ROOM USE ONLY bV1ESl.) RETURNING MATERIALS: Piace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from __ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be10w. ‘9 a- s9 mu? m rcle t with p by Pa: P12: V yi d ‘3‘“ ure an ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PARENTAL ROLE AND PARENTAL ATTITUDE AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH BEHAVIOR MANIFESTATIONS IN PREADOLESCENT SONS V by Burton A? Deming This study is oriented around the application of role theory toward the analysis of parent-son relationships with particular reference to the role concept as developed by Parsons' theory of action. Within this context, an in- quiry was directed toward the notion that the differential effect of parental attitudes on the behavior of preadoles- cent sons is a function of the differential roles taken by parents. The variables for parents consisted of a role meas- ure and eight attitude scales: rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, general aggres- sion, self-esteem, husband-wife relationship, and adjust- ment. The four dependent measures for sons included aggres- sion, dependency, withdrawal, and perceived parental rejec- tion. Role was measured by a story completion technique designed to operationalize the expressive and instrumental role concepts as defined by the Parsonian theory of action. Attitudes were assessed by the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire. Aggression, dependency, and withdrawal in sons were measured by the Peer Nomination Inventory and perceived rejection by the Parent Authority-Love Scale. Var ia SOn c a“€+ bL‘k Burton A. Deming The samples, predominantly middle class, included 47 father-son pairs and 56 mother-son pairs. In its gen- eral form, the hypothesis stated that negative attitudes by parents who take expressive roles will be more signif- icantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the four dependent variables than will be the case for negative at- titudes of parents who take instrumental roles. Hypotheses were derived separately for fathers and mothers with respect to each of the attitude variables and each of the dependent variables. This amounted to 32 predictions for the father- son sample and 32 for the mother-son sample. To test the hypotheses, each parent's score on the attitude and role scales were multiplied together to yield eight interactional variables. High scores on each of the interactional scales indicated the association between neg- ative attitude traits and expressive roles and low scores the association between negative attitudes and instrumental roles. Regression coefficients and their significance in predicting each of the dependent variables were obtained for each of the eight interactional measures. The statis- tical analysis was a test of the hypothesis that the regres- sion coefficients are zero against an alternative hypothesis that they are greater than zero. The results indicated that, of the 32 predictions for the father-son sample, five of the hypotheses were con- firmed in relation to aggression in sons and three with respect to dependency. None of the hypotheses for the mother- demand aggres to‘be the 55 taking inter: rejeC‘ new; indic. alter inst: relat intrc 5631p; Ont Burton A. Deming mother-son sample were supported. Rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, and general aggression by fathers who take expressive roles were shown to be more significantly related to aggression in sons than the same attitudes in conjunction with instrumental role taking by fathers. For dependency in sons, significant interactions in the predicted direction were revealed for rejection, parental aggression, and general aggression by fathers. The findings for the mothers' parental aggression indicated that the hypotheses were rejected in favor of alternative ones. Parental aggression by mothers who take instrumental roles was indicated to be more significantly related to aggression and perceived rejection in sons than parental aggression by mothers who take expressive roles. This tends to be opposite to the findings for fathers and is the reverse of that predicted for mothers. The nature of the sample employed in this study introduces caution in generalizing the findings to other samples and to the general population. In general, the indications are that the samples included the more disturbed families. The sons of mothers, and to a lesser extent, of the fathers, who participated in the study scored higher on the aggression and dependency variables than the sons of parents who did not take part. Since there was a tend- ency for high scores on the attitude variables to be pos— itively associated with high scores on the aggression and dependency scales, it was considered likely that the partici titude: Burton.A. Deming participating parents were also more negative in their at- titudes toward sons. Approved Ebmmittee‘Ehairman Date A STUDY OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PARENTAL ROLE AND PARENTAL ATTITUDE.AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH BEHAVIOR MANIFESTATIONS IN PREADOLESCENT SONS B Y£X Burton Aineming A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1964 to Elinor ii fre age dis Kar des dat J am, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge most gratefully the assistance of the following people who contributed in many ways to the progress of the dissertation. 0f the faculty, Dr. Berton Karon and Dr. Alfred Dietze served on the dissertation committee throughout the planning and completion of the dissertation. Dr. Jehn Hurley served as committee chairman through the entire course of thesis development. Dr. Rabin was particularly helpful during the early stages of the research. A special note of thanks is due Dr. Winder for graciously substituting for Dr. Rabin at the last moment and for his informative conversations about the Stanford.Attitude Scale and the Peer Nomination Inventory. I am especially grateful to Dr. Hurley who gave freely of his time, energy, patience, ability, and encour- agement throughout the initiation and conclusion of the dissertation. I wish also to express appreciation to Dr. Karon particularly for his assistance on the statistical design and help in clarifying problems in analysis of the data. Of my colleagues, I am particularly grateful to James Clark and Clyde Crego for help with the computer analysis. This was particularly noteworthy since their assistance was given at a time when they were busy with their own research. To Dr. Ray Bodwin and Dr. Leon Maizlish and the other staff members of the Flint Mental Health Clinic, special thanks are due for their help in the completion of the research. They provided time and encouragement during my association with the clinic as an intern and staff member. Finally, the Flint Public Schools, particularly the staffs of the Merrill and Selby Elementary Schools, provided facilities and contacts with families which made possible the completion of the research. 0.0.0.0... iii CRAP T .I T» I\- TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prospectus . . . . . . . . . . . . Conceptual Analysis of Role. . . . . Theoretical Frame of Reference . . . Review of Studies on Parental Roles. Ships 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 General Summary and Conclusions. . . Review of Research on Parent-Child Relation- II. PROBLEM.AND HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem Statement of Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . III 0 “THOD O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Instruments. . . . . Procedure. . . . . . sampl e O O 0 Statistical Analysis IV 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Father-SO!) sample 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e “Other-Son Sample 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e v 0 DISCUSSION 0 O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O Father-Son Sample. 0 e e e e e e e e e e e nether-Son sample. 0 e e e e e e e e 0 Correlations between the Mother and Father Variables. . . . . . . . Implications for Research in Parent-Child Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI 0 MY AND CONQUS IONS O O O O O O O O O O 0 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv 1C LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. SCT scoring categories and scoring weights assigned to each criterion or combination of criteria. 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 39 2. Intercorrelations for specific SCT stories and between each story and the total SCT score. . . . 39 3. Mean SCT scores for the pilot sample comparing fathers (F) and mothers (M) . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4. Mean SCT scores for the present sample comparing fathers (P), non-working mothers (NWM) and working mothers (WM). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5. Mean ages and mean years of education for the mothers and fathers who participated in the study, and the distribution of boys by grade for each parent sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 6. Intercorrelations between the attitude and role variables for the fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7. Intercorrelations between the attitude and role variables for the mothers . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 8. Aggression in Sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 58 9. Dependency in Sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 60 10. Withdrawal in Sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 62 ll. Perceived Rejection of Fathers by Sons: Regres- sion coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables . . . . . . . . 63 12. Aggression in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and interactional variables 0 O O O O O C O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 65 TABLE l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. TABLE 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES--Continued Page Dependency in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and inter- actional variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Withdrawal in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and inter- ac tional var. 13b]. e S O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 7 Perceived Rejection of Mothers by Sons: Re- gression coefficients for the mothers' atti- tude, role, and interactional variables. . . . . 68 Intercorrelations between the dependent vari- ables for the father-son sample. . . . . . . . . 73 Correlations of the fathers' attitude and role variables with the attitude and role variables for the mothers based on scores for 41 marital- pairs 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 80 vi APPSII’J IX LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. SCT Instructions and Stories. . . . . . . . . 92 B. Scoring Manual for the SCT. . . . . . . . . . 95 C. Mother Form of the Stanford Parent Question— naire O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 107 D. Father Form of the Stanford Parent Onestion- naire. O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 119 E. Items for each scale of the Stanford Parent Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 F. Mean scores for the dependent variables in relation to role taking by fathers and mOtherS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1 33 G. Raw Scores for the Mother-Son Sample. . . . . 134 H. Raw Scores for the Father-Son Sample. . . . . 139 vii PROSPEC around of fami the as: ditiona this g. notion Parent. differ. cuSSio SOQiol CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PROSPECTUS The organization of the following pages is oriented around the application of role theory toward an analysis of family relationships. At issue is the extent to which the association between parental and child behavior is con- ditional to the kind of role taken by the parent. Within this general context, an inquiry is directed toward the notion that the differential effect of the attitudes of parents on the behavior of their sons is a function of the differential roles taken in relation to the sons. The dis- cussion in this chapter takes up in order the definition of role, the theoretical frame of reference for this study, a review of research on parental roles, and a review of research on parental attitudes and their bearing on parent- child relations. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF ROLE The concept of role has been used extensively in sociological and psychological theory. Moreover, in recent years there has been a concerted effort to further under- standing of family relationships through the application of this concept (Parsons, 1955a, 1955b; Ackerman, 1958; Brim, 1957; Farber, 1959, 1960; Strodtbeck, 1954). This approach characterizes the family as a unitary social sys- tem or psychological group in which the actions of individ- uals have significance for each other and for the total group. Role is advanced as a relationship variable descrip- tive of and critical to the interactive group process. It is defined by Parsons (1951a) as follows: Role is that organized sector of an actor's orientation which constitutes and defines his par- ticipation in an interactive process. It involves a set of complementary expectations concerning his own actions and those of others with whom he inter- acts. Both the actor and those with whom he inter- acts possess these expectations. Roles are insti- tutionalized when they are fully congruous with the prevailing culture patterns and are organized around expectations of conformity with morally sanctioned patterns of value orientations shared by members of a collectivity in which the role functions (p. 23). Parsons stresses five attributes of role. First, it is relational in scope. Ego's role has implications for 1 Second, and is evolved from his relationship with alter. this relationship is complementary and reciprocal in nature. If ego, as.an example, takes a dominant role with alter, and the process is stabilized, this necessitates an expec- tation on the part of both ego and alter that the former will be dominant and the latter submissive. This notion follows closely with those of Sarbin (1954) and Brim (1957). 1The terms "ego" and "alter" are used by Parsons to denote two persons, say A and B, interacting together. When their relationship is discussed from the standpoint of A, then ego refers to A and alter to B. In the converse situation, ego pertains to B and alter to A. Third, is the matter of role expectations. Essen- tially, these are the reciprocal expectations of ego and alter about each other's actions and attitudes. Fourth, is the social aspect of role. This highlights role as the point of articulation between the personality system of the actor and the social system of which he is a part. vegel (1958) and Ackerman (1958) also stress this aspect of role. Finally, there is the quality of institutionaliza- tion which is essentially a function of the extent to which there is agreement between group members as to their re- spective roles. This bears closely on the formal and in- formal categories of Vogel (1958). Formal roles are those which are officially prescribed by the group and are con- cerned primarily with duties and rules regarding specific tasks. Informal roles are less explicit, less likely to be directly communicated between group members, and deal more with the social and emotional elements of group behavior. The foregoing discussion has dealt principally with structural aspects of role. Correlating with this are the manifest and latent role functions postulated by Merton (1957). Manifest functions are those objective conse- quences contributing to the adjustment or adapta- tion of the system which are intended and recognized by participants in the system. Latent functions, correlatively, being those which are neither in- tended or recognized . . . although they may inte- grate a group as well as disrupt it (p. 51). A corollary relationship apparently exists between the function above . by nanif T’nEORSTI role and sented '11 action (i 1953). mental a Scheme f actiVe p SYStems. neeticns, in terms SYStem 1 ”game than the tural Sy. the indi‘ Essentia; “in o, the rules interpers functional and structural attributes of roles as described above. Formal roles would seem to be constituted mainly by manifest functions and informal roles by latent functions. THEORETICAL FRAME OF REFERENCE The theoretical and operational formulations about role and its bearing on parent-child relationships, as pre- sented in this study, are taken from Parsons' theory of action (Parsons, 1951a, 1951b, 1951c; Parsons and Bales, 1953). Of particular relevance are the concepts of instru- mental and expressive role orientations. The theory of action is represented as a conceptual scheme for the analysis of human behavior. It is the inter- active product of the personality, social, and cultural systems. The first is one which pertains to the intercon- nections of the actions of an individual which are organized in terms of the structure of his need dispositions. A social system is one which involves a plurality of persons and is organized on the basis of the interactive process rather than the action system of the individual. Finally, a cul- tural system is a pattern of culture from which values, norms, and symbols which guide and direct the action of the individual and his interactions with others are derived. Essentially, the theory of action encompasses the person- ality of the individual, his interactions with others, and the rules and norms which make possible orderly and stable interpersonal relationships. The description of a system of action must employ the categories of motivational orientation: cognition, cathexis, and evaluation. Likewise the description of an action system must deal with the properties of the system of interaction of two or more individuals or collective actors--this is the social aspect-~and it must note the conditions which interaction imposes on the participating actors. It must also take into account the cultural tradi- tion as an object of orientation as well as culture patterns as internalized patterns of cognitive ex- pectations and of cathectic-evaluative selection among possible orientations that are of crucial significance in the personality system and in the social system (Parsons, 1951a, p. 7). Role was defined above as the point of articulation between the personality system of the individual and the social system of which he is a part. Following from this, Parsons takes role as the conceptual unit of analysis of the social system, applies it as a frame of reference within which relations between ego and alter take place, and inter- prets it as being one of the major determinants of this relationship (Parsons, 1951c). The two primary roles considered to be character- istic of interpersonal behavior are designated by Parsons as instrumental and expressive. Consequently, the nature of role's determination of the relationship between ego and alter is dependent upon which role orientation is the pre- dominant one. These two are in turn indicated to be con- stituted by five strictly limited and defined pattern vari- ables or value dimensions which are presented as choice points giving direction to one orientation or the other (Parsons, 1951c, p. 67). 1. Affectivity vs. Affective Neutrality. Discussia _—__ 2. Self-Orientation vs. Collectivitngrientation. 3. Universalism vs. Particularism. 4. Achievement vs. Ascription. 5. Specificity vs. Diffuseness. Discussion The affectivity-affective neutrality and the uni- versalism—particularism dimensions focus on the relation- ship between ego and alter from the standpoint of ego while the achievement-ascription and specificity-diffuseness pat- tern variables pertain to the properties of alter to which ego responds. The self-collectivity orientation is inte- grative in nature and designates the principal referent social system or group for ego's relationship with alter. The assumption is that ego's interaction with alter will be contingent upon and integrated with the demands placed on it by a larger relational system. The first pattern variable raises a gratification- discipline dilemma. The decision here is whether ego will seek immediate gratification for his affective needs or delay gratification in his relationship with alter. Imme- diate gratification of affective needs is considered to be characteristic of expressive roles while delay is more typical of instrumental roles. Himmelstrand (1960), using attitude as his conceptual frame of reference, indicates ‘that expressive manifestations occur under conditions of lligh independence of affective loading of verbal attitudes from condi featu catic Objec ents indi1 to t ion . Spec dbou were thiq the refe OQCL tia. Per from their attitudinal referents and instrumental ones under conditions of low independence or dependence. The critical feature of the first is "the allocation of energy among various symbolic acts which are gratifying (tension reduc- ing) in themselves, the referents signified being of second~ ary importance (p. 48)," and of the second is "the signifi- cation, description, and evaluation of selected referent objects, gratification being attained only as these refer- ents are reached (p. 48)." These comments by Himmelstrand seem to suggest that individuals taking expressive roles will show a tendency to treat their relationships with others in a symbolic fash- ion while obtaining gratification more by reflecting and speculating on their personal ideas, thoughts, and feelings about an interpersonal situation rather than by dealing more directly with its cognitive demands. In contrast to this, instrumentally oriented individuals respond more to the cognitive aspects of their relationships with particular reference to alter's behavior. This distinction is anal- ogous to the immediate vs. delayed gratification differen- tiation noted above. Himmelstrand also addresses himself to the time perspective aspect of expressive and instrumental roles. Expressive actions are conceptualized as consummatory re- sponses located at a proximal goal, and the performance of one such act is drive reducing which in effect lowers the probability of continued action in the same direction. Conseque. repetiti proximal rise to as mini; and the ; drive re continue Strument goals be of Prev: and disC “wally further r0198 fc mental J Consequently, expressive goal attainment is a "static or repetitive process, the goals of expressive action being proximal goals of symbolic gratification which do not give rise to new goals as they are attained (p. 51." By contrast, instrumental actions are designated as mainly responses located at some distance from the goals, and the performance of any one such act is not in itself drive reducing which tends to increase the probability of continued action in the same direction. As a result, in- strumental goal attainment is a "dynamic process, new distal goals being established over and over again on the basis of previous attainment, since the barriers met and the errors and discoveries made in the flow in instrumental action usually present new problems projecting the goals of action further into the future (p. 51)." In short, expressive :roles focus more on the present time perspective and instru- lnental roles more on the future time perspective. With respect to the affectivity—affective neutral- fishy dimension, the views of Parsons and Himmelstrand indi- cate that in expressive roles ego, in his relationship with filater, will be internally oriented toward his affective nGrads and will seek immediate gratification of these needs Victhin the present time perspective. In instrumental roles ego will assume a more effectively-neutral and cognitive POSition and will be externally oriented toward the behavior °fF alter. Gratification of affective needs will be delayed and contingent upon the future consequences of his relationship with the on t prec role able era: or: SiVI the to Cla aff rel to with alter. Theoretically at least, it seems clear that the internal dynamics of ego will have a greater impact on his relationship with alter when the expressive role predominates than would be the case for the instrumental role. The issue for the universalism-particularism vari- able is whether ego will respond to alter in terms of gen- eralized norms characteristic of others in the same class or in terms of the particular relational system in which they are involved. Particularism is associated with expres- sive roles and universalism with instrumental roles. In the first instance, ego will respond to attributes peculiar to alter, and in the second, he will relate with respect to characteristics held in common with others of the same class. This follows from the above discussion in that an affective orientation is more conducive to particularistic relationships while a cognitive approach is more pertinent to generalized, universalistic relationships. The achievement-ascription dimension is relevant to ego's focusing on the overt, performance aspects of alter's behavior or on the intrinsic properties of alter, e.g., feelings and personality traits. The former is char- acteristic of instrumental roles and the latter of expres- sive roles. In expressive roles ego is not only effectively oriented to himself but also to alter. In instrumental orientations ego is cognitively oriented both with respect to himself and to alter. quest ego a to pa a mu: tive role: net 10 The specificity-diffuseness variable bears on the question of how involved will be the relationship between ego and alter. In the first, the relationship is limited to particular needs and demands. In the second, there is a multiplicity of needs and demands. Specificity is descrip- tive of instrumental roles and diffuseness of expressive roles. The self-collectivity orientation is represented in both types of roles. The differentiation between the two is in terms of the referent social system which modi- fies ego's relationship with alter. In expressive involve- ments ego's integrative reference is the immediate social system in which his relationship with alter occurs. His concern is facilitating solidarity within this group, and he will respond to alter in terms of achieving this. In instrumental involvements ego's integrative reference is to social systems external to the one in which his relation- ship with alter occurs, and his responses to alter will be modified in terms of the adaptation of the immediate group to those external to it. Two additional considerations about expressive and instrumental roles need to be examined. First, they are not mutually exclusive. An individual's action and rela- tionship patterns must of necessity include both kinds of orientations. However, the assessment of the relative em- phasis given to one role versus the other is a legitimate procedure. Second, role as defined by Parsons is primarily a struo uted to out that tional I focus In: on the n structux apparent Q’Jalitie But role tent Of refs it j alts ior t0 5 of t the; that SDQ< The ass. tive “in to bed: 33"». 11 a structural variable. There are certain functions attrib- uted to the two roles. Thebalt and Kelley (1959) point out that expressive roles deal more with the social-emo- tional relations within the group while instrumental roles focus more on the task or problem solving demands imposed on the members of the group. In addition, in terms of the structural—functional context described above it is also apparent that expressive roles take on informal, latent qualities and instrumental roles formal, manifest aspects. But role is structural in that it extends across the con- tent of specific interactional situations. To develop a systematic scheme of points of reference for the analysis of orientations in roles it is then essential first to analyze these basic alternatives of selection which are particularly significant in defining the character of relations to such a social object, and which are constitutive of the character of the relationship itself rather than of its "content" in interest terms, its cul- tural or motivational aspects in any sense other than as constitutive of relational patterns (Par- sons, 1951c, pp. 58-59). The affectivity-affective neutrality relational pattern, as an example, does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of affective needs, nor whether they are nega- tive or positive, but only the mode by which they are brought to bear on a relationship. Summary The theory of action is presented as the interactive product of the personality structure of the individual, his interactions with others, and the values and norms which fa .1. attrh. 12 facilitate the stabilization of these interactions. From this, expressive and instrumental roles are derived as struc- tural variables, defined by an expressive-instrumental con- tinuum, and taken as the unit for the conceptual analysis of interpersonal relationships. Within this general con- text, the following attributes are presented as definitional of expressive roles. l. Primacy is given to affective modes of orienta- tion with the focus of the relationship being directed more toward the internal dynamics of ego than toward the proper— ties of alter. 2. The gratification process for ego is immediate, is evolved from a particularistic relationship with alter, and tends not to extend beyond the immediate time perspec- tive. In any given interaction ego will attempt to complete the gratification cycle without delay by eliciting appro- priate responses from alter. 3. 390's attachment to alter is diffuse in that there is a complex of needs and demands expressed in rela- tion to his more covert feelings and attitudes, rather than to alter's overt, performance behavior. 4. They are structured along informal lines being indeterminate, implicit, and emphasizing latent role func- tions. 5. Integrative functions occur to the extent that ego responds to alter in ways which promote solidarity among the members of the group in which the relationship between ego and alter occur. In contrast to the above, the following attributes are presented as definitional of instrumental roles. 1. Primacy is given to cognitive modes of orienta- tion with the focus of the relationship being directed more toward the properties of alter than toward the internal dynamics of ego. 2. The gratification process for ego is delayed, is evolved from a universalistic relationship with alter, and takes into account a future time perspective. Ego will attempt to modify alter's performance behavior with the expecta cations is cont restric of his de term gree t 0f the ext r: net w! REVIE' 13 expectation that the latter will incorporate these modifi- cations into future problem solving behavior. Ego's reward is contingent upon alter's fulfilling this expectation. 3. Ego's attachment to alter is specific, being restricted to overt, performance, task-oriented aspects of his behavior. 4. They are structured along formal lines being determinate, explicit, and stressing manifest functions. 5. Integrative functions are involved to the de- gree that ego views his relationship with alter in terms of the latter's adaptation and adjustment to social systems external to the immediate one and responds to him in a man- ner which will bring this about. REVIEW OF STUDIES ON PARENTAL ROLES The concepts of instrumental and expressive roles have been found to be descriptive of the primary functions of small group interaction (Thebalt and Kelley, 1959; Bales, 1950; Bales and Slater, 1955). Parsons (1955b) has further incorporated these concepts into a theoretical formulation of familial roles. The family is described as a primary social system having meaningful ties with the larger com- munity with respect to the socialization and integration of children into society membership and to the stabiliza- tion of adult personalities which make up society. These correspond generally with instrumental and expressive role functions respectively. Parsons postulates that husbands and sons give pri- macy to instrumental tasks and wives and daughters concern themselves largely with expressive considerations. Two explanations are offered. Biologically the mother's early bearing and nursing experience predisposes her toward social- enptiox the oc instru of 0:: (1960 j his 54 large into for ‘ mar: BSke in 14 social-emotional relationships. The father's relative ex- emption from these biological demands and his position as the occupational leader of the family orient him toward instrumental and task-oriented aspects. The importance of occupational setting is underscored by Aberle and Naegele (1960) in asserting that the father's relationship with his son, particularly in middle class families, is mediated largely in terms of the latter's eventual incorporation into an appropriate occupation. Several studies (Kenkel, 1961a, 1961b; Huntington, 1955; Ovade, 1955) have tested the Parsonian hypothesis for husband-wife interactional patterns. In each case, marital pairs were presented with problem situations and asked to work out a solution to the mutual satisfaction to both. Their interactions were recorded and analyzed in terms of instrumental and expressive categories as defined by Bales (1950). Significant differences were obtained with husbands taking instrumental roles and wives expres- sive ones. Another series of studies have investigated parental roles within a parent-child context. 73mmerich (1959, 1961) used a modified paired comparison procedure based on the child's perceptions of his parents. The extent to which the parent was viewed as facilitating the acts of the child was operationally defined as an expressive role and the degree to which the parent was seen as interfering as the instrumental role. Pre-school children were found to ascribe express However fiasken (f (D N 15 expressive roles to mothers and instrumental roles to fathers. However, this differentiation did not hold for older children. Kagan and Lemkin (1960), Kagan (1956), and Kagan, Hosken, and Watson (1961) also utilized children's percep- tions of their parents in their analyses. Perceptions of parents as punitive, threatening, dominating, and competent were taken to indicate an instrumental role and qualities of nurturance and support as an expressive role. Again, fathers were found to be instrumentally oriented and mothers expressively inclined in their relationships with children. A final study to be discussed is a cross-cultural investigation reported by Zelditch (1955). He employed multiple criteria such as "warmth" and "conciliation" as a measure of the expressive role and "emotional restraint" and "boss" to indicate the instrumental role. As in the above studies, the findings tended to confirm Parsons' hy- pothesis about parental roles for each of the cultures ex- amined. Discussion With exception of the one by Zelditch, these studies focus largely on middle-class samples, and within this con- text, indicate that wives and husbands have reciprocal role relationships with the former taking expressive roles and the latter instrumental roles. The reported research on husband-wife interactional patterns appears to be a valid test of Parsons' theory in that definition of the two roles in tex sons' are de orien‘ tivelj behav. child indic Press inst:« £0110 Previ FIESS tiona neutr 16 in terms of the Bales' categories is consistent with Par- sons' formulations as given above. Instrumental categories are defined as effectively neutral and pertaining to task- oriented functions, and the expressive categories as affec- tively oriented and dealing with social-emotional areas of behavior. The findings as to parental roles in relation to children are less conclusive. In the main, these studies indicate positive emotional qualities as indicative of ex- pressive roles and negative qualities as definitional of instrumental roles. These definitions do not appear to follow very closely with Parsons' conceptualizations. As previously discussed, the affective orientation of the ex- pressive role may include negative as well as positive emo- tional qualities while the instrumental role is effectively neutral and cognitive in its orientation. m As far as their interactions with each other are concerned, the results show that wives tend toward expres- sive roles and husbands toward instrumental roles. Because of methodological questions, the results dealing with par- ental roles in relation to children only partially substan- tiate Parsons' theory. Questions may be raised particularly as to fathers taking instrumental roles. REVIEW OF RESEARCH ON PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS In the previous section, the indications were that mother relati making feren‘ child whethl etc . , is gi ad t asses Popul I"els 17 mothers and fathers tend toward different roles in family relationships. Following from this, in this section studies making comparisons between mothers and fathers and the dif- ferential effect of their attitudes on the behavior of their children are reviewed. Of interest are questions as to whether the mother's or the father's rejection, aggression, etc., has the greater impact on the child. Further emphasis is given to research focusing on sons more than daughters and that which is based on methodologically independent assessment of the mother, father, and son variables. Three investigations (Becker‘gEH313, 1959; Peterson e_t_ 21., 1961; Peterson g5 31., 1959) pertained to clinic populations and utilized essentially the same design. The Fels Parent Behavior Scales (1945) and other instruments were administered to fathers and mothers of two groups of families, one with a child requiring services of a child guidance clinic and one without children involved in clin— ical contacts. The child's behavior was evaluated in terms of conduct and personality problems with parents serving as informants. The Becker e_t_ 2.1. and Peterson e_t_ 21; (1961) studies pointed up possible differences in the way that maternal and paternal behavior is structured in relation to problems of children. Both parents of conduct problem children tended to be maladjusted and dictatorial with the child. However, the model suggested was one in which the mother has the greater impact on the child. She is active in thwarting and sive sona whic pare: demo: ad a ment tion: for 1 Rau, has e 0f at Proce dboVe as Pa havio Condu the m the fa 0f the tiatic the be 18 and controlling the child whereas the father is more pas- sive and ineffective in disciplinary matters. For the per- sonality variable the situation was somewhat reversed in which the father's maladjustment was more relevant than the mother's. The Peterson‘s; 31. (1959) study suggested that parents of nonclinic populations tended to be higher in democratic guidance, parent-child harmony, sociability, and adjustment than clinic parents. The sociabilityvadjust- ment variable was indicated to be crucial for differentia- tions between mothers and the passivity-activity dimension for fathers. Other research (Becker gtnal., 1962; Winder and Rau, 1962) has dealt more with nonclinic populations and has employed omnibus type procedures involving a variety of attitudinal variables. Becker gtflgl, used measurement procedures similar to those for the clinic studies, discussed above, the principal exception being that teachers as well as parents were used to obtain ratings of the child's be- havior. On the basis of teacher ratings, aggression and conduct problems in boys were positively correlated with the mother's physical punishment, negative perception of the father, self-esteem, anxiety, and adjustment. None of the father variables were related. A similar differen- tiation was reported with respect to parental ratings of the boys' behavior. Winder and Rau compared attitudes of parents with the m behav and P as ag the . high SiOn, with Only ambiv 19 social deviancy in preadolescent sons. Attitudes were as- sessed by the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire (SPAQ) and social deviancy by the Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) (1959). The PNI is a modified "guess who" technique based on peer ratings and yields measures of aggression, depend- ency, withdrawal, and depression. Overall, their findings indicated a tendency for the mothers' attitudes to be more influential of the sons' behavior than the fathers'. Comparisons between the SPAQ and PNI variables showed 35 scores on the mothers' scales as against 22 of the fathers' scores to be significant at the .05 level or better. For the mothers low self-esteem, high ambivalence, high consistency, high demands for aggres- sion, and high aggression and punitiveness were associated with three or four of the deviancy variables. For the fathers only high punitiveness and physical punishment and high ambivalence were so related. Investigations by Farber (1962) and.Adams and Sarason (1963) focused more specifically on marital role tension and parental anxiety. Farber concluded tentatively that role conflict by the mother, in comparison with that of the father, is more significantly related to the child's perception of acceptance by either parent. Implied is a carryover of the marital relation, whether negative or pos- itive, by the mother to the mother-child relationship, and a coordinating role for the mother in which she mediates between the father and the children. Adams and Sarason showed with a class has yi parent Popula The m: Signii turba: more ( 20 showed that the mother's anxiety was more highly correlated with anxiety in boys than was the father's anxiety. The studies reviewed so far have focused on middle class samples. However, research on lower class families has yielded similar findings. Bron‘gtugl, (1961) compared parental attitudes and peer ratings of their children on popularity, rejection, aggression, and aggression anxiety. The mothers' rejection and parental disharmony was more significantly related than the fathers' to behavioral dis- turbances in the child while punishment by the fathers was more crucial than that by the mothers. McCord, McCord, and Howard (1961), in their study of lower class families, used aggression in early adolescent boys as their dependent variable. Punitiveness, rejection, overcontrol, and inconsistency by the mothers were found to be significantly associated with the boys' aggression. The relevancy of the father was restricted largely to the issue of his adequacy as an identification model. The fathers of aggressive boys tended to be passive, ineffectual, par- ticipating in immature deviant forms of behavior (alcoholism, etc.), and deficient in providing a model of inner control for their sons. Discussion Two general trends seem to be indicated by these studies. First, mothers, in comparison with fathers, have a more pervasive and significant impact on their sons' behavior. With node; fl, 21 Both the covert factors of inconsistency, anxiety, self— esteem, marital disturbance, and adjustment and the more overt attitudes of aggression, rejection, control, and dom- ination on the part of the mother tend to be critically related to behavior disturbances in boys. Significant attitudinal patterns for the father are more unidimensional in that they pertain largely to modeling functions. Deviant behavior on the part of the son is related to the father's failure to provide the boy with norms for inner and outer controls and an adequate model for identification. This distinction between fathers and mothers follows closely with that suggested by Winder and Rau (1962). It would seem that deviant social behavior in boys of this age develops in a setting of punitive- ness, restrictiveness, and ambivalence on the part of both parents. Within this general context of disturbed parent-child interactions, we are tempted to speculate on somewhat different roles played by mothers and fathers in shaping their sons' devi- ant behavior. The father seems to be an important influence to the extent that he is actively involved with the child and presents either an assertive and perhaps exaggeratedly masculine or a somewhat unassertive, inadequate model. The mother's impact on the son, on the other hand, seems to be a some- what more complicated function of her internal dy- namics and relationships with other family members, particularly the father. She may react toward the child with hostile rejection or anxious overconcern and restrictiveness at least in part because of her own security and self esteem are impaired. And this, in turn, may be a reflection of a dis- turbed or unsatisfying marital relationship (p. 423). The second conclusion, following closely from the first, is that the husband-wife-son relationship pattern may cc sugges actio: group terms As 1; son 1 than on t. Sehn mOtk mls‘r int: Ev, 22 may conform in part to the three-person interactional model suggested by Mills (1953, 1954). He contends that inter- action is not equally distributed throughout the three-person group structure. A mutually reinforcing relationship in terms of support solicited, approval given, power relations, decision making, and general participation accumulates be- tween two members with the third being isolated. This would be modified somewhat for the family triad. As indicated above, the mother is more influential in parent- son relationships than the father. But the latter, rather than being strictly isolated, may exert an indirect effect on the son through the husband-wife relationship. In es- sence, it is postulated that the mother-child dyad is the mother's principal domain within the family and that the husband-wife dyad is the father's principal point of entry into family relationships. Some support for this is indicated by the relation- ships between maternal and paternal attitudes reported by Becker*gtggl, (1962). Hostility, strictness, sex anxiety, and physical punishment by fathers were each significantly related to several behavioral variables for mothers. How- ever, from the standpoint of the mothers, these attitudes were associated only with their corresponding counterparts in the fathers. Hostility by fathers, for example, was found to correlate significantly with mothers' hostility as well as their negative perception of the father, child rearing anxiety, and tendency toward physical punishment. in cor ith ‘ but t more for t more He re asse: nurs. cor: not COIJ the dis «ave ClL; the allc iis 23 In contrast to this, the mothers' hostility correlated only with the fathers' hostility. Becker‘gtmgl. do not interpret these correlations, but their findings do suggest that the father tends to be more determinant of the mother's behavior than is the case for the converse of this. Hoffman (1960) has commented more directly on this postulated model of family interaction. He related power assertion or domination by parents to power assertiveness, hostility, and resistance to influence in nursery school children. The results showed high positive correlations between the mothers' power assertiveness and the child variables. The fathers' power assertiveness was not related to the child's behavior but was significantly correlated with the mothers'. He concluded that dictatorial fathers tend to direct their authoritarianism toward their wives, who in turn, displace their resentment onto the child in the form of overly dominating attitudes. A corollary to Hoffman's con- clusion would be one indicating that wives are less likely than their husbands to openly verbalize marital tensions and conflicts to their marital partners. Support for this is reported by Quade (1955) in his study of the effect of marital adjustment on husband-wife interaction. These conclusions about parental attitudes and the postulated model of family interaction patterns tend to offer further support for the expressive-instrumental dif- ferentiation between parents. The complexity of the mother's relati in rol dicate roles. child ily an point intezp SiVe a Slim-,2 v~ ' "he. \ 24 relationship with the son is more suggestive of diffuseness in role orientation than of specificity, and as such, in- dicates that mothers take expressive more than instrumental roles . The family interactional model presented the mother- child dyad as the mother's principal domain within the fam- ily and the husband-wife dyad as the father's principal point of entry into family relationships. Farber (1957) interprets this distinction as being indicative of expres- sive and instrumental roles respectively. Summary The discussion of parental attitudes within the context of parent-child relationships yields two conclusions. First, the attitudes of mothers are more crucially related to the behavior of sons than those of the fathers. The mother's impact on the son appears to follow a complex pat- tern involving both covert and overt attitudinal dimensions. In contrast to this, the father's influence seems to be more unidimensional in nature and focuses more specifically on his adequacy or inadequacy in modeling functions. Second, a model of family interaction was suggested in which the mother-son relationship is pertinent for mothers and the husband-wife relationship is the most relevant one 350:: fathers. Following from this, the indications were that the mother's behavior has a direct bearing on that Of the son while the father's effect on the boy's behavior is more indirect being mediated through the mother. Both (a) *h ’h r. p: 25 of these conclusions were interpreted as further confirma- tion of the contention that mothers tend toward expressive and fathers toward instrumental roles. GENERAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In the theoretical discussion role, as defined by the expressive-instrumental continuum, was interpreted as being one of the major determinants of interpersonal rela- tionships. The review of research revealed that mothers generally take expressive and fathers instrumental roles, and that their attitudes have a greater effect on the be- havior of sons than those of the fathers. These parallel findings give support for this interpretation and offer further elaboration as to the probable direction of role's aSSOCiation with attitude. In general, negative parental attitudes such as rejection and anxious overconcern would appear to be more Significantly related to the behavior of sons when they are associated with expressive roles than when they occur Within an instrumental role context. The definition of expressive and instrumental roles offer some theoretical basis for this postulated relationship. As discussed above, eRpressive roles tend to be affectively oriented, directed toward the immediate gratification of affective needs, and t0 focus more on the internal dynamics of ego than on the Properties of alter. Moreover, the tendency for ego will be away from problem solving behavior in his relationship h In n; 26 with alter with greater emphasis given to the latter's covert feelings and attitudes than to his overt, performance be- havior. Finally, an expressive orientation is generally structured along informal lines being indeterminant, implicit, and focused on latent role functions. Instrumental roles, on the other hand, are more cognitively oriented, directed toward delay in gratifica- tion of affective needs, and inclined more toward the prop- erties of alter than the internal dynamics of ego. The re- lationship between ego and alter is determinant, explicit, pointed toward manifest role functions, structured along formal lines, and within this frame of reference, directed toward problem solving in terms of alter's performance be- havior. In the view of the writer, one condition which would seem to follow from the nature of expressive and instrumental roles is that in the former communication and understanding between ego and alter as to the demands and conditions for reward would be at a minimum. In the case of the latter, the tendency would be for maximum communication and under- standing. Thus, when the behavior of a son arouses the negative attitudes of rejection and anxiety in an expres- sively oriented parent the latter will be inclined to seek immediate gratification of the needs associated with these attitudes without, at the same time, focusing very much on changing or rectifying the behavior of the boy. Conse- quently, the son will be relatively unclear as to which of hist tituc rewa: 27 his behavioral characteristics elicited these negative at- titudes and as to which changes would facilitate a more rewarding position with the parent. In contrast to this, a parent taking an instrumental role will be more cognitively and task or problem solving oriented. Attention will be given to modifying undesirable behavior patterns in the son while gratification of affec- tive needs will be delayed and contingent upon the boy's change in behavior. Following from this, the son will be relatively clear as to which aspects of his behavior are viewed as wrong by the parent and as to how they may be altered to insure a more positive reaction. In essence, then, the instrumental role would ap- pear to facilitate adaptation by the son while the expres- sive role may have somewhat of an opposite effect. The effect of even strongly negative attitudes toward a boy may be offset in part by being channeled through the in- strumental role toward the adaptive, reality-oriented as- pects of the son's behavior. Negative parental attitudes in association with an expressive role are communicated to the son in an atmosphere conditioned by lack of specific- ity, vagueness, and diffuseness which would seem to bring on maladjustment more than adaptation. H‘ T": ‘5‘... of pa bEhaw Sion the to a its re Se att. to the f9} "/7 CHAPTER_II PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study is an investigation of the interaction of parental attitude and parental role and its effect on behavior manifestations in preadolescent sons.‘ The discus- sion in CHAPTER I indicated that predictions would follow the general theme that the more a negative attitude tends to associate with the expressive role the greater will be its impact on the behavior of the son. Current theory and research does not, however, clarify very much as to which attitudinal and dependent variables would be more sensitive to the manifestations of role than others. Consequently, the design includes a complex of several such factors. For each parent taking part measures were obtained for the role variable and for each of the following atti- tudes: ambivalence, rejection, demands for aggression, parental aggression, general aggression, self-esteem, hus- band-wife relationship, and adjustment. Dependent measures for each son participating included aggression, dependency, withdrawal, and perceived parental rejection. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHBSES Hypotheses were derived separately for mothers and fathers and for each of the eight attitude measures and 28 83C 32 hyp ' LI.“ ice. pen 29 each of the four dependent variables. This amounted to 32 hypotheses being tested for the mother-son sample and 32 for the father—son sample. In their general form, the hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis I. Ambivalence in parents will be more signif- icantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the de- pendent variable when it is associated with expressive par- ental roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis II. Rejection by parents will be more signif- icantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the de- pendent variable when it is associated with expressive par- ental roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis III. Demands for aggression by parents will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when it is associated with ex- pressive parental roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis IV. Aggression by parents will be more signif- icantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the de- pendent variable when it is associated with expressive par- ental roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis V. General aggression in parents will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when it is associated with expressive 30 parental roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis VI. Low self-esteem in parents will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when it is associated with expres- sive parental roles than when it is associated with instru- mental roles. Hypothesis VII. Negative husband-wife relationships in parents will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when it is asso- ciated with expressive parental roles than when it is asso- ciated with instrumental roles. Hypothesis VIII. General maladjustment in parents will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when it is associated with expres- sive roles than when it is associated with instrumental roles. INS' ati tin In eac rem s‘m‘ dag am CHAPTER III METHOD INSTRUMENTS Parental Role A story completion test (SCT) was designed to oper- ationalize the concept of the expressive-instrumental con- tinuum within the context of Parsonian theory of action. In its preliminary form the SCT consisted of 12 stories each describing a problem situation involving parents and a son indicated to be 10 to 12 years of age. Six of the stories were dyadic in nature in that they presented an interpersonal situation between a parent and a son. The remainder stressed triadic or three-person group relation- ships between both parents and a son. The content of stories dealt with such problems as bed-wetting, school achievement, and stealing. Construction of the SCT followed two principles. First behavioral sequences were described as objectively as possible in order to avoid emotionally-loaded labels. For example, "stealing" was referred to as "Danny has at times taken things that don't belong to him." Second, the instructions for the stories were worded so as to eliminate, as much as possible, any biasing of the individual toward one aspect of the story situation as opposed to another. 31 32 IfilFfiaxrticular, an attempt was made to avoid giving subjects thfi impression that they were necessarily required to respond to the task oriented aspects of the stories and to provide satisfactory solutions to the problems presented. The intent was to give each subject the freedom to respond in a manner typical of that characterizing rela- tionships with his own son and spouse. The complete instruc- tions for the SCT are given in Appendix A. Briefly, the instructions ask the respondent to indicate how he would feel about the situation, what he would think about it, and how he would act if he were faced with the situation described. The preliminary form of the SCT was administered to 23 mothers and 16 fathers. One mother failed to respond to one of the stories, and she was omitted, leaving a pilot sample of 38. Most of the respondents were taken from groups of parents participating in a nursery school program. In two instances, the marital pairs were part of a group of parents receiving group therapy. The sample was largely middle class and varied as to the number, sex, and age of the children. In most cases the forms were completed at home and mailed to the writer. The parents were instructed to complete them independently, and inspection of the re- sponses did not reveal any gross instances of collusion. The primary purpose for collecting this data was to develop a procedure for coding the responses. It was considered particularly crucial to utilize scoring categories 33 which could be logically derived from the theory regarding expressive and instrumental roles. A secondary concern was ascertaining whether discrimination between the mothers and fathers on the basis of the selected categories would be consistent with theoretical and empirical expectations about parental roles. Several categories were considered and selection among them was based on their frequency, the extent to which they discriminated between subjects within the two parental groups, the degree to which they could be communicated to another scorer, and their relevance to theory. The final set of categories for the six dyad stories consisted of affectivity, expressive symbolism, affective interaction, task-oriented: general, task-oriented: I, task—oriented: II, and task-oriented: III. A brief description of each, its scoring characteristics, and its relevance to the the- oretical definition of the expressive-instrumental dimen- l is given below. sions described above A. Affectivity. This was scored when the response indicated negative or positive reaction to the story situ- ation, including anger, anxiety, guilt, sympathy, etc. This was usually indicated directly by "I'd be angry" or "I would feel sorry for him." This category bears on the affectivity-affectively-neutral dimension. B. Expressive Symbolism. This variable is particu- larly pertinent to Himmelstrafid's (1960) comments. He views expressive orientations as those in which the individual obtains his gratification from interactional situations through emphasis on their symbolic aspects rather than by focusing on their overt, problem-solving demands. It was 1See pp. 12-13. 0 sec: at cat st u.h.Q.HH ‘QL.L~DT‘C& O .W Cw 6 wk. rh‘C 2L“ ac .Ct <~§hl§ C ts 34 scored for comments that were not classified under A, and at the same time, did not suggest involvement or communi- cation with the boy or his behavior as described in the story. Essentially this suggests a tendency for parents to react to the general or abstract meanings of problem situations with their sons rather than to the immediate, concrete aspects. Sometimes respondents were stimulated to expound on their viewpoint in life, notions about how parents should act, general value systems, and other pri- vate concerns. Representative are such comments as "this is a case of sibling rivalry,” "stealing needs attention," and "I would wonder what was going on." Himmelstrand refers to such a tendency as a verbalism factor, and its presence in the responses was considered to indicate that reactions to the problems of sons were directed more by the internal dynamics of the parent than by the specific behavior pat- tern of the boy. C. Affective Interaction. The A and B categories are considered to represent approaches to interpersonal situations with sons which focus largely on affective, in- ternalized needs of the parents. Affective interaction is indicative of a shift away from this and toward more direct interaction with the boy. Category C differs from the four given below in that it pertained exclusively to affective considerations rather than to attempts at prob- lem solving solutions. It was scored for statements reveal- ing communication of positive or negative feelings to the boy described in the story such as "I would let him know I was angry,” "I would tell him it was okay," and "I would find out what was wrong.” As suggested above, the presence of this characteristic in a parent's response to the stories was interpreted as a tendency for him to react to problem situations involving his son by giving positive support or expressing negative considerations, rather than focusing more specifically on possible solutions to the problems presented. This category has reference to the affectivity- affectively-neutral and ascriptive-performance dimensions. D. Task-Oriented: General. This category and E, F, and G given below Illustrate a further shift in orien- tation away from affective aspects and toward cognitive and concrete problem considerations. Consequently, they are interpreted as indicating a tendency for parents to take a cognitive, problem-solving approach to interpersonal situations with their sons and bear closely on the ascrip- tive-performance dimensions given above. The distinction between D and the other task-oriented variables is based on the degree of specificity characteristic of the problem- solving approach. Category D was scored for statements which gener impor steal ticula are ea cific, betwee involv gory El commit future drink ' task-o, affect, inVOth ments 1 forE; amPles would : ered tc three 1 meats j F’resem 00y, 5 done w: ized a: the CaE Clarif\ Fategoi Back t( We h: and III 35 which stressed a normative, moralistic, or otherwise very general orientation, such as "I talked with him about the importance of sharing," and “I told him it was wrong to steal.“ Thus, the specificity-diffuseness variable is par- ticularly relevant here. 8. Task-Oriented: I. The E, F, and G categories are each interpreted as representing tendencies toward spe- cific, problem-solving orientations. The differentiation between the three pertains to the degree to which the parent involves himself in a son's problem-solving behavior. Cate- gory B was scored for any statement indicating an explicit commitment on the part of the parent, either present or future. This would be illustrated by "I would not let him drink water before going to bed." Definition of the three task-oriented categories is pertinent to the affectivity- affectively-neutral dimension since a high degree of self involvement would suggest affective concern. F. Task-Oriented: II. This was scored for state- ments which suggestedless involvement than was the case for E and in which the commitment was more implicit. Ex- amples of this include "I would make him do it," and "I would see that he did it." G. Task-Oriented: III. This category was consid- ered to be the mostaffectively-neutral approach of the three task-oriented categories. It was scored for state- ments indicating that attempts to deal with the problem presented are restricted to verbal interaction with the boy. The assumption is that telling a boy what was to be done without any qualifying phrases which are not verbal- ized approaches more of a neutral position that would be the case for E and F. A comparative illustration will help clarify the scoring procedure for the three task-oriented categories. The statement "I would take him and the toy back to the store" would be scored under E, while "I would make him give the toy back" would be classified under F, and "I would tell him to give the toy back" would indicate a G score. Scoring Procedure for the SCT. The final version of the SCT consisted of five of the six dyad stories. These are given in Appendix A. The triad stories described a behavioral interaction between a son and a mother or father, and the respondent was asked to indicate how he would feel about the situation and how he would act. Mothers were e mot mo: 36 presented with father-son interactions and fathers with mother-son situations. The triad stories seemed to elicit more defensiveness from the pilot sample of parents, and scoring categories based on their responses did not discrim- inate between subjects as clearly as was the case for the other stories. Consequently, they were omitted from the final version of the SCT. The complete scoring manual for the SCT is given in Appendix B. The procedure is considered to be structural in nature since it disregards the negativeness or positive- ness or apprOpriateness or inappropriateness of the responses. In practice the story response of each subject is divided into statements, and these, rather than the total story response, are scored according to the seven categories de- scribed above. The complexity of this scoring procedure is reduced considerably by several rules. First, the frequency with which a particular category occurred within a given story response is not considered. For example, although A might be represented by several statements, it is scored only once. Second , the C and D categories are scored only if there are no statements which could be classified under any other category. Third, a given story response may be scored under one of the task-oriented categories, if appro— priate, but never more than one. The scoring weights for the SCT are shown in table 1. The assignment of these weights is largely in terms of Obta; relai iste 37 the combination of scoring categories for a given story response. In short, a subject's complete response to a story receives a score from one to eighteen depending on which categories are represented. The sum total for all five stories represents his SCT score. Table 1 shows that A and B, which most reflect expressive roles, are associated with high scores and that E, F, and G, which most define instrumental roles, are given low scores. Thus, the scor- ing procedure for the SCT yields a continuous range of scores with high scores indicating expressive roles and low scores instrumental roles. Psychometric Properties of the SCT. Inter-scorer reliability of the SCT is based on two separate estimates. The story responses of the pilot sample of 38 parents were scored independently by the writer and an advanced Ph.D. student in clinical psychology. An attempt was made to insure that each of the five stories would be scored inde- pendently of one another. All the parent responses to story one were scored first, and with these results hidden from the view of the scorer, attention was then given to scor- ing story two responses. The three remaining stories were scored in the same fashion. A comparison of SCT scores for the pilot sample obtained by the two scorers revealed a product-moment cor- relation of .78. For the present study the SCT was admin- istered to 103 parents including 47 fathers and 56 mothers. T‘r 38 The writer and a third scorer, also an advanced Ph.D. student in clinical psychology, scored the responses of 17 parents randomly selected from the sample of 103. The same scoring procedure as that described above was followed, and the results again indicated a high inter-scorer reliability. This comparison of SCT scores yielded a correlation of .97. Table 2 shows the intercorrelations for specific scores and between each story and the SCT score, which is the sum total of all five. Most of the correlations between the five stories are significant but all tend to be low. However, the correlations between each story and the SCT score are considerably higher and approximately the same. Thus, table 2 indicates that each of the five stories seems to measure the expressive-instrumental continuum somewhat differently from the others. But with respect to the SCT measure utilized in this study, there is apparently a high degree of consistency of measurement for all stories. Mean comparisons were made between fathers, mothers, non-working mothers, and working mothers which have rele- vance for the validity of the SCT scale. Complete responses were obtained for 16 father-mother pairs of the pilot sample. Table 3 shows a highly significant mean difference between the two groups with mothers tending toward the expressive end of the continuum and fathers toward the instrumental extreme. This finding might be questioned on the grounds that deriving scoring criteria from the same sample used Tab1 ll / I 39 Table 1. SCT scoring categories and scoring weights assigned to each criterion or combination of criteria Category Weight Category Weight A 18 BE 9 AB 17 BF 8 B 16 BG 7 AB 15 C 6 AF 14 CD 5 AG 13 D 4 ABE 12 E 3 ABF 11 F 2 A86 10 G 1 Table 2. Intercorrelations‘ for specific SCT stories and between each story and the total SCT score Story 2 3 4 5 scr 1 .294 .152 .316 .232 .639 2 .177 .181 .242 .589 3 .317 .038 .571 4 .270 .665 5 .595 ‘A correlation of .164 is required for significance at the .05 level using a one-tailed test. to t Howe resp Of t both grou not for motk agai dire out: orig SEqL the giVe the ice: and fat} Sig: 40 to test differences could have introduced a spurious factor. However, the same categories were used to score the SCT responses of the present study with very similar findings. Of the sample of 103 parents, there were 41 cases in which both parents from the same family participated. Of this group there were 26 marital pairs in which the mother was not employed outside the home and it was the first marriage for both. Table 4 shows the mean difference between the mothers and fathers from this sample of 26, and the results again indicate a significant difference in the expected direction. Parsons (1955a) has indicated that employment outside the home is one of the more important factors in orienting an individual toward an instrumental role. Con- sequently, the validity of the SCT is further indicated by the mean difference between mothers employed outside the home (WM) and those not so employed (NWM). Table 4 gives the comparison between 13 WM and 26 NWM taken from the group of 41 marital pairs. The results show a signif- icant difference with NWM tending toward expressive roles and WM toward instrumental roles. Table 4 also indicates a slightly higher mean score for WM in comparison with fathers which is not significant. Summary. A story completion test (SCT) was de- signed to measure the instrumental-expressive role variable. The preliminary form of the SCT, consisting of 12 stories, Tab] 6:01 H 'One Tabl Grou NW1.“ NM N713: WM .One 41 Table 3. Mean SCT scores for the pilot sample comparing fathers (F) and mothers (M) Group N Mean SD M. Diff. t’ df P F 16 30.68 14.22 19.19 3.24 30 .005 M 16 49.87 19.63 'One-tailed test. Table 4. Mean SCT scores for the present sample comparing fathers (F), non-working mothers (NWM), and work- ing mothers (WM) Group N Mean SD M. Diff. t‘ df P F 26 45.19 19.87 10.77 2.19 50 .025 NWM 26 55.96 15.42 WM 13 46.38 12.69 9.58 1.98 37 .05 NWM 26 55.96 15.42 F 26 45.19 19.87 1.19 .02 37 ns. WM 13 46.38 12.69 ‘One-tailed test. W8 a1n< ha: dei gro was and‘ StOr: QQUa: of Cc Sons and n were and N to be b regar< Per -J§u alence 42 was administered to a pilot sample of mothers and fathers, and from their responses, a scoring procedure was developed based on criteria which were consistent with the theoretical definition of instrumental and expressive roles. Five stories were selected from the preliminary group of 12 to serve as the final version of the SCT which was utilized in this study. The SCT measure for each parent participating in the study was determined by adding together the scores for the five stories. A high reliability for the SCT scoring procedure was indicated. Two separate esti- mates of inter-scorer reliability revealed correlations of .78 and .97 respectively. Results were discussed pertaining to the reliability and validity of the SCT. Correlations between each of the stories and the total SCT score were high and approximately equal. This was interpreted as indicating a high degree of consistency of measurement for each story. Mean compari- sons were made between fathers (F), working mothers (WM), and non-working mothers (NWM). Significant differences were found revealing that F and WM take instrumental roles and NWM expressive roles. These findings were indicated to be consistent with theoretical and empirical expectations regarding parental roles. Parental Attitudes The attitude variables included rejection, ambiv— alence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, general aggre ment. tude The E inclt For 1 iden' Orl re] an. USE Ga. Ga 43 aggression, self-esteem, husband-wife relation, and adjust- ment. Measurement was based on the Stanford Parent.Atti- tude Questionnaire (SPAQ) developed by Winder and Rau (1962). The SPAQ consists of a form for mothers and one for fathers including, in its entirety, 27 and 28 scales respectively. For the most part, however, the items of the two forms are identical. Only the SPAQ scales pertaining to the eight atti- tude variables given above were utilized in this study. One additional scale, sex role expectations, was included in the format given to the parents but the responses to the items of this scale were not analyzed. Rejection, de- mands for aggression, parental aggression, self-esteem, and husband-wife relation are each measured by individual scales. The other three are assessed by summary measures. Ambivalence is the sum total of rejection and affection demonstrated, the general aggression scale was obtained by adding together scores for demands for aggression and parental aggression, while parental adjustment was based on the summation of scores for self-esteem and husband-wife relationship. The arrangement of the items for the mothers' and fathers' forms was randomly determined. The SPAQ forms used in the study are given in Appendices C and D. The SPAQ was constructed with reference to a par- ticular set of constructs about parental attitudes and par— ent-child interactions. Choice of variables was based partly on previous studies of parental correlates of personality deve Item scai uate iten ents as I fere to i 6851 and exec aSs€ ~L 44 development in children and partly on clinical experience. Items were selected on an a priori basis and assigned to scales on the basis of judgment of the authors and a grad- uate student in clinical psychology. The main source of items was verbatim transcriptions of interviews with par- ents which sampled actions toward self and others as well as beliefs about family roles and relationships. The original version of the SPAQ included a dichoto- , mous scoring system. However, the administration and scor- ing of the instrument for this study followed the procedure outlined by Winder and Raul in their revised version. The subject is asked to indicate the extent to which each item is characteristic of his own attitude by selecting one of four alternatives: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. The four alternatives are assigned dif- ferent weights. If agreement with the item is considered to indicate presence of the characteristic, then three is assigned to Strongly Agree, two to Agree, one to Disagree, and zero to Strongly Disagree. If disagreement is consid- ered to indicate presence of the characteristic, then the assignment of weights is reversed. This was modified somewhat for the self-esteem,‘ husband-wife relation, and adjustment. In the revised ver- sion the items for these three scales are weighted so that high scores are in the positive direction. For this l and Rau. Unpublished material received from Drs. Winder 45 investigation the assignment of weights was made so that high scores indicated negative characteristics. This was necessary because the statistical analysis required scores for all the scales to run in the same direction. A The SPAQ was considered appropriate for several reasons. First, reported reliabilities for the scales per- taining to this study are in the 60's and 70's. Second, the revised version includes only items which correlate at least .30 with the scale score which should increase the reliability. This was done by an item analysis on the basis of dichotomous scores. The use of weighted scores increases the power of discrimination for each item, and this permitted the writer to further reduce the number of items for some of the scales. In most cases any reduction was limited to one or two items and in no instance was an item eliminated unless it appeared to be a duplicate of another. Third, responses to the SPAQ have been found to relate significantly to social deviancy in preadolescent boys (Winder and Rau, 1962). Fourth, many of the items are phrased in the language actually used by parents. Fifth, where relevant, parents are instructed to respond in terms of particular persons, namely spouse and son. These last two points should add to the instrument's validity. Dependent Variables Aggression, Dependency_and Withdrawal. Scores for the boys taking part in the study on these three scales 46 were obtained by the Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI), devel- oped by Wiggins and Winder (1961) and considered to be a 'measure of social deviancy. The format, administration, and scoring procedure followed that given by the writers. The PNI, as applied to this study, consisted of 48 items including 12 for each of the three variables, four filler items, and eight rational likeability items. With the ex- ception of four filler items at the beginning and two like- ability items at the end, the order was determined by means of random numbers. The format for the PNI listed all the items down the left-hand side of the page while the names of all the boys in the class were written in at the top of the page. The boys were first instructed to draw a line through the column in which their name appeared, since they were not required to rate themselves. Following this, the writer read each item aloud and gave the class a brief time to put check marks under the names of the boys they considered to act in the way described. Scores were determined by adding the percentage of boys from a given class who nominated each boy for each item of the aggression, dependency, and withdrawal scales. This yielded a total score for each of the three variables. Since there are 12 items for each scale, the possible range of scores varies from 000 to 1200. Wiggins and Winder give two estimates of reliability. Correlation between odd-even items showed coefficients of .853 drax yea} for on < ind: mea: to: Dy 1 is 1 incl SOn intl Or 1 act ina iZa 47 .851, .838, and .876 for aggression, dependency, and with- drawal respectively. Test-retest procedures covering a year's time yielded correlations of .519, .437, and .521 for the three scales. Their estimate of validity was based on comparisons with responses of teachers to the PNI. These indicated correlations of .54, .64, and .63 for the three measures. The reliability and validity findings pertain to responses of 4th, 5th, and 6th grade boys. Perceived Parental Rejection. This was assessed by means of the Parent Authority-Love Scale (PALS) which is a projective device developed by Williams (1958). It includes eight blank-faced line drawings depicting mother- son interactions and a duplicate number showing father-son interactions. In each case a boy is portrayed in a problem or need situation which calls for the parent to take some action. The eight need situations are food, sleep, elim- ination, overt affection, independence, aggression, social— ization, and succorance. Each picture shows, in cartoon style, the boy saying something to the parent. The subject is asked to select one of the four alternatives printed underneath the picture which he thinks best represents what the mother or father would say. Each of the four alternatives are prejudged accord- ing to two dimensions: High Authority-High Love (HA-HL); High.Authority-Low Love (HA-LL); Low.Authority-High Love (LA-BL); Low Authority-Low Love (LA-LL). Williams used a did as ' ere and mot 48 dichotomous scoring system. Parents who were described as being in the HA-LL and/or LA-LL categories were consid- ered rejecting and the converse of this as non—rejecting. A continuous scoring system was used for this study with weights being assigned to the four categories as follows: HA-LL 6; LA-LL 4; LA-HL 3; HA-HL 1. High scores approach the rejecting end of the continuum and low scores the non- rejecting end. The assignment of weights was done empir- ically on the basis of responses to PALS by a pilot sample of 17 fifth grade boys. Comparisons between the dichotomous and weighted scores indicated a correlation of .86 for the mother form and .88 for the father form. Williams reported findings showing that the PALS discriminated between preadolescent and adolescent acting- out boys and a control group with the former perceiving mothers and fathers as more rejecting. To obtain further information on the applicability of this test to normal school population, the PALS and the Peer Nomination Inven- tory were administered to a group of 17 fifth grade boys. In addition to the aggression, dependency, and withdrawal scales, as indicated above, the PNI also includes a depres— sion measure. The assumption behind this was that boys who per- ceive their parents as rejecting would very likely be rated high on the social deviancy variables. As such, this would be an indication of a type of validity for the PALS. The findings pertaining to perception of mothers showed cor: ency the icar and numb all- were Clas. 49 correlations of .58, .60, and .67 respectively for depend- ency, withdrawal, and depression which are significant at the .01 level and .26 for aggression which is not signif- icant. The correlations for the fathers were much lower and not significant. These results indicate that perceived rejection of mothers is positively related to socially de- viant behavior in boys while that for fathers is not. This is consistent with the notion that mothers have a greater impact than fathers on a boy's behavior. PROCEDURE The PALS and PNI were given to the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade boys of two elementary schools. The total number of boys participating was 263 which included almost all the boys enrolled in these three grades. The schools were located in what appeared to be a predominantly middle class, stable section of the community. The testing of the boys required about six weeks' time and took place between December, 1963, and January, 1964. A group administration procedure was utilized with the PALS given first, since it is the more projective of the two scales. All the boys from a given class were as- sembled in a room by themselves for this purpose. In most cases no teachers or school officials were present. Before beginning, each group was given a brief explanation by the writer as to why the data was being collected and reassur- ance that they would not have to sign their names and that thei was part talk Afte sent of t as 1 This tele ture and a St 5611 all 50 their responses would be confidential. Special attention was made to insure a serious involvement, and for the most part, the groups participated with a minimum of extraneous talking. The 263 boys represented 229 individual families. After the testing of the boys was completed, letters were sent to each of these families requesting the participation of the parents. Considerable effort was made to insure as large a participation among the parents as possible. This entailed sending a second letter, and in some cases, telephone calls. Stress was given to the confidential na- ture of the study with respect to the individuals involved and to the fact that each participating family would receive a summary of the findings. The story completion test (SCT) and the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire (SPAQ) were administered by the writer to groups of parents using the meeting room fa- cilities of the schools. This covered about six weeks' time extending from February, 1964, to April, 1964. The SCT was given first and the SPAQ second. Special attention was given to the fact that many of the SPAQ items were to be answered in terms of specific individuals--namely them- selves, their spouses, and a particular son. In almost all cases, participating fathers and mothers from the same family attended the same meeting. The groups were small, usually numbering eight per- sons or less. This enabled the writer to keep close track pare to 1 one VOlv comp time Elim 47 f. band 51 of whether or not instructions were being followed. Five parents omitted a few items but readily complied when asked to finish. The testing of the parents was completed in one session for each group with the average time being about one hour and twenty minutes. Most of the parents worked very attentively at the task and talked very little with the others. SAMPLE Of the 229 families contacted, 31% responded, in- volving one or both parents, and all of these eventually completed test forms. Parents who were divorced at the time of the study and/or those whose spouses had died were eliminated leaving a sample of 56 mothers and a sample of 47 fathers. This consisted of 41 marital pairs, six hus- bands whose wives did not take part, and 15 wives whose husbands did not take part. Table 5 gives the mean ages and years of education for the mothers and fathers as well as the distribution of boys by class for each parent sample. The educational level of the parents suggests that the fam- ilies were predominantly middle class. Practically all of the mothers had completed high school while most of the fathers had finished one or more years of college or uni- versity work. An analysis was made to determine if the parents participating in the study differed from those who did not on the basis of the PALS and PNI variables. There were Table 5. Group 310 thers Fathers 52 Table 5. Mean ages and mean years of education for the mothers and fathers who participated in the study, and the distribution of boys by grade for each parent sample Mean Mean Yrs. Bo s b Grade Group N Age Educa. 4 5 6 Mothers 56 37.75 12.53 15 23 18 Fathers 47 39.87 13.57 12 19 16 no signif whose fat and depen ticipate. significax nificantlj the other: ating for direction in terms ( 53 no significant differences for fathers, although the boys whose fathers took part had higher scores on the aggression and dependency scales than those whose fathers did not par- ticipate. However, the boys whose mothers took part were significantly higher on aggression and dependency and sig- nificantly lower on perceived rejection of mothers than the others. Thus, there were some selective factors oper- ating for the sample of mothers with the bias being in the direction of obtaining the more disturbed families, at least in terms of social deviancy in boys. STATISTICALnANALYSIS The data for this study included scores on eight attitude, a role, eight interactional, and four dependent variables. The role scale was scored so that high scores approach the expressive end of the continuum and low scores the instrumental extreme. The other scales were scored so that high scores run in the negative direction. The inter- actional variables are based on scores obtained by multi- plying each subject's role and attitude scores. Each in- teractional scale is essentially a continuous distribution of scores based on the cross-products of corresponding points along the attitude and role dimensions. Table 6 shows the intercorrelations between atti- tudes and role for the fathers while table 7 gives the same comparisons for mothers. The tables show little relation- ship between the attitude and role variables, with the Tab Table 6. Intercorrelations’ 54 between the attitude and role variables for the fathers Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo RejeCtion 076 -027 019 -010 .42 019 039 000 2. Ambivalence -.14 .00 -.11 .33 .22 .36 .09 3. Demands for Aggression .14 .84 -.20 .02 .11 -.34 4. Parental Aggression .64 .30 .08 .24 .08 5. General Aggression .00 .07 .05 -.24 6. Self-Esteem .17 .74 -.02 7. Husband-Wife 8. Parental Adjustment -.15 9. Parental Role ‘A correlation of .28 is significant at the .05 level using a two-tailed test. Table 7. Intercorrelations‘ 55 between the attitude and role variables for the mothers Variables 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo RejeCtion 070 005 044 039 .69 .50 064 -025 20 mivalence 002 022 019 057 033 047 -011 3. Demands for Aggression -.19 .62 -.01 .07 .04 .01 4. Parental Aggression .64 .31 .32 .35 -.08 5. General AggreSSion .23 031 031 -005 6. Self-Esteem .57 .83 .00 7. Husband-Wife 8. Parental Adjustment —.03 9. Parental Role ‘A correlation of .26 is significant at the .05 level using two-tailed test. poss All inte nifi 56 possible exception of the fathers' demand for aggression. All the correlations tend to be low. The nature of the interactional distribution is such that the role variable accounts for much more of its variance than does the atti— tude variable. For both mothers and fathers, the correla- tions between the attitude and corresponding interactional scales all tend to be relatively low. However, the corre- lations between the role and interactional variables are all positive and comparatively much higher. Consequently, parents who are high, middle, and low on the role scale tend to be correspondingly high, mid- dle, and low on the interactional scale. With respect to attitudes though, the tendency is for the top, middle, and lower levels on each of the interactional distributions to include parents whose scores fall into the top, middle, and lower ranges of the attitude scale. High scores will indicate the association between negative attitude traits and expressive roles and low scores the association between negative attitudes and instrumental roles. As such, the interactional scale provides an adequate basis for testing the hypotheses for this study. The analysis of the data is based on a multiple regression design. Regression coefficients and their sig- nificance in predicting each of the four dependent variables were obtained for each of the eight interactional variables. The analysis is a test of the hypothesis that the regression coefficients are zero against an alternative hypothesis that they are greater than zero. able rela Th1: sam' C081 iCa; CHAPTER IV RESULTS FATHER-SON SAMPLE Agggession in Sons Hypotheses were derived for the interactional vari- ables pertaining to each of the eight attitude scales in relation to each of the four behavior measures for the sons. This amounted to 32 hypotheses in all for the father-son sample. In each case it was predicted that the regression coefficient for the interactional variable would be signif- icantly related to the dependent variable. Table 8 gives the regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional measures and their significance in predicting aggression in sons. The data for the attitude and role scales are given first, and that showing the effect when the interaction between atti- tude and role is taken into account is listed in the bottom half of the table. The parental aggression and role vari- ables are significantly related in a positive direction to aggression at the .10 level of confidence. When the role orientation of the fathers is consid- ered the relationship between the fathers' attitudes and aggression in sons is enhanced. The table indicates that the coefficients for each role-attitude interaction than 57 Table 8. Aggression in sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables Variable N Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 47 .201 .146 45 1.379 ns Ambivalence 47 .115 .148 45 .779 ns Demands for Aggression 47 .060 .148 45 -.408 ns Parental Aggression 47 .245 .144 45 1.702 .10 General Aggression 47 .087 .148 45 .589 ns Self-Esteem 47 .033 .148 45 -.226 ns Husband—Wife Relation. 47 .037 .148 45 -.251 ns Adjustment 47 .046 .148 45 -.313 ns Role 47 .261 .143 45 1.816 .10 Rejection x Role 47 .311 .141 45 2.198 .05 Ambivalence x Role 47 .278 .143 45 1.946 .10 Dem. for Agg. x Role 47 .241 .144 45 1.681 .10 Par. Agg. x Role 47 .320 .141 45 2.267 .05 Gen. Agg. x Role 47 .290 .142 45 2.032 .05 Self-Esteem x Role 47 .188 .146 45 1.289 ns Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 47 .192 .146 45 1.314 ns Adjustment x Role 47 .201 .146 45 1.318 ns ‘Two-tailed test. 59 those given for the same attitude when considered independ- ently of role. Interactions with rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, and general aggression are significantly related in the predicted direc- tion to aggression in sons at the .10 level or better. Thus, five of the eight hypotheses pertaining to the dependent variable of aggression are supported by the findings. The behavior of fathers insofar as it is related to attitudes of rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggres- sion, parental aggression, and general aggression is more significantly related to aggression in sons when it occurs within an expressive role context than when it is associated with instrumental role taking by fathers. Dependengy in Sons The results pertaining to dependent behavior in sons are very similar to those for aggression. Table 9 presents the regression coefficients for the fathers' at- titude, role, and interactional variables and their signif- icance in predicting dependency in sons. Parental aggres- sion is significantly related in a positive direction to dependency at the .05 level. Again, when the role of the fathers is taken into account the relevancy of their attitudes as a source of variance for dependent behavior in sons is accentuated. Table 9 shows that the coefficients for each of the inter- actional variables is greater than that for the same 60 Table 9. Dependency in sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables Variable N Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 47 .160 .147 45 1.092 ns Ambivalence 47 .133 .147 45 .906 ns Demands for Aggression 47 .090 .148 45 .606 ns Parental Aggression 47 .292 .142 45 2.054 .05 General Aggression 47 .225 .144 45 1.551 ns Self-Esteem 47 .049 .148 45 .334 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 47 .056 .148 45 -.379 ns Adjustment 47 .006 .149 45 -.045 ns Role 47 .207 .145 45 1.425 ns Rejection x Role 47 .256 .144 45 1.780 .10 Ambivalence x Role 47 .235 .144 45 1.627 ns Dem. for Agg. x Role 47 .232 .145 45 1.600 ns Par. Agg. x Role 47 .299 .142 45 2.105 .05 Gen. Agg. x Role 47 .265 .143 45 1.845 .10 Self-Esteem x Role 47 .191 .146 45 1.306 ns Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 47 .133 .147 45 .901 ns Adjustment x Role 47 .172 .146 45 1.176 ns 'Two—tailed test. 61 attitude when taken by itself. The interactions of role with rejection, parental aggression, and general aggression are significant in the predicted direction at the .10 level or better. For dependency, then, the results supported three of the eight hypotheses. Attitudes of rejection, parental aggression, and general aggression by fathers who take ex- pressive roles are more significantly related to dependent behavior in sons than the same attitudes by fathers who take instrumental roles. Withdrawal and Perceived Rejection of Fathers by Sons Table 10 shows the regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables in relation to withdrawal while Table 11 gives the correspond- ing data with respect to perceived rejection. In marked contrast to the previous findings, the impact of the father's attitudes on the son's behavior in terms of the withdrawal and perceived rejection dimensions is apparently not condi- tional to whether the father takes an expressive or instru- mental role. None of the coefficients for the interactions are significant or even approach this level. Consequently, none of the 16 hypotheses for these two dependent variables were supported. Demands for aggres- sion is significantly related to withdrawal and parental aggression and general aggression to perceived rejection at the .05 level or better. None of the coefficients for 62 Table 10. Withdrawal in sons: Regression coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and inter- actional variables Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 47 -.092 .148 45 -.624 ns Ambivalence 47 -.026 .149 45 -.l77 ns Demands for Aggression 47 .291 .142 45 2.050 .05 Parental Aggression 47 -.012 .149 45 -.081 ns General Aggression 47 .179 .146 45 1.224 ns Self-Esteem 47 -.027 .149 45 -.184 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 47 -.035 .148 45 -.239 ns Adjustment 47 -.041 .148 45 -.277 ns Role 47 -.018 .149 45 -.124 ns Rejection Ambivalence x Role 47 -.014 .149 45 -.095 ns Dem. for Agg. x Role 47 .041 .148 45 .315 ns Par. Agg. x Role 47 -.060 .148 45 -.409 ns Gen. Agg. x Role 47 -.018 .149 45 -.124 ns Self-Esteem x Role 47 -.022 .149 45 -.152 ns Husband-Wife Adjustment x Role 47 -.052 .148 45 -.351 ns ‘Two-tailed test. 63 Table 11. Perceived Rejection of Fathers by Sons: Regres- sion coefficients for the fathers' attitude, role, and interactional variables a: _- Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 47 -.037 .148 45 -.254 ns Ambivalence 47 -.016 .149 45 -.110 ns Demands for Aggression 47 .181 .146 45 1.240 ns Parental Aggression 47 .355 .139 45 2.555 .02 General Aggression 47 .341 .140 45 2.437 .02 Self-Esteem 47 .063 .148 45 .423 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 47 .093 .148 45 .631 ns Adjustment 47 .102 .148 45 .692 ns Role 47 -.036 .148 45 -.243 ns Rejection x Role 47 -.087 .148 45 —.586 ns Ambivalence x Role 47 -.057 .148 45 -.386 ns Dem. for Agg. x Role 47 .048 .148 45 .325 ns Par. Agg. x Role 47 .140 .147 45 .951 ns Gen. Agg. x Role 47 .098 .148 45 .616 ns Self-Esteem Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 47 .045 .148 45 .307 ns Adjustment ‘Two—tailed test. 64 the role scale are significant. MOTHER-SON SAMPLE Aggression and Dependency_in Sons As in the case of the father-son sample, 32 hypoth- eses were derived for the mothers with the predictions be- ing that the regression coefficients for the interactional variables would be related to the dependent measures. Table 12 presents the coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and interactional variables in relation to aggression in sons while table 13 shows the corresponding data for dependency in sons. None of the 16 hypotheses pertaining to aggression and dependency in sons were supported by the findings. The hypothesis for parental aggression was in fact rejected by the results. The interaction for parental aggression is significantly related to aggression in sons but in a nega- tive direction which is opposite to that predicted. For attitudes alone, ambivalence is related to both dependent variables while rejection is significantly associated with aggression. Neither of the coefficients for the role scale are significant. Withdrawal and Perceived Rejection of Mothers by SOns Table 14 gives the data with respect to predicting withdrawal while table 15 shows the corresponding data for perceived rejection. None of the 16 hypotheses for these 65 Table 12. Aggression in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and inter- actional variables “ I _— Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 56 .268 .131 54 2.057 .05 Ambivalence 56 .246 .131 54 1.870 .10 Demands for Aggression S6 .058 .135 54 .428 ns Parental Aggression 56 -.129 .134 54 -.960 ns General Aggression 56 -.057 .135 54 -.421 ns Self-Esteem 56 .053 .135 54 .390 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 56 -.141 .134 54 -l.053 ns Adjustment 56 -.072 .135 54 -.533 ns Role 56 -.154 .134 54 -l.151 ns Rejection x Role 56 .039 .135 54 .293 ns Ambivalence x Role 56 -.055 .135 54 -.407 ns Dem. for Agg. x Role 56 -.094 .135 54 -.697 ns Par. Agg. x Role 56 -.231 .132 54 -1.746 .10 Gen. Agg. x Role 56 -.176 .133 54 -l.314 ns Self-Esteem x Role 56 -.067 .135 54 -.496 ns Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 56 -.195 .133 54 -1.461 ns Adjustment x Role 56 -.149 .134 54 -1.112 ns ‘Two-tailed test. 66 Table 13. Dependency in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and inter- action variables Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 56 .213 .132 54 1.604 .10 Ambivalence 56 .230 .132 54 1.743 .05 Demands for Aggression 56 .021 .136 54 .154 ns Parental Aggression 56 -.025 .136 54 -.188 ns General Aggression 56 -.003 .136 54 -.028 ns Self-Esteem 56 .074 .135 54 .549 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 56 .094 .135 54 .696 ns Adjustment 56 -.030 .136 54 -.226 ns Role 56 -.131 .134 54 -.971 ns Rejection x Role 56 .026 .136 54 .196 ns Ambivalence Dem. for Agg. x Role 56 -.093 .135 S4 -.689 ns Par. Agg. , Gen. Agg. x Role 56 -.127 .134 54 -.944 ns Self-Esteem x Role 56 -.030 .136 54 —.223 ns Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 56 -.142 .134 54 -1.060 ns Adjustment X Rele 56 -0100 0135 54 -0740 ns 'Two-tailed test. 67 Table 14. Withdrawal in Sons: Regression coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and inter- actional variables Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t' P Rejection 56 .162 .132 54 1.207 ns Ambivalence 56 .096 .135 54 .711 ns Demands for Aggression 56 .025 .136 54 .105 ns Parental Aggression 56 .042 .135 54 .310 ns General Aggression 56 .053 .135 54 .390 ns Self-Esteem 56 .121 .135 54 .897 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 56 .065 .135 S4 .483 ns Adjustment 56 .098 .135 54 .726 ns Rejection x Role 56 .013 .136 S4 .095 ns Ambivalence Dem. for Par. Agg. x Role 56 -.O70 .135 54 -.518 ns Gen. Agg. x Role 56 —.106 .135 54 -.786 ns Self-Esteem x Role 56 -.034 .136 54 -.256 ns Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 56 -.014 .136 54 -.104 ns Adjustment x Role 56 —.025 .136 54 -.l88 ns ‘Two-tailed test. 68 Table 15. Perceived Rejection of Mothers by Sons: Regres- sion coefficients for the mothers' attitude, role, and interactional variables Variable N R. Coeff. SD df t‘ P Rejection 56 —.201 .133 54 -1.512 ns Ambivalence 56 -.296 .129 54 -2.285 .05 Demands for Aggression 56 .183 .133 54 1.374 ns Parental Aggression 56 -.330 .128 54 -2.890 .01 General Aggression 56 -.118 .135 54 —.874 ns Self-Esteem 56 .004 .136 54 .036 ns Husband-Wife Relation. 56 -.016 .136 54 -.124 ns Adjustment 56 -.009 .136 54 -.068 ns Role 56 .000 .136 54 .005 ns Rejection x Role 56 -.120 .135 54 -.894 ns Ambivalence x Role 56 —.114 .135 54 -.845 ns Dem. for Agg. x Role 56 .107 .135 54 .798 ns Par..Agg. x Role 56 —.224 .132 54 -1.695 .10 Gen. Agg. x Role 56 -.044 .135 54 -.326 ns Self-Esteem Husband-Wife Rela. x Role 56 .021 .136 54 .159 ns Adjustment x Role 56 -.013 .136 54 —.100 ns ’Two-tailed test. 69 two variables were confirmed by the findings. The hypoth- esis for parental aggression in relation to perceived re- jection was again rejected in that the results indicated a significance at the .10 level in a negative direction. Ambivalence and parental aggression by themselves are also negatively related to perceived rejection at the .05 level or better. The coefficients for the role variable are not significant. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION FATHER-SON SAMPLE This study directs an inquiry toward the proposi- tion that the effect of parental attitudes such as aggres- sion, rejection, etc., on the behavior of preadolescent sons is conditional to the kind of role taken by the parent in his relationship with the son. The general hypothesis indicated that negative attitudes by parents who take ex- pressive roles will be associated with more disturbance in the behavior of sons than will be the case for negative attitudes of parents who take instrumental roles. Predic- tions were made separately for fathers and mothers and for each of eight attitude scales and each of four dependent measures for sons. To test this hypothesis, each parent's scores on the attitude and role scales were multiplied to- gether to yield eight role-attitude interactional variables. High scores on each of the interactional distributions in- dicated the association between negative attitude traits and expressive roles and low scores the association between negative traits and instrumental roles. Regression coef- ficients and their significance in predicting the dependent variables were computed for each of the interactional meas- ures. The findings for this investigation pertain to a 70 71 selected group of parents and sons. In general, the indi- cations are that the more disturbed families took part in the study. The sons whose mothers took part were signif- icantly higher on the aggression and dependency and signif— icantly lower on the perceived rejection scales than the sons whose mothers did not participate. Similar differences were noted for the fathers with respect to aggression and dependency in sons, and while not significant, they were nevertheless rather substantial. Since the findings show a general tendency for high scores on the attitude scales to be associated with high scores on the aggression and dependency variables, it is likely that the mothers and to a lesser extent the fathers who participated were more negative in their attitudes toward sons than the parents who did not take part. A complex of independent and dependent variables were selected for investigation because theory and previous research have not indicated which attitudes of parents and behavioral dimensions in sons would be most affected by variations in role taking by parents. The findings for the father-son provide some clarification in that the re- sults are significant for a common set of attitudes in the fathers and a particular pattern of behavior in the son. Significant interactions were obtained for the rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, and general aggression scales. All five of these attitudes were shown to be critically related in the predicted 72 direction to aggression in sons and three of the five to dependency in boys. In general, these five scales include items which focus on the father's reactions to the behavior of the son and thus may represent a fairly direct assess- ment of the father-son relationship. The interactions for self-esteem, husband-wife relationship, and adjustment were not significant. In contrast to the others, these three scales tend to reflect the father's reactions to his self- concept, his spouse, and the marital relationship. As such, they may not be so directly relevant to the father-son re- lationship as the other attitude scales. Sons' withdrawal and their perceived rejection of fathers were not significantly related to any of the role- attitude interactions. This suggests that these dimensions tap an area of behavior which is of a different nature than that indicated by aggression and dependency. Intercorrela- tions between these four variables in relation to the father- son sample, as given in table 16, show that aggression and dependency correlate .84 while the correlations of each with withdrawal and perceived rejection are much lower. These findings are consistent with factor analytic studies of the Peer Nomination Inventory reported by Wiggins and Winder (1959). They reveal an aggressive—dependency cluster and a withdrawal factor. Hostility is character- istic of both aggression and dependency, but in the case Of the latter, the hostile acting out may be directed toward fulfillment of attention getting needs. Withdrawal, by 73 Table 16. Intercorrelations' between the dependent vari- ables for the father-son sample Variable 2 3 4 l. Aggression .84 .05 -.03 2. Dependency .17 .08 3. Withdrawal .11 4. Perceived Rejection 'A coefficient of .28 is a two-tailed test. significant at the .05 level for 74 contrast, pertains largely to social isolation and rejec- tion by peers.. Popularity with peers, for example, influ- ences nomination for the withdrawal dimension more than it does for the aggressive-dependency dimension. The aggressive-dependency and withdrawal dimensions, then, would appear to lead to characteristically different peer relationships. The former is more likely to result in active involvements with others while the latter will tend toward passivity and withdrawal. Perceived rejection of fathers is not significantly related to any of the other dependent variables. However, the largest correlation oc- curs in connection with withdrawal which suggests that per- ceived rejection may be linked in some way with passivity in peer relationships. Expressive and instrumental parental roles, as de- fined in this study, differ on two major points. Theoret- ically, expressive roles characterize parents who are ori- ented toward their own internal dynamics and consequently tend toward passivity and withdrawal in relationships with the son. The tendency will be toward the immediate grat- ification of affective needs, and when involvements with the son occur, the focus will be on the underlying emotional aspects of the boy's behavior. Instrumentally oriented parents, on the other hand, are presumably more actively involved with the son and give more attention to the overt, task-oriented aspects of his behavior. The emphasis will be on modifying the problem- 75 solving behavior of the boy with the expectation that these modifications will be incorporated into future performance actions. The gratification process for these parents tends to be delayed and contingent upon the son's fulfilling these expectations. The findings show that negative attitudes by fathers who take expressive roles are associated with disturbances in the sons' behavior. The results do not bear directly on the nature of this relationship in terms of specific father-son interactional patterns but they do provide a basis for speculation. Rejecting, ambivalent, and aggres- sive fathers who take instrumental roles focus their crit- icism of the son on the boy's task-oriented behavior with the emphasis being on modifying these overt, performance patterns. This will tend to minimize the negative effect of the father's attitudes. The son will be relatively clear as to which aspects of his behavior is eliciting the unfav- orable reactions of the father and as to how they may be modified so as to insure a more favorable reaction. The boy's reality adaptation will be facilitated which will permit him to maintain satisfactory peer relationships. Rejecting, ambivalent, and aggressive fathers who take expressive roles will be inclined to seek immediate gratification of needs associated with these negative at- titudes by focusing on the son's underlying feelings and emotions rather than his cognitive, more overt performance behavior. This will tend to maximize the negative effect 76 of the father's attitudes. The boy will be aware that the father is critical of him but relatively unclear as to which aspects of his behavior are subject to the father's disap- proval and as to what should be done. The son's reality adaptation will be impeded which will affect his peer re- lationships. He will maintain active involvements with others, rather than withdraw, but will tend to be overly aggressive, overly dependent, or both. In addition to the interactional variables, signif- icant findings were also indicated for the role scale. Fathers who take expressive roles are more likely to have aggressive sons than fathers who take instrumental roles. Parsons (1955b) indicates that the predominant role for sons is instrumental while that for daughters is expressive. Thus, the findings suggest that task—orientation by fathers helps the son adopt task-oriented relationships for himself and promotes the boy's integration into the instrumental role. This,in turn, permits satisfactory peer relationships. On the other hand, expressive role orientation by fathers interferes with this process and leads to disturbed peer relationships. The results for the attitude variables indicated that most of the relationships with the dependent variables were not significant. However, the findings did suggest that aggression in fathers is particularly crucial to under- standing the father-son relationship. Fathers who scored high on the parental aggression scale tend to have sons 77 who are aggressive, dependent, and who perceive the fathers as rejecting. Similarly, high scores on demands for aggres- sion is associated with withdrawal in sons while high scores on the general aggression scale is related to high perceived rejection by boys. MOTHER—SON SAMPLE None of the hypotheses for the interactional vari- ables were supported by the findings. The interaction for parental aggression was found to be significantly related to aggression and perceived rejection of mothers in a direc- tion opposite to that predicted. These findings reject the hypotheses for parental aggression in favor of an al- ternative one. The association between parental aggression and instrumental roles may tend to result in more disturb- ance for the son than when it is in conjunction with expres- sive role taking by mothers. Thus, instrumental roles tend to maximize the negative effects of parental aggression while expressive roles minimize this effect. This is the reverse of that indicated for the fathers. A comparison of the effect of the attitude and role variables as indicated in tables 12, 13, 14, and 15 shows that high scores on the attitude scales generally tend to be associated with high scores on the dependent variables while high scores on the role variable tend to be associated with low scores on the dependent scales, with the possible exception of the perceived rejection variable. While most 78 of these relationships are not significant, the differences may have possibly tended to cancel out any interactional effect between the role and attitude measures. The results for the attitude variables are gener- ally insignificant but they do suggest that ambivalence, and to a lesser extent rejection and parental aggression, are crucial to the mother-son relationship. Ambivalent mothers tend to have sons who are aggressive and dependent. This is also the case for rejection in mothers in relation to aggression in boys. Ambivalence and parental aggression are also related to perceived rejection but in a negative direction. Mothers who score high on these scales are as- sociated with sons who perceive them as being low on rejec- tion. . As in the case of the interactional variables, the results for the mothers' role, while not significant, sug- gest that instrumental role taking by mothers may lead to more disturbance in the behavior of sons. The explanation was offered that task-oriented behavior by the father helps the son take a task—oriented approach in his own relation- ships and promotes the boy's integration into the instru- mental role. The findings for the mothers raise the ques- tion as to why her task orientation, either alone or in conjunction with attitudinal behavior, may not have the same facilitating effect. Aside from the effect parental role has on the son's reality adaptation, it may also in- fluence the boy's identification with his father. Instrumental 79 role taking by fathers may promote this process while the same role by mothers may interfere with it. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE MOTHER AND FATHER VARIABLES The findings for this investigation raise the ques- tion as to what kinds of interactions go on between mothers and fathers and how they affect the behavior of the sons. Table 17 shows the correlations of the fathers' attitude and role measures with those for the mothers, based on scores for 41 marital-pairs. The most marked is a positive rela- tionship between the mother's attitudes and the father's role. Significance at the .01 level is indicated for five of the eight attitude scales with the correlations for de- mands for aggression, ambivalence, parental aggression, and general aggression being, in fact, quite high. These findings suggest a pattern of interactions between the mother, father, and son which will tend to pro- duce disturbances in the father-son relationship. The father's relationship with the boy is apparently a function of not only his attitudes and role but also the attitudes of the mother. The more ambivalent and aggressive she is, the more likely the father is to take expressive roles, which in turn increases the probability of adjustment prob- lems for the son. The correlations between the attitudes of fathers and role of mothers are generally lower and not significant. Consequently, at least for the samples utilized in this 80 Table 17. Correlations’ of the fathers' attitude and role variables with the attitude and role variables for the mothers based on scores of 41 marital- pairs Mothers Fathers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l. 2. 3. 6. 7. Rejection .28 .04 -.05 -.05 .00 .09 .18 .11 .08 Ambivalence .10 .02 .04 -.O9 -.03 .04 .12 .06 -.17 Demands for Aggression -.08 .15 .31 -.25 .04 .12 .10 .09 .04 Parental Aggression .29 .17 .14 -.O7 .03 .18 .35 .31 -.28 General AggrESSion .09 020 030 -022 004 .18 025 022 ‘013 self-BSteem .06 000 005 “016 -009 015 .21 022 002 Husband—Wife Relation. 017 -009 "004 003 -002 003 031 024 -003 80 AdjuStment 015 -006 .00 ‘004 -006 013 034 031 024 9. ROle .28 071 081 077 .69 011 017 .36 -001 ‘A correlation of .30 is significant at the .05 level using two-tailed test. 81 .tudy , the interrelationships between the mother, father 1nd son tend to lead to more disturbance in the father—son than in the mother-son relationship. This may partially account for why the findings confirmed the hypotheses for the fathers and sons but not for the mothers and sons. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH IN PARENT-CHILD RELATIONS Parsons advances the expressive-instrumental role continuum as a variable which theoretically applies to all relationships regardless of specific content. It is struc- tural in that it is not linked to relations which emphasize particular characteristics as opposed to others which iden- tify other qualities. Expressive and instrumental roles, as defined in this study, are "structural" in the sense that within each parental group scores on the role variable were for the most part unrelated to other behavior char- acteristics such as rejection, ambivalence, etc., at least as measured by attitude scales. In the view of the writer, Parsons' structural ap— proach merits attention on the grounds that the relevancy of the role concept to the study of interpersonal relation- ships is enhanced to the extent that it touches on behavioral characteristics which differentiate it from those associated with other concepts. Consequently, the story completion test, to the extent that it operationally defines expres- sive and instrumental roles in this fashion, may have poten- tial as a research tool. This is to be distinguished from the procedure employed in other studies such as Kagan and 11" 82 ZLemkin (1960) who measured instrumental roles in terms of aggression and punitiveness and expressive roles in rela- tion to nurturance. This is not only inconsistent with Parsons' theoretical definition but tends to introduce con- siderable overlap between the role concept and other con- structs such as attitude. The major findings for the study indicated that the role of the father is critical to the father-son rela- tionship. Rejection, ambivalence, and aggression by fathers who take expressive roles tend to be associated with dis- turbance in the son's behavior more so than is the case for the same attitudes in conjunction with instrumental role taking by fathers. The findings for the mothers did not support any of the hypotheses, and in fact, tended to reject them in favor of an alternative. For mothers, nega- tive attitudes in association with instrumental role taking may be more crucial to behavior difficulties in sons. The fact that the samples employed in this study apparently focused on the more disturbed families raises some question as to the extent that the findings may be generalized to other samples from the same population. To the writer's knowledge, however, very few if any studies have attempted to utilize role as was done in this case. Consequently, the findings are important in that they point to what appears to be a fruitful area of research in parent— child relationships. The mean difference between fathers and non-working 83 mothers on the role variable, as given in table 4, is sig- nificant in the expected direction, but it is not as pro— nounced as would be expected. Another finding regarding the role variable which is contrary to expectations is that showing practically a zero correlation between the role scores for husband-wife pairs. Theoretically at least mothers and fathers presumably take complementary roles with sons which would indicate a negative correlation on the role scale. These results may be the product in part of the peculiar samples utilized, but they also suggest that further clarification is needed as to the factors which determine role taking by parents. The results for the relationships between parental attitudes and behavior of the sons show that most of them are insignificant. This, again, is contrary to expectations, particularly as the impact of the mother on the son's be- havior. The contrast is particularly marked with respect to the findings of Winder and Rau (1959). They showed many more significant relationships between the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire variables and the Peer Nomination Inventory dimensions than was the case for this study. Again, the samples employed in this investigation may par- tially account for this. Several other research problems are indicated. Role taking by fathers is apparently a critical factor in the son's adjustment, and this in turn, may be a function of the mother's role and of the identification between father 5-3.! ' 84 and son. Instrumental roles by fathers may facilitate this process while instrumental roles by mothers may impede this. Second, this raises the question of how parental roles af- :fect the adjustment of girls. The postulation is that ex- pressive role taking by the mother may enhance a daughter's adjustment and identification with her while expressive role Inn. taking by fathers may interfere with this. Some clarity as to the impact of particular combina- tions of parental roles within a given family on the behavior 5 of the sons is shown in Appendix F. A comparison of mean scores for the dependent variables is given with respect to cases in which both parents are expressive, both are instrumental, the fathers are expressive and the mothers instrumental, and the fathers are instrumental and the mothers expressive. With respect to aggression, dependency, and withdrawal, the results strongly suggest that the least disturbance in sons is in relation to instrumental role taking by fathers and expressive role orientations by mothers. The most disturbance in sons would appear to occur when both parents take the same role. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study is oriented around the application of role theory toward the analysis of family relationships with particular reference to Parsons' theory of action. Within this context, an inquiry was directed toward the notion that the differential effect of parental attitudes on the behavior of preadolescent sons is a function of the differential roles taken by parents. The samples, predominantly middle—class, included 47 father-son pairs and 56 mother-son pairs. For each par- ent participating in the study measures were obtained for the role variable and for eight attitude scales: rejection, ambivalence, demands for aggression, parental aggression, general aggression, self-esteem, husband-wife relationship, and adjustment. The variables for each son included ag- gression, dependency, withdrawal, and perceived parental rejection. The role variable was defined in terms of the ex- pressive-instrumental continuum as developed by Parsons. It was measured by a story completion test designed to oper- «ationalize expressive and instrumental roles within the context of the Parsonian theory of action. Attitudes were eassessed by the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire. 85 86 Aggression, dependency, and withdrawal in sons were meas- ured by the Peer Nomination Inventory and perceived rejec- tion by the Parent Authority-Love Scale. The hypotheses, in their general form, indicated that negative parental attitudes will be more significantly related to disturbance in sons in terms of the dependent variable when they occur within an expressive role context than when they are associated with instrumental role taking by parents. Hypotheses were derived separately for mothers and fathers and for each attitude variable and each depend- ent variable. This amounted to 32 predictions for the father- son sample and 32 for the mother-son sample. To test these hypotheses, each parent's scores on the attitude and role scales were multiplied together to yield eight role-attitude interactional variables. High scores on each of the interactional distributions indicated the association between negative attitude traits and expres- sive roles and low scores the association between negative traits and instrumental roles. Regression coefficients (and their significance in predicting each of the four de- pendent variables were obtained for each of the interactional variables. The results indicated that, of the 32 predictions for the father-son sample, five of the hypotheses were con- firmed in relation to aggression in sons and three with respect to dependency. None of the hypotheses for the mother- son sample were confirmed. Rejection, ambivalence, demands F -u'1 m negf. 87 fOr aggression, parental aggression, and general aggression in.fathers who take expressive roles were indicated to be more significantly related with aggression in sons than the same attitudes in relation to instrumental role taking by fathers. For dependency in sons, significant interac- tions in the predicted direction were revealed for rejec- tion, parental aggression, and general aggression by fathers. The findings for the mothers' parental aggression indicated that the hypotheses were actually rejected in favor of al- ternative ones. Parental aggression by mothers who take instrumental roles was indicated to be more significantly related to aggression and perceived rejection in sons than parental aggression by mothers who take expressive roles. This tends to be the opposite of that found for fathers and is the reverse of that predicted for mothers. The discussion focused on possible differences be- tween the impact of fathers' and mothers' roles on the be- havior of sons. Attention was given to some of the condi- tions which may have accounted for the absence of confirma- tion of the hypotheses for the mothers. The nature of the samples and its effect on the findings was also discussed. Finally, the relevancy of the expressive-instrumental role concept to research in parent—child relations and the impli- cations of the findings for future studies were examined. .3 L REFERENCES Aberle, D. F., and Naegele, K. D. "Middle-class fathers' occupational role and attitudes toward children," In N. W. Bell and E. F. Vogel (Eds.), The family. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960. Ackerman, N. W. The psychodynamics of family_life. N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc., 1958. Adams, Elsie B., and Sarason, I. G. "Relation between anxiety in children and their parents," Child Developm., 1963, 34, 237-246. Baldwin, A. L., Kalhorn, Joan, and Breeze, Fay H. "Patterns of parent behavior," Psychol. Monogr., 1945, 58, No. 3 (Whole No. 268). Bales, R. F. lnteraction_process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1950. Bales, R. F., and Slater, P. E. "Role differentiation in small decision-making groups," In T. Parsons and R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and inter- actionpprocess. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955. Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Hellmer, L. A., Shoemaker, D. J., and Quay, H. C. "Factors in parental be- havior and personality as related to problem be- havior in children," J. Consult. Psychol., 1959, 23, 107-118. Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Luria, Zella, Shoemaker, D. J., and Hellmer, L. A. "Relations of factors derived from parent-interview ratings to behavior problems of five year olds," Child Developm., 1962, 33, 509-535. Brim, O. G., Jr. "The parent-child relation as a social system: I Parent and child roles," Child Developm., 1957, 28, 343-364. Emmerich, W. "Young children's discriminations of parents and child roles," Child Developm., 1959, 30, 403- 419. Emmerich, W. "Family role concepts of children age six to ten," Child Developm., 1961, 32, 106-112. 88 .A 89 Bron, L. D., Banta, T. J., Walder, L. O., and Laulicht, J. H. "Comparison of data obtained from mothers and fathers on childrearing practices and their relation to child aggression," Child Developm., 1961, 32, 457-472. Farber, B. "An index of marital integration," Sociometry, 1957, 20, 117-134. Farber, 8. "Effects of a severely mentally retarded child on family integration," Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Developm., 1959, 24, No. ZPTSerial No. 717. T Farber, B. "Family organization and crisis: maintenance of integration in families with a severely retarded child," Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Developm., 1960, 25, No. 1 (Serial No. 7ST. Farber, B. "Marital integration as a factor in parent- child relations," Child Developm., 1962, 33, l—l4. Himmelstrand, U. Social pressures, attitudes, and demo- cratic process. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1960. Hoffman, M. L. "Power assertion by the parent and its im— pact on the child,“ Child Developm., 1960, 31, 129- 143. Huntington, R. M. "Needs and interactions: a study of the marital relationship," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1958. Kagan, J. "The child's perception of the parent," J. Ab- norm. Soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 257—258. Kagan, J., and Lemkin, Judith. "The child's differential perceptions of parental attributes," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1960, 61, 440-447. Kagan, J., Hasken, Barbara, and Watson, Sara. "Child's symbolic conceptualization of parents," Child Developm., 1961, 32, 625-636. Kenkel, W. F. "Husband-wife interaction in decision mak- ing and decision choices," J. Soc. Psychol., 1961a, 54, 255-262. Kenkel, W. F. "Dominance, persistance, self-confidence, and spousal roles in decision making," J. Soc. PSXChOIO’ 1961b, 54’ 349-3580 90 McCord, W., McCord, Joan, and Howard, A. "Familial corre- lates of aggression in nondelinquent male children," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961, 62, 79-93. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957. Mills, T. M. "Power relations in three person groups," Amer. Soc. Rev., 1953, 18, 351-357. Mills, T. M. "The coalition pattern in three person groups," Amer. Soc. Rev., 1954, 19, 657-667. Parsons, T. "Some fundamental categories of the theory of action: a general statement," In T. Parsons and E. A. Shills (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951a. Parsons, T., and Shills, E. A. "Values, motives, and sys- tems of action," In T. Parsons and E. A. Shills (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951b. Parsons, T. The social system. Glencoe, I11.: The Free Press, 1951c. Parsons, T. "The American family: its relations to per- sonality and to the social structure," In T. Par- sons and R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and interaction_process. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955a. Parsons, T. ”Family structure and the socialization of the child," In T. Parsons and R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization and_interaction process. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955b. Parsons, T., and Bales, R. F. "The dimensions of action space," In T. Parsons, R. F. Bales, and E. A. Shills, Wprking papers in the theory of action. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1953. Peterson, D. R., Becker, W. C., Hellmer, L. A., Shoemaker, D. J., and Quay, H. C. "Parental attitudes and child adjustment," Child Developm., 1959, 30, 119- 130. Peterson, D. R., Becker, W. C., Shoemaker, D. J., Luria, Zella, and Hellmer, L. A. "Child behavior problems and parental attitudes,” Child Developm., 1961, 32, 151-162. 91 Quade, A. E. "The relationship between marital adjustment and certain interactional patterns in problem-solv- ing situations," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1955. Sarbin, T. R. "Role theory," In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. I. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Press, Inc., 1954. Strodtbeck, F. L. "The family as a three person group," Amer. SOC. Rev., 1954, 19, 23-290 Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H. H. The social psychology of groups. N.Y.: Wiley and Sons, 1959. Vogel, E. F. "The marital relationship of parents and the emotionally disturbed child," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 1958. Wiggins, J. S., and Winder, C. L. "The peer nomination inventory: an empirically derived sociometric measure of adjustment in preadolescent boys," Psychol. Rep. (Monogr. Supplm.), 1961, 9, 643-677. Williams, W. C. "The PALS tests: a technique for child— ren to evaluate both parents," J. Consult. Psychol., 1958, 22, 487-495. Winder, C. L., and Rau, Lucy. "Parental attitudes associ- ated with social deviance in preadolescent boys," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1962, 23, 107-118. Zelditch, M. "Role differentiation in the nuclear family: a comparative study," In T. Parsons and R. F. Bales (Eds.), Family, socialization apg interaction_proc- egg. Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1955: APPENDIX A SCT INSTRUCTIONS AND STORIES You will be presented with some stories of every- day situations involving parents and a child. In each of the stories the child mentioned by name is a son around 10 to 12 years old. For each story you are asked to de- scribe how you would feel and what you would think about the situation presented, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act. Although you may never have been faced with the exact situation described, you will still have your own ideas as to what you would say and how you would act if it did happen. Remember, parents view everyday happenings involving children differently so it is important that you tell how you yourself would feel and what you would think about the situation presented, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act. CODE NUMBER: 92 93 Although there is nothing physically wrong, Tommy some- times wets the bed. This morning when I looked in to see if he was up, Tommy was already getting dressed. Although he didn't say anything about it, I could see that he had wet the bed. I (In the space below tell how you would feel and what you would think about this situation, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act.) Johnny sometimes puts off doing things. He had an important school assignment due at the end of the week. When I asked him about it, he said he would start right , away. The night before it was to be turned in he came a to me and said, "I haven't started the report and I have to turn it in tomorrow. Will you help me?" I 'x (In the space below tell how you would feel and what you would think about this situation, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act.) One of David's regular jobs is to pick up his room a little each morning. One morning he was arguing with me about it and said, "Shut up and leave me alone." I (In the space below tell how you would feel, and what you would think about this situation, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act.) Danny has at times taken things that don't belong to him. One day he was having a lot of fun playing with a model airplane. I didn't remember seeing it before, and when I asked him about it he said, "I found it on the way home from school." A few minutes later the manager of a toy store called and told me that Danny had taken an airplane and left before he could be stopped. From his description I could see that it was the air- plane Danny was playing with. I (In the space below tell how you would feel and what you think about this situation, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act.) Mark doesn't like to share his toys very much. One evening his younger brother was playing with one of Mark's toys. When Mark noticed it, he grabbed the toy and said, "Give me that! It's mine and you can't have it!” I 94 (In the space below tell how you would feel and what you would think about this situation, what you would do and say about it, and how you would act.) APPENDIX B SCORING MANUAL FOR THE SCT INTRODUCTION Each story response is divided into statements and these are scored according to the scoring criteria on which the SCT is based. The scoring categories consist of affec- tivity, expressive symbolism, affective involvement, task- oriented general, task-oriented I, task-oriented II, and task-oriented III. Any given statement is scored in terms of only one category while other statements from the same response may be scored under other categories. Thus, a complete story response may include only one or a combina— tion of categories. There are three major differentiations which are critical to this scoring procedure. The first pertains to a distinction between statements which indicate some action taken or involvement with the problem situation pre- sented in the story from those which reflect a value, be- lief, or opinion of the respondent. For example, the state- ment, "I would find out what was bothering him? indicates involvement and action taken while "I would wonder what was bothering him" implies more reflection and speculation than it does action. Statements of action or involvement must be clearly specified. 95 96 The first differentiation is relevant to the scor- ing of the affectivity and expressive symbolism categories. These two bear directly on statements which reflect feel- ing, speculation, and value judgments while the other cate- gories pertain more directly to statements indicating action or involvement. The second differentiation contrasts the scoring procedure for statements showing a general task- oriented approach from those revealing a more specific task- orientation. The former are usually rather abstract and sometimes moralistic while the latter are linked more closely with the specific problem presented in the stimulus story. Such statements as "I would talk to him about the values of sharing" and "I would make sure that he knew it was wrong to steal" are included under the task-oriented general cri- terion. In contrast to these, "I would make him share his toy with his brother" and "he would have to return it" are classified under specific task-oriented approaches. The third differentiation compares the scoring pro— cedure for the three specific task-oriented criteria. The principal issue here is whether or not a specific task-ori- ented statement indicates that the problem—solving attempt is restricted entirely to verbal communication with the Iboy in the stimulus story. If it is not so restricted it is scored differently. The statement, "I would see that he did not drink anything before going to bed," is not con- sidered to stress verbal interaction entirely while "I would tell him not to drink anything before going to bed" is h.“ 97 considered to be entirely verbal. The complexity of this scoring system is simplified considerably by several procedures. First, each story re- sponse is separated into statements so that this is usually not a question. Second, the number of statements represent- ing a given category does not enter into the scoring. Only one statement is required for a story response to be clas- sified under the affectivity category, for example, and the same holds for the other categories. Consequently, once a statement has been judged to be consistent with a particular criterion no further consideration needs to be given as to whether other statements of the same story re- sponse are also representative of the same category. Fur— thermore, this rule also alleviates the situation where there is uncertainty about whether or not a statement fits into a category by allowing the scorer to look for another statement which is clearly indicative of the same criterion. Third, a given story response is rated under one of the three specific task-oriented criteria but never more than one. Fourth, the affective involvement and task-ori- ented general categories do not figure into the scoring of a response unless it cannot be rated in terms of any of the other scoring variables. Sometimes a response in- cludes alternative plans for action, such as "if this were the first time, I would ...... if it were the second time, I would ......" The fifth rule helps eliminate problems bearing of deciding between them. The procedure followed 98 was one in which all the alternatives are considered in the scoring. A useful scoring procedure is to first score in terms of the affectivity variable, then for expressive sym— bolism, and finally in relation to the task-oriented vari- ables. The presence of any of these eliminates the neces- sity of rating the response in terms of affective involve— ment and task-oriented general. The remainder of the man- ual is devoted to the particular scoring categories. In each case examples are given which illustrate the category and attention is given to any special problems. SCORING CRITERIA Affectivity and Expressive Symbolism categories These involve statements which deal with expression of feeling, speculation as to what might be involved and as to what should or should not be done, and reflection of the respondent's beliefs and values. The principal def- inition of these two categories is that the statements do not in themselves indicate involvement with the main char- acter in the story and action taken with respect to the problem situation presented. Statements of this type of classified under affectivity and expressive symbolism even if they are associated with others which do reveal involve- ment and action taken. A. Affectivity. This is scored for any statement 99 indicating positive or negative affect. Examples of this are given below. 1. In most instances this is indicated very directly as for example "I'd be mad," “I would be upset," and "I would be happy." Other emotions expressed include "glad," "worry," "pity," "disturbed," and the like. It is helpful to contrast these statements with one like "I would tell him I was angry," which indicates involvement with the story character, and because of this, is scored under another category. Statements indicating denial of affect. a. "I would not feel anything at all." b. "Wouldn't bother me much." Statements suggesting guilt. Particular atten- tion needs to be paid to this since it is often expressed indirectly. a. "I would wonder if he was getting enough attention at home." b. "I would try to discover if this was caused by pressure at home." c. "I would feel I had failed." B. Expressive Symbolism. This is scored for statements indicating reflection of beliefs, values, and speculations. Examples of this are given below. 1. Statements of values, beliefs, expectations, and needs. a. "I would not allow a child to tell me to shut up." b. "I think that all children do things like this." c. "I would hope that he would develop a more generous attitude." d. "Children this age need reminding." e. "Ideally I like to prevent this by attempt- ing to set values." f. "I would hope to know my child." Speculations and thoughts as to what was under— lying the problem and as to intentions to act or not act in a particular way. Note that these examples do not in themselves describe any ac- tion actually taken. 100 a. "I would wonder and try to figure out why it had occurred." Here action is implied and contrasts with "I would talk with the child and find out," which is not scored under B. b. "The task at hand would be to get the report finished that night." c. "I would not help him." d. "There would be no argument about picking up his room." 3. Statements indicating the feeling tone with which a respondent would say or do something. a. "I would get an answer in a loving manner." b. "I would act in a very sincere manner." 4. Statements of action which in themselves ignore the problem situation. a. "I would leave the room and get busy." b. "I would leave him alone." 5. Statements about and references to the respond- ent's own family. References which are clearly unrelated to the problem situation presented in the stimulus story are always scored under B. However, statements indicating some personal experience which bears directly on the problem presented are scored in the same fashion as any other statement. 6. Statements suggesting defensiveness on the part of the respondent. a. "You almost have to know the situation and the child to answer." Such statements need to be differentiated from others indicating alternatives which are not scored under B: "If Mark was not playing with the toy I W0u1d .00..." Affective Involvement and Task-Oriented General Categgries These categories include statements which in them— selves clearly indicate involvement with the main character in the stimulus story and action taken with respect to the problem presented. They fall somewhere between the first 101 two scoring criteria and the three Specific task-oriented criteria. The general task-oriented approach differs from the more specific ones in that the former is more abstract and less specifically linked to the particular content of the story. It should be remembered that these two categories are not scored unless the response cannot be classified under any of the other criteria. For cases like this, state- ments are scored under C, D, and CD in the event of combina- tions. C. Affective Involvement. This is scored for state- ments which suggest affective interaction with the main character in the stimulus story in that negative or posi- tive feelings are communicated to the boy, punishment is administered, and attempts are made to get at underlying problems or feelings. The C category differs from the task- oriented variables in that little attention is given to working out a solution to the problem presented. Several classes of examples are given below. 1. Statements indicating expression of negative or positive feeling. a. "I bawled him out." b. "Probably yell at him." c. "I would give him a little understanding hug." d. "I would tell him I know how tired he must get from so much nagging." 2. Statements suggesting punishment either phys- ical, indirect, or unspecified. This would be the case for statements which talk about punishment in a very general way rather than being specifically linked to the content of the problem situation. 102 a. "I would spank him." b. "Would more than likely punish him." c. "He would be deprived of a privilege for a while." An example of a statement about punishment which is scored under the task-oriented variables rather than C is "suspend his allowance until he got squared away with the job." This is because it is tied specifically with the reality of the story. Statements which ask questions or supply infor- mation. a. "I said Danny where did you get the airplane." b. "I would tell him I knew that he had wet the bed." Statements suggesting demands for apologies. a. "I would ask him if there was something he had to say to me." b. "I would make him apologize to the store owner." Statements pertaining to actions involving per- son or persons not mentioned in the stimulus story. a. "I would discuss this with the doctor." b. "I would probably discuss this with his daddy." c. "I would go see his teacher." Statements showing attempts to discover under- lying causes. a. "Would talk to Mark and try to discover some of his reasons." Stimulus story 5 includes a "younger brother." Any reference to this secondary character is scored C, regardless of its nature. a. "I would feel pity for the younger brother." b. "I would try to get the younger child inter- ested in something else." These statements should be compared with those pertaining to both characters, e.g., "I suggested that both boys share," which are not automatic- ally scored under C. 103 8. Stimulus story 3 includes both "talking back" and "refusal to do a job" as problems. Spec- ial attention should be given as to which prob- lem the statements refer. Those relating to "talking back" tend to be affective in nature and scored C. Those pertaining to the "refusal" problem may be more task-oriented and not nec- essarily scored under C. D. Task-Oriented: General. This is scored for state- ments which show a shift away from affective involvement and toward task-orientation. As mentioned above, this cate- gory differs from the more specific task-oriented ones in that its approach is normative, sometimes moralistic, and usually rather abstract. 1. "I would proceed to tell him the wrong and right of it." 2. "I would tell Danny why he or anyone else should not steal." 3. "I would try to tell him the importance of shar- ing." 4. Statements which employ such terms as "others," "things," "someone," and "habit" are not con- sidered to be linked specifically with the story content and are scored under D. a. "I would talk to him about others' posses- sions . . . he wouldn't want someone tak- ing his things." b. "Tell him not to snatch things." c. "Tell him to share his things." These should be contrasted with a statement like "tell him to share his toys with his brother" which is specific and scored under the specific task-ori— ented variables. Task-Oriented: I, Task-Oriented: II, and Task-Oriented: III Categories These criteria include statements which are more concretely task—oriented than those pertaining to task- 'nl : v 104 oriented general. They generally tend to focus on solutions to the problem presented in one way or another which are closely tied with the content presented in the stimulus story. The three categories differ within themselves in the degree of personal by the parent in his task-oriented approach to the problem situation presented, as least in so far as suggested by particular statements. Task-orien- tation I is presented as reflecting the most involvement and task-orientation III the least. A complete response to a story may be scored in one of these three criteria, if approach statements are present, but never more than one. When statements repre- senting all three are present, the response is scored under task-oriented I. When task-oriented II and III are indi- cated the response is scored in terms of the former. A response is scored under task-oriented III only in cases when such statements occur in the absence of statements representing the other two categories. It is also well to remember that a statement is classified under task-ori- ented III only when it indicates that a task-oriented ap- proach is incorporated entirely within verbal communication with the boy in the story. If it is not it is scored in terms of one of the other two task-oriented variables. E. Task-Oriented: I. This is scored for statements suggesting that the responsibility for carrying out some task-oriented action in relation to the problem situation presented is more or less shared by the parent and the boy. 105 Examples are given below. 1. Statements indicating "help" would be given. a. "I would help him organize his report." b. "I would help him clean up the room." 2. Statements indicating future commitment on the part of the parent. a. "From then on I would pay more attention to his homework." b. "I would wake him up before he went to bed." 3. Statements involving active participation by the parent. a. "I would take it back to the store." b. "I would go with him back to the store." c. "I would take the toy away from the older boy." F. Task-Oriented: II. This is scored for statements which are interpreted as showing a shift away from the par- ent taking responsibility and toward the boy taking more. In most cases, the statements include a key word such as "make," "insist," "have," etc. 1. "I would make him pay for it." 2. "I would have him remake the bed." 3. "I would insist that Mark give the toy back." 4. "David's chores would be completed." G. Task-Oriented: III. This applies to statements which show the task-orientation to be entirely verbalized to the boy. The assumption behind this distinction is that telling a boy what is to be done or what is expected of him without any qualifying conditions which are not verbal— ized to him represents more of a neutral position than that indicated for the E and F categories. v ‘Ifl-‘J':_'.I_‘lu.s’_ ..' -. ‘I 106 1. Usually verbalization is indicated directly. a. "I asked him to take care of his pajamas." b. "I warned him he would have to dig for him- self." c. "I pointed out some particular cases where Mark played with some of his toys and that he would have to share with his brother." d. "I instructed Danny that he would have to return the plane." 2. Sometimes the statement indicates a future com- mitment for the parent, but as long as this is verbalized to the boy it is scored G rather than E. a. "I'd suggest I might have to come wake him up... b. "I then advised him if in the future he wanted help to come to me." 3. Sometimes the verbalization is revealed by the use of conversational quotes. a. "No Johnny the assignment was given to you and you have to do it." b. "Mark, while the toy is yours you have to share it with your brother." These statements may be compared with "I would tell him not to do it," "I would say get control of your— self," and "I would say no" are not specifically task-oriented enough and are scored C. Li APPENDIX C Mother Form of the STANFORD PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE The following statements have been made by parents about themselves, their children, and their families. Please read each statement and decide how it applies to you. Look at the next page of this questionnaire for a minute and you will see that there are four columns on the right hand side of the page. On the left side of the page there are statements. You should put one check mark next to each statement. You may put the check mark under SA or A or D or SD. SA means you agree strongly with the statement. A means you agree with the statement more than you disagree with it. D means you disagree with the statement more than you agree with it. SD means that you strongly disagree with the statement. If you agree strongly with the statement or feel sure that it applies to you, put a check mark in the col- umn marked SA. SA means Strongly Agree. If you are sure that a statement does not apply to you or you strongly disagree with the statement, put a check mark in the column marked SD. SD means Strongly Disagree. Use the A (Agree) or D (Disagree) columns for state- ments you are less sure about or feel less strongly about. Please mark every statement, even though some may not seem to describe you or your family. For example, there might be a statement about brothers and sisters and you may have only one child. Give the answer according to what you believe you would think or feel or do if the statement did apply, or the situation did come up. If you have more than one son in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades, please mark the statements as they apply to your oldest son . For example, if you have both a 6th grade son and a 4th grade son, you would mark the statements as they applied to the 6th grade son. Some statements have blank spaces in them. They are to be marked as they apply to this son. Work as quickly as you can. You do not need to think about each statement too carefully-~just give your 107 ‘ .Ji 108 impression. In other words, answer every one, but do not think too long about any one. Start with number 1 and do each one in order. Give your impression of each statement quickly and go on to the next one. CODE NUMBER: 109 He's not as aggressive as he might be at times. I don't think there's any too big difference between boys and girls as far as responsibility in the house goes. I'm sort of inept at playing with babies. If somebody feels they could pick on you and you're not going to do anything about it, they'll pick on you that much more. I don't like it when he comes and asks me things while I'm eating, and I get annoyed. His father has always been very good at playing games with him and keeping him amused and doing most anything for him. I'd say that in past years I have showed my affection too much, now I try not to overdo it. I'm not as tolerant as I should be, I feel. I have never had any arguments with our neighbors. 10. Calm, reasoned chastisement is the most effective punishment. 11. Quite often when we try to do something for him, he doesn't seem to appreciate it and we kind of feel he should. 12. I'll say that some of the pretty violent scenes I've had with him were absolutely uncalled for on my part. 110 13. For his own self-protection, he should know how to handle himself. 14- I know that it's only healthy for a boy to fight. 15- My husband is indifferent and doesn't show affection, and I sometimes think may turn out to be like him. 16. His father isn't strict with him. He tells he knows he didn't mean it, he wouldn't do it again, so he isn't strict with him. 17. Even if I'm hostile in my mind toward someone, I won't show it. 18. It hurts me when he talks back to me. 19. To my way of thinking, he seems to want an extraordinary amount of attention. 20. I think that a boy or a girl can have very similar responsibili- ties. I wouldn't say any longer that it's strictly a woman's work maintaining a home. 21. I would only step in to stop a fight if he started using a stick or some other object to hit another child. 22. He thinks he knows everything, but he doesn't. He'll stand there and argue that white is black even when you try to ex- plain things to him. 111 23. .According to what I know about .my husband, seems to be ‘very much like he was at that age 0 24. :He's a kid who's hard to please; jhe's just contrary. 25. iHe knows that we love him. 26. I think feels closer to his father than to me because his father is more lenient with him. 27. When and I have disagree— ments we always kiss and make up--we both feel better if we do this. 28. I'm pretty quick-tempered. 29. I'm sure that tells me whenever there is anything bothering him. 30. I don't think was born at the best time in our marriage. 31. My husband wants everything ship- shape and done right now and he's the biggest procrastinator you ever saw. 32. I think we cooperate on the big decisions. 33. I've told him, "If you think you're right and the other fel- low's trying to run over you, son, you slug him. Or if some- thing happens to be yours and somebody tries to take it away from you, you fight for it." 112 34. A lot of times I take him to a picture show or something on weekends. 35. If there has been a quarrel I tell him if he can't fight his own battles he will have to stay in his own house. 36. My husband thinks I nag too much because I do keep at him at times. 37. If he and the other kid are the same size, I let them fight it out. 38. We praise him when we think he would appreciate it and bubble over it--not just for school work or if his room is kept or his shoes are shined. 39. I just can't think of anything where I would say he should be like my husband, because I think he's fine. 40. I don't think boys should do housework type of chores--I think they should do things like carrying newspapers out or doing something in the yard or running errands. 41. If my husband had punished un- wisely and was in the right then I would tell I thought he was in the right. 42. wasn't very affectionate when he was younger. 43. The kids get to hear words I have no business saying around the house because I get angry. 113 44. He doesn't do too much we can praise him for. 45. I've never encouraged him to use his fists to defend himself. 46. I wish I knew how close feels to me. 47. maybe thinks I get too upset over things that he might want to do. 48. I'd like him to be masculine in regard to sports and hobbies and reading material and so forth. 49. Sometimes he seems to do things just to annoy me and I find this hard to understand. 50. I think I get talked into things. 51. Frankly, I'm just away from him too much of the time, and this is not good. 52. Sometimes I think I understand pretty well but then there are some things he does that I don't understand at all. 53. I feel that probably I have been a little bit lacking in that knack of getting down onto his level on a lot of things. 54. He feels by crying, I suppose, he'll get what he wants. We tell him it won't do him much good to cry. 55. I fear I don't help him as much as I should. 114 56. Once he did come home with a dirty word and I knew someday it would come and yet I guess I did get kind of shaky about it. 57. When boys and girls are some- what older there are probably some differences in their activ- ities, but they all seem pretty much alike to me now. _-u.. I r.” 58. I hope he'll be better able to go out and sway people better than I can. I hope he'll have more chance than I have. 59. I feel our best time is when we just sit and talk. 60. Usually if someone treats me unfairly, I just feel injured. I like to avoid unpleasantness if possible. 61. I think I've always hugged and kissed him, and if he climbed up in my lap, I'd hold him for a while. 62. has been left alone very little. There's always some member of the family in the house. 63. I feel quite close to him because he'll generally come to me and put his arms around me and things like that. 64. My husband is too much on the defensive, too meek. He doesn't oppose things he doesn't like. .“ 115 65. My husband doesn't discuss things--talk things over--as much as I would like. 66. I feel he's too inclined to hold things within himself-- it's good to be able to show anger. 67. I try to kiss him and he'll back away from me. 68. I like my son to be smarter than me. 69. I show my affection very openly no matter where we are. 70. I tell him he has to fight his own battles and not come tat- tling to me. 71. We show our affection for each other--we're not reserved about it at all. 72. If I've punished him and he goes to his bed room and cries, I've insisted he stay there if he's going to cry. 73. I suppose I should give more consideration to his safety when he's out playing but I don't. 74. I don't believe that you should teach a child to fight. 75. As far as rules go, I just simply can't be firm enough to please my husband. 76. We either play whatever game he wants to play or read if he wants to read. 116 77. I would expect him to take on more yardwork as he gets older, but not housework. 78. I don't like to have scenes with people. 79. He feels he has to have his own way, and that's like my husband, and I don't feel that's a very good trait. 80. When I'm angry about something, I like to get it out in the open and get it over with. 81. I would like him to have some interest in art, music, and culture. 82. I don't think that he should do things like setting the table, hanging curtains or washing dishes, unless he wants to, but this should not be required or encouraged. 83. I think he likes attention and, believe me, it's lavished on him. 84. You know, you take your annoy- ances out on the children unfor- tunately. 85. I think to some extent I don't want him to be quite as easy going as my husband. 86. I certainly wouldn't want him to play with dolls and such. 87. The thing that makes me maddest of all is to be treated unfairly or to be unjustly accused. 117 88. The first two years of '5 life are sort of a blur--I don't remember very much about them. 89. I can't think of anything I would like him to be I wouldn't expect in a girl. 90. I don't think I understand my husband very well; I don't understand what brings on his moods. 91. I think that boys should have more manual chores than girls, such as mowing the lawn; I wouldn't expect that of a girl. 92. I can't figure him out some- times-~I don't know what makes him tick. 93. My husband's a great one for mak— ing mountains out of molehills. 94. I think has to stand up for himself. 95. He's smart like his father; he's got a good head on his shoulders. 96. When I flip my lid, I flip, and I flip whether the children hap- pen to be there or a group of people, and get it off my chest. 97. I'd like him to be considerate and thoughtful--sentimental, to a degree, more so than his father is in some respects. 98. Sometimes I'm at my wits end try— ing to figure out what to do with that boy. 118 SA M-lO SD 99. I'd like him to stick up for his own rights. 100. It's more important for boys than for girls to find out early what they're interested in and follow it through. 101. I really enjoy reading to before he goes to bed. 102. I tell him that if he gets pushed around, he should just turn around and push back. 103. I don't get so irritated very easily. I learned to control my temper years ago. APPENDIX D Father Form of the STANFORD PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE The following statements have been made by parents about themselves, their children, and their families. Please read each statement and decide how it applies to you. Look at the next page of this questionnaire for a minute and you will see that there are four columns on the right hand side of the page. On the left side of the page there are statements. You should put one check mark next to each statement. You may put the check mark under SA or A or D or SD. SA means you agree strongly with the statement. A means you agree with the statement more than you disagree with it. D means you disagree with the statement more than you agree with it. SD means that you strongly disagree with the statement. If you agree strongly with the statement or feel sure that it applies to you, put a check mark in the col- umn marked SA. SA means Strongly Agree. If you are sure that a statement does not apply to you or you strongly disagree with the statement, put a check mark in the column marked SD. SD means Strongly Disagree. Use the A (Agree) or D (Disagree) columns for state- ments you are less sure about or feel less strongly about. Please mark every statement, even though some may not seem to describe you or your family. For example, there might be a statement about brothers and sisters and you may have only one child. Give the answer according to what you believe you would think or feel or do if the statement did apply, or the situation did come up. If you have more than one son in the 4th, 5th, and 6th grades, please mark the statements as they apply to your oldest son . For example, if you have both a 6th grade son and a 4th grade son, you would mark the statements as they applied to the 6th grade son. Some statements have blank spaces in them. They are to be marked as they apply to this son. 119 120 Work as quickly as you can. You do not need to think about each statement too carefully—-just give your impression. In other words, answer every one, but do not think too long about any one. Start with number 1 and do each one in order. Give your impression of each statement quickly and go on to the next one. CODE NUMBER: 121 1. I get tired of the whole darned brood, not just , but the whole bunch. It's more important for boys than for girls to find out early what they're interested in and follow it through. Sometimes he seems to do things just to annoy me and I find this hard to understand. If he and the other kid are the same size, I let them fight it out. If I go away for a week on a trip, he doesn't really miss me too much. I would like him to be more of an athlete. If I'm a little lax on some of my duties, my wife gets a little irritated and wants them done right away. I wish I knew how close feels to me. I'm not as tolerant of him as I should be, I feel. 10. I don't think that he should do things like setting the table, hanging curtains or washing dishes, unless he wants to, but this should not be required or encouraged. 11. I don't like to have scenes with people. 122 12. I'd say that in past years I have showed my affection too much. Now I try not to overdo it. 13. I'll say that some of the pretty violent scenes I've had with him were absolutely uncalled for on my part. 14. I tell him that if he gets pushed around, he should just turn around and push back. 15. I don't think he should start fights, but if anyone else starts one I think he should finish it even if he has to come home with two black eyes. 16. I can't think of anything I would like him to be I wouldn't expect in a girl. 17. I'd say there's a lot of room for improvement when it comes to my wife and I understanding each other. 18. I would hate for him to be effem- inate. 19. I have never had any arguments with our neighbors. 20. It hurts me when he talks back to me. 21. Sometimes I think I understand Apretty well but then there are some things he does that I don't understand at all. 123 22. I think that boys should have more manual chores than girls, such as mowing a lawn; I wouldn't expect that of a girl. 23. I'd like him to stick up for his own rights. 24. I take the first opportunity, after I've cooled down and I'm sure he has cooled down, to re- cement our relationships. 25. If my wife gets irritated with me, I try to kid her out of it. 26. has been left alone very little. There's always some member of the family in the house. 27. He likes for me to be at home as much as possible; not to go out. 28. When my wife was pregnant with , we had a hell of a time--we really got on one an- other's nerves. 29. When he was a baby and he cried, we felt that there was something that demanded attention and at- tempted to console him. 30. I think what makes me maddest of all is to be treated unfairly or to be unjustly accused. 31. We either play whatever game he wants to play or read if he wants me to read something to him. 124 32. I don't think I took as much care of him when he was a baby as a father should. 33. It's been very, very seldom that a fight or an argument between my wife and myself lasted overnight. 34. If my wife and I have a differ- ence of opinion on some matter with regard to raising I'm stumped-—I don't quite know how to settle it. 35. He's not as aggressive as he might be at times. 36. I feel quite close to him because he'll generally come to me and put his arms around me and things like that. 37. I tell him he has to fight his own battles and not come tattling to me. 38. I can't understand how my wife can make certain decisions with- out consulting me. 39. I don't try to stop from getting into fights; I try to figure out whether he's justified or not. 40. I think I've always hugged and kissed him, and if he climbed up in my lap, I'd hold him for a while. 41. My wife's probably a little stricter than I am with him. 125 SA F-S SD 42. I'd like him to be masculine in regard to sports and hobbies and reading material and so forth. 43. I'm more concerned about appear- ances than my wife is...She doesn't care what people are going to say or think about her. 44. I try to kiss him and he'll back away from me. 45. I'm pretty quick-tempered. 46. He doesn't do too much that we can praise him for. 47. I would like him to be more ag- gressive in taking care of him- self. 48. He thinks he knows everything, but he doesn't. He'll stand there and argue that white is black, even when you try to ex- plain things to him. 49. I'd hate to have him be like me all the time; I'm no shining example. 50. It's very important for a boy to think and to learn how to use his brains--more so than for a girl. 51. He's a kid who's hard to please; he's just contrary. 52. I think I get talked into things. 53. maybe thinks I get too upset over things that he might want to do. 126 554. wasn't very affectionate when he was young. 55. I think that I'm a better quali- fied judge of human nature than the average person. 56. Quite often when we try to do something for him, he doesn't seem to appreciate it and we kind of feel he should. 57. I feel that probably I have been a little bit lacking in that knack of getting down onto his level on a lot of things. 58. I've had a rough schedule for quite a while now, working pretty hard and not having adequate re- laxation and not having a chance to get away from the house and the family and all that. 59. I'd like him to be a little less cautious than my wife. 60. Sometimes I'm at my wits end try- ing to figure out what to do with that boy. 61. I think he likes attention and, believe me, it's lavished on him. 62. My wife and I don't spend much time together-~only when the whole family gets together. 63. When he was a baby, I used to walk around the room with him when he was crying. 64. I don't make it a practice to ignore him or refuse to speak to him if he's been bad. 127 (55. We show our affection for each other--we're not reserved about it at all. 66. I just can't think of anything where I should say he should not be like my wife, because I think she's fine. 67. We never have any disagreements in front of the kids. 68. If someone feels that they can pick on you and you're not going to do anything about it, they'll pick on you that much more. 69. I would say that and I aren't as happy with each other as we might be. 70. Frankly, I'm just away from him too much of the time, and this is not good. 71. I feel our best time is when we just sit and talk. 72. I've told him, "If you think you're right and the other fel- low's trying to run over you, son, you slug him. Or if some— thing happens to be yours and somebody tries to take it away from you, you fight for it." 73. I wish he felt as close to me as I do to him. 74. To my way of thinking, he seems to want an extraordinary amount of attention. 75. I suppose I should give more con— sideration to his safety when he's out playing but I don't. 128 76. I think that a boy or a girl can have very similar responsibili- ties. I wouldn't say any longer that it's strictly a woman's work maintaining the home. 77. I hope my son is going to have a social, outgoing personality. 78. I'm sure that tells me whenever there is anything bothering him. 79. I don't believe that you should teach a child to fight. 80. As far as taking revenge on a person, I don't think it's right under any circumstances. 81. If I'm irritated at my wife, I can't hit her and I can't yell at her and so I resort to sarcasm. 82. For his own self-protection, he should know how to handle himself. 83. I am constantly warning him of all kinds of dangers, like elec- tricity, knives, and streets and everything. 84. I know that it's only healthy for a boy to fight. 85. We praise him when we think he would appreciate it and bubble over it--not just for school work or if his room is kept or his shoes are shined. 86. You know, you take your annoy- ances out on the children, un- fortunately. 129 87. Things that bother my wife will not bother me. 88. We've had some very violent ex— plosions over lying. 89. I can tell just how he's going to feel about things. 90. I don't think boys should do housework type of chores--I think they should do things like carrying newspapers out or doing something in the yard or running errands. 91. I can't figure him out sometimes-- I don't know what makes him tick. 92. My wife is pretty tied down with housework and various activities and I don't think she has much time for , other than tak- ing care of his needs. 93. I like to hear him talk and, in fact, I kind of delight in seeing him arguing or debating a little with his mother. 94. I don't get irritated very eas- ily. I learned to control my temper years ago. 95. When I flip my lid, I flip, and I flip whether the children hap- pen to be there or a group of peOple, and get it off my chest. 96. My wife is too much on the de- fensive, too meek. She doesn't oppose things she doesn't like. 130 SA F-lO SD 97. The kids get to hear words I have no business saying around the house because I get angry. 98. I think we cooperate on the big decisions. 99. He's pretty much of a momma's boy. 100. I feel that it's important for a boy to learn to stand up for him- self. 101. I have felt that my wife and I aren't as sexually compatible as I thought we should be. 102. My wife's a great one for making mountains out of molehills. 103. I rough-house with the children quite a little bit, and we fight, hitting in the body, and so I suppose automatically I have en- couraged him to use his fists, at least so he knows how to use them. APPENDIX E Items for each scale of the STANFORD PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Mother Form Affection Demonstrated: Items 25, 27, 29, 34, 38, 59, 61, 62, 63, 69, 7T, 76, 83, 101. Rejection: Items 3, 5, 7, ll, 19, 22, 24, 42, 44, 46, 49, 52, 54, 67, 72, 88, 92. Demands for A ression: Items 1, 4, 13, 14, 21, 33, 35, 37, 45, 66, 75, 74, 94, 99, 102. Parental Aggression: Items 9, 10, 17, 28, 43, 60, 78, 88, 84, 87, 96, 103. Self-Esteem: Items 8, 12, 18, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, S8, 68, 73, 98. Husband-Wife Relationshi : Items 6, 15, 16, 26, 30, "7'3I7'357‘557‘59, 41, 4, 65, 75, 79, 85, 9o, 93, 95, 97. Sex-Role Ex ectations: Items 2, 20, 23, 40, 48, 57, 77, 81, 82, 86, 89, 91, 100. Father Form Affection Demgnstrated: Items 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 36, 40, 6T, 63, 64, 65, 71, 73, 78, 85, 89. Re’ection: Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 12, 21, 44, 46, 48, 51, 54, 56, 69, 74, 91. Demands for A ression: Items 4, 14, 15, 23, 35, 37, 99, 47, 69, 72, 79, 82, 84, 93, 100, 103. Parental A ression: Items 11, 19, 30, 45, 80, 86, 88 94 95 97. 9 9 9 , 8, 60, 7o, 75, 83. 131 132 Husband-Wife Relationshi : Items 7, 17, 25, 28, 33, 88, 41, 43, S9, 62, 66, 67, 81, 87, 92, 96, 98, 101, 102. Sex-Role Ex ectations: Items 2, 6, 10, 16, 18, 22, 42, 55, 76, 95, 9 . APPENDIX 1“ Mean scores for the dependent variables in relation to role taking by fathers and mothers There were 41 cases in which both fathers and mothers from the same family took part in the study. These 41 sub- jects were rated as expressive or instrumental depending on whether their scores on the role variable fell above or below the median. They were then divided into four role classifications or types which are as follows: both fathers and mothers expressive (FEMB); fathers expressive and mothers instrumental (FEMI); fathers instrumental and mothers expres- sive (FINE); both fathers and mothers instrumental (FIMI). There were 10 cases in each group with the exception of the FIME class which had 11. One of these was eliminated on a random basis. A preliminary attempt was made to examine some pos- sible relationships between these four parental role types and behavioral disturbance in sons. The table below ives the mean scores for the aggression (A), dependency (Dg, withdrawal (W), perceived rejection of fathers (PRF) and perceived rejection of mothers (PRM) variables in relation to each role type. Role type A 0 w PRF PRM FEMS 290.8 210.0 83.5 25.6 26.4 FEMI 203.6 215.1 76.3 28.9 23.2 FIME 103.9 97.9 50.3 26.3 23.2 FIMI 196.3 147.4 127.0 28.7 25.6 133 APPENDIX G RAW SCORES FOR THE MOTHER-SON SAMPLE Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 23 22 53 23 20 43 26 25 51 57 185 321 111 100 32 035 035 030 26 19 21 40 15 13 45 18 101 134 510 510 180 18 45 25 58 16 15 31 21 20 41 102 63 060 060 000 26 24 44 21 16 37 22 22 103 27 240 13 36 17 14 31 17 17 34 55 570 390 105 147 126 049 17 45 13 40 22 11 33 14 08 22 106 643 '582 519 30 27 50 28 14 42 23 18 41 56 107 049 035 093 19 18 38 29 17 46 16 17 33 38 108 056 007 000 14 17 44 19 20 39 17 27 44 67 109 231 154 028 20 26 48 24 11 35 23 22 45 78 110 116 063 035 15 24 49 25 18 43 17 17 34 66 111 APPENDIX G (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H—W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 042 007 138 21 41 23 52 21 12 33 22 10 32 113 24 784 22 17 39 24 21 45 35 414 321 52 29 114 140 042 028 11 25 58 20 21 41 23 20 43 73 118 098 021 014 22 05 30 23 13 36 09 04 13 63 121 135 43 285 156 052 34 25 12 37 19 14 37 22 122 070 022 020 25 10 39 23 17 40 11 11 22 50 124 065 028 014 16 28 52 30 17 47 22 27 49 34 13 125 19 36 69 034 051 063 34 17 35 09 26 45 126 550 422 062 14 29 56 22 21 43 18 18 36 09 127 096 369 784 25 57 25 20 45 20 21 41 42 18 129 102 070 035 18 27 51 24 16 40 22 21 43 63 130 26 213 091 24 50 16 19 35 28 15 43 73 169 131 272 259 098 18 29 54 22 16 38 20 24 44 18 132- APPENDIX G (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 021 021 063 23 22 42 21 14 35 19 20 39 25 133 055 065 051 30 46 16 37 27 13 40 18 19 37 135 136' 169 123 030 13 59 23 22 45 26 07 33 64 21 076 170 136 38 14 39 19 16 35 18 20 38 50 137 136 23 231 045 39 21 17 38 23 20 43 61 231 20 138 050 120 480 25 18 54 27 10 37 17 15 32 45 139 100 100 028 15 23 21 44 29 32 61 43 57 30 141 31 553 066 14 49 31 05 36 13 03 16 51 701 142 200 170 030 16 23 52 29 15 44 26 36 62 50 143 006 054 049 24 51 17 33 21 18 39 19 14 33 301 32 225 19 43 23 17 40 22 16 38 22 180 135 302 47 085 097 040 27 24 53 29 19 48 29 35 303 126 113 070 22 21 42 26 20 46 25 20 45 45 304 APPENDIX G (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H—W Relationship Self—Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 234 21 257 425 21 48 22 19 41 21 17 38 56 305 395 590 180 21 26 51 26 20 46 19 18 37 48 306 409 072 153 24 28 51 26 16 42 23 27 50 52 307 050 030 010 18 19 49 25 18 43 13 07 20 50 308 137 012 099 018 27 42 20 18 38 10 26 36 55 12 310 103 114 012 22 17 41 26 16 42 21 09 30 77 311 300 140 030 37 24 53 29 17 46 22 20 42 68 312 037 076 102 38 23 49 31 13 44 24 29 53 56 313 065 020 010 24 18 51 15 10 25 20 12 32 58 314 271 112 026 18 22 45 22 16 38 18 22 40 53 315 022 025 053 29 23 16 39 23 15 38 41 44 17 316 036 022 010 19 67 10 36 30 14 44 04 04 08 318 26 040 040 025 16 49 24 11 35 25 32 57 59 319 APPENDIX G (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 690 489 065 31 39 33 52 26 20 46 24 14 38 320 267 266 140 22 24 45 25 19 44 22 29 51 72 321 000 070 130 22 28 48 22 23 45 21 25 46 61 322 056 063 052 22 49 25 16 41 29 19 48 53 27 324 138 430 470 040 20 23 12 35 17 12 29 46 48 19 325 380 330 020 23 67 06 41 25 09 34 15 04 19 326 APPENDIX H RAW SCORES FOR THE FATHER-SON SAMPLE Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 185 321 111 25 35 17 52 26 15 41 18 53 20 200 26 15 45 24 11 35 20 24 44 27 201 071 035 _030 139 060 060 000 19 16 39 27 12 39 14 30 44 36 202 .— 20 240 570 390 56 16 44 28 16 44 22 24 46 203 147 126 049 37 66 20 49 30 14 44 27 23 50 204 049 035 093 18 15 45 23 11 34 29 33 62 45 206 014 014 021 22 45 17 49 25 10 35 22 19 41 207 231 154 028 16 12 33 22 17 39 35 22 57 28 209 042 007 138 26 16 21 50 28 14 42 26 23 49 210 414 321 055 31 22 54 27 17 44 23 26 49 28 211 140 042 028 18 21 51 21 09 30 30 26 56 24 213 APPENDIX H (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 098 021 014 20 10 43 32 09 41 19 16 35 38 215 26 06 31 25 12 37 11 18 29 68 260 200 130 216 285 156 052 32 18 46 27 12 39 21 16 37 26 217 034 051 063 29 19 54 33 13 46 24 23 47 23 218 140 26 09 35 15 24 39 54 169 213 091 34 43 10 219 169 123 030 20 09 35 23 11 34 20 09 29 63 220 076 170 136 41 07 39 24 16 40 26 22 48 68 221 21 050 120 480 33 42 14 56 18 22 37 10 222 070 057 050 15 27 00 43 36 06 42 13 29 42 223 13 231 045 231 71 22 55 21 14 35 29 22 51 224 60 701 -553 ~066 39 20 51 26 14 40 23 18 225 093 049 056 24 21 52 25 13 38 22 22 44 70 226 84 550 422 062 21 20 50 22 18 40 20 18 227 APPENDIX H (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H—W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 21 021 021 063 14 43 21 13 34 16 18 228 23 35 225 15 52 29 07 36 19 29 48 36 180 135 402 006 054 049 42 47 17 43 23 17 40 25 24 49 403 085 097 040 33 57 05 38 38 21 59 20 21 41 404 141 130 035 040‘ 24 40 35 15 50 19 12 31 46 09 405 257 425 234 39 09 42 32 17 49 26 27 53 20 406 012 099 018 16 69 24 53 25 13 38 26 28 54 407 395 590 180 29 22 50 31 15 46 23 21 44 49 408 409 072 153 22 17 46 22 12 34 23 24 47 56 409 050 030 010 32 09 38 24 12 36 13 15 28 46 410 103 114 012 20 22 48 30 12 42 25 20 45 32 411 300 140 030 29 16 50 28 15 43 20 25 45 66 412 45 037 076 102 48 33 18 51 28 25 47 21 413 APPENDIX H (continued) Perceived Rejection Withdrawal Dependency Aggression Role Adjustment H-W Relationship Self-Esteem General Aggression Parental Aggression Demands for Aggression Ambivalence Rejection Family Number 065 020 010 32 14 43 30 15 45 25 23 48 15 414 30 053 13 41 27 14 41 19 37 36 52 022 025 415 120 117 072 22 21 49 31 13 44 20 29 49 32 416 126 113 070 39 18 46 24 08 32 23 19 42 45 417 142 271 112 026 22 50 27 15 42 15 23 38 50 24 418 056 028 140 38 24 59 20 19 39 26 27 53 54 419 690 489 065 26 32 18 50 19 28 47 36 42 21 420 056 063 052 21 20 44 27 11 38 23 20 43 30 421 430 470 040 19 15 50 26 10 36 22 15 37 60 422 090 108 468 14 65 17 49 27 09 33 21 11 32 423 "I11111111311111“111171153