I ‘7 2"." "‘1‘- a '2 fl 3 1293 ; ,13'7""?-';-‘ “ ,3; _l. .tfi ;"‘1”‘1'-""..’- t": 1 ‘- .,',I {4% Us! w?4_-"5/. . I Uuuflv 5.1“! llllllllllllilllullwill :*"‘"“”‘i " " ”' ” " '” l l l -M" “4‘ on- .m- —-.‘“a‘ u' 01 ‘r' :1 i i This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PERCEPTIONS 0F FATHER/SON INTERACTION AND THEIR RELATIONSHI‘P TO SELF-ESTEEM IN SONS presented by MICHAEL JAN NELSON has been accepted towards fulfillment ofthe requirements for M A «grammars QflZfi/Aé M ajor professor Date ninjas MSUis an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. PERCEPTIONS OF FATHER/SON INTERACTION AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SELF-ESTEEM IN SONS BY Michael Jan Nelson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1983 ABSTRACT PERCEPTIONS OF FATHER/SON INTERACTION AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SELF-ESTEEM IN SONS BY Michael Jan Nelson To probe theoretically formulated linkages between fathers' son-oriented behavior and their sons' self-reported self-esteem, 66 undergraduate students and their fathers independently completed self-esteem (Self-Esteem Inventory and Texas Social Behavior Inventory) and interpersonal style (Interpersonal Check List and Interpersonal Chart) inven- tories. Multiple regression analyses revealed that sons' . perceptions of fathers assertiveness best predicted sons' self-esteem (2_‘ .01). Sons' and fathers' descriptions of fathers' interactional style generally yielded modest posi- tive correlations. Congruent father/son views of fathers' assertiveness linked positively with sons' self— esteem, but the latter did not correlate significantly with congruent father/son views of high affiliative paternal style. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank John Hurley, my chairman, for his myriad of critiques from which I am beginning to understand the process and production of quality research. I also wish to thank my other committee members, Larry O'Kelly and Gilbert DeRath, for their invaluable suggestions and encouragement. Each of these three scholars has been and continues to be a role model for me as a developing psychologist. Thank you Jane, Nick, and Fred for your help in wrestling HAL into submission. Without you I'd still be writing format statements... Thanks Mark for your help with the word processor as well as your editorial assistance. A very special thanks to you Patricia for your help, continual encouragement, and faith in me as a valuable person. Ybu've given me more than words can describe. Thank you. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List Of Figums O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Introduction O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Pertinent Theories of Self-Concept Formation Parent/Child Interaction . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Self-Esteem Inventory, form B (831) . Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI) Interpersonal Chart (IC) . . . . . . . Interpersonal Check List (ICL) . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationships Hypothesized and Observed . Implications for Future Research . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ho H. P. iv e a: pa < 10 1o 10 12 12 13 1a 16 1a 30 33 36 u1 us Appendices (continmd) o o o o o o A. B. C. D. B. 1". Sons' Informed Consent Form Letter to Fathers . . . Self-Esteem Inventory . Texas Social Behavior Inventory Interpersonal Chart . . Interpersonal Che ck List as us 1.7 as us so 51 1. 2. LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations for All Data . Pearson Correlation Coefficients for All 20 Father and- Son Pairs (I! = 66) . Comparisons of Self-Esteem Means as a Function of Congruence of Father/Son Perceptions Along the Affiliative or Assertive Dimensions LOV, ARO ’ DOM , w d ARS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Regression Analysis Summary Table for All Variables Versus Sons' Self-Esteem Inventory and Versus Sons' Texas Social Behavior Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. 3. LIST OF FIGURES Cluster analysis based soley on fathers' dataoooooooooo0000000000021 Cluster analysis based soley on sons' data . . 21 Cluster analysis based on sons' and fathers' data O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 u Groupings for intrameasure and intersource comparisons of father/ son perceptions of fathers' son-oriented behavior . . . . . . . . 38 Groupings for intermeasure and intersource comparisons, and for intermeasure and intrasource comparisons, of fathers' , sons' , and father/son perceptions of fathers' acceptance for their sons . . . . . . . . . . 39 vi LHIBQQQQIIQE. Evidence from diverse sources suggested that the quality and style of the parent/child interaction plays a major role in the child's development of a concept of self (Mead, 1934: Stoke, 195$: Bandura, 1969: Tesser 198%). The intent of the present exploration was to question the rela- tionShip between the acceptance/rejection dimension of the father/son interaction and self-concept development in the son. Wylie (1979) provided an excellent review and integra- tion of the literature intended to define the self—concept. While self-identity is a subfactor of self-concept and has been variously described (wylie, 1974; Robinson & Shaw, 1974), it herein refers to an individual's awareness and appreciation of those qualities, attributes and nuances of the self Which define him/her as a unique and separate person and/or Which define his/her memberShip within subgroups of society. Self-esteem is that aspect of self- identity that represents one's internalized sense of worth or value, and it is this particular facet of the self- concept that is under present consideration. Pertinent Theories of Self-Concept Egzmatign Bandura (1969) and Bandura and Kuppers (1964) described the acquisition of behavioral characteristics, attitudes, and the self-concept as resulting from the child's identi- fication with, and imitation of, significant others. Accor- ding to Bandura (I969), incorporation of modelled behavior into the child's behavioral and attitudinal repertoire occurs as a result of selective reinfbrcement. Bandura and Kuppers (1964) previously reported that the parental self- concept is positively related to the child's self-concept. This perspective is distinct from the symbolic interac- tionist perspective of mirroring (Mead, 1934: Gecas, 1978). Mirroring, according to Gecas, Colonico, and Thomas (197]), purports that the self-concept is a product of reflected appraisals of others and that parental evaluation is positively related to the child‘s self-concept. Both mirroring and modelling seem to be factors in the process of self-concept formation. Reflected appraisals of significant others may effect one's self-image; selective reinforcement could mold behavioral patterns and thus self—perceptions. Man appears to be inescapably a joint product of both how his environment defines him, and also of how he defines his environment. Satellization theory (Ausubel, 1954; Ausubel & Sullivan, 197C: Berzonski, 1978) described an ideal family relationship based on relatively unconditional parental 2 acceptance and love for the child as a human being of intrinsic worth. Rogers (196]) further emphasized the importance of relatively unconditional acceptance. A supportive environment was thought to facilitate the child's formation of internal feelings of security and selfeworth and also provide a basis for identification (with parents) and value internalization. As unconditional self-worth and personal security are established, self-identity will not be jeopardized by the external milieu. Individuation (or desa- tellization) occurs as intra- and extrafamilial experience gradually replaces the individual's former derived status, based on unconditional acceptance and love, with primary or achieved status, based on reinforcement secondary to successful interaction with the greater environment. Iden- tity formation is seen as a continuing and progressive response to the ever-increasing body of experience accumu- lated through experimental interaction. If, on the other hand, the parent/child relationship is based on rejection or qualified acceptance, the child enjoys little derived status and self-worth is externally based. Experiential trauma are defined in terms of personal inadequacy and the self-concept is devalued. Self-identity, contigent upon external events, translates into incomplete individuation and compromised self-actualization. Penen31ehild Interactions Much effort has been directed toward understanding the nature of the parent/child interaction and toward distin- guishing the salient variables that define this primary relationship (Hurley, 1965; Shaefer, 1965: Hower, 1978). At least two viewpoints have emerged. One contends that three dimensions are required to adequately describe inter- personal relationships (Shaefer, 1965): the other suggests that two dimensions will suffice (Hurley, 1965). Shaefer (1965), employing the Child's Report of Paren- tal Behavior Inventory (CRPBI), concluded that three bipolar dimensions were necessary and sufficient to adequately illuminate the parent/child relationship. These dimensions were Acceptance versus Rejection, Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control, and Firm versus Lax Control. With each factor having a thesis and antithesis, parental locus in this tri—dimensional space was thought to delimit the boundaries of the offspring's potential growth and self- concept. Cross (1969), Armentrout and Burger (1972), and flower (1978) concurred that the CRPBI revealed three bipolar dimensions defining primary parent/child relationships. Bower and Edwards (1979) demonstrated that late adolescent socialization, as defined by the degree to which an indi- vidual regards the rules: values and prohibitions of society to be personally mandatory, and empathy correlated posi- tively with the accepting, noncontrolling parental stance and negatively with the rejecting, controlling stance. Interestingly, autonomy (i.e., independent moral behavior) did not correlate with either parental orientation. A similar study by Nuttall and Nuttall (1976) fOund that acceptance and psychological autonomy correlated with high academic achievement motivation. Hurley (1976a, 1986), in a review of the pertinent literature, described human social interaction as a function of two interpersonal dimensions: Acceptance versus Rejec- tion of Self (ARS) and Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (ARO). The latter (ARO) seems comparable to Benjamin's (1976, 1978) bipolar Affiliation dimension and Leary's (1957) LOV (love--hate) factor. ARO identifies the inter- personal emotive variables warm, helpful, gentle, and accep- ting versus cold, harmful, harsh, and rejecting. Acceptance versus Rejection of Self seems comparable to Benjamin's (1976, 1978) Interdependence dimension and Leary's DOM (dominance--submission) factor. It (ARS) identifies the intrapersonal variables (and their expressions) active, expressive, self—assertive, and self-disclosing versus passive, guarded, self-effacing, and self-concealing. Wiggins (1979), using cluster analytic techniques, partially succeeded in replicating the Leary system with traitdescrip— tive adjectives. The primary bipolar and orthogonal traits specified by Wiggins (1979) were Ambitious--Dominant versus Lazy--Submissive, similar to Hurley's ARS, and Cold-~Quarrelsome versus warm—-Agreeable, similar to ARO. Relating parental style to the child‘s development, Hurley (1965) demonstrated a modest positive relationship between parental acceptance and their children's IQ scores. Acceptance was defined "as representing one extreme of a bipolar continuum, epitomized by parental behaviors oriented toward encouraging the child to interact fully and freely with the environment within the context or parental approval and support" (p. 19). A later study (Hurley, 1967) revealed an inverse linkage between parental malevolence and the children's IQ scores. Hurley (1976a) subsequently provided evidence of the functional independence of ARS and ARO and suggested that sound measures of each were likely to be‘ beneficial in assessing the effects of any intervention in the interpersonal realm. Other works supported the conten- tion that two dimensions adequately describe interpersonal transactions (Becker and Krug, 1964: Lorr and McNair, 1976: Hurley & Force, 1973; Hurley, 1976b) and also suggested that environments high in ARO and ARS are conducive to psycho— logical growth (Hurley, 1975: Siegalman, Block, Block, & von der Lippe, 1976). Both these two and the three dimensional perspectives agreed that the variable of Acceptance versus Rejection of Other (Acceptance versus Rejection) was a crucial dimension for appraising the quality of the parent/child interaction. Both contended that Acceptance versus Rejection of Self '(Psychological Autonomy versus Psychological Control) was a second crucial dimension describing the interaction. And. both points supported a hypothesized relationship between parental acceptance of the child and self-esteem development in the child. A strong linkage between these latter varia- bles was also supported by cross cultural studies (Rohner, 1975; Halpin, Halpin, & Whiddon, 198%). These two accep- tance versus rejection dimensions can be conceptualized as the axes on a grid of cartesian coordinates. The acceptance versus rejection of self axis represents interpersonal assertiveness While the acceptance versus rejection of other axis represents affiliation. Along this acceptance- rejection matrix one can assess the validity of the suppo- sition that parent's perceptions of the parent/child inter— action is congruent with the child's perceptions of the relationship. Also, a determination can be made as to Whether the child's perceptions of the relationship seems to have a greater impact on his own self-esteem fbrmation than either his parents' corresponding perceptions or a congruent perception of the relationShip by both parent and child. While much of the present discussion revolves around the role of a child's relationship with his parents, other influences clearly effect the child's development of a sense of self. These include genetic predispositions, birth order, socioeconomic factors, peer relationships, academic achievement, and/or other variables. The child's own inter- personal style may effect, albeit indirectly, his development of a self-concept. The present study merely focuses on the relationship between child-oriented parental behaviors and the child's self-esteem development. This focus is not to minimize the importance of other factors influenceing the individual's development. Parent/child relationships are circular events. An individual responds selectively, not indiscriminantly to his environment depen- dent upon perceptions of the past, present, and anticipa- tions of the future." One's perceptions of the event, as well as one's experience contribute to the definition of the event, and one's reaction to it. Hypotheses The particular interaction selected for scrutiny was that of the father/son dyad. Evidence to the importance of this system abounds in the literature (Payne & Mussen, 1956; Nash, 1965; Cattell, 1980). The present study directed itself to the relationship between the bidimensional concept of father/son acceptance and self-esteem in the son. I hope to determine how self-esteem varies with respect to the son's perception, the father's perception, and a congruent perception of the relationship on the acceptance/rejection matrix. . Congruence and incongruence of paternal/filial percep- tion was defined in terms of relative agreement of percep— tions as gauged by individual's scores on the research measures. Individual's perceptions were measured along both the assertiveness and affiliation axis of the acceptance- rejection matrix. Instances in Which both father and son scored above or below the pertinent subsample's median value for a particular measure were defined as congruent with regard to that measure. Instances in Which one member of a pair scored above the median While the other scored below were considered incongruent. The assertiveness and affilia- tion scores were divided into high and low categories depen- dent upon their relationship to the median score for that particular dimension and participant group. The hypotheses being tested were: Hypothesis 1: Congruent father/son perceptions of high acceptance are associated with high self-esteem in the sons. Hypothesis 2: Congruent father/son perceptions of low acceptance (i.e., rejection) are associated with low self- esteem in the sons. Hypothesis 3: Incongruent perceptions of the relation- ship described as high acceptance by the sons are associated with moderate self-esteem in the sons. Hypothesis 4: Incongruent perceptions of the relation- ship described as low acceptance by the sons are associated with moderate self-esteem in the sons. Hypothesis 5: Self-esteem in the sons will be posi— tively related to self-esteem in the fathers. METHODS Subjects The relevant population was comprised of 66 undergrad- uate male students enrolled in a general or social psycho- logy course at Michigan State University and their fathers. All participants were volunteers and elected to participate in exchange for extra credit applied to the final grade in the introductory psychology course for undergraduates. They ranged from 18 to 23 years of age with an average of 19. Eighty-four percent of the participants were Michigan residents; the remainder were from other states. Sign-up sheets for subject participation, Which contained dates, location, and time of study, were posted in the undergraduate psychology classes. The sheets indicated that the author wished to conduct a study of father/son interactions and that both parents must reside at the student's permanent residence. Three potential participants were omitted from this study as their families were from foreign cultures. Deee Collection To assure subject anonymity no identifying information was collected. In groups of approximately ten subjects, student participants signed informed consent forms 10 1] (Appendix A) and completed numbered research measures during scheduled appointments. Subsequently, the participants addressed packets (see Appendix B) which were sent to their respective fathers. Each packet contained: (a) A brief description of the intended research: (b) A statement requesting the father's involvement in the research: (c) A statement describing the credit to be awarded the sons: (d) A self-explanatory, numbered research file with the measures to be completed: and (e) An addressed stamped envelope for returning the completed measures. The addressed research packets were mailed to the father participants, or sons hand—carried the packets home to their fathers. After addressing the research packets, the student participant received a numbered card awarding the credits earned and specifying the credits yet to be awarded. Measures given to each student, measures given to his father, and the student's card documenting extra credit earned were corres- pondingly numbered so that anonymity could be maintained and students could receive appropriate credit for their partici- pation. The identifying numbers of the fathers' returned research measures were posted in the students' psychology classroom. Students holding correspondingly numbered docu- mentation cards were then given appropriate credit upon presentation of their cards to the author. 12 Measures Two measures were employed to provide an indication of self-esteem in the subjects, and two additional measures were employed to provide an indication of the acceptance/ rejection dimension on the father/son relationship. Each of these latter measures provided an index of assertiveness and affiliation. Self—Esteem InventoryI form B (SEI). The Self-Esteem Inventory, form B (Self-Esteem Institute, 1974) is a self— report measure derived from an item analysis of Coopersmith's (1967) longer Self-Esteem Inventory. Whereas originally designed for use with children, form B has been modified and used successfully in both college (Bedian. 1978) and industrial populations (Latham & Yukl, 1976). This latter modification (shown in Appendix C) was used with the present subjects. It consisted of 25 statements to Which the subjects responded by indicating "like me" or "unlike me". It was scored by the methods described in the NOrms for the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (Self-Esteem Institute, 1974). Possible scores range from “O“ to "106". Test-retest reliability and internal consistency data offered by Bedian, Teague, and Zmud (1977) provided support for the internal characteristics of this measure. Correla- tion of the shorter with the longer, original questionnaire was reported as.£_= .86 (Self-Esteem Institute, 1976). Bedian (1976) indicated a statistically significant positive 13 relationship (£_= .85) in university students between self- esteem as measured by the SEI-B and need achievement as measured by the Adjective Check List (Gough & Heilbrum, 1965). The probabilities reported were p_< .01 and p_< .O4 for males and females, respectively. Bedian (1976) further argued that such a relationship provided concurrent validity for the SEI-B. However, a follow-up report (Bedian and Zmud, 1977) interpreted this prior finding as failing to provide strong support for the convergent validity of the measure. Neither wylie (1974, 1979) nor Burrows (1978) addressed the validity or reliability issues relating to the short form of this inventory. The Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI). The Texas Social Behavior Inventory: An Objective Measure of Self- Esteem or Social Competence (Helmreich, Stapp, & Ervin, 1974) is a multiple-Choice scale designed to ”be used reliably to categorize individuals as a function of perceived social competence" (p.1). A factor analytic con- densation of a 66-item pool dealing with aspects of personal worth and social interaction, the 32-item inventory was demonstrated to have test-retest reliability (over an unspecified interval) of ;_= .94 for 271 male and £_= .93 for 235 female university students. As the same measure correlated highly (p_< .01) with the California Personality Inventory's (Gough, 1964) self-esteem scale, it displayed adequate construct validity (Helmreich et a1, 1974). Stapp (1974) showed that the measure also related significantly J4 and positively to academic achievement: hoWever, Helmreich et al. (1974) reported the "the TSBI is not significantly related to intelligence (as measured by the Scholastic Aptitude Test)" (p. 4). Two 16-item TSBI short-fbrms were abstracted from-the original inventory (Helmreich & Stapp, 1974). Each corre- lated well with the longer instrument (5;: .97 for male uni- versity students). These short forms intercorrelated at 3;: .89. The TSBI-A and TSBI-B consist of declarative self- statements for Which five response alternatives are provided. These are: th at all characteristic of me: Not very: Slightly: Fairly: Very much characteristic of me. All items were scored "0" to "4“ with "0" defining the response associated with low social dampetence, and “4“ the response characteristic of high social competence. The total score for each subject was the sum of individual items, ranging from 0 to 64. Form A, which demonstrated a normative mean of 40.45 and a standard deviation of 8.87, was employed as an index of perceived level of social competence (see appen- dix D). Interpersonal Chart. The Interpersonal Chart (Hurley, 1978), based on an eight—item inventory of ratings of self and others, spatially locates an individual on a graded matrix of interpersonal competence. As noted earlier, it defines human social interaction as a function of the ARS and ARC interpersonal dimensions. Warm-—Cold, Helps Others--Harms Others, Gentle--Harsh, and Accepts 15 Others—-Rejects Others were the four bipolar subscales employed to measure ARO. Shows Feelings--Hides Feelings. Expressive--Guarded, Active--Passive, and Dominant--Submissive operationally measured ARS. Each scale provides for a "0“ to "9" rating with "9" representing the favorable or positive pole and "0“ denoting its opposite. Hurley (1976a) and Hurley and Rosenthal (1978) provided evidence supporting the construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl) 1955) of earlier versions of this measure. A‘high positive correlation (£_= .86) between Likes Self-—Dislikes Self and total ARS also supported the ARS's validity as a general label for the behaviors represented by the relevant subscales (Hurley, 1976b). The same study also showed that Likes Self--Dislikes Self contributed more to ARS's total variance than any other subscale. ARO correlated most highly (£_= .85) with the Accepts Others--Rejects Others scale (Hurley, 1976b). In the present study, ARO scores above the group median were considered indicators of high affiliative style While ARS scores above the group median were considered indicators of high assertive style. For use in the present study, two of Hurley's subscales were modified to Accepting—-Rejecting and Helpful--Harmful and the Liked--Disliked subscale was omitted (See Appendix E). Directions for use of the Interpersonal Chart were modified such that each son was instructed to: "Please mark' the location that best represents your father's behavior toward you along each dimension." Fathers were similarily 16 instructed to: "Please mark the location that best repre- sents your behavior toward your son along each dimension." Interpersonal Check List (ICL). The Interpersonal Check List (Leary, 1957) is a 128-item self-report inventory of descriptive phrases Which are answered "true” or "false." The present inventory was developed through four revisions and reductions of a 344-item adjective check list prepared by Suczek to be representative of trait lists extant in the psychological literature up to 1950 (LaForge & Suczek, 1955). This fourth revision (see Appendix F) defined a circumplex of interpersonal traits oriented about a dominant--submissive axis and a love--hate axis. Leary (1957) reported "that extensive validation of the circular continuum of interpersonal variables has demonstrated that it is satisfactorily congruent with empirical facts. While the units around the scale are not completely equidistant, the arrangement is correctly ordered" (p. 66). Foa (1961) supported the use of dominance--submissive and love--hate as the principle axes of the interpersonal circumplex and agreed that a circular ordering of the variables was essen- tially correct. Other evidence (LaForge & Suczek, 1955) further documented the predicted pattern. Wiggins (1979), in a review of the literature concer- ning circumplex models of interpersonal behavior, emphasized the finding that the units around the Leary Interpersonal Circle are not completely equidistant. He (Wiggins) has consequently developed a similar 128-item adjective check 17 list of trait descriptive terms. Unfortunately, some of the adjectives selected by Wiggins appear so infrequently in everyday usage as to be confusing. More recent evidence (Lyons, Hirshberg & Wilkinson, 1980) supported the circular ‘ordering of the ICL traits and also emphasized the radex structure of the interpersonal circle. Directions for use of the ICL with the present subject population were modified so that sons were instructed to: "Please indicate whether you view each of the attributes listed below as being mostly true or mostly false as they apply to yOur father's behavior toward you." Fathers were similarily instructed to: “Please indicate Whether you view each of the attributes listed below as being mostly true or mostly false as they apply to your behavior toward your son" servers. A matrix of Pearson correlations was made for all rele- vant data, (see Table 1). One-tailed tests of significance were used for all comparisons, except Where otherwise speci- fied, based on the the 66 pairs of father/son data. This represented 89% of the total population sampled. Eight other cases were excluded because of incomplete or nonre- turned fathers' data. Means and standard deviations of all measures for both complete and incomplete pairs are listed in Table 2. TWo-tailed §:tests showed that these eight did not differ significantly from the rest of the recruited sample with regard to any variable. An experimental error rate (Keppel, p. 88: 1973) was employed to offset for the probability of increased type I errors in this series of g—tests . Factor analysis using McQuitty's (1961) technique established the clusters shown in Figures 1 through 3. Figure 1 was derived from fathers' data. Figures 2 and 3 resulted from separate analyses of sons' data and all data, respectively. Figure 1 showed that the fathers' measures clustered around a nuclear bond IE.‘ .69) between the Self-Esteem Inventory (FSEI) and the Texas Social Behavior Inventory (FTSBI). This correlation supported the linkage of intra- personal (FSEI measured) and interpersonal (FTSBI measured) indicators of self—esteem. The dominance--submission factor 18 Table 23 Means and Stasndard Deviations for All Data Complete Data Sets Incomplete Data Sets (y_= 66) (1:: a) Mean Std Deviation Mean Std Deviation FLOV 2.87 5.17 - — FDOM 6.00 4.89 - - FARO 28.62 5.98 - - FARS 25.27 6.63 - - FSEI 81.87 14.18 - - FTSBI 46.47 9.39 - - S:FLOV 1.30 5.68 4.60 2.74 S:FDOM 6.46 3.82 7.61 4.40 S:FARO 26.89 6.00 25.25 7.13 S:FARS 24.21 5.76 27.63 3.78 SSEI 77.41 17.18 71.50 17.36 STSBI 44.77 7.82 42.50 6.46 19 anon coaweunoco e3 mo. No saunas 05mm on» Bonn gnomes heads: zaaesuooocoo u n ”— umou 00323-23 an 3. Na noonsom 3.33.3.3 .9338. mean u A V was» eugenics an So. do I- ”ammo no osu can emu Hamem nan mu I Go N AN dd: a." Hmmm no com I no» Homuu new mm9; Hmmhm Hmmw mm058 Ham: Hmmm mm: 05: rock >oam a com a.» onus.“ .Amm u mv modem now can. heaven H2 90% mucowowuuooo cowuudokhoo gunman “A canon. 20 35 an as "6 FDOM ”sex EHSBI—FARS 35 Figure l. Cluster analysis based solely on fathers' data. 32 FAROO $3131 a STSBI u1 30 29 S:FDOM S:FARS FLOV Figure 2. Cluster analysis based solely on sons' data. Note. Modified after McQuitty (1961). The length and ffi'i'Ekness of the line represent the strength of the corre- lation (given adjacent to the appropriate connection). Arrowhead indicates the variable that contributed the greater covariance within the total matrix of correlations. 21 22 (DOM) correlated most highly (3;: .46) with FSEI, and fathers' Acceptance versus Rejection of Self (FARS) corre- lated most highly {£_= .46) with FTSBI: these bonds showed firm linkages between fathers' self-perceived assertiveness and self-esteem. The additional correlations of FARS with FSEI (;_= .35), and FDOM with FTSBI (5;: .44) reinforced this association. In contrast, neither of the affiliative measures, Acceptance versus Rejection of Others (FARO) and fathers' Love--Hate (FLOV), correlated significantly with either self-esteem measure. Figure 2 delineated two separate clusters in the sons' perceptions of fathers' son-oriented behavior. One cluster was anchored (£_2 .71) by the two affiliative measures (S:FLOV and S:FARO). Sons' data also identified a moderate association (£_8 .38) between the sons' perceptions of paternal assertiveness (S:FARS) and their perceptions of paternal affiliative style (S:FARO): that was reinforced by the secondary linkage (£_= .36) between S:FARS and S:FLOV. The second cluster in the sons' reports was anchored by the strong positive correlation between sons' self-esteem measures (SSEI versus STSBI, £_= .63). The cluster demon- strated a moderate bond (£;= .41) between sons' perceptions of fathers' assertiveness (S:FDOM) and sons' expressions of self-esteem (SSEI). Sons' perceptions of their fathers' assertiveness (S:FDOM) also correlated (5;: .30) with the interpersonal measure of sons' self-esteem (STSBI). SARS linked modestly to SSEI (r = .28, p < .02). 23 The data presented in Figure 3 revolved around two cen- tral clusters. The first, converging on the connections between SSEI and STSBI (£_= .63) and between FSEI and FTSBI (5;= .69), revealed the parallel nature of the relationship between assertiveness and self-esteem in sons and fathers. DOM correlated moderately with SEI for fathers (£_= .46) and sons (£;= .41). It also corrlated moderately with TSBI for fathers (£_— .44) and sons (£_= .35). The second cluster, anchored by S:FLOV and S:FARO (£_= .71), demon- strated intermeasure agreement about fathers' affiliative behavior. Hurley's ARO affiliative measure correlated moderately for fathers and sons (£_= .35) While Leary's LOV index (not shown in Fig. 3) closely approached a significant bond (S:FLOV versus S:FLOV, p_= .23, p_< .06). FLOV and FARO correlated modestly (£_= .29) as did fathers' DOM and ARS scores (£;= .35). Though both sets of affiliative measures correlated reasonably well with each other, only S:FLOV and S:FARO correlated with any self-esteem indicator. Congruence and incongruence of paternal/filial percep— tions was defined in terms of relative agreement of percep— tions as gauged by individual's scores on each measure. Sons adhieved significantly higher (p_< .005) intrapersonal self-esteem scores (SSEI) When sons and fathers perceptions of a high assertive style (DOM) were congruent than When both described fathers' behaviors differently (see Table 3). In those cases of congruent perceptions of low assertiveness (DOM), sons reported significantly lower (p < .012) self- 35 1.1 s :FDOM-SSEI-fi‘ STSBI ‘_- 31 33 S: PARS S: FARO l S:FLOV Figure 3. Cluster analysis based on sons' and fathers' data. Note. Modified after McQuitty (1961). The length and Mess of the line represent the strength of the corre- lation (given adjacent to the appropriate connection). Arrowhead indicates the variable that contributed the greater covariance within the total matrix of correlations. 2M 25 esteem scores (SSEI) than did dyads Whose descriptions of low paternal assertiveness disagreed. Incongruent percep- tions of paternal assertiveness (DOM) related to signifi- cantly'higher (p_< .001) self-esteem scores (STSBI) only among those sons Who described their fathers' behavior as high assertive. No other significant relationships were noted between sons' self-esteem and perceived paternal style on the assertiveness dimension (DOM or ARS). The semi-independence of SSEI and STSBI scores (£_= 0.63) allowed for computation of joint probabilities for sons' self-esteem varying as a function of congruence of perception (see Table 3). Congruent perceptions of DOM consistently demonstrated positive linkages with both self— esteem scores. The joint probability of the correlations found for congruent high perceptions was p_< .001: the prob— ability for congruent low perceptions was p.< .003. Congruent perceptions of high LOV showed a similar strong positive connection with self-esteem. The joint probability of the linkages lay at p_< .007. Incongruent perceptions of paternal style demonstrated sons' perceptions of DOM and ARO to relate most to sons' self-esteem (joint self-esteem probabilities of p_< .001 and p_< .001, respectively). Cases of incongruent perceptions of paternal affilia- tive style (ARO) yielded higher sons' self-esteem (STSBI) When sons described their relationship as high affiliative, While their fathers viewed it as less affiliative, than in all other cases. No other significant linkages between Table 3: 26 Comparisons of Self-Esteem Means as a Function of Congru- ence of Father/Son Perceptions Along the Affiliative or Assertive Dimensions LOV, and ARS. Comparison Groups In - median) l Congruent Perceptions FDOM > m, S:FDOM > m 20 all others 46 FARS > m, S:FARS > m 25 all others 41 FDOM < m, S:FDOM < m 18 all others 48 FARS < m. S:FARS < m 18 all others 48 FLOV > m, S:FLOV > m 20 all others 46 FARO > m, S:FARO > m 23 all others 43 FLOV < m, S:FLOV < m 17 all others 49 FARO < m, S:FARO < m 19 all others 47 Incongruent Perceptions FDOM < m, S:FDOM > m 14 all others 52 FARS < m, S:FARS > m 14 all others 52 FDOM > m, S:FDOM < m 14 all others 52 FARS > m, S:FARS < m 18 all others 48 FLOV < m, S:FLOV > m 15 all others 51 FARO < m, S:FARO > m 11 all others 55 FLOV > m, S:FLOV < m 14 all others 52 FARO > m, S:FARO < m 13 all others 53 84.3 74.4 80.1 75.8 68.4 80.8 72.0 79.4 82.7 75.1 79.9 76.1 73.3 78.7 73.9 79.8 82.9 75.9 83.0 75.9 73.6 78.4 72.0 79.4 77.8 85.2 75.9 75.7 77.9 71.8 7808 SSEI t 2.60 .005 1.03 -2.14 -1.15 -1058 -1.04 ARO, DOM, P .16 .012 .06 .04 .17 .18 .13 .06 O18 .47 O12 .38 .07 .36 .16 and ARS. STSBI Y t 46.1 .97 44.2 4405 - .22 44.9 42.8 -1.26 4505 44.9 - 17 44.9 46.1 .93 44.2 45.3 .39 44.5 4305 - 072 45.2 42.5 -1.44 45.7 49.0 3.20 43.6 45.7 .56 44.5 4].] -10“ 45.8 44.9 - 17 44.9 46.3 .95 44.3 49.3 2.92 43-9 42.9 - .91 45.3 43.5 - .59 45.1 I..." .42 .22 .87 .18 .35 .24 .08 .001 .29 .06 .87 O18 .008 .19 .28 Joint Joint .001 .067 .003 .052 .007 .060 .043 .010 .001 .052 .028 .104 .068 .90) .068 .045 It 27 sons' self-esteem and congruence or incongruence of percep- tion along the affiliative dimension (LOV or ARO). Incongruent perceptions of the relationship were hypo- thesized to associate with moderate levels of self-esteem in the sons. Sons from incongruent pairs were anticipated to generate self-esteem scores midway between the self—esteem scores of sons from dyads with congruent high or congruent low perceptions of the relationship. The research findings were inconsistent in this regard. Mean SSEI scores from incongruent pairs ranked between mean SSEI scores for sons from congruent dyads, high or low (see Table 3). This ranking was shown only When comparisons for congruence along the dimensions LOV or DOM were considered. Incongruent father/son perceptions on the ARC and ARS measures did not relate to SSEI scores. Mean STSBI scores from sons of dyads with disparate viewpoints (along the assertive or affilia- tive dimension) were not midway between the mean STSBI ratings of pairs with congruent high or low perceptions. Multiple regression analyses, conducted using all vari- ables versus SSEI and versus STSBI, resulted in the findings shown in table 4. S:FDOM was the sole predictor of SSEI at the .0] significance level. FLOV, FSEI, and S:FARO were found to be indicators of SSEI at the .05 level. S:FDOM and S:FLOV were the only significant predictors of STSBI (p;< .015 and p_< .021, respectively). Analyses using complex notions of father/son congru- ence (intrameasure and intersource congruence) along the Table 4: Variable S:FDOM FLOV FSEI S:FARO FARO FTSBI S:FLOV FDOM S:FARS FARS Regression Analysis Summary Table for All Variables Versus Sons' Self—Esteem Inventory and Versus Sons' Texas Social Behavior Inventory. SSEI STSBI ‘§_value Probability ‘§_value Probability 12.76 .001 6.22 .015 5.18 .026 2.66 .108 4.92 .030 .09 .760 4.28 .043 1.99 .164 .70 .405 .04 .844 .25 .617 2.07 .155 .23 .634 5.64 .021 .22 .641 .13 .724 .12 .731 2.45 .122 .12 .726 2.00 .163 29 affiliative or assertiveness dimension were precluded by inadequate sample size. Likewise, an evaluation of the impact of acceptance as a simultaneously bidimensional concept (assertiveness and affiliation) was, unfortunately, omitted from this study. Limited sample size similarly precluded analysis of the relationship between the complex concept of acceptance (LOV and ARO considered simultan- eously) and sons' self-esteem scores. 30 DISCUSSION These college students' SSEI and STSBI scores were commensurate with normative data. Helmreich and Stapp (1974) reported a mean TSBI score of 40.45 and a standard deviation of 8.87 for university students, While Bedian, Teague, and Zmud (1977) reported an SEI mean of 77.72 with a standard deviation of 15.00 for a college population. The present sample's TSBI and SEI means of 44.77 and 77.4] were quite similar to these comparable populations, although they averaged a bit higher. The key results in this study centered around five findings. (1) Individuals' interpersonal and intrapersonal measures of self-esteem correlated substantially. (2) Self-reports of selfeesteem consistently corre- lated positively with assertiveness. (3) Self-reported measures of self-esteem appeared relatively independent of the affiliative measures. (4) Sons' and fathers' percep— tions of the fathers' interpersonal styles correlated moder- ately. (5) Congruence of father/son perception along the assertiveness dimension corresponded more with sons' self- esteem reports than did congruence of perception along the affiliative dimension. The high positive correlation between the two self- esteem measures completed by each individual was expected and supports the construct validity of each measure (Cronbach & Meehl, 1965). Self-esteem thus seems to be a 31 relatively stable attribute as has been earlier reported (Wylie, 1974, 1979). Part of the substantial intermeasure correlation might be due to overlapping items. Nearly 25% of the SEI form-B items refer directly to evaluation of the self relative to others as did mosthSBI items. Another key finding in this study, that fathers' self- esteem reports consistently linked to perceptions of asser- tiveness, was also expected. Bandura's notion of self- efficacy (1977) and the assertiveness training movement (Alberti, 1974) were predicated on positive connections between assertive behavior and self-regard. .Seemingly then, the perceived control of one's environment relates to self- identity. This connection was most clearly Shown in the network of positive correlations among fathers' reports of FARS, FDOM, FSEI, and FSTBI depicted in figure 1. An expli— cation of the direct connection between sons' self-esteem ratings and their perceptionsof their fathers' assertive behavior cannot be readily provided by this study. These linkages between perceptions of fathers' behavior and sons' self-esteem might have resulted from either oppositional or accordant responses in the sons. In the former case, the son's self—esteem might develop as a defense or reaction against the father's dominance and control. In the latter, the son's self-esteem might develop as an imitative reaction to the father's apparent dominance. This study simply confirmed the positive bond between sons' perceptions of paternal assertiveness and sons' self-reported self-esteem. 32 Further study of this interesting phenomenon seems warran- ted. Self-esteem's relative independence from the affilia- tive measures was suprising. This finding seemed contra- dictory to Ausubel's (1954) satellization theory. Both Ausubel (1954) and Rogers (1961) proffered that a warm accepting environment was requisite for the development of a positive concept of self. Only weak (S:FLOV. E.” .25: S:FARO, £;= 0.24) correlations obtained between sons' self- esteem scores and their perceptions of affiliative behavior by their fathers. The interpersonal style questionnaires requested an indication or each participant's perception of the present conditions of the father/son interaction. Developmental theory (above) referred to an association of early parental regard for the child with the child's level of self-value. The child's internalization of positive parental evaluation presumably relates to increased self- regard. This potential discrepancy between the son's present and past perceptions of his father‘s interactive style might account for the observed independence between sons' self-esteem scores and their perceptions of their fathers' affiliative behavior. A different pattern might have emerged had the questionnaires more explicitly addressed perceptions of fathers' interactive styles earlier in their sons' lives. Another factor influencing this independence between perceptions of fathers' affiliative style and sons' self- 33 esteem concerns the differential parenting roles of mothers and fathers. Fathers may have greater impact in the realm of dominance or assertiveness, while mothers' impact may focus more in the affiliative realm. That sons' and fathers' perceptions of paternal asser- tiveness were in relative agreement suggested intersource and intermeasure accord between ARS and DOM (i.e., construct validity was shown), as documented in Figure 3. Sons' and fathers' reports on these measures permitted some ' subjective interpretation of the scale markers (as "expressive," “active,“ or "dominant") rather than limiting definition to concrete, observable indices. This allowed for variability of marker definition and permitted more participant subjectivity in the descriptive discriminations on the research task. Considering the affect-laden and sub- jective nature of the items that constituted each scale, along with the relative homogeneity of the population sampled, these correlations (mean £_2 .33) seemed more mean- ingful than would comparable correlations between rigorously objective measures. Relationships Hypothesized and Observed The research hypotheses probed the relationship between congruent father/son perceptions of fathers' behavior toward their sons and sons' self-esteem reports. Congruent percep— tions of high paternal acceptance were hypothesized to asso- 34 ciate with high self-esteem in sons While congruent percep- tions of low acceptance (rejection) were hypothesized to associate with low self-esteem scores. Sons' self-esteem reports were anticipated to associate directly with fathers' self-esteem reports. The concept of acceptance was subdi— vided into affiliative (ARO and LOV) and assertive (ARS and DOM) components. The impact of congruent father/son perceptions along the assertiveness dimension DOM manifested itself as signif- icant differences in sons' self-esteem reports and covaried with the common perception. That sons' self-esteem associ— ated directly with the congruent perspective of fathers' assertiveness was anticipated. Having strong and dominant paternal role-models could promote a greater sense of self by providing increased consistencey and accuracy of predic- tion on environmental variables. Such fathers also appear more congruent with the culturally prescribed male stereo- type. Sons Who perceive their fathers as consistent with social role expectations could develop more constant and concrete notions of self in terms of sex role identity. These assumptions are consonant with Bandura's notion of self-efficacy (1977). Behavior consistent with social expectations seems likely to yield positive regard more than less socially appropriate behavior would. Congruent father/son perceptions of fathers' affilia- tive style failed to relate to sons' self-esteem reports. That is, sons' self-esteem scores were not significantly 35 distinguishable as a function of congruence of perception along the affiliative dimension. This unexpected finding does not concur with prior reports (Lamb, 1981: Sears, 1970), and may be attributable to the temporal frame of reference used in the participants' completion of the research questionnaires. Incongruent perceptions of paternal assertiveness linked with significantly higher self-esteem scores (STSBI) in sons of fathers described as highly assertive. This finding suggested that sons' self-esteem is more directly related to the sons' perceptions of fathers' assertive behavior than to fathers' view of their own assertiveness. One would expect that an individual's view of his environ- ment would link more strongly to his own self-evaluation than would another's vieWpoint. This contention was further supported by the finding that sons' reports of paternal assertive and affiliative behavior correlated positively with sons' self-esteem scores (SSEI and STSBI), While neither father's report of assertive or affiliative style correlated significantly with sons' self-esteem. Only the assertiveness aspect of acceptance was a useful indicator of sons' self-esteem When congruence of perception was considered. The research hypotheses concerning congruent perceptions of acceptance were, therefore, partially supported. While SSEI and STSBI intercorrelated strongly (£_2 .63, p < .001), they generally failed to link simultaneously with 36 congruent or incongruent father/son reports of paternal affiliative or assertive style. S:FDOM was the sole indi- cator to correlate significantly with SSEI and STSBI scores. All other variables linked with only one of the sons' self- esteem measures or failed to correlate significantly. No explanation of this inconsistency was apparent: however, SEI and STSBI shared only about 40 (£_= .63) to 48 (£_= .69) percent of each others' variance. About 56% was unshared. This finding supported the relative independence of the interpersonal from the intrapersonal self-esteem construct. Had the correlation between SSEI and STSBI been perfect, their conceptual distinctions would have been irrelevant. This independence of measures also allowed for the exami- nation of the joint probabilities for self-esteem's link- ages. Sons' self-esteem scores were expected to relate directly with fathers' self-esteem scores. SEI scores cor- related significantly between fathers and sons, but TSBI unexpectedly failed to correlate significantly. This incon- sistency may‘have been due to the intra/interpersonal focus differences distinguishing the SEI from the TSBI. Bandura and Kupper's (1964) modelling theory was, therefore, only partially supported. Implications for Future Research Difficulties in analysis of the present study have 37 arisen due the limited sample size (§_= 66 pairs) and the complex nature of the theoretical constructs. While the sample was adequate to test for construct validity between measures and for intersource and intermeasure agreement, it was insufficient to adequately test the hypotheses using the complex definitions of acceptance and congruence of percep- tion. The construct of acceptance as operationally defined by two of the research measures was divided into the ortho- gonal dimensions assertiveness and affiliation. Each of these dimensions further bifurcated into high and low cate- gories. The data finally articulated into classifications of congruent or incongruent father/son perceptions. Figures 4 and 5 depict all possible levels of stratification. A data base approximately ten times the size of the study population would be necessary to adequately test the impact of these various specifications. The anticipated positive linkages between sons' percep- tions of their fathers' assertiveness and the sons' self- esteem reports were partially confirmed by the research findings. A more precise description of the son's percep- tions of his father's behavior, as well as the son's res— ponse to that behavior. might be helpful in ascertaining causal ties between these variables. The question of primary interest is this regard is whether son's self-esteem develops in accordance with or in opposition to fathers' assertive behaviors toward them. The Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (Benjamin: 1976, 1978) 38 Intersource Congruence on Same Measure(s) high affiliative behavior high FARO & high S:FARO high FLOV & high S:FLOV high FARO & high S:FARO and high FLOV & high S:FLOV high assertive behavior high FARS & high S:FARS high FDOM 5. high S:FDOM high FARS & high S:FARS and high FDOM and high S:FDOM low affiliative behavior low FARO and low FLOV low FLOV & low S:FLOV low FARO & low S:FARO and low FLOV & low S:FLOV low assertive behavior low FARS & low S:FARS low FDOM & low S:FDOM low FARS & low S:FARS and low FDOM & low S:FDOM Intersource Incongruency on Same Measure(s) Fathers' perceptions of high affiliative behavior high FARO & low S: FARO high FLOV & low S: FLOV high FARO & low S:FARO and high FLOV & low S:FLOV Fathers' perceptions of high assertive behavior high FARS & low S:FARS high FDOM & low S:FDOM high FARS & low S:FARS and high FDOM & low S:FDOM Sons' perceptions of high affiliative behavior low FARO & high S:FARO low FLOV 8. high S:FLOV low FARO & high S:FARO and low FLOV & high S:FLOV Sons' perceptions of high assertive behavior low FARS & high S:FARS low FDOM & high S:FDOM low FARS & high S:FARS and low FDOM & high S:FDOM Figure 4: Groupings for intrameasure and intersource comparisons of father/son perceptions of fathers' son-oriented behavior. 39 Fathers' Perceptions of high acceptance high FARO a high FARS high FLOV a. high FDOM high FARO & high FARS and high FLOV & high FDOM Fathers' Perceptions of low acceptance low FARO & low FARS low FLOV & low FDOM low FARO & low FARS and low FLOV & FDOM Fathers' inconsistent perceptions of acceptance high FARO & low FARS, or low FARO & high FARS high FLOV & low FDOM, or low FLOV & high FDOM inconsistent FARO & FARS and inconsistent FLOV & FDOM Sons' perceptions of high acceptance high S:FARO 8. high S:FARS high S:FLOV 8. high S:FDOM high S:FARO 5. high S:FARS and high S:FLOV 8. high S:FDOM Sons' perceptions of low acceptance low S:FARO 5. low S:FARS low S:FLOV & low S:FDOM low S:FARO & low S:FARS and low S:FLOV & low S:FDOM Sons' inconsistent perceptions high S:FARO & low S:FARS, or low S:FARO & high S:FARS high S:FLOV & low S:FDOM, or low S:FLOV & high S:SDOM inconsistent S:FARO & S:FARS and inconsistent S:FLOV & S:FDOM Father/son congruent perceptions of high acceptance high FARO & high FARS and high S:FARO & high S:FARS high FLOV & high FDOM and high S:FLOV & high S:FDOM all dimensions high for fathers and sons Father/son congruent perceptions of low acceptance low FARO & low FARS and low S:FARO & low S:FARS low FLOV & low FDOM and low S:FLOV & low S:FDOM all dimensions low for both fathers and sons Father/son incongruent perceptions of acceptance high FARO & high FARS and low S:FARO & low S:FARS high FLOV & high FDOM and low S:FLOV & low S:FDOM low FARO & FARS and high S:FARO & S:FARS low FLOV & FDOM and high S:FLOV &S:FDOM Figure 5: Groupings for intermeasure and intersource comparisons, and for intermeasure and intrasource comparisons, or fathers', sons', and father/son perceptions of fathers' acceptance for their sons. 40 is a measure that might be useful in this capacity. The instrument could also be used to determine the connection between the mother/son relationship and the son's self? esteem. Certainly, this mother/son interaction is also a critical determinant of the offspring's self-concept and should be analyzed jointly with the father/son relationship. Self-esteem as a psychological construct was operation- ally defined in terms of two self-report measures. While these measures (interpersonal and intrapersonal) intercorre- lated strongly, their separate relationships to individual dimensions of paternal style were inconsistent. Presently, one must question Whether the employed definitions of self- esteem adequately measured the construct or Whether the inter/intrapersonal distinction is insufficient to fully describe the construct validly. A richer understanding and more encompassing definition of self-esteem would be useful in answering this question. One might benefit by using scale items Which distinguish better between the interper— sonal and intrapersonal characteristics of self-evaluations. Inclusion of parents' evaluations of their son's level of self-esteem might also be productive in further specifying this concept operationally. Such information would allow analysis of the relationship between an individual's self-' reports of self-esteem and the reports from significant others. LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Alberti, R.E., & Emmons, M.L. X99: pegfieet right. San Luis Obispo, California: Impact, 1974. Armentrout, J.A., a Burger, G.K. Factor anlysis of college students' recall of parental child-rearing behaviors. Egg Jgurna; 9: Genetic Psychglogy, 1972, 121, 155-161. Ausubel, D.P. Theory and problems of adolescent develop: ment. New York: Grune & Stratten, 1954. Ausubel, D.P., & Sullivan, E.V. Theory and problems of child development. New York: Grune & Stratten, 1970. Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New YOrk: HOlt, Rhinehart, & Winston, 1969. Bandura, A. R. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. & Kuppers, C.J. Transmission of patterns of reinforcement through modelling. Jepgpel of Abpprmel and Social ngchologY. 1964, pp, 1-9. Bedian, A.G. Relationship of need achievement to self-esteem: Evidence for validity of Form B of Coopersmith'sSelf—Esteem Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1219-1220. Bedian, A.G. The roles of self—esteem and need achievement in individuals aspiring to prestigious vocations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1978, 11, 109-119. Bedian, A.G., & Zmud, R.W. Some evidence relating to convergent validity of form B of Coopersmith's Self- Esteem Inventory. Psychological Reports, 1977, 40, 725-726. Bedian, A.G., Teague, R.J.Jr. & Zmud, R.W. Test-Retest reliability and internal consistency of short for of Coopersmith's Self-Esteem Inventory. Psychological Repprts, 1977, 41! 1041-1042. Benjamin, L.S. Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 392-425. Benjamin, L.S. Structural analysis of a family in therapy. Journal of Consulting'and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 45, 391-406. u1 42 Berzonsky, M.D. Ausubel's Satellization Theory: Applica- tion to some research on adolescents. Adelescence, 1978, 13(49). 167-180. Burros, O.K. (Ed.). The eighth mental measurements yearbogk Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1978. Cattell, H.E. Esraonalitx eeggelations among family members Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan Stayte University, 1980. Cattell, H.E. Differences in personalipy and partent/dhild relations between spouse-similar and spouse-dissimilar families. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981. Cattell, R.E., & Eber, H. The 16 personality factor quegtionnaire (3rd Ed.). Champaign, Illinois: Institute of Personality and Ability Testing, 1964. Comrey, A.L. Manual - Comrey personality scales. San Diego. California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1970. ‘ Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem.: San Francisco: Freeman, 1967. Edwards, A.L. Edwards personality inventory, manual. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1966. Foa, U. Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. geycholoqical Reviey, 1961, 68, 341-353. Gecas, V. Parental behavior and dimensions of adolescent self-evaluation. Sociometry, 1971, 15(4), 466-482. Gecas, V., Calonico, J.M., & Thomas, D.L. The development of self-concept in the child: Mirroring theory versus modelling theory. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1974, 234 67-76. Cough, H.G., & Heilbrun, A.B.Jr. The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychology Press, 1965. - Halpin, G., Halpin, G. & Whiddon, T. The relationship of perceived parental behaviors to locus of control an self-esteem among American indian and White children. Journal of Social PsycholOQY. 1980, 111, 189-195. 43 Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. Short forms of the Texas social Behavior inventory (TSBI), an objective measure of self-esteem. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974, 4_(5A), 473-475. Hower, J.T. & Edwards, K.J. Interparent factor analysis of children's perception of parental child rearing behaviors. {Eha_JQnIn§i_2£_§22£Eic PSYChOlQSYr 1978' 132,261-266. Hower, J.T., & Edwards, K.J. The relationship between moral character and adolescent's perception of parental behaviors. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1979, 135' 23-320 Hurley, J.R. Parental acceptance-rejection and children's intelligence. Merrill—Palmer Quarterly, 1965, 11, 19-31. Hurley, J.R. Parental malevolence and children's intelli- gence. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, §l(2), 199-204. Hurley, J.R. TWO prepotent interpersonal dimensions and the effects of trainers on T-groups. Small Group BehaviOr, 1967,_l(1), 77-98. Hurley, J.R. Helpful behaviors in groups of mental health professionals and undergraduates. International Journal of group Psychotherapy, 26: 173-189. Hurley, J.R. TWp interpersonal dimensions relevant to group and family therapy. In L.R. Wolberg & M.L. Aronson (Eds.), Group and family therapy 1980: An overview. New York: Stratton Medical Books, 1980. Hurley, J.R., & Force, E.J. T-Group gains of acceptance of self and others. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 1973, 23, 166-176. Jackson, D.N. Manual for the personality research forms. Goshen, New York: Consulting Psychologist Press, 1967. Latham, G.P., & Yukl, G.A. Effects of assigned and parti- pant goal setting of performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 40, 725-726. Lamb, M.E. (Ed.). The role of the father in child development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981. 44 Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnggis of personality. New YOrk: Ronald press, 1957. Lorr, M. Manual of the interpersonal style inventory. washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1973. Lorr, M. Convergences in personality constructs measured by four inventories. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1975, 321, 182-189. Lorr, M., & Manning, T.T. Higher-Order personality factors of the ISI. Multivariate Behavior Research, 1978, 1;; 3-7. Lorr, M., & O'Conner, J.P. A comparison of four personality inventories. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1977, 41(5), 520-526.‘ Lorr, M., & Youniss, R.P. An inventory of interpersonal style. Journal of Personality Asessment, 1973, 37, Lyons, J., Hirschberg, N., & Wilkinson, L. The radex structure of the Leary Interpersonal Behavior Circle. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1980, July, 249:257. Mead, G.H. Mind,self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. McQuitty, L.L. Elementary factor analysis. Psychologicel Repprts, 1961, 2, 71.78. Nash, J. The father in contemporary culture and the current psychological literature. Child Development, 1965,'3§, 261-297. Nuttall, E.V., & Nuttall, R.L. Parent-Child relationships and effective academic motivation. The Journal of Psychology. 1976, 94, 127-133. Payne, D.E., & Mussen, P.H. Parent-Child relationships and father identification among adolescent boys. Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholOQY. 1956, 52, 358-362. Robinson, J.P., & Shaver, P.R. Measures of Social Psycholo— gical Attitudes. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1973. Rogers, C.R. Client-centered therapy, its current practice, implications, and theogy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965. us Sears, R.B. Relation of early socialization experiences to self-concepts and gender role in middle childhood. Child Development, 1970, 51: 267-289. Self-Esteem Institute._ Norms for the Coopersmith Self: Esteem Inventory. San Francisco: Self-Esteem Institute, 1974. Shaefer, E.S. Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 1965, 3Q, 413-424. Seigilman, E., Block, J., & Von der Lippe, A. Antecedents of Optimal psychological adjustment. Journal of Consul- ting and Clinical Psychology, 1977, 3§13), 283-289. Stoke, S.M. An inquiry into the concept of identification. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1950, lg, 163-189. Stricker, L.J. Personality research form: Factor structure and response style involvement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 529-5377 Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. Self-Definition: The impact of the relative performance and similarity of others. Social Psychological Quarterly, 1980, 43(3), 341-347. Wiggins,J.S. A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personal,ity and Social Psychology, 1979, 2153), 395:412. Wylie, R. The self-concept: Volume 1, a review of methodological considerations and measuring:instrument§. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Wylie, R. The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics, volume II. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1979. APPENDICES APPEN DI X A Sons' Informed Consent Form “6 Sons' Informed Consent Form I understand that the present study is an exploration of how sons and fathers view their relationship. I further realize that my participation along with my father's participation will earn me five one-half hour points toward my general psychology course grade this term. I have been assured that no identifying information will be collected and that subject response anonymity'will be maintained. My participation is completely voluntary and I cam withdraw from this study at any time. signed date Investigator: Michael Jan Nelson Research Measures Involved: Interpersonal Chart Interpersonal Check List Self-Esteem Inventory, form B Texas Social Behavior Inventory APPENDIX B Letter to Fathers 37 Michael Jan Nelson 135 Snyder Hall Department of Psychology Michigan State University Dear : I am a graduate student in clinical psychology and am presently working on a Master's thesis. YOur son, , has agreed to participate in my exploration of how sons and fathers view their relationship, and he suggested that you might be willing to assist me. I will collect information from about 50 father/son pairs. YOur participation would be very helpful to me and greatly appreciated. Your assistance will also help to earn extra credit toward your son's grade in general psychology this term. He has already earned partial credit for his own participation. YOur help will enable him to earn additional credit. If you are willing to participate, please complete the four enclosed measures according to each's directions. This will likely require less than one hour or your time. Please return the questionnaires to me in the enclosed stamped envelope. If you choose not to participate in this study, please return the blank forms anyway as they could then be used with a different father/son pair. Strict confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained and you need not sign your name to any of the forms. The mechanism devised to give appropriate credit to your son involves the number printed at the upper right hand corner of each measure. Your son's measures have the same code number printed at the top of each, and he also has a credit documentation card with the same number. YOur son has already received patial credit listed on his documentation card. As soon as I receive your returned measures, he will receive the additional credits. If you have any questions concerning this study, please send them to me under separate cover and I will respond at once. Also, if you desire feedback on the outcome of this study, please send me your address and I will mail to you a summary upon my completion of the analysis. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Michael Jan Nelson APPEN DI X C Se 1 f-E steem In ven tory APPEN DI X D Texas Social Behavior Inventory APPENDIX 1: Inte rpe rson al Chart APPEN DI X F Interpersonal Che ck List 48 Self-Esteem Inventory INSTRUCTIONS: Please mark each statement in the following 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. way: If the statement describes how you usually feel, put a check:(J) in the column "Like Me." If the statement does not describe how you usually feel, put a check (J) in the column "Unlike Me." There are no right or wrong answers. Things don't usually bother me. I find it very hard to talk in front of a group. There are lots of things I'd change about myself if I could. I can make up my mind without too much trouble. I'm a lot of fun to be with. I get upset easily at home. It takes me a long time to get used to anything new. I'm popular with persons my age. My family usualy considers my feelings. I give in very easily. My family expects too much from me. It's pretty tough to be me. Things are all mixed up in my life. People usually follow my ideas. I have a low opinion of myself. There are many times When I would like to leave home. I often feel upset with my work. I'm not as nice looking as most people. If I have something to say, I usually say it. My family understands me. Most people are better liked than I am. usually feel as if my family is pushing me. often get discouraged with what I am doing. often wish I were someone else. can't be depended on. HHHH 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 49 Texas Social Behavior Inventory Please mark the response Which is characteristic of your attitudes. I am not likely to speak to people until they speak to me. I would describe myself as self confident. I feel confident of my appearance. I am a good mixer. When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right thing to say. When in a group of people, I usually do What others want rather than make suggestions. When I am in disagreement with other people, my opinion usually prevails. I would describe myself as one Who attempts to master situations. Other people look up to me. I enjoy social gatherings just to be with other people. I make a point of looking other people in the eye. I cannot seem to get other people to notice me. I would rather not have very much responsi- bility for other people. I feel comfortable being approached by someone in authority. I would describe myself as indecisive. I have no doubts about my social competence. 50 Interpersonal Chart (f) INSTRUCTIONS: The following eight scales represent continua along the dimensions indicated at the ends of each scale. Please mark the location that best represents your behavior toward your son along each dimension. Bars closest to each pole indicate behavior similar to the relevant bar. Hides Feelings I I I I I I I I I I Shows Feelings Warm I I I I I I I I I I Cold Guarded I I I I I I I I I I Expressive Helpful I I I I I I I I I I Harmful Active I I I I I I I I I I Passive Harsh I I I I I I I I I I Gentle Submissive I I I I I I I I I I Dominant Accepting I I I I I I I I I I Rejecting SI Interpersonal Check List INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate whether you view each of \Dmflmm-FwNI-I the attributes listed below as being mostly true or false as they apply to your father's behavior toward you. It is very important that you check either "true" or "false" for each item, even if you are someWhat uncertain of your choice. Also try to work quickly, most people can complete this measure in about 15 minutes. well thought of makes a good impression able to give orders forceful self-respecting independent able to take of self can be indifferent to others can be strict if necessary firm but just can be frank and honost critical of others can complain if necessary often gloomy able to doubt others frequently disappointed able to critise self apologetic can be obedient usually gives in grateful admires and imitates others appreciative very anxious to be approved of cooperative eager to get along with others friendly affectionate and understanding considerate encourages others helpful big-hearted and unselfish often admired respected by others good leader likes responsibility self-confident self-reliant and assertive business-like 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 52 likes to compete with others hard-boiled When necessary stern but fair irritable straightfoward and direct resents being bossed skeptical hard to impress touchy and easily hurt easily'embarassed lacks self-confidence, easily led modest often helped by others very respectful of authority accepts advice readily trusting and eager to please always pleasant and agreeable wants everyone to like him sociable and neighborly warm kind and reassuring tender and soft-hearted enjoys taking care of others gives freely of self always giving advice acts important bossy dominating boastful proud and self-satisfied thinks only of himself shrewd and calculating impatient with others mistakes self-seeking outspoken often unfriendly bitter complaining jealous slow to forgive a wrong self-punishing shy passive and unagressive meek dependent wants to be led lets others make decisions easily fooled too easily influenced by friends will confide in anyone fond of everyone likes everybody 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 53 forgives anything oversympathetic generous to a fault overprotective of others tries to be too successful expects everyone to admire him manages others dictatorial someWhat snobbish egotistical and conceited selfish cold and unfeeling sarcastic cruel and unkind frequently angry hard-hearted resentful rebels against everything stubborn distrusts everybody timid always ashamed of self obeys too willing spineless hardly ever talks back clinging vine likes to be taken care of will believe anyone wants everyone's love agrees with everyone friendly all the time loves everyone too lenient with others tries to comert everyone too willing to give orders spoils people with kindness "lllllllllllllllllllll