' “jgle -h“ P” s l ‘ l 3 .. W IUIHHIIH1ill!llllHdlllMHlllHlllllHllHUIHlllHl .s'nw-iw-ovvww " 3 1293 106629 L5}. f;:3 filmy»; m {0:th 4. % U“ QE‘VS hit? } *7“.-" ling {2:39 (if: This is to certify that the dissertation entitled DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY AND PARENT/CHILD RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSE-SIMILAR AND SPOUSE-DISSIMILAR FAMILIES presented by Heather E. P. Cattell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Psychology “CH fie acid/urn \Major professor Date 0&13‘7 ‘ 6“!“ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES “ your record. FINES will , be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. K‘s-r I ’ ' 75 I puts 1.5-1”. Freq. ‘ DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY AND PARENT/CHILD RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSE-SIMILAR AND SPOUSE-DISSIMILAR FAMILIES BY Heather B. P. Cattell A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY AND PARENT/CHILD RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSE-SIMILAR AND SPOUSE-DISSIMILAR FAMILIES BY Heather E. P. Cattell The hypothesis underlying this study was that paren- tal pairs who have opposite personality traits, as compared to spouses with more similar personalities, will have more conflicted, unsatisfying marriages, resulting in cross- generational alliances between parents and opposite-sex children. Differences in personality, parent/child similar- ity, and parent/child trait interrelations between spouse- similar and spouse-dissimilar families were investigated in a sample of 127 intact families (162 daughters, 231 sons) using the age-appropriate form of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). The second-order 16PF factors were used to divide this sample into thirds: families where fathers scored higher than mothers, families where mothers scored higher than fathers, and the remaining spouse- similar families. This grouping process and the resulting analyses were completed separately for each of the second- order factors of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia. The findings only minimally supported the hypothesis that mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons would show per- sonality differences between the spouse-similar and spouse- Heather B. P. Cattell dissimilar groups. However, the Spouse-dissimilar groups contained all instances of elevated parental Neuroticism. Children's Neuroticism was linked with parental dissimilar- ity with adherence to traditional sex-roles, and with Neu- roticism in the same-sex parent. Fathers' Neuroticism showed greater effects than mothers' on both children. Traits associated with Neuroticism showed recurring sex dif- ferences for both parents and children: Dependent, submis- sive, withdrawn traits for males; and tough, aggressive, independent traits for females--both sex-role deviant con- stellations. The Extraversion and Anxiety groupings yielded greater spouse dissimilarities than did the corresponding Cortertia and Independence groupings, suggesting that spous- al dissimilarity on Anxiety and Extraversion may be more tolerable than such differences on Cortertia and Independence. Parent/child trait intercorrelations across all 16PF factors were appraised separately for mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, and father/son dyads within each of the three above groupings. The hypothesis that in spouse-dissimilar groups parent/child personality similarity would be greater for the cross-sex than the same-sex dyads was not supported. Sons showed unexpectedly greater person- ality similarity and linkages to both parents than did daughters. For sons, Neuroticism and Anxiety showed by far the greatest number of significant linkages, while Depend- ence, Extraversion, and Cortertia were salient for daughters. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Foremost, I wish to thank the members of my com- mittee. My chairperson, Lucy Ferguson, provided that rare balance of freedom and guidance that I find essential to learning. Her expertise in the area of family therapy, her knowledgeability in the diverse areas touched upon by my dissertation, and her competent, sensible approach to psy- chometrics, led to this being an all-around constructive experience for me (apparently uncommon). Eileen Thompson's psychometric abilities were essential in such a complex, multivariate study, as was her judicious, temeprate applica- tion of them. Ellen Strommen provided a keen, thoughtful, flexible non—clinical perspective for my work. The fourth member of my dissertation committee, John Hurley, was also my advisor throughout the four years of my graduate education. In addition to his consistent, wide-ranging, and consequential help through my many trials and tribulations, I am especially grateful for his unfal— tering faith and encouragement of my attempts to get what I wanted from my graduate career. His support and sense of humor were invaluable in learnign even from the most seemingly adverse events. Finally, I would like to thank my mother who was, as usual, supportive and helpful in every way that she could be. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 Personality Similarity and Marital Selection and Satisfaction . . . . l Theories of DevelOpment of Marital Relationships. . . . 9 Effects of Marital Conflict on Children . . 21 Empirical Support of the Effects of Marital Conflict on Children . . . . . 28 Methodological Approach . . . . . . 32 Personality Measurement in the Present Study. . . . . . . 36 Design of the Present Study . . . . . 46 METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Sample. . . . . . . . . 48 Instrument. . . . . . . . 53 Procedure . . . . . . . 53 Analysis of Results . . . . . 53 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . 56 Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . 57 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Further Analyses . . . . . . . . 67 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . 73 Extraversion . . . . . . . . 79 Group F . . . . . . . . 79 Group S . . . . . . . . 83 Group M . . . . . . . . 85 Summary . . . . . . . . 88 Independence . . . . . . . . 89 Group F . . . . . . . . 89 Group S . . . . . . . . 91 iii DISCUSSION Independence (cont'd.) Group M . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Anxiety . . . . . . . . Group F . . . . . . . Group S . . . . . . . Group M . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Cortertia . . . . . . . . Group F . . . . . . . Group 8 . . . . . . . Group M . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . Appendix A: Primary Factors Present in the Different Age-Range Forms of the 16PF . . . . . Appendix B: Descriptions and Some Research Findings on the 16 PF Factors. Appendix C: Mean Scores on 16PF Factors that Achieved Statistical Sig- nificance for Family Members in Groups 3, S, and M on Extraver- sion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia. . . . . Appendix D: Matrices of Statistically sig- nificant Parent/Child 16PF Cor- relations for each of the four parent/child dyads, within each of the three groups E, S, and M on each of the four second-order dimensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and. Cortertia. . . . . . REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . iv Page 93 97 100 100 103 105 109 112 112 116 118 123 128 140 140 141 152 156 204 10. LIST OF TABLES Significant Same-Trait Spouse Inter- correlations in Studies Using the EPPS Significant Same-Trait Spouse Inter- correlations in Studies Using the 16PF . Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Populations . . . . . . Deviations of Mean 16PF Scores of Sample from National Norms . . . . . . Numbers of Mothers, Fathers, Daughters, and Sons in Groups S, S and M for Extra- version, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia. . . . . . . . . Statistically Significant 16PF Differences Between Extraversion-Selected Groups S, S, and M . . . . . . . . . Statistically Significant 16PF Differences Between Independence-Selected Groups S, S, and M . . . . . . . . . Statistically Significant 16PF Differences Between Anxiety-Selected Groups 3, S, and M. . . . . . . . . . Statistically Significant 16PF Differences Between Cortertia-Selected Groups S, S, and M . . . . . . . . . Statistically Significant Parent/Child Same-Trait Correlations . . . . . Page 50 51 55 59 60 61 62 68 INTRODUCTION The underlying hypothesis of this study is that marriages in which the partners are opposite, rather than similar, in personality will be conflicted and unsatisfying; further, such unsatisfied marital partners will tend to develop unhealthy alliances with opposite-sex children, resulting in relatively permanent effects on the children's personalities, including increased similarity to the allied parent. The review of theoretical and empirical support for this hypothesis will include the following areas: Person- ality similarity/dissimilarity as it relates to marital selection and marital satisfaction, the development of marital dysfunction from spouse-dissimilarity, and the effects of marital dysfunction upon children and parent/ child alliances. The final section of this chapter will discuss methodological problems in the investigation of families, and the measurement method used in the present study. Personality Similarity and Marital Selection and Satisfaction There has been a long history of experimental research in the area of trait similarity or dissimilarity 1 2 between marital partners. Winch (1958) published the first formal theory of marital choice, prOposing a principle he called "Type I Complementarity." Specifically, he suggested that for both general personality traits and for needs--such as those coming from Murray's theory of needs (Murray, 1954) --that mutual attraction would tend to develop between two persons who differed markedly (i.e., were high versus low) on a particular trait. Thus, this theory proposed negative interspouse correlations for specific traits. The opposing similarity theory was early proposed in the work of Fisher (1930) and Terman (1938), who stated that in stable mar- riages the partners would show statistically significant resemblances in their personalities. The wide range of studies bears directly on Winch's theory of mate selection. The most frequently used instru- ment has been the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), designed to tap fifteen of Murray's needs. Table 1 summarizes the statistically significant results of eight pertinent studies, plus one comparable study using the Jackson Personality Research Form, another test designed to measure Murray's needs. Table 1, shows that, in the first seven studies listed, there were 37 statistically signifi- cant interspouse same-trait correlations, all but three of which were positive. The two studies listed last gave only summary statistics, but both found significant personality similarity and no evidence of dissimilarity: Schellenberg m>fiummoc ococ mmma paw m>fluflmom >H¢GMUHMficmHm muflmuu cmeMHm mo Hsom awn a cmEum3om w>fiuflmom maucmoflmacmwm mmB oaflmoum omma wuHHmCOmuom oaoss mo :oHumHoHuoo xcmu mo ucoflowmmmou ooa mom a muoncmaaosom i + + nnma Show noumomom huHHMCOmumm COmMUMh mm Hommwm w Hmwmz mmma + + on Hommm whoma + + + + + + mm :Hmumusz + i + + + we Hmma + I + ON CHmHmH—HZ coma + + + + om .Hw um .Numx mmma + + + + + om momma mwma + + + + + + + + mm cobmcflnanbmm a «beam 2 Scum mwamsou mmmm on» mean: mofipsum CH mcoHumHoHuoououcH omsomm ufimueloemm unmowmwcmwm .H manna 4 and Bee (1960) found that the coefficient of rank correla- tion of the whole personality profile was significantly positive, while Bowerman and Day (1956) found four statisti— cally significant interspouse correlations, all positive. Other investigators have found interspouse similarity on measures of neuroticism or mental health. Burgess and Wallin (1954) reported significant similarity on 14 of the 42 items of the Thurstone Neuroticism Inventory, but no evidence of dissimilarity. Hill (1973) found significant similarity on three scales of the MMPI. In a study by Murstein (1976), positive interspouse correlations were found on four MMPI scales, while one scale, the masculinity/ femininity scale, showed a negative correlation. Other studies using the MMPI also included groups of happily and unhappily married couples, and thus are presented in a sepa- rate section below. Other investigators have studied the similarity versus dissimilarity issue using a variety of trait measures, and have consistently found support for marital similarity. Kerckhoff and Davis (1962) took a longitudinal perspective on the actual selection process by studying couples at dif- ferent stages of courtship (dating, going steady, engaged, recently married, and married for some time). They found what they termed a series of "filtering factors" operating in marriage: In the first stages, similarity of background and values was more important than psychological compatibility, 5 while in the advanced stages of courtship the opposite pri- orities held, presumably because most instances of value incompatibility had already been "filtered-out." Burke and Weir (1976) used the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation Inventory (FIRO-B) and found positive inter- spouse correlations on four out of the six traits as well as for a combined measure of "total preference for interpersonal contact." Murstein (1972) used trait ratings from extensive interviews, Rorshach, the Marriage TAT, the Marriage Value Inventory, and a background questionnaire. He reported 27 statistically significant positive correlations between spouses' scores on 87 variables versus a single significant negative correlation. The final set of studies of marital similarity employed the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), the instrument used in the present study. Four studies (Barton & Cattell, 1972; Cattell and Nesselroade, 1967; DeYoung & Fleischer, 1976; and Waters, 1975) have investi- gated spouse intercorrelations on the 16PF. The statisti- cally significant results from these studies are given in Table 2: All 25 statistically significant correlations among the stably married couples were positive; while four of the six statistically significant correlations among the unstable marriages were negative. Other research has investigated the relationship between spouse similarity and marital satisfaction or mhmH + mm mumpmz , head i + + n I I hm momoHHommmz a Hamnumo mommfiuumz_amc0Huocsmmmd mhma + + + mm mnmumz osma + + + + + + + + + + mm umnumflmam a masosma «baa + + + + + + + + + + + + and Hamuumo w cepHmm z susum mama ecu mcflma moflpspm as mcoflumaonuoonoDCH omsomw pawnsimsmm u:MUAMH:mHm .m manma 7 stability, using a variety of instruments. These studies have consistently found marital satisfaction or stability to be positively related to spouse similarity. Dymond (1954), using 115 MMPI items, found that happily married husbands and wives showed significantly more similarity than unhappily married couples. Murstein (1967b) found that the average same-trait correlation between spouses was positive for the happily married but negative for the unhappily married couples. He also found that staying together longer was related to spouse similarity on five of the scales. Corsini (1956) found similarity of husband and wife overall personalities (correlation of ranks of Q-sorts) to be sig- nificantly related to husband, wife, and couple measures of marital happiness. Hansen (1975) used the California Psy- chological Inventory, and found interspouse differences on seven of the scales to be related to marital dysfunction. Pickford (1966) also compared trait similarity in groups with degrees of marital satisfaction. For "happily" marrieds, all interspouse correlations on the Guilford— Zimmerman Temperament Survey were positive, and four attain- ed statistical significance. For separated couples, eight of the ten traits were negatively correlated, one signifi- cantly so. Three EPPS studies included a measure of marital happiness: Blazer (1963) found that marital happiness was negatively related to overall (summed) negative interspouse trait correlations; Meyer and Pepper (1977) found that the 8 low marital satisfaction group had four significant negative interspouse correlations and no positive ones, compared to two positive and one negative interspouse correlations in the high marital satisfaction group; and, Pascal (1974) found that he could discriminate adjusted versus maladjusted (seeking counseling) couples with 87% accuracy using a model of trait similarity on the EPPS, while the complementarity model did not distinguish beyond the chance level. Two studies by one group of investigators (Pickford, Signori, & Rempel, 1967; Signori, Rempel, & Pickford, 1968) showed that when married couples were separated into a happily married group, a troubled but intending to stay together group, and a group of couples who were seeking separation, the husband- wife trait dissimilarity increased progressively from the happily married, to the unhappily married, to the separating group. The last study in this section is particularly important because it is longitudinal and thus overcomes the usual inability to discern whether personality similarity (or dissimilarity) is the cause or the consequence of long— term marital harmony (or disharmony). Bentler and Newcomb (1978) compared newlyweds who were subsequently divorced within four years to couples who were still married at four years, and found that the divorced couples had significantly fewer positive interspouse trait correlations on the Bentler Psychological Inventory when first married. 9 Thus, a review of the empirical evidence in this area shows that it strongly supports the theory of similarity in marital selection, as well as the theory that stable and satisfactory marriages tend to occur between individuals showing personality similarity, while disharmony tends to result from marriages between opposites. These results, however, do not illuminate the mechanisms at work in the development of satisfying versus dissatisfying relationships from personality similarity versus dissimilarity, respective- ly. The following section will review several theories in this area of marital relationship development. Theories of Development of Marital Relationships One widely-held hypothesis is that similarity of personality would involve similarity of values, needs, per- ceptions, and attitudes, and thus promote agreement about and sharing of activities, decisions, and life styles (Murstein, 1976). Investigators of small-group processes have found support for this idea (Durkheim, 1947; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958; and Simmel, 1950). They found that the sense of enjoyment between two or more people was related to the degree of mutually perceived similarities between them. These perceived similarities, possessing what Heider (1958) called "unit enforcing characteristics," could involve any number of mutually shared attributes and char- acteristics, such as attitudes, beliefs, affects, needs, 10 interests, experiences, capacities, or activities. The strength of the bond is hypothesized to be related to the sum of all the attributes perceived to be held in common, divid- ed by the number seen as divergent. These formulations have proved quite accurate in predicting small-group behavior in a laboratory setting (e.g., Caplow, 1956; Mills, 1953, 1954). It is harder, however, to understand the mechanisms at work at the opposite end of the continuum--of how oppo- sites attract and develop conflict-ridden patterns. Vari— ous theorists have thought and written about this phenomenon. However, these have been almost exclusively clinical psy- chologists, who have based their theories on experience with dysfunctional couples seeking help with marital problems. Thus, the four authors reviewed below present conceptualiza- tions of how a dysfunctional relationship develops between spouses who are opposite in personality, rather than how a functional one develops between similar spouses. Jung (1968) was one of the first theorists to apply himself to this question. He believed that marital attrac- tion often involved unconscious factors. Impassioned attraction, he felt, invariably entailed projection onto the partner of the unconscious complex termed the "soul- image." His typology, consisting of three bipolar dimensions (extraversion/introversion, thinking/feeling, and intuitive/ sensing), was based on the assumption that if one end of the dimension was characteristic or conscious in a person, then 11 the other, opposite qualities were repressed or unconscious. Jung stated that the individual who is thus separated from these Opposite parts of the self experiences an emptiness and longing for these missing and deeply-suppressed parts, and is attracted to these qualities in others in an ill- fated attempt to possess them. Jung's treatment of this subject, while interesting and insightful, does not develop any further than this and remains vague and ill-defined. Virginia Satir was perhaps the first person to develop this idea into a complete theory of marital dysfunc- tion (Satir, 1967). She postulated that individuals showing incompleteness or immaturity in personal development active- ly seek out marriage partners who are different or comple— mentary in personality to themselves, and that this pattern is likely to result in marital instability. Thus, she also believed that such mate selection is, to one extent or another, an unconscious process. Individuals often come to marriage incomplete in terms of emotional maturation, not having completed developmental tasks of greater or lesser importance. Each expects that what the self lacks will be supplied by the other person, that they will become a whole, complete person through marriage--hence the deeply-felt attraction. Thus, a relationship is established that must ultimately be unsatisfactory, for each is placing exorbitant emotional demands on the other, although these may initially be masked. Each partner tends to see in the spouse only the 12 goositive aspects, the part that fits the gaps in his own ‘pnersonality; the rest is denied--at least for a time. Satir vividly described the process by which so many c2c>tmfles move from the original state of enchantment toward 5>1r<3gressive disillusionment and marriage agonies. She de— ssczzribed how Mary and Joe marry and risk relating to each crt:11er, despite all their fears, because each feels that the 11:1:ion will provide a continuing sense of completeness. They liaiwue feelings of specialness about each other from the first rnC>rnent they meet; she is the right or only person for him, Eirlci vice versa. This is not a case of perceiving each other Elsa good life mates, but rather there is something vaguely ifalmiliar and important about the person—-an assessment that <>1Eten takes place without words. Initially the exhilaration CNE'togetherness, sexual attraction, and the hope of this deep fulfillment blur and obscure each person's needs and \Jnique individuality, as there is a feeling of limitless I?ossibilities of both getting their own needs met. Satir \vrites, "Each feels privately: 'If I run out of supplies, I will take from you. You will have enough for both of us'" (p. 9). After marriage the unrelenting, practical require- Inents of carrying on daily life eventually force both part- iners into revealing and perceiving their needs and (differences. They discover that they are different in ways ‘that seem to detract, rather than add, to themselves, and that neither has found the completeness each had sought. 13 Great struggles ensue as both attempt to get their needs met indirectly and to eliminate their differences. Couples develop various stylized, dysfunctional, covert ways of relating, through surrender, subversion, open warfare, etc. Satir saw this entire process as a result of each partner's having uncompleted developmental tasks and conse- quent low self-esteem. The theory gains particular importance when viewed from the perspective of theorists such as Charney (1980) who propose that Mpg; peOple go into marriage with one developmental task or another incomplete and with some areas of inadequate self-esteem. Dicks (1968) further deve10ped these ideas into an analysis of marital relations based on an object-relations concept of personality development. Dicks believed that adults' problems in relating to their spouses are a direct result and elaboration of their early conflicts in their family of origin. Thus, due to their own parents' conflicts, each individual has had certain aspects of his/her person- ality denied, split—off, and repressed from awareness or expression. According to Dicks, the individual experiences a great ambivalence towards these parts, such that they are both deeply longed for as well as felt as unacceptable and the deserving object of attack or denial. The conflicted individual is then attracted to a partner who represents this important, lost aspect of him/herself. Early in the relation- ship only the positive side of the ambivalence is active; l4 union with the lost parts is deeply longed for. The ideal- ized object has all the "badness" removed by splitting or denial. This person becomes the all-giving, non-frustrating, ideal parental figure from whom the person feels s/he can get all the things that were most denied by their own parents and toward whom the person could express idealized expectations of their own behavior, denying their ambivalence. These idealized expectations eventually break down, however, and the negative, anti-libidinal part of the ambi- valence appears. When the trait can no longer be ignored in the daily intimacy of contact, then the partner's pos- session of this missing-because-repressed part of the self will arouse retaliatory or punitive impulses--the same impulses that the subject experienced from his/her parents in the original repressing of these aspects in him/herself. The subject persecutes/rejects the unassimilated parts of the self seen in the partner; the partner is felt to be part of the self--interpersona1 boundaries are blurred. Thus, the subject is persecuting or rejecting the aspects of the spouse that originally caused attraction. An important and interesting facet of this whole process is its mutuality, as seen in the phrase "opposites attract." The picture is not one of a person who is extreme on certain personality dimensions being attracted to anyone onto whom s/he can project the opposite and missing 15 characteristics, but rather one of a person who is at one extreme of personality being attracted to a person at the other extreme, who necessarily also has some longed—for, missing aspects of the self--and precisely those that the partner possesses. Thus, we have not one but two people reenacting intrapsychic conflicts in the marital relation- ship, with the partner becoming the projection screen for unresolved tensions. This Dicks sees as a symbiotic pro- cess of mutual projection of unconsciously shared feelings; a situation of superimposed inner object worlds, of similar primitive object needs and anxieties, in which there is such great permeability of ego boundaries that the couple becomes a unit around which some sort of joint ego-boundary is drawn. Laing (1961) denoted this process by the word "collusion," viewing projection as not just using the other as a hook to hang something on, but as striving "to find in the other, or to induce the other to become, the very em- bodiment of that fantasied other whose cooperation is re- quired as a complement of the particular identity he feels compelled to maintain." Various authors have delineated some of the different types of non-constructive relationships that can develop between partners who are Opposite on different types of personality dimensions. Bergner (1977), for instance, has written about the pattern of marital problems that tend to develop in marriages between emotional, people-oriented, 16 hysterical-type people and their calm, detached, introverted partners. Bergner's explanation of why this type Of rela- tionship develops is very similar to Satir's and Dicks': Each person appraises himself, with varying degrees of consciousness, as unable to par- ticipate in life in certain very important ways. In the process of mate selection each partner engages to a greater extent than is usual in a search for his/her missing parts in another person . . . finding a mate who seems able to function in life in ways in which they personally feel lacking. (p. 96) Other authors have investigated marital patterns between partners who are Opposite on other dimensions (e.g., Barnett, 1971; Napier, 1978; Rubinstein & Timmins, 1978; Schwartz & Zuroff, 1979), indicating that different types of inter— actions and conflicts develop between partners, depending on which personality dimension it is on which the spouses differ. Dicks viewed this type of marital choice and subse- quent struggle as a necessary and ultimately growth-promot- ing process; as an Opportunity to work through the ambivalent, never-resolved, early emotional issues that are most deeply felt. He did note, however, the negative effects that this process of conflict and projection could have on the children: At the Oedipal phase especially, but not exclusively, the satisfaction of the parents with one another has a profound effect. The image of the united, loving mother and father, who are cooperating in the same direction to bring up their children, creates a sense of 17 security, greatly easing the children's conflicts. Infantile hate or omnipotence can not drive them away, nor a wedge between them. The child becomes convinced of, and reconciled to, the futility of its own natural fantasies of stealing one parent from the other. Serious conflicts arise if in reality parental strife or Open violence, as well as sexual frustration, make the child's fantasies seem possible of fulfillment. This is not only owing to the internal processes in the child's mind, but substantially because some of the parental hate, as well as erotic libido, be- comes diverted toward the child in such situa- tions. In these tense marriages, which the child experiences at close range, it is not only the young who have incest fantasies and death wishes. (Dicks, 1968, p. 38.) Thus, although Dicks' work focused mainly on the marital relationship, he was also aware that the conflict and dis- satisfaction in the marital relationship can have profound effects upon the children, particularly between each parent and the children of the opposite sex. He proposed that the parent's relationship with the child also involves projection Of the parent's inner conflicts and the placing of irrational demands and expectations according to the parent's intra- psychic conflicts. Bowen (1966), following theorists like Fairbairn (1952) and Mahler (1968), was the first person to integrate these ideas about marital relations into a theory of total family functioning, thus bridging the gap between theories of relational dynamics and theories of individual dynamics. Instead of terms like "low self-esteem" or "immaturity" or "personality incompleteness," he used the terms "differentia- tion" and "individuation," which denote the universal 18 develOpmental or existential struggle that he felt was the fundamental principle of human growth. Differentiation or individuation is the process by which the person becomes increasingly differentiated from a crucial relational con- text, such as the infant from the mother or the child from the parents. This, Bowen believed, involved a multitude of intrapsychic and interpersonal changes and the making of a subtle but crucial phenomenological shift in the individual toward seeing her/himself as separate and distinct within the relational context. People‘s level of development can thus be seen along a continuum of human functioning without a concept of "normal." Bowen thus prOposed that most indi- vidual and relational problems derive from lack of individua- tion, with individuals rigidly moving to an extreme position (either of great interpersonal distance, where the individual totally denies dependency needs in a pseudo-independence that is a dead end from the natural process of individuation; or of fusion where there is loss of the individual self as in the original state of pure fusion between mother and child) instead of working out some resolution of these issues. Bowen described (1966) the interpersonal characteristics Of people at the lower end of the scale: They are dependent on the feelings and emotional harmony or disharmony of those about them. Feelings can soar to heights with approval or praise and be dashed to nothingness by disapproval. SO much Of life energy goes into maintaining their relational system--into "loving" or 19 "being loved" or reaction against the failure to get love--that there is no life energy for anything else. . . . They are incapable of using the "dif- ferential I" (I am, I believe, I will do, I will not do) in their relations with others. Their use of "I" is con- fined to the narcissistic (I want, I am hurt, I want my rights). . . . They grew up as dependent appendages of their parental family ego mass, and in their life course they attempt to find other dependent attachments from which they can borrow enough strength to function. . . . The lower they are on the scale, the more they hold the other responsible for themselves and their happiness. . . . This scale has nothing to do with diagnostic categories. All those at this end of the scale have tenuous adjustment; they are easily stressed into emotional disequilibrium, and dysfunction can be long and permanent. (p. 357) Although Bowen stressed the continuum nature of his fusion/individuation scale, his descriptions and formula— tions are uniformly about the most extreme form of dysfunc- tion, thus leaving out the more typical, moderate cases that would presumably evolve from incompleteness of less basic developmental tasks. His descriptions are of rela— tionships that involve infantile-type, symbiotic depend- encies: They involve a great deal of merging fusion and dependency between partners, as well as a great deal of projection, wherein the individuals cannot tell their own motives, feelings, or needs from each other's. Growth or change is experienced as a threat to the other person's very survival. Since each partner has the illusion of 20 absolute responsibility for the other, endless cycles of terror, blame, manipulation, and guilt ensue. These relationships center on ambivalence between the fear of separation or being totally alone and the fear of loss of self in being "swallowed up" in fusion with the other. Thus, these couples usually involve one individual who assumes a role of helplessness and dependency and gives over much of her/his self-responsibility and strength to the other partner, who assumes the role of pseudo-independ- ence, projecting all of her/his weaknesses onto the other. This, however, results in the dependent person's experi- encing a loss of self and resenting the dependency, and the independent person's resenting the burden of responsi- bility for both. Thus, here we again find an unsatis— factory union of Opposites. Bowen extended this analysis to include the children in the family. He pointed out that when the tension be- tween the parents mounts sufficiently, one or the other will move toward a third person, the child, thus increas- ing the psycho-emotional distance between the spouses and diverting the focus Off the dyad and onto the third party. Bowen summarized this (1966): "The basic building block of any emotional system is the 'triangle.‘ When emotional tension in a two-person system exceeds a certain level, it 'triangles' a third person permitting the tension to shift about within the triangle" (p. 368). The child then 21 becomes equally involved in the parental struggle between fusion and distance or dependence and independence, and becomes deeply embedded in the family system of projection and manipulation. In summary, Bowen viewed the family as a system in which the "family projection process" transmitted varying degrees of maturity or differentiation over multiple generations. Thus, Bowen was one of the first theorists of marital dysfunction to extend his analysis to include effects on the children. Since the hypothesis of the present study is that marital conflict resulting from spouse dissimilarity leads to unhealthy, cross—sex, parent/ child alliances, the following section will investigate theory and research in this area Of the effects of marital dysfunction on children. Effects of Marital Conflict on Children Most theorists of human development recognize the family as a crucial element in a child's development. Framo (1970) reminds us that while life preservation for other animals depends on the sequential unfolding of in- stinctive regulators, the human being must depend much longer on parental care, and that essential socio-emotional learning takes place in this early relationship: "If the price for acceptance is to absorb unrealities, accept an irrational identity or role assignment, be persecuted, be 22 overindulged, be scapegoated, . . . this price will have tO be paid; to be alone or pushed out of the family either physically or psychologically is too unthinkable" (p. 163). Minuchin (1967, 1974) also emphasized the extent to which the child's identity and sense of self is developed from the context of the family. He proposed that the child's identity evolves through his/her involvement in the different family relationships or subgroupings. Minuchin found (1967) that the fundamental problem in dysfunctional families was the spouses' poorly developed sense of identity. Such spouses would "attempt to resolve the primary problem of defining a basic self-identity through the role of parent" (p. 220), by forming and perpetuating certain coalitions with the children in order to define themselves. He was struck by the lack of separation and individuation between these family members; by the extent to which one member's thoughts, feelings, and actions impacted various other members. Satir (1967) gave the clearest delineation of this process. She described the dysfunctional marital relation- ship of Mary and Joe, who are low in self-esteem: ". . . because each saw the other as an extension of the self, each failed to give to the other as well as get from the other. So their relationship only increased low feel- ings of self-esteem. They both became disillusioned and disappointed. The question now remains: How do they 23 fare as parents?" (p. 28). Satir theorized that these parents would expect the child to enhance EEEEE self- esteem, to be an extension of themselves, and to serve crucial pain-relieving functions in the marital relation- ship: They may see their child as a vehicle to enhance their esteem about themselves and their family in the community; they need to feel that the child likes them, making discipline difficult; they tend to see the child as an extension of the self, expecting her/him to want what they want, think what they think, see what they see, and do what they want; and they may try to make up for their own deprivations by "giving him everything." Since the spouses are in conflict, parental rules about which activities are permitted, encouraged, or for— bidden--or, more importantly, about who a child should be --are contradictory and confusing. Each parent sees the child as a potential ally against the other mate; as a messenger through whom to communicate with the other spouse; and as a pacifier of the other mate. Both parents battle over and through the child, and "be like me" becomes equated with "side with me." In the healthier functional family, each spouse is confident enough to allow the child to have a substantial relationship with the other spouse, and still be clear to the child that s/he can never be a part of their relationship as mates. However, in a dys- functional family the mates are low in self-esteem, al- ready feel "left out," and Operate on the basis that there 24 is not enough to go around and thus must fight for what- ever is available. Both parents look to the child to try to satisfy their unmet needs. Satir then pointed out, "The question may still be asked, though: Why do we see over-developed father/daughter and mother/son relationships repeatedly showing up in dys- functional families?" (p. 56). She answered this question: The trouble is, the child, by virtue of being either a male or a female, already looks like one parent and unlike the other. He is already sexually identified with one parent. . . . The same-sex parent will see the child as potentially 'belonging' more to him. The other-sex parent will see the child as potentially becoming like the mate and will fear the child's turning against him (p. 29). . . . The mother, in her efforts to turn the boy child into an ally and ersatz mate, also woos him seductively, offering him an added inducement. (A father will do the same with his daughter.) The boy, being a sexual person, will respond to his mother's affection in kind. . . . The father reacts to the close mother-son rela- tionship with disapproval, disparagement and withdrawal. The boy receives the message 'Father doesn't like me,‘ causing the child to drift all the more toward the seductive parent. When the boy notes how mother dis- parages her mate at the same time that she approves Of him, he receives another message: 'Mother likes me better than father.‘ (p. 59) Thus, Satir proposed that in dysfunctional families inappro- priate inter-generational bonds are usually formed in a cross- sex manner, as the parents try to get unconscious needs met. Lidz (1957) and Fleck (1966) also developed a concep- tion of structural family relations that divides the family according to generational boundaries. It divides the 25 family into parents, who perform the tasks Of decision- making, controlling, and nurturing; and children, who are immature, dependent, and needful. Thus, a generational division of responsibility, role, and affectional relation- ships must exist between parent and child. Sexual divisions also occur within the family: the same-sexed parent serves as a role-model for identification, while the opposite-sexed parent provides the basic love object. The effecting and maintaining of these generational and sex boundaries is considered the most important task of the family. Dysfunction occurs, according to these authors, when there is discord between the spouses and there is a conse- quent failure to establish the marital bond as the primary relationship in the family. Powerful relationships develop between parent and child that violate the generational division of the family. This, they propose, occurs when the spouses have been unable to loosen their ties appropri- ately from their families of origin and have been unable to develop a sense of their own individuality and self-worth. Their main theme here is the criticalness of the marital bond as the primary relationship in the family, which atten- uates exclusive and dysfunctional cross-generational and cross-sexed ties. This conceptualization has been supported by their research findings (Lidz, Fleck, & Cornelison, 1966) Of chronic marital disharmony and cross-generational alli— ances in families of young schizophrenics. Lidz et a1. (1959) 26 characterized the Operation of dysfunctional families: In these marriages . . . husband and wife do not support each other's needs and the marital interaction increases the emotional problems of both, deprives the spouses of any sense of fulfillment in life, and deteriorates into a hostile encounter in which both are losers. Instead of any reciprocal give and take, there is demand and defiance leading to schism between partners that divides the entire family, leaving the children torn between conflict- ing attachments and loyalties. (p. 246) Haley (1967) also viewed an inter-generational "tri- angle" as the crucial element of dysfunctional families. In this triangle the two people who are most closely allied are not peers, but one of them is a parent and the other one is a child. The person from one generation forms an alliance with the person from the other generation against his/her peer (the spouse). Thus, generational boundaries are broken and each parent becomes more emotionally invested in the child than in the other parent. Although these phenomena are most easily seen in populations of troubled families seeking counseling, most of these authors stress that every one of us has unresolved needs, and that these conflictual dynamics are present in most families to one degree or another. Bornstein (1964) emphasized that parents tend to act out their unconscious tendencies more readily with their children than with anyone else, and adds that "this is true not only of severely taxed, unstable, overworked parents, but also of the healthy, clear- 27 thinking parents who are well-intentioned toward their chil- dren; it happens not only to the unanalyzed educator, but also to those who have achieved through personal analysis greater familiarity with the processes of the unconscious" (p. 361). Finally, Richter (1976) came to very similar conclu- sions about the dynamics of family processes and their role in the develOpment of the child, only from more of an Object- relations viewpoint: Frequently, even before the child is born, parents entertain fairly detailed fantasies concerning the role the child is to take in the family. . . . The more burdened the parents are by their own inner conflicts (the pressure of which they hope to lighten by aid of the child) the more rigidly and compulsively their behavior is governed by these fantasies. . . . In this perspective, the development of the child is seen as his lasting attempt to come to terms with the role that one or both parents have pre- scribed for him. (p. 387) Richter delineated three possible roles the child might be given in alleviating her/his parents unconscious needs. The first is as an object of symbiotic clinging or dependency. Here Richter cited Buxbaum's findings (1964) that mothers who in analysis developed an excessively dependent trans- ference with severe separation anxiety, often behaved in a similar way toward their child, wanting the child to always stay with them; thus giving the child the role of substitute mother. The second possible role is that of partner sub- stitute, in which the parent has unconscious wishes and 28 treats the child as a sexual partner and companion, as a substitute for an unsatisfactory spouse. The third possi- bility that Richter delineated is that of the parents un- consciously using the child to represent denied or forbidden aspects of their own negative self (repressed impulses, desires, fears, or needs) which they are then not obliged to be aware of in themselves. Thus, we see that many theorists have come to very similar formulations about families; specifically, that parents who are in conflict turn to a cross—generational alliance with children, and particularly with opposite-sex children. This coincides with the basic hypothesis of the present study. Empirical Support of the Effects of Marital Conflict on Children In addition to these theoretical developments, vari- ous empirical findings have supported these conceptualiza- tions. Social research on interpersonal dynamics in small groups has confirmed the above-cited family theorists' form- ulations on the development of alliances within triangles. Simmel (1950) was one of the earliest to point out "an ele— mentary differentiating tendency in the three-some, namely, separation into a pair and an other" (p. 351). Simmel further stated that small differences in "power," "activity," and other characteristics of the members influenced the formation and persistence of such alliances. Mills (1953), 29 for instance, found that when college students were working on a task, the two most active members formed a "solitary alliance," while the least active member was "relatively isolated." Interestingly, when the two most active members did not form such an alliance but were instead competing for control, both attempted to align with the third member, creating a highly unstable situation of shifting alliances. In a later study, Mills (1954) found that alliances were more rigid when the isolated member was more "insecure." In this situation, the insecure person would become defensive and further isolate him/herself rather than make any enjoining gestures toward the two aligned members. Thus, to the degree that families are "unsafe" we may expect to find alliance patterns. Indeed, a recent review of dysfunctional families (Beckman, Brindley, & Tavormina, 1978) concludes that "power issues appear to prevail." Caplow (1956), also working in the area of inter- personal dynamics in small groups, described six types of triadic situations based on varying distribution of individ- ual power. In his Type II, where A and B are of equal strength with C being weaker (as in a family with one child), Caplow hypothesized that A and B would compete for a coali— tion with C to gain power over the other. These formula- tions were confirmed in the work of Vinacke and Arkoff (1957). Alexander (1973), in specifically studying the ap- plicability of small-group theory to families, found that 30 such theories in fact were highly predictive of families. Other researchers have directly investigated the relationship between parental disagreement or conflict and children's mental health. Wyer (1965), hypothesizing that the discrepancy between parents' perception of their child due to marital conflict would create instability in self- perceptions of the child and low self-acceptance, did indeed find that self-acceptance scores of children were signifi- cantly higher in families where parents showed less dis- crepancy in their perceptions of their children. Similarly, Porter (1955) found that marital adjustment and parental ac- ceptance of their child were significantly related. Many studies have investigated poorly-adjusted children and found their parents to show greater differences in child-raising attitudes, greater disparity in traits and behaviors, and greater disagreement and conflict (e.g., Gassner & Murray, 1969; Leton, 1958; Van der Veen, Huebner, Jorgens, & Neja, 1964; Vogel & Lauterbach, 1965; Vogel & Bell, 1968). One recent study (Ferguson & Allen, 1978) pulled several of these measures together, finding that children's adjustment was related to parents' agreement in self-perceptions, congruence in their perceptions of their child, and their level of marital adjustment. In addition, recent reviews of the literature have directly validated the theory Of strong parent-child alliances in troubled families. Doane (1978), in her review of the 31 literature, concludes: There is much evidence to support the view that disturbed families are marked by a preponderance of parent-child coalitions and a corresponding weakness of the parental coalition, as well as a conflicted marital relationship. (p. 372) The present hypothesis of the cross-sexual nature of these alliances has also been supported. Reviews of empiri- cal research in the area of child psychopathology and parent characteristics have concluded (Frank, 1965; Jacob, 1975) that the frequent finding of non-significant or inconsistent relationships between these child and parent variables is due to the failure to divide the sample by gender in their analyses of these relationships. This procedure, at best, increases error variance, and, at worst, confounds the basic results for each of the dyads. They state that studies that have looked at the effects of sex of child have consistently had significant results. For example, Gassner and Murray (1969) found that neurotic children tended to be Opposite in sex to the dominant parent. Among families in therapy, Klein, Plutchik, and Conte (1973) similarly found that the child's problems were correlated with personality traits of the Opposite-sex parent; and concluded that induction of identi- fication with the Opposite-sex parent in a high-conflict marriage isolated the child from the other parent, making the child unusually dependent on the one parent's love and vulner- able to her/his moods. Cameron (1978) also found sex differ- ences in the relationships between children's behavior 32 problems and parent's attitudes; here again, the biggest parental predictor of childhood behavioral problems was parental conflict in child-rearing attitudes. Studies Of family interaction or alliances have repeatedly demonstrated that sex of child is a significant factor (e.g., Ferreira, 1963a, 1963b; Hetherington, Stouwie, & Ridberg, 1971; Hutchinson, 1967). Additionally, studies of familial patterns of vocational styles or temperaments have consistently found differential patterns for the four parent/child dyads (DeWinne, Overton, & Schneider, 1978; Grandy & Stohmann, 1974; Grotevant, Scarr, & Weinberg, 1977; Schneider, DeWinne, & Overton, 1980). In conclusion, a thorough review of the literature has found strong theoretical and empirical support for the follow- ing aspects of the present hypothesis: Marriages between Opposites tend to be less common and less satisfying than marriages between similar spouses; marriages between opposites tend to be based on inadequately resolved developmental is- sues, and thus lead to disappointment and conflict; marital dissatisfaction and conflict tend to result in the formation of pathological, cross-sexual, parent/child alliances within the family. Mgthodological Approach The present study was designed to avoid some of the methodological problems that have severely limited the 33 validity and generalizability of family research in the past. Frank, in his 1965 review of empirical studies of child pathology and family variables, found that most re- search was based on very small samples, case histories, in- dividual psychiatric interviews, and children's reports of parent behavior or personality. The validity of such un- structured, self—report, or recall procedures is based on the assumption that people are aware of, and willing to re- port accurately, events and feelings of the past and present, and that such reports are minimally affected by defensive distortion, forgetting, or inaccurate elaboration. This assumption seems manifestly dubious and has often been found to be untrue (e.g., Hess, 1970). As a result of these and other considerations, the last fifteen years have witnessed an increasing number of direct observational studies, in which current patterns of behavior among both parents and one or more children are directly assessed and systematically coded and analyzed. This second approach, although very useful in many ways, particularly for initial hypothesis building and test- ing, has its own methodological limitations. Jacob's 1975 review of direct-observation studies of family interactions in disturbed versus normal families points out a number of these: Few studies used "blind" coding procedures so that judges were ignorant of families' diagnostic status; level of interjudge agreement was low in the majority of studies; 34 experimental and control families were not assessed in the same experimental setting; experimental and control groups were not comparable on potentially influential demographic variables; data were not analyzed separately on the basis of sex of child. In Observational studies there is always the additional problem of obtaining a sufficiently repre- sentative sample family interaction. But the most fundamental problem cited by Jacob is that of the validity of the measures themselves. Investiga- tors employ a variety of measures to assess personality or interpersonal constructs, which are often ambiguous and over- lap with measures of other dimensions. Jacob divided these into quantitative-process measures (Objective, verbal-fre- quency-type procedures) and qualitative-process measures (rater-judgment procedures). For example, measures of con- flict have included the following: Amount of simultaneous speech, speech interruptions, and failure to agree. Measures of dominance have included all of the following: Verbal frequency counts of speaking first, speaking last, successful interruptions, amount of speaking time, raters' subjective judgments of dominance, and revealed-differences techniques. Measures of affect (such as hostility/affection) have relied almost completely on raters' judgments, requiring judges to assess the occurrence as well as the content of expressions of affect. 35 Almost none of these studies makes an attempt to val- idate its particular measuring technique, and the empirical research indicates that the various types of measures of the same construct often do not correlate. For example, Bodin (1966) reported a negative correlation between two measures of "dominance" (a coalition game and an unrevealed-differences technique) for the mothers, and no significant correlation between these two measures for fathers or for sons. Alexander (1970) reported a negative relationship between rater-judged dominance (number of dominant statements) and process meas- ures of dominance (unrevealed-differences technique). Hadley and Jacob (1973) reported a significant positive relationship between two process measures of dominance (successful inter- ruptions and talking time), but no significant relationship between the two outcome measures of dominance (coalition games and an unrevealed-differences technique), and no sig- nificant relationship between these two process and two out- come measures. Similarly, Kieffer and Cohen (1978) found no relationship among four well-accepted behavioral measures of dominance. Thus, the fundamental validity of these typical situ- ational measures is questionable. According to Jacob (1975), further doubt is cast by other research findings: Data clearly indicate that various verbal frequency measures of personality are sig- nificantly correlated with, and therefore confounded by, overall amount of verbal activity (e.g., Becker & Iwakami, 1969; Hadley & Jacob, 1973; Jacob, 1974). . . . 36 In addition, various situational measures of family interaction have also been found to be significantly related to social class (Jacob, 1974; Becker & Iwakami, 1969; Alkire, 1969). (p. 61) In addition, terms such as alliances, coalitions, alignments, and subsystems have been used indiscriminately and interchangeably in family research with little clarity about their actual meaning. The lack of rigor in delineat- ing these terms is evident in Jacob and Ground's (1978) con- clusion that "the meaning of, and referents for, the suggested dimension (term? concept? process?) coalition are vague, to say the least" (p. 379). Past studies Of family structure have generally assessed alliances through the use of one or two process-type measures, such as frequency counts of who- speaks-to-whom or who-disagrees/agrees-with-whom (e.g., Bowen, 1960; Cheeck & Anthony, 1970; Haley, 1964; Lidz et al., 1965; Minuchin, 1967; Wynne, 1961). Personality Measurement in the Present Study The present study was designed to avoid as many of these difficulties as possible. Instead of using direct self-report or observer-rating measures of often ambiguous, overlapping, and arbitrary dimensions, it employed a well- researched, paper-and-pencil measure of personality which covers a whole range of dimensions-—the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970). This approach not only avoids the difficulties of establishing 37 "blind" coding procedures, adequate levels of interjudge agreement, and comparability of experimental setting for control and experimental groups; it also permits the assess- ment Of a wide range of personality dimensions by measures with well-established validity and structure. Such a trait- based approach puts theories of family interaction to a stronger test by looking at the long-term effects on stable, well-researched personality traits in children and parents. The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a factor-analytically derived, self-report technique that measures sixteen primary personality factors. The 16PF was designed to be both an Objective and comprehensive measure of personality, being based on over forty years of research directed at locating all the unitary, independent, and prag- matically significant "source traits" present in the person- ality sphere covered by behavioral ratings and questionnaires. The 16PF has a long history of use in industrial, educational, and clinical, as well as academic, settings. The structure of the source traits in the 16PF has been replicated repeatedly in basic personality research (Cattell et al., 1970), which is more extensive than that for any other set of factors in the literature. The traits meas- ured have also been recognized, demonstrated, and measured in parallel tests develOped for other age ranges: The Early School Personality Questionnaire (ESPQ) for 6 to 8 year olds; the Children's Personality Questionnaire (CPQ) for ages 8 to 38 12 years: the Jr.-Sr. High School Personality Questionnaire (HSPQ) for 12 to 18 year olds, and the 16PF for persons 18 years or over. A total of 18 factors are present in these four questionnaires, but because of developmental differences in personality structure across the age ranges, all of the factors are not present in each questionnaire (see Appendix A for a listing of factors in each test form). Ten primary factors are common to all age ranges. Descriptions of all factors are given in Appendix B. The tests have also been found to measure a set of broader, empirically-derived second-order or second-stratum factors that measure personality structure at a different level. Just as the primary source traits are a result of a factor analysis to find the functional unities among the vast array of human behaviors, so the primary, or "first- order," traits, being slightly but definitely intercorrelated- can be factor analyzed to derive a smaller number of "second- order" factors. These may be viewed as broader influences or organizers among the primaries. Scores on the four major second-order factors of the 16PF, Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia, were computed for each subject in the present study, using the equations given in the respective questionnaire handbooks.1 Descriptions of these second-order 1While Extraversion and Anxiety are rather widely understood concepts, the other second-order factors are not. Indpendence is a generally extrapunitive trait involving first- 39 factors are also given in Appendix B. Because of the interest in parental factors associ- ated with children's neuroticism, as well as in the effects of parental neuroticism on children's personalities, scores were also calculated for each subject on neuroticism from the regression equations given in the test handbook, as follows: Neuroticism: Children's = -C +.5D -E -F -.5G -H +I +J +0 +.5Q4 +Anxiety Parents' = -C -E -F -.25G -.5H + I +L +0 -.25Ql -.5Q3 +Q4 +Anxiety The development of this regression equation from the person- ality profiles of a large number of individuals diagnosed as neurotic across a variety of cultures, is extensively dis— cussed elsewhere (Cattell & Scheier, 1961). Although the handbook also gives regression equations for specific types of neuroticism such as anxiety reaction, Obsessive order factors of dominant, aggressive, dogmatic, suspicious, stubborn, imaginative, concerned with internal ideas, free- thinking, tradition questioning, guarded, driven unrestrain- ed, and over-active. The lower end of Independence (here called Dependence) indicates Opposite, intrapunitive traits of submissive, inhibited, conventional, conforming trusting, adaptable, group-oriented, self-controlled. Cortertia de- notes a basically cognitive orientation to life, with strong defenses against emotionality, the name coming from the descriptor "cortically alert." High Cortertia involves first- Order traits of detached, cold, aloof, tough-minded, unsenti- mental, Objective, rigid, and confident; while low—Cortertia denotes a feeling orientation to life, with such traits as warm, outgoing, tenderminded, sensitive, overprotected, gentle, submissive, insecure, impractical intuitive. 4O compulsive, depressive reaction, psychosomatic, etc. (p. 266), the general equation contains those elements common to all: emotionally unstable, easily upset, changeable (C-); dependent, conforming, indecisive (E—); sober, introspective, brooding (F-l); self-indulgent, undependable, antisocial (G-); timid, threat-sensitive, inhibited (H-); sensitive, over-protected, insecure (1+); suspicious, jealous, dogmatic (L+); apprehensive, guilt-prone, worrying (0+); conventional, authority-fearing (OI-lipoorly controlled, follows own urges, unintegrated self-image (QB-); and tense, frustrated, over-wrought (Q4+). Two additional factors appear in the children's equation which are not present in the adult form of the test: Overactive, demanding, distractible (D+); and guarded, internally restrained, obstructive (J+). Thus, this equation defines a general neuroticism factor denoting instability, conflict, introversion, inhibition, insecurity, and anxiety. While paper-and-pencil personality tests are Often not ideal in measuring interpersonal phenomena, the 16PF has consistently shown itself to be sensitive to a variety of interpersonal attitudes and behaviors. Appendix B gives research findings relating the first-order 16PF factors to marriage and family dimensions, interpersonal behaviors and perceptions, intrapsychic dynamics, leisure-time interests, and life-style and career characteristic that would be important to marital compatibility and harmony. Similar 41 findings for the second-order dimensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia are given below. Extraversion, with constituent factors A+, F+, H+, and Q2-, denotes a general people-oriented dimension. High scores have been found to be related to occupational choices of salesperson, school counselor, and business executive (all vocational results are from The 16PF Handbook, pp. 161-228); to reported number of social contacts and number of job promotions over a five-year period (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to ratings of helpfulness as a residence hall advisor/ counselor (Miller, 1965); to low tolerance for social isola- tion (Francis, 1969); to greater involvement in social groups, clubs, and organizations by married couples (Barton & Cattell, 1972); to getting married within the first 5 years out of high school (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to willingness to par- ticipate in interpersonal techniques, such as role-playing, during training (Dixon & Elias, 1978); and to leisure pur- suits of going to theatres or museums, acting out dramas, and going out (Cardenal, 1973). Low or Introverted scores have been found to be related to occupational choices of engineer, physicist, artist, writer, and farmer; to restraint or deprivation in individuals' sex life (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to a parenting style characterized as highly inactive, uninvolved, retreating, uncommitted, and restrained (Webster, 1971); and has been found to increase with length of stay in prison (Heskin, Smith, Barrister, & Bolten, 1974). 42 These findings do, indeed, suggest that spouses who score at opposite ends of this dimension may experience difficulty in resolving their differences, for instance, in their parenting styles, career interests, interpersonal styles, and leisure interests. The second-order dimension of Independence, comprised of primary factors H+, L+, M+, 01+, and Q2+, denotes an active, aggressive, confident style versus a passive, sub- missive, conforming, intropunitive one. High scores on Independence have been found to be related to occupational choices of business executive, scientist, artist, writer, and effective psychologist; to having a larger number of social contacts and job promotions, and attending college rather than taking a job after high school (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to being seen by spouse as dominating the family structure (Brawngalkowska, 1972); to marriage role dimensions of high sexual activity, high power/dominance, and low wife's home devotion (Barton & Cattell, 1972); to women's desire to have a career outside the home and to have fewer children (Bledsoe, 1978); to women's adherence to feminist beliefs (McClain, 1978); to "masculine" vocational choices and inter- ests (Harford et al., 1967); to extrapunitive, rather than intropunitive reactions to frustration (Schalock & MacDonal, 1966); to being a campus political action leader (Winborn & Jansen, 1967); to direct rather than indirect student control by teachers (Raiche, 1965); and to clinical ratings of 43 "hostile" and "high internal tension" (Karson & O'Dell, 1976). Low, or Dependent, scores have been found to be related to occupational choices of clerical worker, kitchen employee, and nurse; to high occupational ratings of "in- gratiating," "subordinates self to others' needs," "over- socialized," and "feels strong pressure toward social ac- ceptability" (Sweney & Fiechtner, 1974); to high conformity in three experimental situations (Vaughan, 1965); to peer ratings of "shy and timid" (Aberman, 1969); to high church attendance among college students (McClain, 1970); to a life philosophy of moderation, restraint, and value of establish- ed achievements (Butt & Signori, 1965); to getting married within the first five years out of high school (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to an MMPI scale called Overcontrolled Hos- tility, validated as a measure of strong suppressed or re- pressed feelings of hostility (White, McAdoo, & Megargee, 1973); and to clinical ratings of "denial of hostility" and "hostility turned inward" (Karson & O'Dell, 1976). Thus, spouses scoring at Opposite ends of Independence would tend to have strong differences in such areas as career interests and goals, interpersonal style, marital roles, values, and life philosophy. The third second—order dimension, Anxiety, is com- posed of the primary factors C-, 0+, Q3-, and Q4+. High scores on Anxiety have been found to be related to high con- formity in three experimental situations (Vaughan, 1964); 44 to being a "sensitizer" rather than a "repressor" (Edwards, 1971); to sleep problems, frustration about sex life, and having few social contacts (Barton & Cattell, 1975); to having psychosomatic concerns (Kawash, Woolcott, & Sobry, 1979); to inconsistency of self-perception across different situations (Campus, 1970); to poor adjustment after divorce (Heritage, 1971); to external locus-of—control (Archer, 1979; Jacobs, 1976); to high physical and verbal aggression in problem adolescents (Madge, 1975); to parents' having children with behavior problems (Barkus, 1975); to "irra— tional" parenting style characterized by "depressed, over- sensitive patterns of conflicted emotionality, little coop- eration, stubbornness, inconsistency, intolerance, and disagreement" (Webster, 1971); and to marital reports of high frequency of disagreements, low frequency of sexual ac- tivity, low equality, and "not spending as much time as would like with spouse" (Barton & Cattell, 1972). Low scores on Anxiety have been found to be associated with occupations involving a great deal of stress, such as business executive, airline pilot, professional athlete, police officer, and social worker; with defensiveness and denial (Naditch, Gargan, & Michael, 1975); with high consistency of self—per- ceptions across situations (Campus, 1970); with defensiveness on the MMPI (Lebowits & Ostfeld, 1970); with a "repressor," rather than "sensitizer," style (Edwards, 1971); with high social desirability scores (Bendig, 1959); with ability to 45 withstand and perform well under stress (Brown & Shaw, 1975); with number of social contacts and job promotions, and with getting married within the first five years out of high school (Barton & Cattell, 1975); with high marital agreement and sexual gratification (Barton & Cattell, 1972); with a parenting style characterized by "consistency, tolerance, stability, rationality, cooperation, low conflict, and high commitment" (Webster, 1971); and with leisure pursuits of outdoor sports such as tennis, swimming, and cycling (Cardenal, 1973). These results would seem to indicate that spouses who score at opposite poles of the Anxiety dimension would have highly discrepant interpersonal and emotional styles, occupational interests'and goals, marital role ex- pectations, parenting styles, and leisure interests. The final second-order dimension, Cortertia, is com- posed Of first-order factors A-, E+, I—, L+, and M-, and denotes an aggressive, tough-minded, detached, aloof style, versus a warm, emotionally-sensitive, insecure, soft- hearted one. Low scores on Cortertia have been found to be associated with occupational choices of social worker, em— ployment counselor, Roman Catholic priest and nun, and university professor; with several measures of interperson- al trust (Corazzini, 1974); with ratings of interpersonal warmth and empathy (Price, 1973); with peer ratings of "artistically sensitive to surroundings," "has vivid imagin- ation," "intuitive," and "more interested in emotional than 46 material or practical" (Goldberg, Norman, & Schwartz, 1972); and with conformity in three experimental situations (Vaughan, 1964). High scores on Cortertia have been found to be related to occupational choices of scientist, mechanic, airline pilot, military personnel, and athlete; to mascu— linity on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (Harford et al., 1967); to direct rather than indirect methods of con— trol in teachers (Raiche, 1965); to child-battering by parents (Hyman & Mitchell, 1975); and to high scores on marital dimensions of domination/control and instability (Barton & Cattell, 1972). These research results, plus those given in Appendix B, indicate that the 16PF traits are sensitive to many areas that are important to marital functioning and harmony. These have included career interests and goals, emotional and interpersonal style, life philOSOphy, values, leisure interests, marital dimensions, and parenting style. Thus, in the present study the four second-order dimensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia will be used to differentiate couples who are similar versus dis- similar, by choosing spouses who have similar versus dis- crepant scores on these dimensions. Design of the Present Study The underlying hypothesis of this study is that to the degree that marital partners are opposite, rather than 47 similar, in personality, their marriage will tend to be conflicted and unsatisfying; further, such unsatisfied mari- tal partners will tend to develop unhealthy alliances with opposite-sex children, resulting in relatively permanent effects on the children's personalities, including increased similarity to the allied parent. This investigation will use a non-clinical population to test whether these family dynamics are present in most, rather than just a few un- usual families. It will directly study sex differences by analyzing the data separately for each of the four parent/ child dyads (mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son). The present study will measure the full range of traits in each member of a large sample of intact, middle- class, families in order to test the following hypotheses: (1) In families where the parents are highly dis- similar on personality dimensions, mothers, fathers, daugh- ters, and sons will differ from the rest of the sample on Neuroticism, Anxiety, and other personality factors. (2) In families where the parents are highly dis- imilar in personality, the two cross-sex parent/child dyads (mother/son and father/daughter) will show more personality similarity than the two same—sex dyads (mother/daughter, father/son). Furthermore, in these families the overall patterns of significant parent/child trait interrelationships for each of the four parent/child dyads will differ from those in the rest of the population. METHOD The Sample Subjects included all members of 127 middle-class, Caucasion families from the Chicago Metropolitan area. All 393 children (162 females and 231 males) were natural siblings and at least 5 years of age. Both parents were the natural parents and living in the home. The subjects had previously participated in an ex- tensive study (Ruess & L15, 1972) of families who had one child with a cleft lip or palate that had been surgically corrected in the first 18 months of life (80 experimental families and 47 control families). These subjects were selected for the present study because extensive data were available and because all subjects appeared normal as indi- cated by the results that the children born with cleft palate abnormalities did not differ from either their sib- lings or from the control children on EEK of the many psy- chological measures used, including: the Wechsler Intelli- gence Scales, Gray Oral Reading Test, Gates-MacGinite Reading Comprehension Tests, Witkin Embedded Figures Test, Bender-Gestalt Visual-Motor Test, Human Figure Drawings, Wide Range Achievement Test in Arithmetic, Raven Progressive 48 49 Matrices, and the age—appropriate form of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. The 80 experimental families were from the files of the Northwestern University Cleft Lip and Palate Institute, while the services of the University of Illinois Survey Re- search Laboratory were utilized to locate a comparable group of control families in the Chicago area. The control families were selected for comparability with the experi- mental sample on the following demographic characteristics: Parental education, father's occupation, annual family in- come, age of the parents, and total number of living chil- dren. Average ages of family members, annual income, edu- cation, and number of children are given for the two groups in Table 3. The mean 16PF scores Of the total sample of mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons were examined to identify any distinguishing characteristics. Table 4 presents the mean deviations of each family member's score from the national norm of 5.5 for each of the first- and second-order 16PF traits. Those deviations that reached statistical signifi- cance (p <:.05) are indicated. With around 20 tests per family member (20 for parents, 19 for children because of trait differences between test forms), one significant dif- ference could be expected by chance. The number of signif- icant deviations was greater than chance: five for mothers, eight for fathers, and three each for sons and daughters. 50 .Onm .Hoocom can: pcozwn mancflmnn Hoonom oomnn no :oHnsnnnmcn OnEmOMOMIcOG m an mancwmnn mmmcnmsn no: can A.onm .3mav Hoonom HMGOHmmmmonmIonmspmnm .mmoaaoo .Hoonom sons ..m.o .sOnnmospo Hmcoflmmwmonm no OHEwOmom HmEnOm wane mOODHOCH n .mom>nnm no cenmm>cn mo mpcsonm man so OEOOCH mmas>wp On Ommsmmn meHnEwm cw>mm .OO>OHQEO mums anon onosz mncmnmm anon an Umnsnflnncoo mEOocH Monaco Hmnon mOODHOGHm o.m H.¢ H.m m.v I I I I conpanso nonfisz .v Apmnoamfioo .mnwv m.H m.mn m.m o.mn v.m n.mn H.m m.mn QuowanSOm .m m.m o.mm m.w m.>m m.o m.mm m.o m.ov Amnwomv mad .N AmHMHHOO .msonnv I I I I m.v H.vn m.m m.mH moeoocn Hmscc< .H .Q.m .cz .o.m .cz .Q.m .cz .Q.m .cz canonnm> Honncou Hmncofinnomxm Honncou Hmncwsflnomxm muonnoz muonnmm mCOHansmom onEmm man no munnmnnonomnmnv onnmmnmofiwa .m OHQMB 51 Table 4. Deviations of Mean 16PF Scores of Sample frcm National Norms Family Members thhers Fathers Daughters (N=127) (Nb127) (N=162) I (N=231) .A I -0.4 0.0 -0.4* I -0. 1 B I 1.7* 1.6* 0.2 , 0. 5* c I -0.4* I 0.2 -0.1 I 0. 2 D I - I — 0.0 I -0. 2 E -0.4 I -0.1 0.2 I 0. 3 F -0.1 I 0.1 0.1 -0.2 G 0.2 I 0.5* 0.0 0.0 H -0.2 I 0.0 -0.4* 0.0 I 0.0 I -0.9* -0.3 -0.4* J - 5 — 0.1 0.1 L -0.4 I -0.6* - - M. 0.1 ‘ -0.2 - - N 0.0 I —0.4 0.2 . 0.3 o 0.3 I 0.0 -0.1 i -0.1 Q1 0.1 I -0.3 - I - 02 0.8* I 0.6 0.0 ? 1.1* Q3 : 0.1 I 0.7 —0.4* I —0.1 Q4 I -0.1 I 0.1 -0.1 I -0.1 Ebctraversion I -0.3 0.0 0.0 -O.2 Independence I -0.1 -2.1* 0.0 0.0 Anxiety I 0.7* 0.3 0.0 -0.2 Cortertia I -1.2* 0.9* 0.0 0.0 1Factors D and J are absent in the adult form of the 16PF, and Factors L, M, and Q1 are absent from the children's forms of the 16PF. *p < .05. 52 Mothers' significant differences included B+, C-, Q2+, Anxiety+, and Cortertia-, while fathers differed sig- nificantly on B+, G+, I-, L-, Q2+, Q3+, Independence-, and Cortertia+. Thus, compared to national norms, these mothers tended to be more intelligent, emotionally unstable, anxious, emotionally sensitive, and self-sufficient. Fathers tended to be more intelligent, conscientious, self—disciplined, unemotional, tough-minded, self-sufficient, trusting and dependent. All of the primary factors that were significant for these parents, with the exception of fathers' I-, are among those found to be associated with higher educational achievement (The Handbook for the 16PF, p. 229), which is consistent with the higher educational and socioeconomic level of this sample (see Table 3). Additionally, both parents were above—average on intelligence and self-suf- ficiency (B+, Q2+), and this, together with the configuration of an anxious, emotional mother and a tough, disciplined father, may have resulted in the couples' being motivated to seek out and carry through on the Special, extended medical attention for their cleft-palate child; alternatively these findings may reflect characteristics of families willing to participate in a demanding assessment project. Daughters tended to be timid, withdrawn, and undis— ciplined (A-, H-, and Q3-), while sons were more intelligent, tough-minded, and self-sufficient (B+, I-, and Q2+). sug- gesting some overall similarity to same-sex parents (timid, 53 anxious mothers and tough, defended fathers). Thus, while this sample does show some differences from the test norms, many of these are typical of people with a higher educational level. Instrument: This study employed the sixteen first- order and four second-order dimensions of the Sixteen Person— ality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), which is described in the Introduction and in Appendix B. Procedure: Testing took place at the University of Illinois Hospital. All families were reimbursed for out-of— pocket expenses, such as transportation and lunches. All measures were individually administered, and the various examinations were scheduled in a staggered time manner to minimize fatigue, boredom, and other factors that often affect the reliability and validity of the type of data Ob- tained in this study. All subjects whose reading comprehen- sion grade level score fell below the lower range of the questionnaire were administered it verbally with a simul- taneous visual presentation. Analysis of Results: In order to select the families in which parents were most dissimilar in personality, a difference score was calculated by subtracting the father's score on a given dimension from that of the mother, and the resulting distribution of difference scores divided into thirds (upper, middle, and lower). Thus, there were two parent-dissimilar groups for each dimension used--Group S 54 contained those families in which fathers scored most above their wives, and Group M contained families whose mothers scored most above their husbands—-as well as the inter- mediate Group S, which contained the middle third of families in which the parents scored most equally. The theorists cited here delineated several different conflict patterns or styles among families with dissimilar parents, and research with the 16PF has suggested that a different pattern of interpersonal style is associated with each of the second—order factors. Therefore, summing re- sults on dissimilar spouses across the four second-order di- mensions would necessarily conceal and confound possibly sig— nificant differences. Accordingly, spouse difference scores were calculated separately for 239M of the four second-order factors of Independence, Extraversion, Anxiety, and Corter- tia, and the extreme groups selected on each. Thus, each of the analyses described below was carried out separately on twelve groups: For each of the four second-order dimensions there were three groups, one with mothers scoring lower than fathers, and one with mothers scoring most equal to fathers, and one with mothers scoring higher than fathers. Table 5 shows the sample sizes of mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons in these groups on each of the four dimensions. In order to determine if there was any significant overlap among the four second-order dimensions on these groupings, chi square tests were performed between the 55 Table 5. Numbers of Mothers, Fathers, Daughters, and Sons in Groups S, S and M for Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia Enzavemflon Imkmemknme .MMdety Cbrflntia Gnmms Gnmms Gnmme GHNEB F S M F S M. F S M. F S .M I f Mothers 41 44 42 43 42 42 42 44 41 41 45 41 Fathers 41 44 42 43 42 42 42 44 41 41 45 41 Daughters 42 60 60 50 58 54 52 63 47 54 51 57 Sons 82 72 77 76 82 73 78 87 66 71 82 78 1Group E: fathers > mothers on dimension. Group S: fathers similar to mothers on dimension. Groule: mothers > fathers on dimension. groupings of each pair of second-order dimensions. None of these six tests reached significance (although Extraversion x Independence showed a positive trend), and so it was con— cluded that the four sets of groupings were relatively inde- pendent of each other. On each Of the four second-order dimensions, mothers', fathers', daughters', and sons' traits were tested for dif— ferences between the three groups by means of a E-test. Next, parent/child personality similarity was de- termined for each parent/child dyad (mother/daughter, mother/ son, father/daughter, and father/son) in the two parent- dissimilar groups (Group E: fathers > mothers; Group M: mothers > fathers) for each of the second-order dimensions. For each dyad the same-trait intercorrelations were calculated 56 for all factors, transformed to z-scores, and averaged to get one overall correlation indicating the degree of person- ality similarity between the members of that dyad. Then, in order to determine if cross—sex dyads showed greater simi- larity than same-sex dyads, these average same-trait inter- correlations for the mother/son and for the father/daughter dyads were each compared with those of each Of the same-sex dyads in a test for significance of differences. Finally, the patterns of significant cross-trait or Off-diagonal parent/child trait intercorrelations were in- vestigated. The Pearson product-moment correlation of each child trait with each parent trait was calculated separately for each of the four parent/child dyads in each of the three groups (Group Se-mother < father; Group S--father : mother; Group Mf-mother > father) for each of the four second-order dimensions. Thus, the hypotheses can be operationalized as fol- lows: Mypothesis 1: On each of the four second- order dimensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia; there will be signif- icant differences (t-test) between Group F (fathers > mothers), Group S (fathers s mothers), and Group M (mothers > fathers) for (a) mothers' 20 first- and second-order 16PF factors (b) fathers' 20 first- and second-order 16PF factors (c) daughters' 20 first- and second-order 16PF factors (d) sons' 20 first- and second-order 16PF factors 57 Hypothesis 2: On each of the four second-order dimensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxi— ety, (a) and Cortertia, in both of the spouse-dissimilar groups (Group F--fathers > mothers, Group M-- mother > fathers), the average parent/ child same-trait intercorrelations (per- sonality similarity) will be significant- ly higher for the two cross-sex dyads (mother/son, father/daughter) than for the same-sex dyads (mother/daughter, father/son). for each of the four dyads (mother/ daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son) in each of the three groups (Group F-—fathers > mothers, Group 8-- mothers 5 fathers, Group M-—Mothers > fathers) there will be statistically sig- nificant patterns of intercorrelations between parent and child personality factors. RESULTS In the following discussion, second-order 16PF dimen- sions will be capitalized (Extraversion/Introversion, Inde- pendence/Dependence, Anxiety/Adjustment, Cortertia, and Neureticism). Uncapitalized traits refer to commonly under- stood concepts. Data relevant to Hypothesis 1, that there will be significant trait differences between Groups S, S, and M for mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons, are presented in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, for the four second-order dimensions. Statistically significant (p <:.05), two-tailed test) be- tween-group differences denoted for direction are indicated after the appropriate factor for mothers, fathers, daughters, and sons. In addition, Appendix C gives the mean scores of each type of family member for Groups S, S, and M on each trait that showed significant inter-group differences. Excluding the second-order dimension used to select that particular set of groups and the primary factors that contribute to it, about 40 tests of statistical significance were made per family member type (approximately 14 person- ality factors times 3 comparison tests on each--Groups S versus Group S, Group S versus Group M, and, Group S versus 58 .Snmumsmunufl hogan—380$ no n—mfixuao a an nmnn nonuou hag—mum ounce—ma. 59 goonnuoo onvmno I 3021.52 mo vmuu ggnfiflgnmg 005%"? 3 vmun figmggnmg Swflgmnnunwumuflfim So. vmnmN gkngahnmga mzvm m:vm bmvm mzvm uzvm «o. mzAm mzAm mwAh mmvm uwvh t: mink ozAm mwAh va 2vm_ fw+ omAh wzvh umvm mzAm UEAm mth 62v...“ oth e<+ mzAm mzAw mwkm divh m=vm umvm mg mzvm mmkh “502 ous—A."H nmnm mug—vm vah nnoo mas—An.— Evh g UEvh UZVm mzAm mmAM morn.” 82vm uzvm v0 uzkm pmAm mo FO 02vh ,Omvm O 02vm viva flzvm z W 2 . n a MZVm b Oth vam H nzmm asks o oZVm asks amkm m a U UflAw GSVm m 95m Hangman anufimm wuonng ”LEE can .m .m 325 nonconomISEugflea gum gamma E 3 ucuoflncmnm iguana—mum .o 03$. .ggfigoAusngr—g 60 glut—8 odvmuo l humans—«I52 mc.vmlo gouaglmg gig Ho.vMIn gauglmg Engaging.” 3o v low gagging” .Ava vwvm «~01. . II A uzvm utvm anm .01. aivh 02v...» omvm «2+ Oman I omAh «9+ utkh UZAm «SAh kaAm bmah mzvh nZVm ¢m+ emf... .arkm 02A...“ am:— axva azvm omvm 85 “EAR” ".th OZVm U2vm “SQ uzkh n98 uzAm g Neva ntAh fitnm umAb mg .0 I uznm no . o omvm bzkm n—me n2vm 2 M u r. omxm as; Aavm H . exam : . utam fluvh «Eva "Eva U utvh USAM h a Kkm U n. uzvm ¢ 88 g8 532 Edna: 13m 8.. .m .M 836 gang 5058 893033 E 3 nausea 1380505 4. 03.9 61 glg .5333 8 use? mg a bug: .302 8306503 no £83398? 353.30qu8 odvmuv €8.5an 8.17.0 gflkgung Bushman-man SJmna gngflumg gflgnglmufifln Hoo.vmln~ gagging oaks asks asks .1ka cake axvm azvm amvm .v? axvm uzvm amvm nuke mzkm «no: utkm asks swam oak.» axvm azvm omvu a? .2... of... .13.. .5. .4... uzvm uzvm amvm 02A.» omkm LT azvm axvm amvm asks nzkm «mks .0. exam . asks atkm «mam «xv...— nxvm amvm 082: stab Minn mmAmI mzvm mtvm Umvh g chvm uzvm 0:80 Dave uzvm mun zvm mmvm five umvm mate :0 uzvm nmvm ozvm .O UZVm anh z . Makm z m 021.... mmkm n a 02...“. oaks H mzvm umvm Eva «.me exam o wzkm nzvm mzvm uzvm n have m a OSvm m 02:" lava nave asks exam aux» 4 55m $8 3053 «.350: . Qatnm 93 .Im. .M 098 glbéhfiflfl gunman hm we ngugwm S§3m .a 03 62 .figggsgguggg goo-undo vane I hogan—Z vmao gouaglmg gag vmln gufififlllg Bagging vmnow figAflm—flomlmga 4w uzvh navh uzvm nmvh «9+ .. OZVm 02vm clam vam ‘H3 _, 02vm viva awavm 62v..." fm+ ozvm , navm Eva omvm .ml+l USvh UZVm utvm mavm vah «(I W ozAm mtAm Omam M‘vh HSVm mmvm t8, L O DEAN UZAm Dmnh H62 L. 52 mm?“ » ozvm 02vm NEH 02v...“ # Alva n“Evan“ mmvh ntvm mg omAm UZAm «.0 L . a; 5 oz?“ uznm w as?“ azam .d M. uzAm Ho a . o wivm omnh 2 S n. uzvm mzvh ntvm bmvm m utvm mmam o vam a viva navm uzAm o Muzak a 95m 333098 3.0...— 305.2 qum n5 .m .m 556 goodwménuufloo 5958 8053qu E 3 2.833% #10333...“ .a Sea. 63 Group M) and thus about 2 might be expected to reach the .05 level by chance alone. Excluding the selection factors, the number of group differences that achieved statistical significance for parents were: Extraversion = 2 for mothers (M) and 8 for fathers (F); Independence = 7M and 6F; Anxiety = 2M and 12F; and Cortertia = 8M and 7F. Hence, the average number of statistical significances per dimen- sion for mothers and fathers was 5 and 8, respectively, compared to the 2 that might be expected by chance. Thus, these findings somewhat exceeded chance expectancies, and lend some support to the first part of the hypothesis. Many additional differences between the E, g, and M Groups reached statistical significance but this may have been due to the experimental groupings. That is, for ex- ample, on the Extraversion dimension, Groups E, g, and M were constructed to contain mothers who scored below, equal to, and above, respectively, their spouses on Extraversion. Consequently, it was not surprising to find significant differences for mothers in the direction of E < g < M on Extraversion and its constituent factors. Similarly, since these Groups were constructed for fathers to be, respec- tively, lower, equal to, and higher than their wives on Extraversion, it is not surprising that there were signifi- cant differences for fathers on the Extraversion factors in the direction of E > g > M. Note, however, that these findings were not directly 93 necessarily_generated by the 64 selection process. (For example, fathers being higher than mothers in the extreme Group 5 could have occurred by mothers who were average choosing husbands who were well above-average, or by mothers who were exceptionally low choosing husbands who were only average; additionally, Group S could have contained spouses who were more-or-less equal but both equally very high or both very low, rather than both in the mid-range, as occurred.) The number of statistically significant inter-group differences on these selection factors far exceeded the chance expectation of one (about six traits times three comparisons - 18 tests): Extraversion 11 for mothers (M) and 13 for fathers (F); 10M and BF; Anxiety = 17M and 19F; and, Independence Cortertia = 11M and BF. For sons and daughters, the number of significant (p < .05) trait differences between each set of three groups was notably fewer than for their parents. Compared to the three such differences per set expected by chance (20 traits times 3 comparisons = 60 tests), the number of significant differences between the three groups were: Extraversion = 6 for daughters (D) and 3 for sons (S); Independence = 2D and 4S; Anxiety = 2D and 3S; and Cortertia = 1D and 78. Thus, only in the Extraversion daughters' and the Cortertia sons' cases did the observed results appreciably exceed the chance level. These sparse findings only weakly support the hypothesis that parents' personality dissimilarity leads to 6S cross-generational alliances that would have permanent effects on the child's personality. The expectation (Hypothesis 2a) that parent/child personality similarity (same-trait inter-correlations) would be greater for the cross—sex (mother/son, father/daughter) dyads than for the same-sex dyads in the two spouse-dis- similar groups (3 and M) on each dimension was not confirmed. For each of the four dyads in each of the eight Spouse-dis— similar groups (Groups 3 and M on each of the four dimen- sions), parent/child inter-correlations were transformed to z—scores and averaged across the 16 traits. Then, wiEMiM each of these groups, each of the cross-sex dyads was com- pared to each of the same-sex dyads for significant differ- ences: Mother/son was compared to mother/daughter and father/son; father/daughter was compared to father/son and mother/daughter. None of these 32 tests achieved statist- ical significance (p <:.05). This suggests that the dyads were more—or-less equal with respect to overall personality similarity, and that if cross-sex, intergenerational alliances occurred in these spouse-dissimilar groups, they did not seem to affect overall personality similarity. There are several other possible reasons for this lack of support for Hypothesis 2a (parent/child similarity resulting from parent/child alliances) and the very weak findings for children's differences in Hypothesis 1 (chil- dren's personality differences resulting from parent/child 66 alliances). One possible reason may be that this population is too "normal" to evidence strong effects. The parent- dissimilar groups included two-thirds of this "average" population of families. The prescribed family dynamics may not be strongly enough in evidence in such relatively "normal" and spouse—similar families to show significant effects on children's personalities. A second problem here is that these parent/child alliances would presumably occur between each parent and only aaa child in the family. That is, the conflicted and dissatisfied spouses would turn to a "special" relationship with only one opposite-sex child, generally the eldest (the first to enter the family), not with all opposite-sex chil- dren. Thus, running these analyses on all opposite—sex children may have washed out the results. Certainly not all daughters in a family can show marked similarity to the father, for example, for then they would necessarily be quite similar to each other, which certainly does not seem true of most families. Additionally, some of these families had only male or only female children, and in these families one parent would presumably develop an alliance with a aaMa- gag child, again confounding the present results. Another problem with the present study that may have minimized results was that the experimental selection pro— cess left the parents in each group with a considerably con- stricted range on about a third of the personality traits. 67 Since each group of parents was selected to be high, medium, or low on Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, or Cortertia, the parents in each group had a limited variance on the relevant second-order dimension and its constituent primary factors. Such restriction in variance necessarily limits the size of possible correlations; the parent/child corre- lations may have been artificially lowered by this condition. One final reason for the limited results may be that these parent/child alliances may not be of a kind that affect relatively permanent personality traits such as the 16PF measures. These alliances may affect behaviors, dynamic motivations, or felt allegiances that are not reflected in the 16PF. Further Analyses The lack of confirmation of Hypothesis 2a, that greater overall personality similarity would occur for the cross-sex dyads, suggested a post-hoc hypothesis--that the different dyads would be similar on different personality traits. Thus, Table 10 was constructed to identify these traits that showed significant same-trait inter-correlations, either positive or negative, for each of the four dyads in Groups 3, §r and M on each of the four dimensions. Although these results will be discussed in detail later in conjunc- tion with the other findings, one remark can be made here about the overall findings. For both sons and daughters the 68 goo I £8 3. v m I a 5352 n 53 mo. v m u u gag u g .8. v m u n .vouo: 8E0 335 943.com mud 35332.60.” guns" u in .25. v m u “A .. N Uh 0mg .om nuswz .05.: um .vm mz .uh .0m .0m 00 EH00 5 § § ~ wag U: 00 on . N. ".32 6mg 6H .om 035 gauge .uu .um 3352 h ~ ~ ~ . H— . u h .. .0 m. .. . 2 .. a. .u _m w a . . . . mg . g— vnaWH 6.502 on . .o J6 .60 on an um nm .32 n no a h s . 62.5 mo 04 on on no um . m 562.52 m. mo.m.m uhoo m §mb>mg 3 ~ w s vs 0 "J“ v u w h s u s c cm_u%ouoo comuoo: angumon 93 are: m v ~ ~ ~ V _ . . Q . s H: l ~ ~ ~ Munoz 652 o u: uo N 6&8 60 no am cm 6 oz no an u< ofioo no no odEH um «3.88.8 no 60%60 as am %QEHm0mzum _ w m . m . SHE 9:: N ~ 05% flggw Uqfia Do u m ~ ~ ~mlvo 00 um mo ”m . g s .0 ~ E0 . in no mo “mom mm mzmcumnm comzmm 64 o uoou m... _m e ~ ~ - ~ ~ vouzwz 0960 no .00 pd m pg £5.62 Ru om v 0385 05.2 0365 00 um gmmoEHa . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ x s omuuxm 00 we no am How an mun—4 .wo 0w mu . ~ ~ v sN ~ m n: .3 m zeamuu>m m 6562 pg um um 64 . 66260 mowouH . 6.62 065 . Uxm ~ ~ ~ s l . . .l n 0 no £0 AM um 02 um nu p< v9.50 U3 U0 Amuwfimu A E9305 A3059. u 365mg Ame—g9: A wumfimb .9853 A muggy 3359: n mum—flag Bhutan: A 93553 2 9.5.5 m 9.55 m 990 Z 905 w “:80 m 9396 30m combufifi muflzmma nu... .858 n .3683th an; Each—Ema £8323... fififiaflfia .S 23. 69 primary traits that showed the greatest number of signifi- cant correlations (similarity) with parents' personalities were factors B (intelligence) and E (dominance). This sug- gests that these two traits show some particular proclivity for family resemblance, either through genetic or environ- mental processes. Data for Hypothesis 2(b) are given in Appendix D because of their length. Each matrix shows all statisti- cally significant inter-correlations for one of the four parent/child dyads from one of the three groups (M, a, and M) from one of the four dimensions (4 x 3 x 4 = 48 matrices). Since 21 parent traits were inter-correlated with 20 child traits in each matrix, the number of significant correla- tions that might occur by chance at the p <:.05 level is 21. Appreciably more were observed: The average number of statistically significant correlations for the father/son, mother/son, father/daughter, and mother/daughter dyads were 42, 38, 24, and 28, re3pectively. Some overall patterns were evident in these findings across the three types of data (the t-tests of trait dif- ferences between groups for each family member--Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9; significant trait similarities for each dyad in each group--Table 10; and, the significant parent/child trait inter-correlations found in the 48 matrices). First, sons showed much stronger effects in each domain. In Table 10, the father/son dyad showed similarity on far more traits 70 than did the mother/son, father/daughter, and mother/daugh- ter dyads: the numbers of significant trait similarities were 42, 25, 21, and 18, respectively. Thus fathers and sons seem to show the highest degree of trait similarity, with mother/son having the next most, and the two daughter dyads showing the least. Likewise, in the cross—trait cor- relation matrices in Appendix C, father/son and mother/son dyads showed markedly more linkages that achieved statist- ical significance than did father/daughter or mother/daugh- ter dyads: Average number of significant correlations per matrix were 42, 38, 24, and 28, respectively. Thus, sons' personality traits were linked much more frequently to both parents' than were daughters'. Furthermore, in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9 sons showed 50% more significant trait differences than did daughters. These patterns all suggest that parents, but especially fathers, may in subtle ways interact more powerfully with their sons than with their daughters. A1- ternatively, this might result from sons' paying more atten- tion to parents, being more susceptible to parental influ- ence; or from sons' having one clear singular pattern of interrelationship with parents, but daughters' having several different patterns that are confounded in results. In any case, these striking results over a sizeable sample suggest some basic difference in family patterns for girls and boys and reinforce the earlier suggestion that research on chil- dren and parents should be collected separately for each dyad. 71 Sons and daughters also differed on which traits showed the greatest interrelationship with parents' traits. Table 10 indicates that on second-order traits sons showed by far the most similarity to parents on Neureticism (10 significant occurrences, compared to 3 on Extraversion, the next highest), while daughters showed the greatest similar- ity to parents on Independence (6 significant occurrences versus 3 on the next-highest--Extraversion). A similar pattern occurred in the overall parent/child trait inter- correlations. Number of significant linkages for daughters and sons, respectively, were distributed among the second— order dimensions as follows: Extraversion--28% (daughters) /12% (sons), Independence--24%/l7%, Cortertia--24%/12%, Anxiety--l6%/21%, and, Neureticism--8%/38%. Thus, sons had nearly three times as many linkages on Neureticism and twice as many on Anxiety as they did on the other dimensions, indi— cating that sons' mental health was linked in particularly important ways to their relationships with parents. For daughters, on the other hand, Neuroticism was the least important second-order factor, showing one-third as many linkages as Extraversion, Independence, and Cortertia, which were most important in their relationships with parents. These traits seem to be related to traditional sex roles for girls, in that Extraversion and Dependence are inter- personal dimensions, and Cortertia is a measure of emotional- ity. The results suggest important sex differences in these 72 parent/child linkages that revolve around mental health for boys versus interpersonal and emotional qualities for girls. DISCUSSION It is hard to find clear confirmation or lack of it in the literature for these findings of stronger overall parent/son interrelatedness forcused in the area of Neuroti- cism and Anxiety versus the weaker but wider-ranging relat- edness of daughters. The only recent authors who directly address this question (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) make the following, tentative observation: It would be a formidable task to review all the socialization studies to see whether the correlations between parent behaviors and child characteristics are generally higher for boys than for girls. We have, however, reviewed a selected set of studies (Bayley & Schaefer, 1964; Bing, 1963; Hetherington, 1967; Honzig, 1967; Kagan & Moss, 1962; and Sears, Rau, & Alpert, 1965) with this question in mind. Taken as a whole, these studies do not indicate that either sex is generally more susceptible to home influence. (p. 73) Any such conclusion, however, must be highly specu- .lative, both because of the great volume of the relevant Jresearch and because of its shortcomings. The great major- :ity of research into parent/child personality linkages Eéither fails to analyze the data separately by gender (Barogona, 1964; Siegelman, 1965), samples only one sex of cIhildren (Coroso, 1978; Salley, 1977; Scheck, 1978), 73 74 studies only one child trait (Bayard-de-Volo & Fiebert, 1977; Lesser & Steininger, 1975; Lifshitz & Ramot, 1978), or calculates parent/child differences or proportions rather than correlations (Schneider, DeWinne, & Overton, 1980; Shilling, 1979). Unless parent/child correlations are given for children of each sex over a range of traits, it is impossible to judge whether one sex shows greater overall relatedness or in what area of personality this is focused. A search of the last fifteen years of Psychological Abstracts revealed only five studies which investigated the correlation of multiple personality traits between parents and children of each sex. The first two studies (Grotevant, 1976; Grotevant, Scarr, & Weinberg, 1977) employed the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory, an instrument typically 'used in reference to vocational interests rather than per- ssonality. Both studies found strong sex differences, as nnight be expected in the highly sex-typed domain of voca- t:iona1 interests, but no overall greater quantity of rela- tzionships for either sex child. Hill and Hill (1973) inter- czorrelated parents' and children's MMPI scores, also not a Ilcuwml personality measure, but found no significant corre— Juations between daughters or sons and parents on the ten c31inical scales. Troll, Neugarten, and Kraines (1969) looked at cor- r"elations between personality traits of college students and t1”leir parents, but used a poorly-researched questionnaire of 75 their own design on a fairly small sample. Although no one of the four parent/child dyads showed significantly stronger influence overall, different traits were important within different dyads. For example, "cognitive complexity" was significantly correlated only for the two parent/son dyads, while "intraception" was significantly correlated only for the two parent/daughter dyads, and "spontaneity" only for the two mother/child dyads. However, findings in this study were sparse, and it is difficult to tell how these traits would relate to the 16PF traits, particularly Neuroticism. The final study reviewed here (Scarr, Webber, Weinberg, & Wittig, in press) calculated parent/child trait intercorre- lations on measures of extraversion, neuroticism, and phy- sical and social anxiety. While these authors found twice as many significant linkages for daughters as sons on extra- ‘version, they did not find a greater number of linkages for sons on anxiety, neuroticism, or overall. While all of these studies used multivariate instru- Inents, they examined only parent/child same-trait intercor- Jrelations (similarity versus dissimilarity). The I>ossibility that one child trait was associated strongly VVith different parent traits (off-diagonal, cross-trait <=orrelations) was not examined, and so even these studies EJrovide limited comparability to the present results. Consequently, the question of differential quantity cDr‘content of parent/son and parent/daughter personality 76 linkages remains unanswered. While this trait literature does not clearly support the finding of greater parent/child relatedness for sons, very few studies include measures of anxiety and neuroticism, which were the outstanding traits for sons in the present findings. Approaching this issue from another direction, the higher incidence of neuroticism or psychological disorder among boys is a well-established finding (e.g., Dreger et al., 1964; Rutter & Graham, 1966; LaPousse & Monk, 1964; and Werry & Quay, 1971). In reviewing the literature, Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) conclude: Boys show greater vulnerability to anomolies of prenatal development and childhood diseases, as well as greater incidence of a variety of developmental problems, ranging in severity from enuresis to mental retardation and autism. (p. 119) Other authors have found boys to be more susceptible to psy- chological stress such as family discord and disharmony and 'unpleasant separation experiences (e.g., Rutter, 1971, 1975). LEWen if this is a genetic vulnerability, as the latter éauthor suggests, the particular psychological disorder would Ipresumably develop within the context of specific family Gevents and conditions, and consequently correlate with family/ IParent variables. Thus, the well-established greater vulner- Eibility of boys to neuroticism supports the present finding <>f greater parent/son linkages centered around traits of A1’lxiety and Neuroticism. 77 Another area of research that bears on the present results is that of sex—role socialization. There is a strong body of evidence that boys are subject to clearer and more strongly-enforced sex—typing pressures than are girls (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963; Donelson & Gullahorn, 1977; Hartley, 1959; Lynn, 1959; Mussen, 1969; Nadelman, 1974). Thus, opposite-gender behavior is far less toler- ated in boys than girls from an early age onward. There are fewer sex-role restrictions on girls, who have been found to model a wider variety of behaviors from EEEE par- ents (Fagot, 1974; Grusic & Brinker, 1972; Minuchin, Biber, Shapiro, & Similes, 1969; and, Perry & Perry, 1978). Boys have also been found to show greater anxiety about sex-role- inappropriate behavior (Ross & Ross, 1972; Wolf, 1975). These results suggest that parents may, indeed, do more socialization of sons than daughters, supporting the pre- sent finding of greater parent/child trait intercorrelations for sons. These results can also be seen as supporting the gprominence of sons' Neuroticism in the present findings, :since greater inhibition and repression of sex-role-inappro- lpriate behavior may lead to neuroticism. Finally, this .line of research suggests that daughters are allowed to Inodel a wider range of behaviors of both parents. This Eiupports the present finding of parent/daughter linkages' being spread fairly evenly over several traits versus the SSingular emphasis on Neuroticism for sons. 78 Consequently, a review of the parent/child trait relationship literature does not clearly support the present findings of greater parent/son relatedness focused in the area of sons' Neuroticism and Anxiety. This liter- ature, however, is highly inconclusive in that there are very few studies that measure a full range of traits, include neuroticism and anxiety, or intercorrelate these to study the overall patterns of cross-trait linkages. Other lines of research did indicate a greater incidence of neuroticism in boys, stronger parental socialization of boys toward their traditional sex-role, and the modeling of a wider range of behaviors of both parents by daughters. The following discussion will combine the three ‘types of data in an attempt to clarify the family constel- lation in each of the three groups (E, g! and M), separ— aately for each of the four dimensions (Extraversion, lIndependence, Anxiety, and Cortertia). Beginning with Iflxtraversion, we shall look first at Group §_(F > M), then <3roup § (F a M), and then Group M (M > F). For each group, VVe shall first turn to Table 6, 7, 8, or 9 and examine the SSignificant personality traits of both parents in that 79 group; then turn to daughters, looking first at their significant trait differences in the same table, and then at their patterns of relationships with parents (similar- ities in Table 10, and overall trait linkages in Matrices, Apprendix D), trying to understand how the particular daughter traits might be related to the particular parent traits and parent/child patterns. Lastly, this process will be repeated for sons. First-order traits will be indicated by letter name only, and so reference to Appendix B may be useful. Second-order traits will be capitalized, as usual, in order to distinguish them from the use of general trait concepts. Extraversion Group F. Compared to both national norms and to other mothers in this sample, these mothers were predict- ably low on Extraversion, and its constituent factors A—, F—, H-, and Q2+ (see Table 6); thus, they were cold, with- drawn, shy, introspective, and seclusive. Fathers were likewise predictably high on Extraversion and its constit- uent factors of A+, F+, H+, and Q2- compared to other fathers and to national norms; thus, they were warm, out- going, dominant, impulsive, socially bold, and group- involved. Beyond the predictable Extraversion differences these fathers tended also to be G+, O-, B+, high on Inde- pendence and Cortertia, and low on Neuroticism. Thus, Group F couples tended to consist of introverted, withdrawn 80 wives and extraverted, tough-minded, ego-resilient husbands. Not only were these spouses opposite on the selected- for Extraversion factors (mothers tending to withdraw from people and fathers tending to move toward people), but these fathers were in addition well-adjusted, confident, unfrus- trated, tough-minded, and conventional. It seems perplex- ing that robust, outgoing men would choose such withdrawn, unsociable women, or vice versa, since they would seem to be very different in the way they would prefer to spend their time. In Group F, daughters tended to be detached, tough- minded, unemotional, and self-controlled, possibly in defensive reaction to Introverted, Neurotic, intrusive mothers, and through identification with dominating, intru- sive fathers. Table 6 indicates that these daughters were significantly A-, I-, Q3+, and Cortertia+--withdrawn, tough, unemotional, and concerned about adhering to a socially-approved self-image. Matrices 1 and 2 in Appendix D provide the trait interrelationships between these daugh— ters and each parent. Mothers' traits of Introversion, Neuroticism, L+, A-, H-, and 0+ tended to be related to daughters' Cortertia+, I-, and E+. Thus, a pattern of Introverted, Neurotic, intrusiveness in mothers was linked with tough, assertive, unemotionality in daughters--possibly a defensive toughening of these daughters in reaction to mothers. Fathers' Independence, L+, and E+ were linked to 81 daughters' D+, B+, F+, 0+, and Independence. (Table 10 also indicates that these fathers and daughters showed sim- ilarity on Independence, a trait on which these fathers were high.) Thus, tough, dominating, intrusive fathers tended to have daughters who were similarly tough and domi- nating, but also overactive, excitable, and impulsive-- perhaps a case of father/daughter identification or alliance and oedipal—type excitability and attention—seeking. Group E sons here showed the greatest number of over- all parent/child correlations for either sex in any group on any of the four second-order dimensions. The interest- ing thing about these parent/child patterns was that father/son linkages were quite similar to the mother/son linkages-~both linking Introversion, Dependence, and Neu- roticism in parents to Anxious Neuroticism in sons--yet mothers and fathers were Opposite (mothers were Introverted and fathers Extraverted, Independent and non-Neurotic). One might expect mothers and fathers to influence sons in opposite directions and cancel out each others' effects. As Matrix 4 indicates, mothers' Introversion, De- pendence, Cortertia-, E-, F-, H-, L-, and Q3+ were linked with sons' Anxiety, Neuroticism, C-, E-, F-, H-, 0+, and Q2+. Sons' Anxiety, Neuroticism, emotional instability, guilt-prone insecurity, brooding intrOSpection, seclusive- ness, shyness, and conformity were linked with Dependence, Introversion, emotionality, submissiveness, brooding 82 introspection, timid withdrawal, and inhibited over-control in mothers. Similarly, fathers' traits of Dependence, Neu- roticism, Introversion, A-, E-, F-, 1+, and Q2+ were linked with sons' Anxiety, Neuroticism, C-, E-, F-, H-, 0+, and Q2+ (see Matrix 3). Hence, fathers who were (looking at the opposite side of these correlations, since these fathers overall tended to show the Opposite traits) Extraverted, socially-bold, group-involved, Independent, aggressive, emo- tionally tough, and non-Neurotic tended to have sons who were non-Anxious non-Neurotic, emotionally stable, un- worried, confident, aggressive, socially bold, carefree, and group-involved. Therefore, since mothers and fathers were, in fact, opposite on many of these traits, it appears that they may have had a counter-balancing influence on sons. However, as Table 10 indicates, sons showed greater similarity to their healthier fathers (on traits of Neu- roticism, E, F, and 0, plus dissimilarity on A and N), but similarity to their less-healthy mothers only on traits of E and F. This is consistent with the actual finding here (see Table 6) that these sons were, overall, not greatly different from other sons or from national norms, but that the deviations they showed were in healthy directions in that they tended to be more warm, outgoing, zestful, group— involved, unpretentious, natural, and self-disciplined (A+, G+, J‘, N-) o 83 Group . Parents in the middle group tended to have few distinguishing characteristics: mothers tended to be more unruffled and phlegmatic (Q4-), and fathers tended to be brighter (B+) and more sensitive and emotional (Cortertia-) compared to national norms or sample fathers (see Table 6). It is interesting that here, where parents' person- alities were most similar and marriages were hypothesized to be healthier, daughters showed far more linkages and simi- larity to mothers (their role models) than to fathers, or than daughters and mothers showed in the other two groups here. Daughters showed similarity to mothers (see Table 10) on traits of Extraversion, Cortertia, B, and E, but pp sig- nificant similarity to fathers, and at most one similarity to mothers in either extreme group. Likewise, these daugh- ters showed significantly more cross-trait linkages with mothers than with fathers, or than the extreme (E & M) group daughters had with either mothers or fathers. This suggests that these daughters might have identified more with the appropriate sex-role parent than did daughters in the extreme groups, where cross-sex alliances may have been formed. Additionally these cross-trait linkages seemed relat- ed to sex-roles. Mothers' sex—role traits of timid, sub- missive, emotionally-sensitive, trusting, dependent (Cor- tertia-, Dependence, Introversion, E-, H-, L-, M-, and 02+) were linked with similar traits of emotionally-sensitive, 84 submissive, cautious, introspective, dependent (Cortertia-, Introversion, A—, E-, F—, I+, and Q2+) in daughters (see Matrix 6). The pattern with fathers, although less strong, was interesting because it was somewhat opposite (see Matrix 6). Fathers' traits of intelligent self-assured, socially bold, non-Anxious, and Independent (Independence, Anxiety-, B+, H+, and O-) were linked with daughters' traits of warm, relaxed, zestful, Extraverted (Extraversion, A+, J-, and Q4-). This suggests that if each parent conformed to his/ her traditional sex—role (fathers self-assured and Independ- ent, mothers Dependent, shy, and emotionally sensitive--all well-established sex differences on the 16PF), they may have had opposite, counter-balancing influences on daughters. Sons in Group § also showed more linkages and simi— larity to mothers than to fathers and these revolved around mutual Neuroticism versus adjustment, while the fewer rela- tionships with fathers revolved around mutual Extraversion versus Introversion. Mothers' traits of anxious, inhibited, guilt-prone, worrisome, conflicted, self-indulgent (Anxiety, Neuroticism, G-, H-, 0+, Q3-) were linked with sons' traits of emotionally-unstable, immature, overactive, demanding, detached, brooding, and inhibited (Introversion, Neuroticism, A-, C-, D+, F-, H-, and Q4--see Matrix 8). Mother/son simi- larities (Table 10) also involved Neuroticism, emotional stability (C), self-discipline (G), and social inhibition 85 (H), with trends on Anxiety and Extraversion. As mentioned, father/son bonds were fewer and revolv- ed around Extraversion/Introversion (see Matrix 7). Father/ son similarity (Table 10) occurred for Extraversion and H (social boldness), with trends on A (warmth) and B (verbal intelligence); and in cross-trait linkages, fathers' tough- minded, unsentimental Introversion (Introversion, Cortertia, H—, I-, Q2+) related to sons' Neurotic Introversion (Intro- version, Neuroticism, A-, E-, H—, and 02+). Group M. As anticipated mothers in Group M tended to be Extraverted, warm, expressive, and socially bold (A+, F+, H+, and Extraversion), relative to other sample mothers or to national norms. In addition, they tended to be bright- er, socially naive, and tense (B+, N-, 04+). Also predict- ably, these fathers tended to be Introverted, cold, taciturn, shy, submissive, and seclusive (Introversion, A-, E-, F-, H-, Q2+) while also tending to be Dependent, Anxious, Neurotic, low on Cortertia, and less intelligent (B-). Thus, Group M couples tended to involve bright, naive, Extraverted wives and Dependent, Anxious, Neurotic husbands. It is not clear why the husbands in the two extreme groups (3 and M), in addition to being Introverted or Extra- verted relative to their wives, were also at extremes on Dependence, Anxiety and Neuroticism. Introversion was not (associated with Anxiety or Neuroticism for mothers. As will tme seen in discussing the Anxiety dimension, quite different 86 traits are associated with high Anxiety and Neuroticism in women. Perhaps, being socially aggressive and uninhibited relative to wives was important to these husbands' confi- dence and ego strength. Or perhaps, when conflicted, men tend to withdraw from normal social relations, while other, non-neurotic factors are associated with social withdrawal in women. Alternatively, Extraverted, resilient wives may choose Introverted, Dependent, Neurotic spouses because of some need to nurture or feel needed and secure; while the Introverted wife may want a spouse who has not only the missing social skills of Extraversion, but who will also be confident and resilient. In any case, it is again somewhat difficult to understand on what rational and constructive basis these two opposite types would choose each other for life mates: rather, they seem to fit the pattern for prob- lematic marriages delineated by the family theorists. Daughters of these highly discrepant parents showed the fewest linkages with mothers and fathers of the three groups (see Matrices 9 and 10). Perhaps these seemingly conflicted marriages led daughters to detach themselves from parents and look elsewhere for emotional interactions and involvements. Patterns linked Anxious withdrawal in these fathers (Anxiety, Introversion, A-, F-, and H- --all, in fact, characteristic of fathers in this group) with daugh- ters' tense aggressiveness (Anxiety, Neuroticism, 04+, and E+). Mothers' Extraversion, but particularly the warm, 87 close, "people-orientedness" of A+ was linked to Anxious, guarded Independence in daughters (Extraversion, Independ- ence, Anxiety, B+, J+, and 0+). This suggests that extreme Extraversion, especially when it includes the close, de- pendent, qualities of A+, may indicate intrusive, over- involvement with daughters, and lead to guilt—prone Anxiety (from over-internalization of mothers' demands, needs, and prohibitions) and guardedness in daughters. Overall, these daughters tended to be (see Table 6) non-Anxious and under- controlled, again emphasizing their unrelatedness to these parents. Sons in Group M tended to be (see Table 6) somewhat poorer in adjustment compared to national norms but espec- ially compared to sons in Group E: They were tense, con- flicted, guarded, antisocial, aggressive, and socially shrewd and calculating (B+, G-, J+, N+, 04+). These sons had twice as many linkages with their Introverted, Neurotic fathers (which involved a pattern of mutual Neuroticism) than with their Extraverted mothers (see Matrices 11 and 12). Fathers' poorly-controlled and self-centered Neuroticism (Anxiety, Neuroticism, G-, M+, Q2+, 03-) was linked with sons' con- flicted, guarded ,antisocial impulsive, Neuroticism (Neuroti- cism, Independence, D+, G-, J+, 0+, 03-, 04+). These sons also showed more similarity to fathers than to mothers (see Table 10), and on these same Neuroticism traits: submissive- ness (E), guilt-prone apprehensiveness (O), conflicted under- 88 control (Q3), and Neuroticism intelligence (B). Interrela- tionships with mothers tended to be ameliorating, although far weaker, because, although the pattern of correlations was quite similar to those with fathers, mothers here were the opposite of fathers. Mothers' socially bold, uninhibit- ed, unconventional, emotional stability (low Anxiety and Neuroticism, B+, C+, F+, H+, 01+) linked with sons' aloof, unemotional, tough-minded aggressiveness (Independence Cortertia+, A-, B+, and I-). Summa y. Parents in the two extreme groups were opposite to each other on Extraversion and its component factors, but fathers were additionally extreme on Independ- ence, Cortertia, Anxiety, and Neuroticism. Sons were better—adjusted in Group §_where they had extremely strong and similar linkages with both mothers and fathers involving parents' Dependent, Introverted Neuroticism and sons' Introverted Neuroticism. Sons in Group § tended to be withdrawn, cautious, and submissive, and had a greater number§ ma 2 .3. dm «6 «.m. la lo .3 c4. 3. «.m v.» ad «a fin fin o.» 46m 0 ed in «zo 2M an u do 1... «6 n6 «6 t. m ad ad MA. .9.“ «a ma u «a 3. 9m a 06 in in H6. H6 .3 o h.» «4. n.” m z m m z m a z m m z m m g g g g 96.5 g g g g g g g 9.8 gags mug—duh Ugh! s . £66 338.5335 5 335: 3.32 uou 3523.58 Hgmflflm 3.63 uufi 3303 How,“ M 33853. 156 Mother/Daughter Correlations (N=42) Extraversicn-—Se1ected Group F Matrix 1. CHILD'S TRAITS , no 0 An 0 157 mtrix 2. Ebctraversim—Selected Group E: Father/Daughter Correlaticns 03:42) CHILD'S TRAITS ABCEFGHILMNOQWI. , PARENT“: TRAITS 3 o 4 nu 158 Extiaversion—-Se1ected Group F Father/Son Correlations (N=82) Matrix 3. CHILD'S TRAITS ABCEFGHILMNOQWI . ornnnnpzunvlua yuan-nyxvuab 14 0 Au 0 159 Extraversirxr-—Se1ected Group F Mother/Son Correlations (N=82) Matrix 4. CHILD'S TRAITS ABCEFGHILNNOnMWz , PARENT”) TRAITS 3 Q A» Q 160 mum/Daughter Cbn'elatims (N=60) mtraversim—Selected Group S Intrix 5. CHILD'S TRAITS 1.2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 161 Faflru/Dmghun'Cbrnflatflxs 0F60) Extnmmmsflzr-Sekxxed Gnmq>s HmflxG. CHILD'S TRAITS PARENTYTRAITS 3 o A. nu Extrav. Carter. Neurot. 162 Father/Sm Oonelatiats (N=72) Extraversim—Selected Group S Matrix 7. CHILD' S TRAXTS PARENT“: TRAITS 3 fly 4 Q Carter. 163 Mother/Sm Correlations (N=72) Matrix 8. Wavmim—Selected Group S : ~29 .25“ «r- 23“ .27“ 2? 28° 31b 22d -. 21d P 20d 21° 20° J, - 23" .42d 40d _ 2561 Pv- 21d 28° ~ 22Cl 24° 28° 25‘1 31h ‘ 26° .25° 2? CHILD'S TRAITS ‘3? . 22‘ F 27° 23d v- 26°L2£° 28° 23d L 251 24° 24° 28 .28° 23° 1+ 28° 11- 27‘: h—ZBCE. 31°41? 261 . 31b . 20° . 23° 30b 33b H 1.2 000 y PARENT...) TRAITS 03 04 Indepd. 820° Extrav. Anxiety Carter. Neurot. 164 mtraversion—Selected Group H: Matrix 9. mater/Daughter Coz-relatims (N=60) CHILD'S TRAITS ABCEFGHILMNOQAW PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 165 Father/Daughter Correlations (N=60) Extraversion-—Se1ected Group M thIix 10. CHILD'S TRAITS A 2 BCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENTYTRAITS 3 Q 4 o Indepd. Extrav. Anxiety Corter. Neurot. 166 Father/Sm mrrelaticns (N=77) Maversim—Selected Group M: Matrix 11: CHILD'S TRAITS 2 1. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT") TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 167 rather/Son Correlatims (N=77) Ebctraversim—Selected Grva M Matrix 12. n CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“: TRAITS 3 a 4 o 168 Mather/Daughter Correlatims (N=50) lflflzix 13. Irdependeme—Selected Group F CHILD'S TRAITS 1234 ABCEFGHILMNOQQQQ PARENT“: TRAITS 169 Indqthne—Selected Group F hub: 14 . Paula/Dame}: Correlatims (N=50) CHILD'S TRAITS 1?. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 170 Father/Son Correlations (Nh71) Matrix 15. Indererxhavoe—-Selected Group E} CHILD'S TRAITS PARENTYIRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 171 Mather/Son Correlations (N=71) Woe—Selected woup 2: mix 16. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILnNOQQ PARENT? TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 172 Khmer/mama: Correlations (N=58) DIEM—Selected Chimp g: Matrix l7. CHILD'S TRAITS ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“: 2 TRAITS 3 o 4. o 173 Father/Daughter Correlations (N=58) independents-Selected Group S: mix 18. CHILD'S TRAITS 12 ABCEFGHILMNOQO PARENT“) TRAITS 3 o ‘ Q 174 Independence—Selected Group S Matrix 19. Father/Sm Correlatiuls (19:82) CHILD'S TRAITS 1?. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ r PARENT“) TRAITS 3 u 4 Q 175 want/Son Correlatims (N=82) romance-Selected quzp S: mtrix 20 . CHILD‘S TRAITS (8°? 234 ABCEFGHILMNOQQOQ .. PARENT") TRAITS 176 mam/Daughter Correlations (N=54) WWI! matrix 21. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“: TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 177 Father/Daughter Correlations (N=54) Independence-—Se1ected Group M Matrix 22. CHILD'S TRAITS 12 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ D.nnnnrtuu7nuo Yunnan11~l.b 3 o 4 Q 178 Father/Son Correlations (N=73) mtrix 23. Ixflepaflane—Selected GroupM CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 179 Indepexfienoe—Selected Group M Matrix 24. Mather/Son Correlations (N=73) CHILD'S TR'AITS (,5? PARENT") TRAITS 180 Anxiety—Selected Group E: mtn'x 25. mUIer/Ihughter Correlations (N=62) CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“: TRAITS 3 Q 4 o 181 Mary—Selected Group F: Pam/Daughter Correlations (N=52) IBtrix 26 . CHILD'S TRAITS 2 .l ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 0 182 Father/Son Correlations (N=78) Anxiety-—Selected Group F Matrix 27. CHILD'S TRAITS PARENTYTRAITS Indepd. W. e .1 x n an Extrav. Corter. Neurot. 183 Mather/Sm Correlations (N=78) Amdety—Selected Granp F Matrix 28. CHILD'S TRAITS 1?. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 184 thher/Iaufirter Correlations (N=63) Amciety—SelsctedGrung Lhtrix 29. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 .l. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT") TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 185 Father/Daughter Correlations (N=63) Anxietyb—Selectsd Group 5 Matrix 30. CHILD'S TRAITS 1.2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENTFTRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 186 Father/Son Correlations (H7) Anxiety—Selected Group §_ Matrix 31 . CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT.S TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 187 Mother/Son Correlations (N=87) Matrix 32 . Anxiety—Selected Group 8: -.1§’ --.2E .03 .22 °—.1f' .18°-.33" -.28t .22° b.2f -.21c ~33? .21° .25c .19c -.17° -.18°’ . 20° -.1é’ -.18° .20° ~12? . 26° . 24° . 23° -.2‘F .28° 29° .38° -.24° ~23: ~23: Raf-.31: . 27° . 37b ~22” .19°.28° 8.16” ~26° . 23° 15? . 25° -.1é' 27° .24° .21°-.16” CHILD'S TRAITS .3? -.18J -.2 . 26° . 30° ~30” .19o .34°.26° hl‘F .23° ~22: .26? .21° m3 -.261 -.2f .24° .18° L26” B .23° .18°.18° .18° .18°-28J .21° .18° q 5 2 M N 1.18” .IZ OQO C E F G H I L , PARENT“) TRAITS 03 04 .22° Indepd. Extrav. Anxiety Carter. Neurot. 188 Mother/Daughter correlations (hhfl7) Anxietyh-Selected Group M Matrix 33. 'CHILD'S TRAITS 1?. ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENTYTRAITS 3 o 4 Q 189 Anxiety-—Selected Group M: Father/Daughter Correlations 0Ffi7) Matrix 34. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 o 4 Q 190 Anxiety-—Selected Group M: Fatheryfikrm Correlations (N=64) Matr ix 35. CHILD'S TRAITS 1.2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENTFTRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 191 Mather/Son Correlations (N=64) Anxiety—Selected Group M: Matrix 36 . o2 «2 b/ no t .x 2 \.~.\ Wok In. _. » 3 7” £2; 9” Q n n 36% fl.“ (“U Aw b . . . o 0x h o... s.» u” on 8..., 8%. 64. .m 2.» ®§%{ o O I “I Q by. O 8 u o co 6688 6 w... n KQQ «\CQ . 66x 6,. 2. 666x cm. cm o2 63 A. \O Q . . 7m 9w no... {no «ma 4 c a \o o o 0 9 KIRK OUR \Q— 3 3 @4\ Q 2 n as)». «to G on. P. . o 2 .9669 Qzfiemow; 0 H ,w 7. 9mm B nmm Q . I— h h ea. ‘0 QVO nwzu DU bl. Do C}. b £6 £3 £3 2 $88... .. 7., s a. a a a. ,2 2. 3 $8 a, N W. h.» on 6% d». b . Q . . d wb \ do... 0 d — o o o .x o G d c 6.... 36.. 2 a n a u a an n S 3% x65 . d. c . o . 04 cl 0. . . n d a, I u n v 2 2 1 .7 M o \QNQ o d o d —o —0 also «In . C T 6w 6a, H m B n 2 ”\u {0Q - o o —o m a. a, 6 cm I CO. _ Q V $0.5 0.6.84 o o n/ .m mm]. LU QOQ «Nu; 00. A!” C d 2 «Wm film In” 8 . n... d 9\\ .VC 5 % «u hm” «I... CVQ. C1 C3 01 C .33 . . V N B 3 2 «m M 3 “8 C c f o O I 01 8 A a. a m... a .l 2 ABCEFGHILNNOQQWomimUnL w m .m m m m n m w w .1 E A C N PARENT“) TRAITS 192 Cortertia—Selected Group F: mater/DaughterWOorrelatims' (N=54) Matrix 37 . CHILD'S TRA-ITS 1234 ABCEFGHILMNOQQQQ PARENT") TRAITS 193 Fafl1er/Ihughter Correlations (N=54) Cortertia—Selected (Roup g mtrix 38. CHILD'S TRAITS PARENT") TRAITS 3 Q 4 nu 194 Father/Son Correlatims (N=71) Cortertia—Selected croup F Matrix 39 . CHILD'S TRAITS «$9 1234 ABCEFGHILMNOQQQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 195 Cortertia—Selected Group F: Mather/Son Oonelatims (N=71) Matrix 40. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT") TRAITS 3 Q 4 nu 196 mther/Daughter Correlations (N=51) Cortertia-~Se1ected Group S Matrix 41. —.29c . 25° 4.2“? H29 L. 3sC H3? . 26° .260 -.2e° -.2$°-. 27° n43: .60° .29° .27° .26 ~39 --.2‘fJ . 36° . 26° . 24° —.2§ -.3¥ . 3911—29C . 25° .33° CHILD'S TRAITS ‘5? ~24? . 25° .27d .3o°.29° ‘.24° -.29 .27° . 24° .46 .41h .23° . 36): . 32° .33° 02 HZ? 03 ILMNOQ PARENT“) TRAITS 04 Indepd. Extrav. .36h Anxiety Carter. Neurot. 197 Father/Daughter Correlations (N=51) Dhtrix 42. Oortertia—-Selected Group 5 CHILD'S TRAITS .IZ ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT") TRAITS 3 0 4 Q 198 _ Father/Son Correlations (N=82) CortertianSelected Group S: Ihth 43. CHILD'S TRA'ITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT") TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 199 Mother/Son Correlations (N=82) Cortertia—Selected Group S : ‘Matrix 44. .1d° .19° Iazfq .1é" .20° .19° 25c .32b .22C .22° .19° .18° .21° .24° mAé: .46d hAé' .37b -.26d .21° _;xF ~19).26C .22° .21C .24° L26” 24° .19°.2o°.19° 'nlé CHILD'S TRAIWS v.22: La3P .27° ..22? . 22d .21°.22° H2 .32b .20° 20° 131 .21° .22° R16) .23° L251 .24c .26C n19) mzé’ ~26: L '319’ 02 "N00 PARENT? TRAITS 03 04 Indepd. Extrav. Anxiety Carter. Neurot. ZDO MOM/Daughter Correlations (N=57) Cortertia—Selected Group 111 Matrix 45. ' CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q 201 Cortertia—Selected Chap 11: Paw/Daughter Correlatims (N=57) Matrix 46. CHILD'S TRAITS .IZ ABCEFGHILMNOQQ PARENT“: TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q Indepd. Extrav. Anxiety Carter. Neurot. 202 Father/Son Correlations (N=78) Cbrtertia-Se1ected Group E Matrix 47. CHILD'S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMNOQQ D:A.Kr:uuT.v. T.RTA.LTIC. 3 Q 4 Q 203 Cortertia—Selected Group M mtrix 48 . mther/Sm Correlations (N=78) c CHILD' S TRAITS 2 ABCEFGHILMHNOQQ PARENT“) TRAITS 3 Q 4 Q APPENDIX D Matrices of Statistically significant Parent/Child 16PF Correlations for each of the four parent/child dyads, within each of the three groups 3, S, and M, on each of the four second-order gjnensions of Extraversion, Independence, Anxiety, and Cortertia . ' Extraversion Matrix Anxietx Matrix Group F: Mother/Daughter 1 Grow F: Mather/Daughter 25 Group F: Father/Daughter 2 Group F: Father/Daughter 26 Group F: Father/Son 3 Group F: Father/Son 27 Group F: Mother/Son 4 Group F: Mather/Son 28 Group S: Mother/Daughter 5 Group S: Mother/Daughter 29 Group S: Father/Daughter 6 Group S: Father/Daughter 30 Group S: Father/Son 7 Grow S: Father/Son 31 Group S: thher/ Son 8 Group S: IVbther/ Son 32 Group M: Mother/Daughter 9 Group M: thher/Daughter 33 Group M: Father/Daughter 10 Group M: Father/Daughter 34 Group M: Father/Son 11 Group M: Father/Son 35 Group M: Mother/Son 12 Grow M: Mother/Son 36 Independence Cortertia Group F: Mather/Daughter 13 Grow F: Mather/Daughter 37 Group F: Father/Daughter l4 Grow F: Father/Daughter 38 Grow F: Father/Son 15 Grow F- Father/Son 39 Grow F: Mother/Son 16 Grow F: Mather/Son 4O Grow S: Mather/Daughter 17 Grow S: Mather/Daughter 41 Grow S: Father/Daughter 18 Grow S: Father/Daughter 42 Grow S: Father/Son 19 Group S: Father/Son ‘ 43 Grow S: thher/Son 20 Grow S: Mather/Son 44 Group M: Mather/Daughter 21 Grow M- Mather/Daughter 45 Grow M: Father/Daughter 22 Group M. Father/Daughter 46 Grow M: Father/Son 23 Grow M: Father/Son 47 Grow M: Mother/Son 24 Grow M: lVbther/ Son 48 1a = p < . 001 b = p < . 01 c = p < . 05 d = p < . 10 2WD = Mather/Daughter F/D = Father/Daughter F/ S = Father/ Son M/S = Mother/Son REFERENCES REFERENCES Alexander, J.F. Videotaped family interaction: A systems approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los Angeles, 1970. Alexander, J.F. Defensive and supportive communication in normal and deviant families. Journal of Consultigg and Clinical Psychology, 1973, £6,223-231. Alkire, A. Social power and communication with the fami- lies of disturbed and nondisturbed pre-adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, .66, 335—349. Archer, R.P. Relationships between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessments, 1979, 6, 619-626. Bandura, A., Ross, P., & Ross, S. A comparative test of the envy, social power, and secondary reinforcement theories of identification learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. Banta, T.J., & Hetherington, M. Relations between needs of friends and fiances. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 201-404. Barkus, P.M. Selected personality factors affecting par- rents' choice of behavior during their child's hos- pitalization. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Utah, 1975. Barnett, J. Narcissism and dependency in the obsessive- hysterical marriage. Family Process, 1971, 16, 75-85. Barogona, R. The relationship between certain personality characteristics in nursery school children (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, 1964). Disserta- tion Abstracts International, 1964, 26(5), 3094-B. 204 205 Barton, K., & Cattell, R.B. Marriage dimensions and per- sonality. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 369-375. Barton, K., & Cattell, R.B. Real and perceived similari- ties in personality between spouses: Tests of "like- ness" versus "completeness" theories. Psychological Reports, 1972, 22, 15-18. Barton, K., & Cattell, R.B. Some relationships among sex life variables and personality measures. Mental Health in Children, 1976, 2, 81-87. Barton, K., Kawash, G., & Cattell, R.B. Personality, Motivation, and marital role factors as predictors of life data in married couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1972, 26, 474-480. Bayard-de-Volo, F.L., & Fiebert, M.S. Creativity in the preschool child and its relationship to parental authoritarianism. Percgptual and Motor Skills, 1977, 66, 170. Bayley, N., & Schaefer, E. Correlations of maternal and child behaviors with the development of mental abilities: Data from the Berkeley Growth Study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1964, 22, #97. Becker, J., & Iwakami, E. Conflict and dominance in fami- lies of disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 26, 330-335. Beckman, R.S., Brindley, S., & Tavormini, J.B. Power rela- tionships in families: A social-exchange perspec- tive. Family Process, 1978, 22, 423-436. Bendig, A.W. Social Desirability and anxiety variables in the I.P.A.T. anxiety scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1959, 22, 377-380. Bentler, P.M., & Newcomb, M.D. Longitudinal study of mari- tal success and failure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology: 1978, 66, 1053-1070. Berends, E.H. Perception of the principal's personality: A study of the relationship to organizational climate (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 1969, 22, 3216-A. 206 Bergner, R.M. The marital system of the hysterical individual. Family Process, 1977, 26, 85-95. Bing, E. Effects of childrearing practices on development of differential cognitive abilities. Child Develop- ment, 163, 26, 631-648. Blazer, J.A. Complementarly needs and marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1963, 26, 89-95. Bledsoe, J.C. Vocational orientation of college women as related to selected personality characteristics. Psychological Reports, 1978, 62, 835-841. Bodin, A. Family interactions, coalition, disagreement, and compromise problem, normal and synthetic triads. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1966. Borstein, S. Unbewustes der eltern in der erzrehund der kinder. Z. Psychanalis Padagogic, 1934, 6, 353-362. Bowen, M. A family concept of schizophrenia. In D.D. Jackson (Ed.), The Etiology of SchiZOphrenia. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Bowen, M. The use of family theory in clinical practice. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1966, 1, 345-376. Bowerman, C.E., & Day, B.R. A test of the theory of comple- mentary needs as applied to couples during courtship. American Sociological Review, 1956, 22, 602-605. Brawn-Galkowska, M. Features of personality conditioning family authority. Roczniki Filozoficzne: Annals Brewster, E.T. Personality characteristics of giving- versus receiving-oriented individuals (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arizona, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 22, 2476A. Broekmann, N.C., & Moller, A.T. Preferred seating position and distance in various situation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1973, 26, 504-508. Brown, E.Y., & Shaw, C.N. Effects of a stressor on a specific motor task on individuals displaying selected personality variables. Research Quarterly, 1975, 66, 71-77. 207 Burgess, E.W., & Wallin, P. Courtship, engagement, and marriage. Philidelphia: Lippincott, 1954. Burke, R.J., & Weir, T. Some personality differences between members of one-career and two-career fami- lies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1976, 26, 453-455. Butt, D.S., & Fiske, D.W. Differential correlates of dominance scales. Journal of Persoanlity, 1969, .22, 415-428. Butt, D.S., & Signori, E.I. Relationship of personality factors to conceived values in male university students. Psychological Reports, 1965, 26, 609-617. Buxbaum, E. The parents' role in the etiology of learning disabilities. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1964, 22, 177-185. Cameron, J.R. Parental treatment of children's temperament, and the risk of childhood behavioral problems: 2. Initial temperament, parental attitudes, and the incidence and form of behavioral problems. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1978, 62, 140-147. Campus, N.R. A study of personality characteristics related to trans-situational consistency of self-descriptions (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1970). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 26, 7567B. Caplow, T. A theory of coalitions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 1956, 22, 489-493. Cardenal, M. Relationship between leisure time interests, personality patterns and motivation. Unpublished paper, Bedford College, 1973. Cattell, R.B., & Nesselroade, J.R. Likeness and complete- ness theories examined by 16PF measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 2, 351-361. Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., & Tatsuoka, M.M. Handbook for the sixteen personality factor guestionnaire. Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Charny, I.W. Why are so many (if not all) people and fami- lies disturbed. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 1980, 6, 37-47. 208 Cheek, F.E., & Anthony, R. Personal pronoun usage in fami- lies of schiZOphrenics and social space utilization. Family Process, 1970, 6, 431-447. Corazzini, J.C. A topology of trust (Doctoral dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 26, 7038A. Coroso, J. Parental antecedents of locus-of-control in aggressive and non-aggressive boys (Doctoral disser- tation, Fordham University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1978 26(12), 6143-8. Corsini, R.J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 22, 327-332. Daniel, J. Adaptation to stress and some traits of person- ality. Ergonomics, 1973, 26, 331. DeYoung, C.E., & Fleischer, B. Motivational and personal- ity trait relationships in mate selection. Behavior Dicks, H.V. Marital tensions. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Dixon, P.N., & Elias, S.F. Differences in attitude toward role playing by various personality factors. College Student Journal, 1978, 22, 439-443. Doane, J.A. Family interaction and communication deviance in disturbed and normal families: A review of research. Family_Process, 1978, 22, 357-376. Donelson, E., & Gullahorn, J. Women: A psychological per- spective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. Dreger, R.M., Lewis, P., Rich, T., Miller, K., Reid, M. Overlade, D., & Fleming, E. Behavioral classification project. Journal of Consulting Psychology: 1964, 28’ 1-130 Durkheim, E. The division of labor in society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1947. . Dymond, R. Interpersonal perception and marital happiness. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1954, 6, 164-171. 209 Edwards, S.F. The repression-sensitization dimension: Personality, adjustment, defense, self-ideal dis- crepancy (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Technical University, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 1972, 22, 5437B. Fagot, B.I. Sex differences in toddlers' behavior and parental reactions. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 26, 554-558. Fairbairn, N.R.D. Pscyhoanalytic studies of the personal- ity. London: Tavistock, 1952. Febinger, G.N. A study of the personality correlates of openness and closedness of belief system (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1966). Dis sertation Abstracts International, 1965, 26, 1227B. Ferguson, L.R., & Allen, D.R. Congruence of parental per- ception, marital dissatisfaction and child adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 66, 345-346. Festinger, L. A theopy of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.: Row-Peterson, 1957. Fisher, R.A. The genetical theogy of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. Fleck, S. An approach to family pathology. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1966, 2, 207-320. Framo, J.L. Family of origin as a therapeutic resource for adults in marital and family therapy: You can and should go home again. Family Process, 1976, 26, 193-210. Francis, R.D. Introversion and isolation tolerance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, 26, 534. Frank, G.H. The role of the family in the development of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 66, 191-205. Gassner, S., & Murray, E. Dominance and conflict in the interactions between parents and normal and neurotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 26, 33-41. Goldberg, L.F., Norman, W.T., & Schwartz, E. The comparative validity of questionnaire data and objective test data in predicting five peer rating criteria. Oregon Research Bulletin, 1972, 22, 17-31. 210 Gorman, B.S. 16PF correlates of sensation-seeking. Psy- chological Reports, 1970, 26, 741-742. Grandy, T.G., & Stohmann, R.P. Types produce types: An examination of personality development using Holland's theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1974, 6, 231-239. Grotevant, H. Family similarities in interests and orien- tation“ .Merrileralmer Quarterl , 1976, 22, 61-72. Grotevant, H.D., Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R.A. Patterns of interest similarity in adoptive and biological fami- lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psyghology, 1977, 26, 661-676. Grusie, J.E., & Brinker, D.B. Reinforcement for imitation as a social learning determinant with implications for sex role development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 149-158. Hadley, T., & Jacob, T. Relationships among measures of family power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 22, 6-12. Haley, J. Speech sequences of normal and abnormal families with two children present. Family Process, 1967, 6, 81—97. Haley, J. Toward a theory of pathological system. In G.H. Zuk, & I. Boszormeny-Nagy (Eds.), Family thergpy and disturbed families. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books, 1967. Hansen, C.E. Personality interactions among functionally and dysfunctionally married individuals (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1975, 26, 1507B. Harford, R.C., Willis, C.H., & Deabler, H.L. Personality correlates of masculinity-femininity. Psychological Reports, 1967, 22, 881-887. Hartley, R.B. Sex-role pressures and socialization of the male child. Psychological Reports, 1959, 6, 457-468. Heider, F. The psychology_of interpersonal relationships. New York: John Wiley, 1958. 211 Heritage, L.J. A study of selected factors and the effect on post divorce adjustment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1971). Dissertation abstracts International, 1971, 4950A. Heskin, K.J., Smith, F.V., Varrister, P.A., & Bolten, N. Psychological correlates of long-term imprisonment: Personality and attitude variables. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 1974, 21, 3-7. Hess, R. Social class and ethnic influence on socialization. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psyphology, Vol. 2 (3rd edition). New York: Wiley, 1970. Hetherington, E.M. The effects of family variables on sex typing, on parent/child similarity, and on imitation in children. In J.P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology, Vol. 1. Minniapolis: University a? Minnesota Press, 1967. Hill, M.N. Hereditary influence on the normal personality using the MMPI: PrOSpective assortive mating. Behavior Genetics, 1973, 2, 225-231. Hill, M.N., & Hill, R.N. Hereditary influences on the normal personality using the MMPI. Behavior Genetics, 1973, 2, 133-137. Honzig, M.P. Environmental correlates of mental growth: Prediction from the family setting at 21 months. Child Development, 1967, 26, 337-364. Hyman, C.A., & Mitchel, R. A psychological study of child battering. Health Visitor, 1975, 66, 14-18. Jacob, T. Family interaction in disturbed and normal fami- lies: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 62, 33-65. Jacob, T. Patterns of family conflict and dominance as a function of child age and social class. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 26, 1-12. Jacob, T., & Grounds, L. Confusion and conclusions: A response to Doane. Family Process, 1978, 22, 337-387. Jacobs, K.W. 16PF correlates of locus of control. Psycho- logical Reports, 1976, 26, 1170. 212 Jung, C.G. Analytic psychology: Its theory and practice; the Tavistock lectures. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968. Kagan, J., & Moss, H.A. Birth to maturity: A study in psychological development. New York: Wiley, 1962. Karson, S., & O'Dell, J. A clinical guide to the use of the 16PF. Champaign, Illinois: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1976. Kawash, G.F., Woolcott, D.M., & Soleny, J.H. Personality correlates of selected elements of health belief models. Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 266, 129-136. Katz, 1., Glucksberg, S., & Krauss, R. Need satisfaction and Edwards' P.P.S. scores in married couples. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1960, 26, 205-208. Kerckhoff, A.C., & Davis, K.E. Value consensus and need complementarity in mate selection. American Socio- logical Review, 1962, 21, 295-303. Kieffer, D.M., & Cohen, M.N. Problems with using dominance indices to evaluate family interaction patterns. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1978, 26, 487-488. Klein, M.M., Plutchik, R., & Conte, H. Parental dominance passivity and behavior problems of children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 66, 416-419. Kreiger, D. Personality and social attitudes. Unpublished paper, University of Hawaii, Psychology Department, 1967. Laing, R.D. The self and others. London: Travistock Insti- tute, 1961. LaPousse, R., & Monk, M. Behavior deviations in a repre- sentative sample of children--variation by sex, age, race, social class, and family size. American Journal of OrthOpsychiatry, 1964, 26, 436-446. Lebovits, B.A., & Ostfeld, A.M. Personality, defensiveness, and educational achievement: The 16PF questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1970, 26, 183-188. Lesser, H., & Steininger, M. Parent/child resemblances in dog- matism. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1975, 126, 155. Leton, D.A. A study of the validity of parent attitude measurement. Child Development, 1958, 26, 515-520. 213 Lidz, T., Cornelison, A., Fleck, S., & Terry, D. The intra- familial environment of schiZOphrenic patients: II. Marital schism and skew. American Journal of Psy- chiatry, 1957, 226, 241-248. Lidz, T., Fleck, S., & Cornelison, A. Family studies and a theory of schizophrenia. In T. Lidz, S. Fleck, & A. Cornelison (Eds.), Schizophrenia and the family. New York: International University Press, 1965. Lidz, T. The family and human adaptation. New York: International University Press, 1963. Lifshitz, M., & Ramot, L. Toward a framework for developing children's locus-of-control orientation: Implications from the kibbutz system. Child Development, 1978, 49, 85-95. Lynn, D.B. Sex differences in masculine and feminine identification. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 126-135. Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. The_psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974. Madge, E.M. A preliminary investigation into psychometric prOperties of the situational inventory. Paper pre- sented at the 14th Congress of the Psychological Institute for Research and Scientific Assessment, 1975, Johannesburg. Mahler, M.S. On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation, Vol. 1: Infantile psychosis. New York: International University Press, 1968. Mazer, G.E. A factor analysis of counseling practices reported by school counselors (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1963). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1964, 3977B. McClain, E.W. Personality correlates of church attendance. Journal of College Student Personnel, 1970, 61, 360-365. McClain, E.W. Feminists and non-femininsts: Contrasting profiles in independence and affiliation. Psycho- logical Reports, 1978, 62, 435-441. Meyer, J.P., & Pepper, S. Need compatibility and marital adjustment in young, married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 26, 331-342. 214 Miller, T.K. Characteristics of perceived helpers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1965, 62, 687-691. Mills, T.M. Power relations in three person groups. American Sociological Review, 1953, 26, 351-357. Mills, T.M. The coalition pattern in three person groups. American Sociological Review, 1954, 26, 657-667. Minuchin, P., Biber, B., Shapiro, E., & Similes, H. 266 psychological impact of school experience: A com- parative study of 9-year-old children in contrasting schools. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Minuchin, S. Families and family therapy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974. Minuchin, S., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B.G., Rosman, B.L., & Schumer, F. Families of the slums. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Mitchel, J.F. In search of psychometric correlates of dangerousness. Unpublished paper, University of Illinois, Psychology Department, 1975. Murstein, B.I. The complementary need hypothesis in newly- weds and middle-aged married couples. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 1, 194-197. Murstein, B.I. Empirical test of role, complementary needs, and homogamy theories of marital choice. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1967(a), 26, 689-696. Murstein, B.I. The relationship of mental health to marital choice and courtship progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1967(b), 26, 447-451. Murstein, B.I. Interview behavior, projective techniques, and questionnaires in the clinical assessment of marital choice. Journal of Personalipy Assessment, 1972, 26, 462—467. Murstein, B.I. Who will marry whom? New York: Spring Publishing Company, 1976. Mussen, P.H. Early sex-role development. In A.A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Nadelman, L. Sex identity in American children: Memory, knowledge, and preference tests. Developmental Psychologyr 1974, 26, 413-417. 215 Naditch, M.P., Gargan, M.A., & Mitchael, L.B. Denial, anxiety, and locus of control as components of depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1975, 84, 1-9. Napier, A.Y. The rejection-intrusion pattern: A central family dynamic. Journal of Marriage and Fami2y Counseling, 1978, 6, 5-12. Pascal, H.J. Need interaction as a factor in marital adjustment (Doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 26, 2056A. Pearson, A. An investigation of the relationship between personality factors and self-concept, creativity, and perception of the ideal pupil among educators (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 26, 6579A. Perry, D.G., & Perry, L.C. Observational learning in children: Effects of sex of model and subjects' sex-role behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 1978, 22, 1083-1088. Pickford, J.H., Signori, B.I., & Rempel, H. Husband-wife differences in personality traits as a factor in marital happiness. Psychological Reports, 1967, 22, 1089-1090. Porter, B.M. The relationship between marital adjustment and parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics, 1955, 62, 157-164. Price, F.F. The relationship of personality variables to interpersonal interaction dimensions among physical therapists (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 22, 4952A. Purinton, M.R. An investigation of the relationship between two methods of community training: Personality and community variables (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 26, 1627A. Raiche, S.A.R. Selected teacher personality characteristics and behavior in the classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1965, 26, 4508A. 216 Richter, H.E. The role of family life in child development. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1976, 61, 385-397. Ross, D.M., & Ross, S.A. Resistance by pre-school boys to sex-inappropriate behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 62, 342-346. Rubinstein, D., & Timmins, J.F. Depressive dyadic and triadic relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Ruess, A.L., & Lis, E.F. A multidimensional study of handi- capped children (Final Report, Grant No. MC-R-l7007- 04-0, Maternal and Child Health Services, Department of Health, Education and Welfare). Chicago: Division of Services for Crippled Children, Univer- sity of Illinois at the Medical Center, 1973. Rutter, M. Parent-child separation: Psychological effects on the child. Journal of Child Psyphology, and Psy- chiatpy and Allied Disciplines, 1971, 22, 233-260. Rutter, M. Helping troubled children. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1975. Rutter, M., & Graham, P. Psychiatric disorders in 10- and 11-year-old children. Proceedings of the Royal Society Medicine, 1966, 66, 382-387. Salley, K. The develOpment of competitiveness in women (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 26, (5), 2349-B. Saper, B. Motivational components in the interpersonal transactions of married couples. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1965, 26, 303-314. Satir, V. Conjoint family therepy. Palo Alto, California: Science and Behavior Books Inc., 1967. Scarr, S., Webber, P., Weinberg, R., & Wittig, M. Person- ality resemblances among adolescents and their parents in biologically related and adoptive families. Journal of Personality and Social PsychologY: 1981, in press. Schalock, R.L., & MacDonald, P. Personality variables associated with reactions to frustration. Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality Assessment, 1966, 26, 158-160. 217 Scheck, D.S. An exploratory investigation of the interaction effects of three child-rearing dimensions upon the develOpment of internal/external control orientation in adolescent females. Psychology, 1978, 26, 8-13. Schellenberg, J., & Bee, L.S. A re-examination of the theory of complementary needs in mate selection. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1960, 22, 227-232. Schmidt, H.O. Relationship between the I.P.A.T. anxiety scale and the Marlow-Crowne personal reaction inven- tory. Psychological Reports, 1969, 26, 361-362. Schneider, L.J., DeWinne, R.F., Overton, T.D. Influence of congruity between parental personality types on off- spring personality development. Journal of Counsel- ing Psychology, 1980, 21, 40-43. Schwartz, J.C., & Zuroff, D.C. Family structure and depres- sion in female college students: Effects of parental conflict, decision-making power, and inconsistency of love. Journal of Abnormal PsychologY: 1979, 66, 398-406. Sears, R.R., Rau, L., & Alpert, R. Identification and child-rearing. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1965. Siegelman, M. College students personality correlates of early parent/child relations. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 26, 558-564. Signori, B.I., Rempel, H., & Pickford, J.H. Multivariate relationships between spouses' trait scores on the Guilford-Zimmerman temperament survey. Psychological Reports, 1968, 22, 103-106. Simmel, G. The sociology of George Simmel. (K.H. Wolff, Ed.). Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1950. Simmons, M.D., & Parker, H.J. Attitudes and personality traits of ministerial students. Religious Education, 1968, 62, 309-314. Sweney, A.B., & Fiechtner, L.A. Personality factors in the original role preference of middle managers. Multi- variate Experimental Clinical Research, 1974, 2, 108-117. 218 Sweney, A.B., Fiechtner, L.A., & Samores, R.J. An integra- tive factor analysis of leadership measures and theories. Journal of Psychology, 1975, 66, 75-85. Terman, L.M. Psyphological factors in marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1938. Troll, L.B., Neurgarten, B.L., & Kraines, R.J. Similari- ties in values and other personality characteristics in college students and their parents. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 26, 323-336. Van der Veen, F., Huebner, B., Jorgens, B., & Nega, P. Relationship between the parents' concept of the family and family adjustment. American Journal of OrthOpsychiatry, 1964, 26, 45-54. Vaughan, G.M. The trans-situational aspects of conformity behavior. Journal of Personality, 1964, 22, 335-354. Vinacke, W.E., & Ankoff, A. An experimental study of coal- itions in the triad. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 406-414. Vogel, W., & Lauterbach, C.G. Relationship between normal and disturbed sons' percepts of their parents' be- havior, and personality attributes of the parents and sons. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1965, 26, 52-56. Vogel, E.F., & Bell, N.W. The emotionally disturbed child as the family scapegoat. In W.G. Bennis, E.H. Schien, F.I. Steele, & D.B. Berlew (Eds.), Inter- personal dynamics. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1968. Waters, E.C. Functioning and non-functioning marriages: A study of personalities, roles and relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Technical University, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 26, 926B. Webster, A.C. Factor analysis of family attitudes, person- ality, and personal orientation in a small New Zealand sample. Personality: An International Journal, 1971, 2, 249-266. Werry, J.S., & Quary, H.C. The prevalence of behavioral symptoms in younger elementary school children. American Journal of Orthppsychiatry, 1971, 62, 136- 143. 219 White, W.C., McAdoo, W.G., Megargee, A.L. Personality factors associated with over-controlled and under- controlled offenders. Journal of Personality Assess- ment, 1973, 22, 473-478. Winborn, B.B., & Jansen, D.G. Personality characteristics of campus social-political action leaders. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 26, 509-513. Winch, R.P. Mate selection: A study of complementary needs. New York: Harper, 1958. Wolf, T.M. Response consequences to televised modeled sex- inappropriate play behavior. Journal of Genetic Psygholqu, 1975, 127, 35-44. Wyer, R.S. Self-acceptance, discrepancy between parents' perceptions of their children, and goal-seeking affectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social gsychology, 1965, 2, 311-316. Wynne, L.C. The study of intrafamilial alignments and splits in exploratory family therapy. In N.W. Ackerman (Ed.), Exploring the base for family therapy. New York: Family Service Association, 1961.