAT with college fresh- men indicates its potential as a dependent measure of normative separation 47 patterns. The psychological systems assessed on the SAT warrant further investigation. This work should be directed towards obtaining meaning- ful insights into behavioral manifestations of these systems with par- ticular populations. Additionally attempts should be made to equate separation patterns revealed on the SAT with basic character structures and dominant emotional and behavioral reactions to separation. Perceptions of Family Adaptability and Attachment-Individuation Separation Responses The capacity for reliance upon self (individuation) and the capacity for reliance upon others (attachment) were assumed to have primary im- portance for the "separating" college freshmen. The assumption is that an adequate adjustment to separation necessitates a balance between ac- ceptance of the separation experience (individuation) and reliance upon others (attachment). Adaptability was defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to a developmental stress (such as the adolescent's separation). The assumption is that an adaptive system features a balance between the ability to change and the ability to re- main stable. Other studies suggest that the adolescent's perception of his family's ability to accept and respond to his separation (adapt- ability) will influence the balance between his need for contact (attachment) and need for separateness (individuation) in the present separation experience. In this study, it was hypothesized (Hypothesis 1) that the individu- al who perceives his family as maintaining a balance between change and stability will experience less difficulty in separating. Conversely, an individual who perceives his family as extreme (i.e., chaotic or rigid) 48 on the adaptability dimension will experience more of an imbalance be- tween his need for contact and need for individuation in his present separation experience. The results reveal a wide range of attachment, individuation, and attachment-individuation balance scores on the SAT. However, no support is found for a relationship between perceived level of family adaptability and attachment, individuation, or attachment- individuation balance responses. Some potential explanations will be offered for the lack of support for Hypothesis I. The attachment and individuation measures of the SAT are assessing more entrenched psychological systems (feeling states) than its other scales. Separation-individuation on the one hand and interdependency and interaction (attachment) on the other are two processes which bear great importance throughout psychological development. Hansburg notes (1972) that other feeling states are used by the individual to ward off extra disturbance in his own developing separation-attachment balance. In other words, adaptive feeling states (hostility, tension and defensive process) are used by the individual to keep intact a capacity for balancing a re- liance on self and reliance on others during times of separation. Prior research with the SAT scales of attachment and individuation revealed significant differences between freshmen from intact and father- absent families (Sherry, 1980), 12-14 year old adolescents in public schools and foster homes (Hansburg, 1972), and a geriatric population in nursing homes and other living situations (Hansburg, 1976). In all of these studies the groups investigated differed in terms of either past or present actual separation experiences with potential long-term conse- quences. In short, the groups differed in level of exposure to potentially powerful psychological stressors. 49 The normative nature of this investigation purposely controlled for actual past and present separation experiences. All individuals in the study come from intact families and all were currently living in similar environments, the dorms at Michigan State University. In this study, the groups compared differed in levels on a measure of family adaptability. Such perceptions, while hypothesized to be an important covariant of separation response, may not be an accurate appraisal of the individual's real family environment. The "second individuation" process of mid-late adolescence (Blos, 1967) assumes that the adolescent's intrapsychic "models" of his family of origin are in flux. Such a normative develop- mental process would lead to inaccurate, unstable assessments by the adolescent of his family environment. The low reliability (relative to Olson's 1978 sample) found in the adaptability measure supports this no- tion. In sum, the attachment and individuation measures of the SAT measure entrenched patterns of separation response, which may only be sensitive to tramautic or long-term socializing influences. Two possible explana- tions are offered for the failure to find support for Hypothesis 1. First, the normative nature of the population sampled may have precluded finding differences in attachment-individuation patterns among the three adaptability groups. Second, the freshmen's intrapsychic model of his family's adaptability may not be an accurate reflection of the socializing influences within his family of origin. A final explanation is that there is no relationship between perceptions of family adaptability and attachment and individuation responses in college freshmen. 50 The Relationship Between Perceptions of Family Adaptability and Separation Responses of Hostility, Tension, and Defensive Process In this investigation, an attempt was made to explore differences among some of the psychological systems affected by the separation ex- perience of college freshmen. The primary psychological systems thought to be aroused by a separation experience are the attachment and individu- ation systems. Gross imbalances between these two systems are primary evidence of separation disorders (Hansburg, 1972). The psychological systems of hostility, tension and defensive process are used by an indi- vidual, adaptively or maladaptively, to keep intact a capacity for re- liance on self and reliance on others during times of separation. In this study, it was hypothesized that college freshmen who perceive their family as imbalanced in its capacity for change and stability (rigid and chaotic groups on adaptability) would experience more difficulty in their present separation from home. It was also predicted (Hypothesis II) that these individuals would show more hostility, tension, and defensive re- sponses (as assessed by the SAT) in their present separation experience. There was some support for this hypothesis. However, the data shows that the relationship between perceptions of family adaptability and the feel- ing states of hostility, tension, and defensive process is more complex than originally hypothesized. The results will be discussed by patterns of separation response. Hostility: In separation situations hostility may have a dominant role, but under most circumstances it is not dominant. Separation exper- iences generally bring other psychological systems into more dominant positions. According to Hansburg (1980), the reasons appear to be largely "the wish to retain the caring by an attachment figure who sets the limits for use of the hostility system." Although the hostility 51 system does have autonomy on a deveTOpmental basis, it is integrally re- lated to other psychological systems for the purpose of relieving pres- sure on them. The data reveal that college freshmen who perceive their family as rigid on the adaptability dimension respond to their present separation with more hostility than those individuals who perceive their family as optimal or chaotic on the adaptability dimension. The normative nature of this finding is supported by three observations from the data. First, the attachment and individuation levels for all three adaptability groups are essentially equal and fall within Hansburg's normative range. Se- cond, while the rigid group shows more hostility responses than the other two groups the hostility pattern is not the dominant pattern for any of the three groups. Third, regardless of perceived level of family adapt- ability the hostility response is less than the tension response. So while the rigid group shows more hostility than the chaotic or optimal groups, the hostility pattern is not indicative of a separation disorder. It appears that the hostility system is being used by all three groups adaptively to keep their attachment-individuation level intact. Freshmen who perceive their families as least likely to change family power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules experience more hostility. The specific variables that comprise the adaptability dimension are family power structure (assertiveness and control), negotiation styles, role relationships and relationship rules, and feed- back. A rigid family is characterized by passive or aggressive styles (assertiveness, authoritarian leadership (control), autocratic and overly strict discipline, limited negotiation, stereotypic roles, rigid rules which are explicit and strictly enforced, and reliance on primarily 52 negative feedback systems). A chaotic family is characterized by passive and aggressive styles, no leadership, permissiveness, poor problem solv- ing characterized by endless negotiation, dramatic role shifts which are arbitrarily enforced, and primarily positive feedback loops. Defensive Process: The defensive system equips the individual to develop various patterns of reaction that defend it against the full im- pact of an unpleasant or disturbing experience. Bowlby (1980) describes defensive exclusion as a process whereby an individual excludes from awareness material that has previously led to considerable unhappiness and suffering. Thus, in relation to separation experiences, defensive exclusion may lead to reduction of either fear, hostility, or self- reliance. Clinical and research evidence suggests that defensive exclu- sion is essential to survival. Sometimes the exclusion of stimuli is adaptive and successful and sometimes it is maladaptive, limiting certain systems in their functioning (Bowlby, 1980). Heightened defensive de- velopment in relation to separation from attachment figures is more characteristic of pathology, yet to some degree is essential for ego survival. It was hypothesized that individuals who perceived their family as either very stable (rigid on adaptability) or very much in flux (chaotic on adaptability) would need to defend themselves more in their present separation experience. The results show no support for this hypothesis. Additionally, no support was found for any relationship between perceived level of family adaptability and defensive processes in the present separa- tion. A possible explanation stems from the fact that the SAT measure of defensive process is very sensitive to pathology of the defensive system. The generally normative separation response of the three adaptability groups made differences in defensive exclusion unlikely with this population. 53 In sum, the relationship between perceptions of family adaptability and separation responses of college freshmen appears more complex than originally hypothesized. It was hypothesized that the rigid and chaotic groups would show more hostility and tension in their present separation response than the moderate adaptability group. Instead the data reveal: (1) that within the rigid group, only males' separation response was in the predicted direction; females in the rigid and chaotic groups showed significantly less tension than females in the moderate group; (2) that the chaotic group, regardless of gender, showed less affect (hostility and tension) than the moderate group; (3) although the defensive process responses showed the curvilinear pattern predicted (chaotic and rigid adaptability groups higher on defensive process responses than the moder- ate group), no significant differences were found. While differences among adaptability levels are found on the tension and hostility patterns of the SAT, the data reveal no evidence for a re- lationship between perceptions of family adaptability and separation dis- orders. A separation disorder can be conceived as a dysfunctional, patho- logical pattern of interacting psychological systems. The degree and nature of a separation disorder can be determined by the extent of distur- bance within each psychological system as well as by the dysfunctional re- lationship among them (Hansburg, 1980). In this sample, all three adapt- ability groups show healthy balances of attachment and individuation responses, more tension than hostility, and appropriate discrimination be- tween mild and strong separation scenes. The findings support the hypothe- sis that perceptions of family adaptability are significantly related to the intensity and quality of affective states (hostility and tension) in a separation experience. That is, an individual's "intrapsychic model" 54 of his family structure relates to his/her underlying feeling states in response to a separation experience. Further empirical work is needed to Clarify the nature of this relationship. Sex Differences The data suggests that certain affect systems are characteristic of each gender's separation experience. The hostility pattern on the SAT is more characteristic of males than females in their present separation ex- perience. Prior research supports that males exhibit more aggressive re- sponses than females on a characterological and devel0pmental basis. It appears that males more typically use hostility in the service of indi- viduation; that is, males resist the aid of supportive persons during their separation experience. The sexes also show a difference in their vulnerability to separation. Females exhibit more sensitivity to gradia- tions of separations "alarm system" to the threat of loss in their present separation. In sum, the data suggests that the sexes differ significantly in their present separation response. While both genders exhibit norma- tive patterns of attachment and individuation, the affect systems are used somewhat differently to facilitate the maintenance of these patterns. Males and females may experience separation from home differently because they are grappling with qualitatively different developmental issues. Gilligan (1980) asserts that the separation process is qualita- tively different for men and women. Based on a reexamination of Erikson's framework for adult development, Gilligan states that the progressive epigenetic stages (Identity, Intimacy, and Generativity) may be an accurate portrayal of male development, but that the framework does not fit a female's typical developmental pattern. The developmental tasks 55 of these three steps are intermingled for women. The notion of identity, a sense of "I", necessarily includes others for females. If Gilligan's treatise is correct, one would expect freshmen males' and freshmen fe— males' separation responses to be different as they were in the present study. Sherry's (1980) investigation of the relationship between patern- al loss and college freshmen's separation response (as measured on the SAT) also revealed significant sex differences with positive findings for males, but not for females. Perhaps, the instrument used to assess separation response is biased toward sex-differences. Further methodo- logical work with the SAT is necessary to investigate this contention. Directions for Future Research Groups were formed on the basis of perceived level of family adapt- ability. It appears that the two extreme groups on adaptability (rigid and chaotic) significantly differ in separation response. Future re- search is needed to replicate such a finding. Additionally, it is recom- mended that future work investigate the stability of college freshmen's perceptions of their family, along with the accuracy of these perceptions. While the tension and hostility scales differentiated normative separation patterns, work is needed to clarify the meaning of these pat- terns. The patterns on the SAT were initially validated through clinical case histories with 12-14 year old adolescents. The correlational analyses of this sample of college freshmen reveals that the relationship among the scales may differ for older adolescents. In short, validation of the normative patterns of separation response is a task for future research. Such a task might be accomplished through interviews and behavioral 56 measures of separation administered along with the SAT. 57 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Conspicuous by their absence in the review of the literature are studiescyf normative separation reactions. Partially this is due to the absence of an adequate separation response measure. A major purpose of this study was to assess the SAT as a dependent measure of normative separation patterns. The specific separation experience investigated consists of both the going away to college and the second individuation process of mid-late adolescence. I examined the relationship between college freshmen's perceptions of family adaptability and feeling re— sponses in their present separation from home. Adaptability is defined as the ability of a family system to change its power structure, role re- lationships, and relationship rules in response to a developmental stress. The assumption is that an adaptive system requires balancing both the ability to change and to remain stable. In this study it was predicted that the individual who perceives his family as maintaining a balance be- tween change and stability will experience less difficulty in separating. According to Hypothesis 1, college freshmen who perceive their family as extreme on the adaptability dimension (rigid or chaotic) will respond to their present separation with a greater imbalance between the attach- ment need and individuation need than freshmen who perceive their family as optimal on the adaptability dimension. The data revealed no support for Hypothesis 1. It was felt that the attachment and individuation mea- sures of the SAT are most sensitive to powerful socializing influences. Perceptions of family adaptability may not be an accurate appraisal of the socializing influence of the family, especially within the normative population sampled. 58 Hypothesis 11 predicted that college freshmen who perceive their family as extreme on adaptability dimension (rigid or chaotic) will show more hostility, tension, and defensiveness in their present separation response than freshmen who perceive their family as optimal on the adapt— ability dimension. The results revealed some support for Hypothesis II. The rigid group on adaptability showed more hostility than the optimal or chaotic groups. Significant differences existed among the adaptability groups on the dependent measure of tension, but not in the expected direction. Chaotic groups showed less tension than the optimal or rigid groups. These results were explained in terms of the complexity of the separation process. Interestingly, rigid males showed more tension and hostility than males in the other adaptability levels (the direction pre- dicted by Hypothesis II). No relationships were found between perceived levels of family adaptability and defensiveness in response to separation. It appeared that the defensive process is more sensitive to separation disorders, rather than normative separation patterns. Additional findings revealed sex differences in separation response. Overall, males show more hostility in present separation than females. Females showed a heightened sensitivity to separation which is manifested in more tension and defensive process responses on the strong separation scenes than males. The sex differences are explained as either a result of different developmental pathways of males and females or a methodolog- ical bias of the instrument used to assess separation response. The positive findings from the analysis of the data of sex differ- ences on the hostility, tension, and defensive process measures of the SAT suggest a reformulation of Hypothesis II. A model is proposed that the joint predictors of perceived level of family adaptability and gender 59 be used to explain the separation patterns of hostility, tension, and defensive process. It appears that the relationship between one's per- ception of family adaptability and present separation response is modi- fied by one's gender. The following conclusions are made: (1) The preliminary investigation supports the use of the SAT as a de- pendent measure of separation response. It appears that the two affect scales (hostility and tension) and the defensive process scale best dif- ferentiates normative separation patterns. Additionally, separate analy— ses for the mild and strong separation pictures lend understanding to college freshmen's separation experiences. (2) Perceptions of family adaptability are significantly related to the intensity and quality of affective states (hostility and tension) in a separation experience. Individuals who perceive their family as high on adaptability (chaotic), show less affect (tension and hostility) in pre- sent separation. (3) The separation experience of males and females appears to be differ- ent. Certain affect systems are more characteristic of each gender's separation experience. Males, more typically use hostility in the ser- vice of individuation, that is, to resist the aid of supportive persons during the separation experience. Females exhibit more sensitivity to gradiations of a separation experience than males. Females appear to have a more sensitive 'alarm system‘ to the threat of loss in their pre- sent separation. (4) While separation disorders are evident within this sample of college freshmen, they are not related to gender or an individual's intrapsychic "model" of family adaptability. It appears then that perceptions of 60 family adaptability and gender are useful predictors of normative separa- tion responses, but not pathological reactions. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bell, S.M. Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 1970, 4;, 49-67. NBlos, P. Second individuation in adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study pf the Child, 1967,_ZZ, 162-186. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, (Vol 1) Attachment. New York: Basic Books, 1969. \ Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, (Vol 2) Separation. New York: Basic Books, 1973. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, (Vol 3) Loss. New York: Basic Books, 1980. \Elson, M. The reactive impact of adolescent and family upon each other in separation. Journal pf American Academy pf Child Peychiatry, 1964,‘§, 697-708. Erikson, E.H. Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton, 1968. Erikson, E.H. Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Universities Press, 1959. Gilligan, C. Restoring the missing text of women's development to life cycle theories. In D.G. McGuigan (Ed.), Women's lives: New theory, research and policy. University of Michigan: Center for Continuing Education of Women, 1980. Gould, R.L. Transformations: Growth and change 1p adult life. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978. “Hansburg, H.G. Adolescent separation anxiety: ‘5 method for the study 9: adolescent separation problems. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas, 1972. Hansburg, H.G. Adolescent separation anxiety (II): Separation Disorders. Huntington, NY: Krieger Publishing Company, 1980. Hansburg, H.G. Separation Disorders pf the Elderly, In press. 61 62 Hansburg, H.G. The use of the separation anxiety test in the detection of self-destructive tendencies in early adolescence. In D.V. Sanker (Ed.), Mental health_ip children. New York: PSD Publications, 1976. Hill, R. Families under stress. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1949. Hotch, D.F. Separation from the family: .5 study pf_perceptions ip late adolescence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Levinson.D. 'The season's pf.§ man's life. New York: Ballantine Books, 1978. \Mahler, M.S. Thoughts about development and individuation. Psychoana- lytic Study 9: tpg_Child, 1963, l8, 307-327. Murphey, E., Silber, E., Coelho, 6., Hamburg, D., & Greenberg, I. Devel- 0pment of autonomy and parent-child interaction in late adolescence. American Journal pf Orthopsychiatry, 1963,.33, 643-652. Olson, 0., Bell, R., & Portner, J. Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1978. Olson, D., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. Circumplex model pf marital and family systems ll; Empirical studies and clinical intervention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1979. Olson, D., Sprenkle, D., & Russell, C. Circumplex model of marital and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 1979,.l4, 1-35. Parkes, C.M. Bereavement: Studies 9: grief ip adult life. London: Tavistock Publications; New York: International Universities Press, 1972. Peck, R.F., & Havighurst, R.J. The pgychology pf character development. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960. Ponto, P. Maternal separation ip_late adolescent women. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1981. Schneider, J.M. Loss and change. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, 1980. Sherry, M. Father-absence and separation anxiety reactions in college freshmen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1980. Smith, D. Mothers' and daughters' perceppions pf their relationship and separation 13 late adolescence. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1981. ‘Stierlin, H. Separating parents and adolescents. New York: Times Book, 1974. 63 Stierlin, H. Psychoanalysis and family therapy. New York: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1977. Stierlin, H., Levi, L.D., & Savard, R.J. Parental perceptions of sepa- rating children. Family Process, 1971, lg, 411-427. Sullivan, K., & Sullivan, A. Adolescent-parent separation. Develgpmental PsycholOQY, 1980, lg, 93-99. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Additional Analyses of Data: Sex Differences Table 15 Means and SD for SAT Measures by Sex Female (n=103) Male (n=77) Scale Mean SD Mean SD F Significance Attachment 24.0 5.7 23.9 5.6 .00 NS Percentage Individuation 16.7 10.3 16.6 1.9 .01 NS Percentage Hostility 13.2 5.0 15.3 5.1 7.11 .01 Percentage Tension 22.5 7.3 21.1 7.1 1.56 NS Percentage Defensive Process 14.6 5.3 13.4 5.9 1.96 NS Percentage 64 Strong Separation Scenes Only: 65 Table 16 Means and Standard Deviations for SAT Measures by Sex Female (n=103) Male (n=77) Scale Mean SD Mean SD F Significance Attachment 18.6 4.9 18.5 4.6 .004 NS Percentage Individuation 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.1 .348 NS Percentage Hostility 11.4 4.3 12.4 4.3 2.64 .11 Percentage Tension 12.8 4.5 11.4 4.4 4.05 .05 Percentage - Defensive Process 11.1 4.4 9.1 4.6 8.63 .00 Percentage IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. APPENDIX B FACES true all the time 2 true some of the time true most of the time true none of the time (JO-b H Family members are concerned with each other's welfare. Family members feel free to say what's on their mind. We don't have spur of the moment guests at mealtime. It is hard to know who the leader is in our family. It's difficult for family members to take time away from the family. Family members are afraid to tell the truth because of how harsh the punishment will be. Most personal friends are not family friends. Family members talk a lot but nothing ever gets done. Family members feel guilty if they want to spend some time alone. There are times when other family members do things that make me unhappy. In our family we know where all family members are at all times. Family members have some say in what is required of them. The parents in our family stick together. I have some needs that are not being met by family members. Family members make the rules together. It seems like there is never any place to be alone in our house. It is difficult to keep track of what other family members are doing. 66 67 true all the time 2 true some of the time true most of the time (JO-l:- ll true none of the time 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Family members do not check with each other when making decisions. My family completely understands and sympathizes with my every mood. Family ties are more important to us than any friendship could possibly be. When our family has an argument, family members just keep to them- selves. Family members often answer questions that were addressed to another person. The parents check with the children before making important decisions in our family. Family members like to spend some of their free time with each other. Punishment is usually pretty fair in our family. Family members are encouraged to have friends of their own as well as family friends. Family members discuss problems and usually feel good about the solutions. Family members share almost all interests and hobbies with each other. Our family is not a perfect success. Family members are extremely independent. No one in our family seems to be able to keep track of what their duties are. Family members feel it's "everyone for themselves." Every new thing I've learned about my family has pleased me. Our family has a rule for almost every possible situation. We respect each other's privacy. Once our family has planned to do something, it's difficult to change it. In our family we are on our own when there is a problem to solve. 68 true all the time 2 true some of the time true most of the time true none of the time 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. I have never regretted being with my family, not even for a moment. Family members do not turn to each other when they need help. It is hard to know what other family members are thinking. Family members make visitors feel at home. Parents make all of the important decisions in our family. Even when everyone is home, family members spend their time separate- ly. Parents and children in our family discuss together the method of punishment. Family members have little need for friends because the family is so close. We feel good about our ability to solve problems. Although family members have individual interests, they still par- ticipate in family activities. My family has all the qualities I've always wanted in a family. Family members are totally on their own in developing their ideas. Once a task is assigned to a family member, there is no chance of changing it. Family members seldom take sides against other members. There are times when I do not feel a great deal of love and affection for my family. When rules are broken, family members are treated fairly. Family members don't enter each other's areas or activities. Family members encourage each other's efforts to find new ways of doing things. Family members discuss important decisions with each other, but usually make their own choices. If I could be a part of any family in the world, I could not have a better match. Home is one of the loneliest places to be. 69 true some of the time true all of the time 2 true most of the time 00-3:- ll true none of the time 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. In our family, it's important for everyone to express their opinion. Family members find it easier to discuss things with persons outside the family. There is no leadership in our family. We try to plan some things during the week so we can all be together. Family members are not punished or reprimanded when they do some- thing wrong. In our family we know each other's close friends. Our family does not discuss its problems. Our family doesn't do things together. If my family has any faults, I am not aware of them. Family members enjoy doing things alone as well as together. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. Parents agree on how to handle children. I don't think anyone could possibly be happier than my family and I when we are together. It is unclear what will happen when rules are broken in our family. When a bedroom door is shut, family members will knock before enter- ing. If one way doesn't work in our family, we try another. Family members are expected to have the approval of others before making decisions. Family members are totally involved in each other's lives. Family members speak their mind without considering how it will af- fect others. Family members feel comfortable inviting their friends along on family activities. Each family member has at least some say in major family decisions. Family members feel pressured to spend most free time together. 70 true all the time 2 true most of the time true some of the time true none of the time 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. Members of our family can get away with almost anything. Family members share the same friends. When trying to solve problems, family members jump from one at- tempted solution to another without giving any of them time to work. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. Family members understand each other completely. It seems as if we agree on everything. It seems as if males and females never do the same chores in our family. Family members know who will agree and who will disagree with them on most family members. My family could be happier than it is. There is strict punishment for breaking rules in our family. Family members seem to avoid contact with each other when at home. For no apparent reason, family members seem to change their minds. We decide together on family matters and separately on personal matters. Our family has a balance of closeness and separateness. Family members rarely say what they want. It seems that there are always people around home who are not nembers of the family. Certain family members order everyone else around. It seems as if family members can never find time to be together. Family members are severely punished for anything they do wrong. We know very little about the friends of other family members. Family members feel that have no say in solving problems. Members of our family share many interests. Our family is as well adjusted as any family in this world can be. 71 true all of the time true some of the time HN ll true most of the time true none of the time 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. Family members are encouraged to do their own thing. Family members never know how others are going to act. Certain individuals seem to cause most of our family problems. I don't think any family could live together with greater harmony than my family. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family because they always change. Family members find it hard to get away from each other. Family members feel that the family will never change. Family members feel they have to go along with what the family de- cides to do. APPENDIX C Family Scenes This questionnaire is not a test nor are there any right or wrong answers. We are only interested in the way you felt, the way you would have felt, if you had been the child in each of the pictures we are about to present to you. I am going to show you twelve pictures, one at a time on the overhead screen, each for 15 seconds. You will have as much time as you need to respond completely to each picture. We are asking you to imagine that you are a child and to react as if the situation had occurred or might have occurred when you were a child. For each picture there will be a number of statements about the child in the picture and you will be asked to select as many statements as you wish which indicate how the child feels. You merely have to read the statements on the re- sponses sheet to yourself and circle the numbers next to the statements you have selected for each of the pictures. If you think of other feelings not mentioned, feel free to write them down in the space pro- vided. Relax, imagine yourself as the child. Now let's begin with the first picture. 72 73 1. THE BOY HILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HIS GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT HIS PARENTS. Did this ever happen to you? Yes No If it never happened to you, can you imagine how this child feels? Yes No Circle below as many statements as you think will tell how the boy feels. The boy feels-— 1. that he will be much happier now. that his parents don't love him any more. like curling up in a corner by himself. #011“) a terrible pain in his chest. 5. alone and miserable. that he doesn't care what happens. 7. that he will do his best to get along. 8. that this house will be a scary place to live in. 9. that something bad is going to happen to him now. 10. that it's all the fault of his neighbors. 11. angry at somebody. 12. that he won't be the same person any more. 13. that if he had been a good boy, this wouldn't have happened. 14. that it's only a dream - it isn't really happening. 15. like reading a book, watching TV or playing games. 16. sorry for his parents. 17. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork any more. If there is anything else which you think this boy feels, write it down here: 74 2. A BOY IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS. Can you remember when this last happened to you? Yes No c—.—————. Can you imagine how this child feels about it? Yes No Circle as many of the statements below which you think would tell how this child feels. This child feels-- 1. that he doesn't care what happens. that the new class is a scary place to be. sorry for his past teacher. boom that if he had been a good boy, this wouldn't have happened. 5. like playing games with other children. 6. that something is happening to change him. 7. that he will make the best of the situation. 8. that nobody really likes him. 9. that now he is going to have a good time. 10. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. 11. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork. 12. like sitting alone in the corner of the room. 13. very angry at somebody. 14. like he's getting a stomach ache. 15. alone and miserable. 16. that something terrible is going to happen. 17. that somebody bad is responsible for doing this to him. If you have anything more to say about how this child feels, write down here what you think: 75 3. THE FAMILY _I_S_ MOVING lg A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. Did this ever happen to you? Yes NO If it didn't, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes __ No __ Now try to imagine how the child in this picture feels. Circle as many statements below which say what you think the child feels. You may circle as many statements as you wish. The child feels-- 1. afraid to leave. 2. a pain in the stomach. 3. that the neighbors made them move. 4. glad to get away from this bad neighborhood. 5. alone and miserable. 6. that he doesn't care what happens. 7. that it's only a dream. 8. like hiding somewhere. 9. that the new house will be a scary place to live in. 10. that now he will be a different person. 11. that he won't be able to concentrate on his school work. 12. sorry for his parents. 13. that he will make the best of the situation. 14. like punching somebody in the face. 15. that nobody likes him anymore. 16. that now he can make some new friends. 17. that if he had behaved in the neighborhood, he wouldn't have to move. If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child feels, write it down here: 4. 76 THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS MOTHER TO GO TO SCHOOL. You have done what this boy is doing many times. You no doubt have some idea about his feelings, don't you? Yes ____ No Circle as many statements below which you think tell how this boy feels. The boy feels-- 1. 2. GUT-D- 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork. afraid to leave. that school is a scary place to be. that his mother doesn't like him. that he doesn't care what happens. angry at having to go to school. like joining his friends and going to school. glad to get away from his house. sorry for his mother. like he's going to be sick. that something is happening to change him. that if he had been a good boy, his mother would let him stay home. like staying home in bed. that he will do his best to get along. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. alone and miserable. that somebody else is causing all this trouble. If there is anything more that you think this boy feels, write down here what you think: - 77 5. THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP. Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes ____ No ——- Can you imagine how it felt when it did happen? Yes No If it didn't happen to you, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes No Now circle as many of the statements below which you think tell what this boy feels. The boy feels-- ...: 0 sorry for his parents. angry about going. that this is a scary place to be. hWN that now he will be a different person. 5. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. 6. that his mind can't think straight. 7. like sitting alone in the back of the bus. 8. that someone else made this happen to him. 9. like reading a book and playing games. 10. that he doesn't care what happens. 11. that something terrible is going to happen to him. 12. that a bad headache is coming on. 13. that nobody really loves him. 14. that he will make the best of the situation. 15. that if he had been a good boy, his parents wouldn't send him away. 16. that now he is really free to enjoy himself. 17. alone and miserable. If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down here: 78 '6. AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER, THE FATHER IS LEAVING. Did this ever happen in your family? Yes l___ No If not, can you imagine how you would feel it if did? Yes____ No Now circle as many of the statements below which tell what you think the boy in the picture feels. Circle as many statements as you wish. The boy feels-- 1. very angry at the father. 2. that now he is free to do anything he wants to. 3. that his home will now be a scary place. 4. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork. 5. that something terrible is going to happen to him now. 6. that someone else has been causing all of this trouble. 7. like reading a book, fixing something, or watching TV. 8. that something is happening to change him. 9. lonely and unhappy. 10. that nobody really likes him. 11. that he is going to be very sick. 12. like hiding away in his parents' bedroom. 13. sorry for his mother. 14. that he doesn't care what happens. 15. that he will try hard to work things out. 16. that he, himself, caused his father to leave. 17. that it's only a dream - it really isn't happening. If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down here: 79 7. THE BOY'S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR LEAVING ON A VOYAGE. Did this ever happen to you? Yes ____ No ___ Can you imagine how you would feel if this happened to you? Yes NO Now try to imagine how the child in this picture feels. Circle as many statements below which say what you think the child feels. The child feels-- 1. sorry for his brother. 2. that if he had behaved better, his brother wouldn't have left him. 3. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. 4. that this is a very scary thing. 5. very angry. 6. lonely and miserable. 7. that he will not be the same person any more. 8. like sitting alone in his room at home. 9. that someone else caused all this trouble. 10. like playing a game with his friend. 11. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork. 12. that he will try hard to work things out. 13. that something terrible is going to happen to him. 14. that nobody really likes him. 15. that a bad stomach ache is coming on. 16. that he doesn't care what happens. 17. that now he is free to enjoy himself in any way he likes. If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child feels, write it down here: 80 8. THE JUDGE IS PLACING THIS CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION. Can you remember if this every happened to you? Yes No If it never happened to you, can you imagine how you would feel if it did? Yes No Now circle as many statements below which tell what you think this child feels. Circle as many statements as you wish. The child feels-- 1. that the world is full of bad people who did this to him. 2. that it's only a dream and he will wake up soon. 3. like committing suicide. 4. that he will go and make the best of it. 5. sorry for his parents. 6. that the courtroom is a frightening place. 7. like curling up in a corner. 8. dizzy and faint. 9. that he doesn't care what happens. 10. happy to get to the institution as soon as possible. 11. that he is not very well liked. 12. terrified at what will happen to him. 13. like reading a book or watching TV. 14. angry at the judge. 15. that now he won't be able to learn school work. 16. all alone and unhappy. 17. that now he will be a different person. If there is anything else which you think this child feels, write it down here: 9. 81 THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED. This has probably happened to you many times. Can you imagine in your mind that it is happening right now? Yes ____ No ___, Now circle those statements below which you think tell how the child feels. Circle as many statements as you wish. The boy feels-- 1. 2 3. 4 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. angry at his mother. that it's scary to be alone here. like hiding under the covers. that he doesn't care what happens. that something is happening to change him. that someone in the family made the mother leave. that now he's free to enjoy himself any way he likes. that his mother doesn't stay with him because he's a bad boy. it's not really happening - it's only a dream. that he will make the best of the situation. like reading a book, watching TV or making clay models. that something bad is going to happen to him. sorry for his mother. that he is getting sick. that his mother doesn't really like him. that he won't be able to study in school tomorrow. very lonely. If there is anything else which you would like to say about how this boy feels, write it down here: ' 82 10. THE BOY'S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL. Did anything like this ever happen in your family? Yes No If it didn't, can you imagine how you would feel if it did happen? Yes No Now circle as many statements below which tell what you think this child feels. Circle as many statements as you wish. The boy feels-- 1. very angry at somebody. 2 that he will not be the same person any more. 3. glad that his mother is leaving. 4 like hiding in his room. that he doesn't care what happens. that it's not really happening - it's only a dream. that he's going to have a bad headache. that he will do his best to get along. SOCDVO‘UT scared about what's going to happen to him. 10. sorry for his mother. 11. that nobody likes him any more. 12. like watching TV. 13. that his mother became sick because he was bad. 14. that somebody else caused all this trouble. 15. that his room is going to be a scary place to stay in now. 16. alone and miserable. 17. that he won't be able to concentrate on his schoolwork. If there is anything else which you would like to say about how this child feels, write it down here: 83 11. THE BOY AND HIS FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE MOTHER'S COFFIN. Did this ever happen to you? Yes ____ No If it didn't, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes No Now try to imagine how the child in the picture feels. Circle as many statements below which say what you think the child feels. You may circle as many statements as you wish. The child feels-- 1. that he won't be the same person any more. frightened about what will happen to him. that if he had been a good boy, it wouldn't have happened. #00“) that now he is free to do what he wants. 0'! angry about what happened. that nobody will love him any more. that he doesn't care what happens. that his home will now be a scary place to live in. \OCDNOW like sitting in a corner by himself. 10. that other people are to blame for this. 11. that he will make the best of the situation. 12. that it is only a dream. 13. a bad pain in his head. 14. sorry for his father. 15. alone and miserable. 16. that now he won't be able to study any more. 17. like reading a book or watching TV. If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child feels, write it down here: 84 12. THE BOY IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME. Did you ever do anything like this? Yes ___ No____ If you didn't, did you ever think of doing something like this? Yes No Can you understand why this child would want to do this? Yes No Now circle as many of the statements below which you think tell how this child feels. The child feels-- 1. that he is just going away to have some fun. 2 angry at his parents. 3. afraid that he will be punished for something he did. 4 that he doesn't care what happens. 5. that his parent's don't want him around any more. 6. that the neighbors have been stirring up his parents against him. 7. terrible stomach cramps coming on. 8. that he will do his best to get along. 9. that he is only dreaming about this and it's not happening. 10. that something very bad is going to happen to him. 11. that it is awfully scary outside. 12. sorry for his parents. 13. like watching TV or reading a book. 14. like going to his hideout. 15. that he won't be able to study schoolwork any more. 16. that now he will be a different person. 17. lonely and miserable. If there is anything else which you wish to say about how this child fee-‘5’ write it down here: APPENDIX D Personal History Where did you live most of the time while you were growing up? (DQOU'D) I OW (DQOU'DJ I OW (DQOU'O) On a farm. In a small town. In a moderate-size town or city. In a suburb of a large city. In a large city. large was your high school graduating class? Under 100. 100 - 300. 301 - 500. 501 — 700. Over 700. many miles from your home is MSU? 25 or less. 26 - 100. 101 - 500. 501 - 1000. More than 1000. Do you expect to work for pay during your freshman year in college? a. b. c. How Yes, 10 hours per week or less. Yes, more than 10 hours per week. No, not any particular ones. do you expect to finance your first year's college expenses? (Choose as many answers as apply.) (DD-OCT!” Personal savings. Part-time work. Family help. MSU financial aid package Repayable loan other than included in MSU package. 85 10. 11. 12. 86 During the last two years in high school: (questions 6 and 7) Did you have one or more close or "best" friends? Yes, one. Yes, two or three. Yes, more than three. No, not really close. GOD’QJ Did you belong to close-knit group of friends ("crowd," "set,” "clique")? a. Most of the time. b. Some of the time. c. Not really. d. Never. What religion were you reared in? a. Catholic. b. Protestant. c. Jewish. d. Other. e. None. Parents' marital status: Living together (if yes, skip 10 and 11). Divorced or separated. Father deceased (if yes, skip 10). Mother deceased (if yes, skip 10). Both parents deceased (if yes, skip 10). (DQOU'QI Which parent did you live with after their separation? a. Entirely or mostly with father. b. Entirely or mostly with mother. c. About equally with each parent. Neither one; please explain: 0. How Old were you when your parents were separated (divorced or deceased)? a. Less than 5 years old. b. 5 to 9 years old. c. 10 to 14 years Old. d. 15 years or old. How many brothers and sisters do you have? One. Two. Three. Four or more. None. (DQOC'DJ 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 87 Are you the a. Oldest? b. Middle? c. Youngest? How many of your siblings are attending, or have attended, college? a. One. b. Two. c. Three. d. Four or more. e. None. How much formal education has your mother completed? Some high school or less. High school graduation. Some college. College degree. Postgraduate degree. (DQOU'D! I ow much formal education has your father completed? Some high school or less. High school graduation. Some college. College degree. Postgraduate degree. {DO-00"!!! Thinking of the bonds of emotional closeness and involvement in your family as you were a child growing up, what was the most basic and primary two-person relationship in your family? A grandparent and parent. A grandparent and grandchild. Mother and Father. A parent and a child. Child and child. (DQOU'OJ The following questions (18-38) refer to occasions you can recall spending (what is for you) a significant amount of time away from your home. There is a separate series of questions for each of 3 such experiences. You need only answer those series that “fit" your life experience. Once you begin a series, please complete all of the questions within the series. The following questions (18-24) refer to the first occasion you can recall spending (what is for you) a significant amount of time away from home: 18. The main reason for being away from home was A major illness or death in the family. Divorce or separation of parents. School. Vacation or summer camp. Other. D.G.OU'D’ 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The 88 period of time away from home which you feel to be significant in this case is 0.0 C79! A day or less. A week or less. A month or less. More than a month. On this occasion the initiative for leaving home was QOU'OJ The (DQOU'OJ Primarily your own. Partially your own. Mostly someone else's. Completely someone else's. actual physical distance away from home is Less than 50 miles. Between 50 and 100 miles. Between 100 and 200 miles. Greater than 200 miles. Overseas. During this separation from home you were staying (DD—OU'D) I 0W (DQOU'DJ With a parent. With sibs or other relatives. With close friends. With other people, but no one with whom you felt close. Alone. old were you at this time of leaving home? Less than 6 years of age. 6 to 8 years of age. 9 to 11 years of age. 12 to 14 years of age. 14 or older. This time away from home was (emotionally for you) (DQOCTDJ Extremely pleasant. Mostly pleasant. Equally pleasant and unpleasant. Mostly unpleasant. Extremely unpleasant. The following questions (25-31) refer to the second occasion you can recall spending (what is for you) a significant amount of time away from home: 25. The (DQOU'QJ main reason for being away from home was A major illness or death in the family. Divorce or separation. School. Vacation or summer camp. Other. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 89 The period of time away from home which you feel to be significant in this case is a. A day or less. b. A week or less. c. A month or less. d. More than a month. On this occasion the initiative for leaving home was a. Primarily your own. b. Partially your own. c. Mostly someone else's. d. Completely someone else's. The actual physical distance away from home was Less than 50 miles. Between 50 and 100 miles. Between 100 and 200 miles. Greater than 200 miles. Overseas. (DQOU'DJ During this separation from home you were staying a. With a parent. b. With sibs or other relatives. c. With close friends. d. With other people, but no one with whom you felt close. e. Alone. How old were you at this time of leaving home? Less than 6 years of age. 6 to 8 years of age. 9 to 11 years of age. 12 to 14 years of age. 14 or older. (DQOU'QD This time away from home was (emotionally for you) Extremely pleasant. Mostly pleasant. Equally pleasant and unpleasant. Mostly unpleasant. Extremely unpleasant. mantra: The following questions (32-38) refer to the third occasion you can recall spending (what is for you) a significant amount of time away from home: 32. The main reason for being away from home was a. A major illness or death in the family. b. Divorce or separation of parents. c. School. d. Vacation. e. Other. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. The 90 period of time away from home which you feel to be significant in this case is a. b. c. d. A day or less. A week or less. A month or less. More than a month. On this occasion the initiative for leaving home was D.GU'DI ....l he (DD—00"!) Primarily your own. Partially your own. Mostly someone else's. Completely someone else's. acutal physical distance away from home was Less than 50 miles. Between 50 and 100 miles. . Between 100 and 200 miles. Greater than 200 miles. Overseas. During this separation from home you were staying (DQOU'QI I OW (DO-00")! With a parent. With sibs or other relatives. With close friends. With other people, but no one with whom you felt close. Alone. old were you at this time of leaving home? Less than 6 years of age. 6 to 8 years of age. 9 to 11 years of age. 12 to 14 years of age. 14 or Older. This time away from home was (emotionally for you) (DD-00"!!! Extremely pleasant. Mostly pleasant. Equally pleasant and unpleasant. Mostly unpleasant. Extremely unpleasant. MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES llWillWWHlmllilllll“HIIWWHWWWI 31293104293885