mmanul . I . i: 57 .. ?. ll‘lllfllll M \\\\H \\\\\\\\\l 3 1293106 684 3372 TH E515 *tuébuégil h ¢ K'1’Q- WT; 372‘ 515‘ \ \- EEC-1:55- minngY A 5: id“ '; Vflaagawflufivac ‘-.~; ivtk '8. g This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Offspring of Holocaust Survivors: The Relationship of Perceptions of Family Cohesion and Adaptability to Levels of Ego Functioning presented by Zoli Zlotogorski has been accepted towards fulfillment . ' I of the requirements for ‘ Ph. D. Psychology degree in “g Major professor I Date MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 9.:aa29:.r:«___~rt5= 23¢ per day per item [manic .L_5.3E?3.Y...."11E85;}_L§J . ‘3‘“,0, ' Place in book return to remove \ “W 4 charge from circulation records W k [th $32352 1 ‘7‘? DAR: 1... .1 i d 703‘ (1/ E I“ .:.I “r? _ i «W I V , v4 3'! 1227:?! ':v’- . .Elyidfifig ' WHZW OFFSPRING OF CONCENTRATION CAMP SURVIVORS: THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY TO LEVELS OF EGO FUNCTIONING BY Zoli Zlotogorski A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 a) v _ // ") / ABSTRACT OFFSPRING OF CONCENTRATION CAMP SURVIVORS: THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY COHESION AND ADAPTABILITY TO LEVELS OF EGO FUNCTIONING By Zoli Zlotogorski The present study was undertaken for the purpose of investigating possible long range effects of the massive trauma endured by survivors of concentration camps upon their families. The study focused on the characteristics and types of family structures which evolved in the process of recovery as perceived by the offspring of holocaust sur- vivors. The second generation group of children of holocaust survivors consisted of 49 female and 24 male Jewish adults born after the repatriation of their parents. The comparison group was composed of 34 female and 34 male Jewish adults. The groups were compared on a number of demographic variables. All subjects in the study completed the Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire, the Washington Univer- sity Sentence Completion Test, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, and a questionnaire designed by the researcher. Two major hypotheses were tested by means of a comparison between the two groups via analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis. Zoli Zlotogorski Percpetions of family cohesion were significantly related to level of subject functioning, regardless of family type. Perceptions of family adaptability were significantly related to both level of subject functioning and family type. In addition, no significant cor- relation was found between the core level of ego functioning attained by the offspring and duration of parental internment, number of ex- tended family members, or communication patterns within the family with regard to the holocaust. A number of additional findings and trends within the data were discussed. These included: shared mourning and involvement; family type within holocaust survivor families; and age of entry to the United States. Finally, a number of explanations were offered in an attempt to integrate the contrasting published phenomenological findings with the present empirical findings. In general, it was concluded that no support could be found for the alleged uniform "child of survivor syndrome" nor for the formula- tions of uniform pathological survivor families. Rather, the data indicated the significant influence of a number of major intervening variables on the types of family structures which evolved in the process of recovery. ,nawsn 753 na1y3 D’WT 131ybn ’3 ,flDDWN ’5? ’0931 nWDTR fibN .flleD ’211“ fifiWT? ,nDIWN nnby N5 1WD ’D73 7) ,n11N fln903 any “WSW fill nuin 17 ,HWDJ Ipyx nfiyn 79am . n11n 7137 by q11n1 qflnnw ,NWlJfll 517)“ 1DW YRJD J71N noon oiwnn ,11nx1 base 35 1339w1 .1130: 131901 ianxwp nxr .11Jn1 u1nw bx v, 77 ,113nn nan ,ovnw nvxnn1 nvpvwxn 01 NDQWD ,ovn11nn nuvnn 11in .uvnnfi no: by nw17 19p bx ,ovnna 13yn1 1111193 ...137§1p yna ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of a dissertation involves many more people than the author. I wish to acknowledge gratefully the guidance and assistance of the following people who have contributed to my growth and under- standing in various ways: I wish to express particular gratitude to Professor Rabin who served as chairman of both my doctoral guidance committee and the dissertation committee. One can easily write in superlatives about the quality and character of his work, yet words are inadequate to express the manner in which my life has been enriched as a result of his friendship and guidance. To Professor Aronoff who helped turn a rough idea into a finished product which I take pride in, thanks are due. They are due for the hours of discussion, encouragement, unrelenting intelligence, and personal warmth which characterize his work. The writer is also indebted to Professor Meese' for his clear advice concerning statistical analysis and research design. To Professor Karon for his interest in my work and this study. To Ken Bertram for his programming expertise and valued friendship. Special thanks are extended to children of survivor organizations throughout the United States for their help and support in the data gathering. The hope and spirit of this dissertation are part of the legacy passed on by a generation of survivors. For me, this spirit was ii embodied in the lives of my father and teacher Mr. Abram Zlotogorski and my mother, Mrs. Miriam Zlotogorski, who taught me trust and respect for my heritage. Finally, thanks are due to Chana for her continued love and support throughout our journey together. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . Review of the Literature . Survivors Offspring of Concentration Camp Survivors. Families of Holocaust Survivors. Family Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unresolved Issues and Rationale for Hypotheses . Statement of Hypotheses. Method . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . Measurement Instruments. Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire. Washington University Sentence Completion Test . Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES). . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . . . . . . . Participant Questionnaire. Procedure. Results. . . . . . . Preliminary Investigation of Relationships Between Independent Variables. Hypothesis I . Hypothesis II. iv Page 15 24 3O 4O 46 48 48 50 51 52 57 64 64 67 67 68 72 TABLE OF CONTENTS (eont'd.) Hypothesis III . Hypothesis IV. . Additional Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family Cohesion in Holocaust Survivor Families . . . . Family Adaptability in Holocaust Survivor Families . . Children of Holocaust Survivors. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions. List of References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices . A B Cover Letter to Subjects . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire . . . . Washington University Sentence Completion Test Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales Participant Questionnaire . Subsequent Analyses of the Data . Page 75 75 78 82 83 85 88 92 95 104 104 105 108 111 117 120 Table 3a 3b 10 ll 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Means and Standard Deviations of Major Demographic Variables by Subject Group . Some Milestones of Ego Development . Seven Subscales of Family Adaptability . Nine Subscales of Family Cohesion. Distribution of Loevinger Total Protocol Rankings by Subject Group . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Wellbeing Scores by Subject Group . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Cohesion and DEVCOH Scores by Subject Group . . . . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Groups by Loevinger Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Table: Multiple Regression Analysis of DEVCOH . Means and Standard Deviations of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Groups by Loevinger Rankings . Means and Standard Deviations of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Groups by Wellbeing Scores . Means and Standard Deviations of Adaptability and DEVADAP Scores by Subject Group . . Individual Comparisons for Mean DEVADAP Scores for Each Level of Loevinger Ranking by Subject Group . Individual Comparisons for Mean DEVADAP Scores for Each Level of Wellbeing by Subject Group . . Matrix of Correlations of Variables within the Second Generation Group. vi 49 54 58 6O 67 68 69 69 7O 71 72 73 74 74 76 Table 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd.) Mean FACES Scores for One Parent Survivor Families and Two Parent Survivor Families . . . Mean FACES Scores for Second Generation Subjects by Place of Birth Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVADAP Scores for Subject Group by Sex . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance on DEVCOH Scores for Subject Group by Sex . . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Wellbeing Scores for Subject Group by Sex. . . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Loevinger Rankings for Subject Group by Sex. Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVADAP Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace. Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Wellbeing Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace . Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Loevinger Rankings for Subject Group by Birthplace . Analysis of Variance for Loevinger Rankings by Age of Father. . . Analysis of Variance for Loevinger Rankings by Age of Mother. vii 81 . 120 . 120 . 121 . . 121 . 122 . 122 . 123 123 . 124 . 124 Figure 1 LIST OF FIGURES Circumplex Model: Sixteen Possible Family Types Based on Levels of Family Cohesion and Family Adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 38 INTRODUCTION Forty years have elapsed since Nazi Germany instituted the willful systematic destruction of European Jewry. In January 1945, when the gates of Auschwitz were opened, the grim human harvest totaled eight million deaths in Nazi concentration camps, six million of which were Jews. The magnitude of this ineffable madness, known today as the holocaust, "is not yet part of our historical consciousness" (Fackenheim, 1977). Yet, the holocaust has left an indelible mark on the Jewish psyche as a whole as well as a festering scar on the collective memory of the world. The mere reminder of the atrocities committed in the camps threatens our rational universe and destroys the theological constancy needed to maintain our existence. Reality and issues of its construction become meaningless when viewed in this context. Bettleheim (1960) has observed that an analysis of the holocaust and its aftermath has been massively denied so that the magnitude of the event can be more easily managed. However, this denial could not be maintained over a protracted period of time and the past two decades have witnessed a growing body of literature on the historical, socio-political, theological, and psycho- logical implications of the atrocities of the holocaust. The focus of a great deal of this literature has been the explora- tion of possible long range effects on personality as a result of the massive trauma endured by survivors of concentration camps. A large number of the researchers in this area have argued that a uniform 1 2 survivor syndrome exists, is independent of the pre-traumatic personality, and the traumatic experiences reached such an intensity as to level out pre-war personality differences. Further, it has been argued that there is a transmission of the psychic trauma to subsequent generations through the parents generation's pre-occupation with mourning and "affective blocking" (Krystal, 1968). These two hypothesized long range effects are said to significantly hamper the survivor's ability to be empathically responsive to their children's needs. Finally, these researchers have argued that children of holocaust survivor's are characterized by a uniform "child of the survivor syndrome" (Phillips, 1978). The hypothesized pathology of the child of survivors is incomplete individuation which is allegedly due to the symbiotic devotion fostered within the holocaust survivor family. Insofar as I am able to discern these observations and hypotheses are based on clinical case records and are not supported by systematic research data. In the present study, I intend to examine critically a number of hypotheses which have characterized the holocaust literature. The theo- retical questions which are of particular interest to me include: 1) Is the hypothesis of a uniform survivor syndrome tenable? 2) Is there a transmission of psychic trauma to subsequent generations? 3) What are the characteristics of the integrated adaptive survivor family? What are the characteristics of the mal- adaptive survivor family? Given the poignancy of the topic, this study has been designed to be as rigidly objective as possible while recognizing the difficulty in ade- quately describing the phenomenological world of those who survived. 3 The present study attempted to focus on the process of recovery and re—individuation with the family as the unit of study. This choice of research strategy is due in part to the inability to conduct a pre- war and post-war personality study of holocaust survivors, given the period of time that has elapsed since the war. Further, it is due to the lack of any reliable or randomly sampled observational data on holo- caust survivor families. Therefore, the method of study relied on the perceptions of children of holocaust survivors as to their experience within the family unit. I feel that this served as a meaningful context within which data was collected on a number of key issues. One such issue was the degree of emotional bonding that family members had toward one another and the degree of individual autonomy that family members experienced within the family system. Another important issue concerned the role relationships, power structure, and family roles within survivor families. Finally, I focused on the level of personality functioning attained by children of holocaust survivors. In this manner I had hoped to investigate rigorously present day levels of offspring functioning as they relate to family structures within holocaust survivor families. The underlying theoretical argument advanced in this study is that the interactional effects of the pre-persecution personality and en- suing life events laid the groundwork for the family structures that evolved. Further, I would argue that the family served a crucial role in the process of recovery. A process in which survivors entered a new period of adult productivity and reasserted their individuality through the creation of new families. Rather than a homogeneity of family structures, I expect the heterogeneity of survivor family structures to 4 reflect the individual personality differences of both the survivors and their children. The particular pattern developed by any given family then is a function of the adaptive and coping mechanisms of its members as determined by the pre-persecution personality and ensuing life events. Therefore, I feel that an investigation of the types of family structures which evolved in holocaust survivor families may pro- vide important data on the functioning of both holocaust survivors as well as their children. The position which will be advanced does not seek to minimize the extreme stress and trauma suffered by concentration camp survivors, but will advocate a more complex interactional view of both survivors and their families as opposed to the more restricted view advanced by the holocaust literature to date. A review of the literature follows in order to acquaint the reader with the major findings, issues, and problems associated with the study of the holocaust. The review will include: a review of clinical and research findings on survivors of the holocaust; a review of clinical and research findings on children of holocaust survivors; a review of clinical and research findings on holocaust families; and a review of relevant findings in support of a model of marital and family systems. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE SURVIVORS A few years after the liberation of Auschwitz a number of articles began to appear in the literature describing a long lasting unique clini- cal syndrome of concentration camp survivors. These articles (Bluhm, 1948; Federn, 1948; Friedman, 1949; Tas, 1951; Helweg-Larsen, 1952) por- trayed a consistent syndrome involving depression, fatigue, apathy, S anxiety, and numerous psychosomatic manifestations. This literature was accompanied by a growing number of first-person accounts (Frankl, 1959; Bettelheim, 1960; Wiesel, 1965) of life and survival in the camps. These early descriptions paint a vivid picture of regression, primitivi- zation,demoralization, and de-humanization suffered by the inmates. Frankl (1959), who was later to found logotherapy, focused his attention on the extreme form of depersonalization which was a daily part of con- centration camp life. In a careful exhaustive clinical analysis Niederland (1968) outlines the etiology of the trauma and life in the camps. The first three stages of the experience describe physiological and physical aspects and include: protracted life-endangering situations in a state of total helplessness, chronic starvation, and physical maltreatment. The remaining six stages describe various psychological aspects of the trauma. There was total degradation to the point of dehumanization accompanied by recurrent terror episodes. Total or almost total family loss was accompanied by prolonged "living dead" existence. A prolonged "living dead" which lead into the "musselman" stage of pronounced stupor, closely followed ‘ by death. Niederland catalogues the reactions and defenses of the in- mates as emotional detachment rapidly progressing to depersonalization and derealization. Denial in the camps was an insufficient defense against the onslaught of the constant overwhelming trauma and the indi- vidual was eventually forced to regress to pregenital (sadomasochistic oral, narcissistic) levels and maintain a robotlike numbness. Krystal (1968) suggests that this automatic behavior helped ward off depression and anger. Inmates had to remain both inconspicuous and unobservant to 6 survive. At the same time, Jaffe (1968) and Krystal (1968) have noted that selective hyperalertness was essential for survival. The relaxation of this vigilance led to an extreme form of psychic-numbing which was characterized by the "musselman" or the "walking corpses." In other words, an essential factor in survival seems to have been the ability to rapidly shift between a fairly rigid adaptive strategy to a fairly flexible one. The psychological and the physiological aftermath of the concentra- tion camp experience has been studied by a large number of investigators. Hoppe (1971) in a review of the psychiatric literature cites 195 refer- ences dealing with the "survivor syndrome" (Niederland 1961, 1964). The clinical picture of the survivor includes: chronic anxiety, chronic depression, and isolation of affect (Chodoff, 1966; Helweg—Larsen, 1952; Kardiner, 1959; Niederland, 1964); chronic reactive depression (Hoppe, 1971); apathy, withdrawal, loss of libido, and depressive retardation (Venezlaff, 1958). Niederland, (1968) in a study of 800 survivors, reports that the syndrome is characterized by anxiety, depression, social withdrawal and isolation, psychosomatic complaints, isolated psychotic symptoms, and alterations of body image and self image. Koenig (1964) evaluated 200 cases in conjunction with reparation claims and concluded that the usual psychiatric nomenclature was inadequate for subsuming his clinical findings. He observed that survivors were suffering from extreme forms of role and identity diffusion. Chodoff (1963), reporting on 23 survivors, points to depressive states accompanied by characterological changes. Survivors manifested anxiety, nightmares, psychosomatic complaints, and an obsessive ruminative state with regard to the past. 7 Simenauer (1968) and De Wind (1968) reach similar conclusions with those cited above. Simenauer describes the depersonalization and dis- organization of the personality structure which in some instances led to a complete loss of identity and hopelessness. De Wind (1968) focused on the survivor's continuous confrontation with death, which he felt was the harbinger of the ensuing chronic depression. Tuteur (1966) reported findings on 100 concentration camp survivors twenty years after their liberation and found nightmares, depression, and anxiety were common in his sample. In addition, he also reported a high incidence of post partum depression in the female survivor sample. In an early empirical investigation, Shuval (1957) studied the attitudes of 198 Israeli survivors and 577 controls with regard to sensitivity to the future and current situational stress. Her results indicated that the survivor group was significantly more pessimistic about the future, however, contrary to the study's predictions, sur- vivors were surprisingly more sensitive to current stress. In another study, Klein, Zellermayer, and Shanan (1963) focused on the effects of the concentration camp experience as manifested by patients in an Israeli psychiatric hospital. They compared 50 survivor patients to 40 matched controls and found that withdrawal, dependency, and fatigue seemed to characterize the survivor group. Nathan, Eitinger, and Winnik (1963) conducted a similar study using a psychiatric patient population of 157 survivors matched with 120 controls, who had spent the war years under difficult conditions in Russia. They report significantly higher fatigue states, depression, emotional lability, anxiety, and withdrawal for the survivor.group which corroborates earlier studies. 8 In a rigorous study, Dor Shav (1975) tested the hypothesis that prolonged stress may be expected to result in primitivization and impoverishment of the personality, as well as to a general deficit in perceptual and cognitive function. Twenty-six Israeli survivors were matched with 20 controls by socio-economic status and age. The instru- ments employed were the Embedded Figure Test, the block design subtest on the WAIS, the Draw-a-Person Test, the Rorschach Inkblot test, the Bender-Gestalt, and the Cattel l6 P.F. Personality Questionnaire. Inter-judge reliability was established for each instrument and found to be acceptable. No significant differences were found on the Embedded Figures Test, block design, Bender-Gestalt, the Draw-a-Person, and most Rorschach indicators. However, on the Rorschach Inkblot test the sur- vivor subjects had significantly fewer integrated whole responses and fewer shading responses. In addition, the author noted a trend in holocaust survivors towards impoverished associational productivity and a limited number of movement responses. The data analysis on the 16 P.F. Personality Questionnaire revealed significant differences indicating that the survivor group was more group dependent and more prone to group adherence as well as more torpid and tranquil. Further, they were less disciplined and more likely to follow their own urges. Therefore, no support was found for either an impoverishment of personality nor for a general deficit in perceptual and cognitive functioning. Nonetheless, Koranyi (1969, p. 167) in reviewing the clinical liter- ature states, "It is not the symptomatology as much as the personality change which creates a flagrant uniformity -- 'almost photographic simi- larity' -- of this condition, regardless of what the pre-existing character 9 looked like." Others (Bastiaans, 1957; Bychowski, 1968; Chodoff, 1963; and Kardiner, 1959) support this view and find the personality change to be both permanent and irreversible. The alleged uniformity in personality change is said to include chronic anxiety, chronic depression, and isdlation of affect. Underlying this contention is the assumption that survivors underwent a fairly homogeneous massive traumatic experience. Yet, a review of the many first hand survivor accounts, oral histories, and a general history of the holocaust, all point to the widely hetero— geneous nature of the experience. These reports indicate that the nature and character of the traumatic experience was dependent upon the place internment, job within the camp, sex of the inmate, and many other inter— vening factors. Another widely reported clinical finding associated with the sur- vivor syndrome is survivor guilt. In the camps neither death nor sur- vival seemed to be related in any causal rational manner with an indi- vidual’s behavior. Thus the nature of the survivor's guilt is often characterized by its experience as the perpetual enigma of "why did I survive while others died?" Lifton (1967) describes the guilt in terms of the indelible and grotesque images of death, psychic numbness, and diminished capacity to feel. He feels that survivor guilt is not unique to the concentration camp survivor and is akin to the guilt experienced by survivors of the atomic bomb explosion in Japan. The 'hibakusha' suffers intense death guilt which results from the fact that his life has been spared-while others have perished. Lifton suggests that the defense against death anxiety and guilt is the blocking of feeling, a psychic numbing. The numbing process protects the survivor from a sense of helplessness and total impotence. Krystal (1978) notes a similar 10 disturbance in object relating which borders on the schizoid and in- evitably includes psychic numbing, a disturbance in affective commun- ication. The survivors yearn for the return of their former ability to express emotion. "Yet, despite their wishes, when in the presence of their close ones, they 'freeze up'" (Krystal, 1968, p. 7). In other words, Krystal suggests that "damned up" or "blocked" aggression is the source of psychological disturbances in the survivor. This view repre- sents a departure from a genetic Freudian perspective of damned up libido in that emphasis is placed on traumatic experiences that took place in adulthood rather than in childhood. Finally the uniform survivor syndrome hypothesis also assumes that pre-war personality differences were leveled out by the massive trauma endured by concentration camp inmates. This view is typified by Rappaport (1968) who concludes that the camp experience has no prototypic derivative from childhood in the unconscious. The human spirit is allegedly broken beyond repair and the regenerative powers of the ego are too limited to overcome the effects of such trauma. Lazarus (1966) concurs with this formulation and suggests that severe stress levels out individual differences. Ornstein (1980) has recently taken issue with this unfor- tunate tendency to generalize about survivors on the basis of their camp history alone. The psychological assessment of survivors, she states, cannot be restricted to the one outstanding feature of their history, namely that they were in a concentration camp. In other words, Ornstein contends that the genetic developmental point of view has been too quickly abandoned by holocaust researchers. This criticism is supported in our review of the literature which finds scant empirical support for a unique psychological survivor syndrome. 11 An alternate view of survivor functioning as it relates to pre- persecution personality and subsequent life events has recently begun to emerge. Matussek (1975) investigated 245 survivors in Germany, Israel, and the United States. He reports finding quite a few different coping mechanisms even under conditions of extreme stress. The hypo- thesis Matussek offers is that these coping mechanisms are dependent on the survivor's pre-persecution personality as well as the stresses suffered during incarceration. Further, he finds no uniform syndrome but rather several dimensions of personality functioning. In a similar vein, Des Pres (1976) in a phenomenological study of the survivor observes that the survivor has been portrayed as less than a whole person, in part because of our ambivalence towardsthose who survived and witnessed "unspeakable” horrors. Lifton (1967) reflecting on the study of Hiroshima survivors notes a similar syndrome of "death taint"(p. 111). The general community shuns those who have emerged from such a terrifying death experience. For many the recovery was a long and difficult process. Various authors (Des Pres, 1976; Rabinowitz, 1974) report the difficulties en- countered by survivors in the re-settlement process. Often host communities did not want to hear the survivor's tales for fear of ex— posing themselves to the fantasized immoral acts the survivor had committed in order to survive. In addition, the refugee role or that of the 'displaced person' added a further barrier to the survivor's acceptance by the host community. In other words, both the ”death taint" and the host community's ambivalence had to be overcome in the re-settle- ment process. I2 This ambivalence has been a potential source of bias in clinical research efforts (Freyburg, 1980; Kestenberg, 1972; Rappaport, 1968). In this regard, Ornstein (1980) has taken issue with the survivor literature as failing to distinguish between the psychology of adapta- tion to the extreme conditions of camp life and the psychology of re- covery that took place after the war. This failure to distinguish between the psychology of adaptation and the psychology of recovery may have led to an exclusive focus on pathological consequences rather than an explora- tion of the recuperative powers of the psyche. A focus on the recuper- ative powers of survivors would necessitate a shift from the tendency to generalize from clinical case records to a more rigorous individual differences approach. This position has been stated eloquently by Furman as: Each individual came to camp with a different personality and at a different point in his development, each underwent specific experiences in camp, and each has lived under different circumstances since then. The more anyone has worked with people exposed to a camp experience, the more he is aware of these enormous indiviudal differences and the resulting diffi- culty in making meaningful comparisons. Perhaps the only shared factors are those of having experienced stressful interference of more or less traumatic proportions and the task of coming to terms with having survived it. (Furman, 1973, p. 379) One such universal traumatic stress endured by the survivor was the separation from both family and past. The holocaust literature observes that the typical response to the extreme separation anxiety encountered by the survivors reverberates throughout their lives. However, separation studies (Bowlby, 1969; Spitz, 1946) indicate that the earlier the separation and stress the more profound the subsequent disturbances in personality development. Klein (1973, 1974) found no such early childhood 13 problems in his kibbutz survivor studies in Israel, and proposes that early positive family experiences may have contributed to survival it- self. In fact the most frequently observed phenomena in the camps was the formation of small social groups. These surrogate families pro- vided for both the intrapersonal and interpersonal needs necessary for survival. The group provided the opportunity to experience and express at least some aspects of the nuclear self. It provided the self-object matrix within which the supply of self esteem and dignity could be main- tained. "The capacity to retain a modicum of dignity, to experience the self as continuous in space and time," Ornstein (1980) states, "pre- served the connection between self experiences before and after the -war." The groups in the camps were formed consisting of members of the same family (siblings, cousins), old friends, or people from the same or neighboring towns. In this manner continuity with one's original family was provided. This same sense of continuity played an integral role in the re- settlement process as well. For the majority of holocaust survivors the turn was towards the family and a continuation of the life cycle as the source of recovery. Through the rebirth of the "family ego" (Klein, 1980) they were able to maintain the link that had provided survival in the camps in the form of surrogate families and the continuous link with their pre-war families. In this manner the post—war period was characterized by a reindividuation of the survivor through their pro- creative involvement and creation of families. Erikson (1980) has eloquently described this period of generativity in his epigenetic view of the life cycle. This is a period marked by the l4 ego qualities of caring, creating, and parenting. For many survivors this period was crucial for it was the first opportunity in years to experience the intimacy, mutual sharing, and mutual regulation which characterizes family life. I feel, that the ability of survivors to empathically parent was less concerned with the endured massive trauma and more intricately interwoven with how they themselves were patented. The position that I wish to advance here does not seek to minimize the extreme trauma of separation and stress suffered in the camps, but does call for a closer look at the interactional effects of the pre- persecution personality and ensuing life events. For it is the inter- action of these factors which laid the groundwork for the mechanisms of recovery. I feel the family provided the link and preserved the connection between self experiences before and after the war. The emerging picture of the survivor family hypothesized here is then multi— dimensional as opposed to the more restricted view as cited in the earlier psychiatric literature. The purpose of this study is to assess the types of family structures which emerged and maintained the process of recovery. In this manner I hope to gather empirical data which will bear on the level of functioning of both holocaust survivors and their offspring. 15 OFFSPRING OF CONCENTRATION CAMP SURVIVORS Over the past decade, a number of clinicians and researchers have tried to answer the question of whether there is a psychopathology specific to offspring of holocaust survivors. Some (Barocas & Barocas, 1973; Lipkowitz, 1973; Phillips, 1978; Rakoff,.1966; Russell, 1974; Rustin & Lipsig, 1972; Trossman, 1968) have suggested that these child- ren's problems stem primarily from their experience of having been raised by survivor parents and manifest second generation effects re- sembling the survivor syndrome. Others (Axelrod, 1980; Furman, 1973; Klein, 1980; Rosenberger, 1973) still question whether the parameters that differentiate the severely disturbed survivor child from the adapted well—functioning survivor child have been sufficiently explored. In this review I hope to acquaint the reader with the research findings to date and briefly discuss a few of the psychodynamic formulations found in the literature. In an early study, Tuteur (1966) investigated 187 survivor children. He reported that 8.5 percent were maladjusted, with 2.5 percent requiring psychiatric treatment. This low percentage, as compared to the general population, differed from the disproportionately large number of sur- vivor families who sought help for their children in the Psychiatric Outpatient Department in Montreal's Jewish General Hospital (Rakoff, Sigal, & Epstein, 1966). The latter observation was supported by Trossman (1968) who reported on stress reactions of children of survivors seen at the McGill Student Mental Health Center. Trossman noted that the parents were excessively overprotective and constantly warning their children of impending danger. The children exhibited depressive features which 16 Trossman hypothesized as due to their hopeless struggle to provide meaning for the parents' empty lives. As a result of these early clinical impressions, a series of studies was carried out by a group of Canadian researchers (Rakoff, 1966; Sigal, 1971; Sigal & Rakoff, 1971; Sigal, Silver, Rakoff, & Ellin, 1973). The object of their study was to ascertain whether there were consistent differences between survivor families and control families who sought help in their clinical settings. Sigal and Rakoff (1971) studied 32 children of survivors compared to 24 controls. The major finding re- ported was a significantly greater difficulty in issues of child control for survivor parents sparked by a seemingly intense struggle for autonomy. While there were no differences in dysphoria or school problems, signi— ficant differences in a heightened degree of sibling rivalry and over- valuation of the children were reported. In a later, more rigorous study (Sigal, Silver, Rakoff, & Ellin, 1973) 25 survivor children and 20 controls were divided into a 8-14 age group and a 15-17 age group. The instruments employed were the Nettler Alienation Scale, the Srole Anomie Scale, the Child Behavior Inventory, the Brief Mental Health Questionnaire derived from the Cornell Medical Index, and the Behavior Problem Checklist. In the 8-14 age group trends toward conduct problems were noted. In the 15-17 age group significantly low levels of personality functioning, as measured by the Behavior Problem Checklist and the Child Behavior Inventory, were reported. This finding was based on parental reports. Survivor parents in this study perceived their children as excessively dependent, testing limits too frequently, having poorer coping behavior, exhibiting conduct problems, \ \ l7 and experiencing personality problems based on inadequacy and immaturity. The findings on the Brief Mental Health Questionnaire corroborated parental perceptions by reporting significant differences between the two groups in psychiatric symptomatology. However, the authors conclude by adding a note of caution as to the generalizability of their findings to other children of survivors. In part this was due to the fact that their sub- jects represented only a self selected client population. In addition, the majority of their experimental subjects were recent immigrants to Canada as opposed to the control group of resident Canadians. Axelrod (1980) has recently reported clinical findings on a group of 30 hospitalized children of survivors. She reports a high correla- ’_tion between the patient's age at hospitalization and the age that one / ‘ or both parents suffered a major holocaust event. This tragic re- enactment of the parental trauma by the child has been called an anniversary reaction. In an earlier study, De Graf (1975) reported a similar correlation between the age of symptom development in his out- patients and the age of parental holocaust trauma. The complex phenomena of the anniversary reaction has been ascribed to a function of the persistent powers of mourning in the survivor family and the consequent drive towards symbiosis of parent and child. In other words, the child experiences an intense mourning reaction upon any loss which draws him back into a symbiotic orbit with the parent. In the hospital setting the anniversary reaction takes the form of experiencing the surroundings 'and.staff as a concentration camp (Axelrod, 1980). In addition, Axelrod ritports that many survivor children with marked paranoid symptoms respond \Hery poorly to psychopharmocological treatment. She concludes that these 18 manifestations may be part of a characterological approach to life. In psychodynamic terms these severely disturbed individuals are re- enacting their parent's holocaust experiences. Although Axelrod's findings concern only a clinical population, she poses a few interesting research questions which bear further study. First, does the degree of parental trauma correlate positively with the pathology of the child? The second question concerns a possible nega- tive correlation between the number of survivors in the extended family and the maladjustment of the child. The final issue concerns the impact of parental communication styles on the development of the survivor child. Before discussing possible answers to these questions, let us proceed with a review of the major studies dealing with non~c1inic populations. A study of second generation effects on non-clinical survivor children was conducted by Karr (1973). The participants in this study were 22 subjects whose parents had escaped the holocaust through immi- gration before the war, 16 subjects where one parent had been incarcer— ated, and 33 subjects where both parents were concentration camp sur— vivors. Each subject completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Nettler Alienation Scale, and the Brenner Scale for Jewish Identification. In addition, data analysis of the MMPI validity and 10 clinical scales was supplemented by analysis of 10 MMPI derived scales, Walsh's anxiety factor dimension A, and the basic D scale of depression. Karr found that male subjects, who were from families where both parents were survivors, had significantly greater difficulty with hostility control and impulsivity than control subjects. Female survivor children evidenced the same difficulty in hostility control 19 as well as greater reaction formation against aggression. Karr also reports significant differences for male survivor children on the schizophrenia scale. However, it is important to note that the levels reported on these derived scales were low to moderate making inter- pretations of results difficult. In addition, no significant differences were reported on the derived scales for anxiety, depression, projection of hostility, hostility, social introversion, resentment, dependency, guilt feelings, repression, and ego strength. Nor were significant differences found on the 8 scales for Jewish identification, or on the Srole Anomie Scale, or on the Nettler Alienation Scale. In a more rigorously controlled study, Rustin (1971) compared 77 survivor children and 77 matched controls. The instruments employed were the Mosher Incomplete Sentence Test, the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, the Brenner Scale for Jewish Identification, and a question- naire to assess demographic factors. Rustin reports no significant differences between the two groups. This finding is of interest since no significant differences were reported on the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory, which provides data on eight categories of hostility. There- fore, Karr's (1973) earlier cited finding of greater difficulty with hostility control for children of holocaust survivors was not corroborated by the above controlled study. In a study cited earlier, Dor-Shav (1975) also investigated differ- ences between 40 survivor children and 17 controls on the 16 P.F. Personality Questionnaire. The results indicated that survivor children were more tender minded, dependent, overprotected, and sentitive. They were also reported as more practical and conventional while being 20 characterized by low ego strength. However, these findings can only be interpreted cautiously since the subject groups were not adequately matched for age and sex. In a well controlled study Goodman (1978) investigated 61 survivor children, 30 of whom had sought some psycho- therapy and 31 that had not. Each subject completed the Personal Orientation Inventory, a Death Anxiety Scale, a semantic differential technique for meaSuring the concepts of life and death, the Brenner Scale for Jewish Identification, and a Likert-type scale for attitudes about the holocaust. No significant differences were found on any of the principal measures. Goodman does report that subjects who did not seek therapy had significantly more exposure to the holocaust, dreamt more frequently about the holocaust, and experienced greater anger about the holocaust. In a recent study, Last and Klein (1980) investigated 76 survivor children and 76 matched controls. Their study employed the Scheaffer Questionnaire which asks for perceptions of parental behavior, the Stein Needs List which establishes a hierarchy of intrapersonal motivations, an open ended anxiety questionnaire, and the strength of the self from the MMPI. They report that no significant differences were found. A similar result was reported by Gay and Shulman (1980) who employed the Scheaffer Questionnaire and the Fitts Self Image Scale. Both the survi- vor children and their controls scored within the normal range. The research findings cited above do not empirically support a uniform child of survivor syndrome yet are in marked contrast to phenomenological and clinical studies. In part this is due to the fact that clinical studies have largely relied on the case records of patient samples. 21 In one such study, Phillips (1978) reported on the salient features of the alleged "child of the survivor syndrome." The features he noted include: overprotection of the child by the parent; an overly fearful attitude towards imagined or real dangers; mistrust and suspicious attitudes; the child is seen as the salvation of the family; and tendencies toward personal growth, achievement, and success are blocked. Jucovey (1980), a founder of the Group Project for Holocaust Survivors and Their Children, describes a similar profile. His observations in- clude: depressive features; sadomasochistic drives; too much or too little discussion of the holocaust; the experience of living in a "time tunnel" by acting out the parent's past; somatization; and defensive and suspicious attitudes. A number of clinicians (Axelrod, 1980; Fishbane, 1979; Freyburg, 1980; Furman, 1973; Rosenberger, 1973; Wanderman, 1976) have attempted to explain the dynamics underlying the child of survivors syndrome." Fishbane (1979) conducted a phenomenological study with 16 unmarried adult survivor children who met in a support group format. She observed that survivor children had the mission of continuity of the past and a strong drive to achieve so as to fulfill their parent's frustrated aspira- tions. Role reversal seemed to be common and was often accompanied by guilt when children failed to meet their parent's expectations. Many of the children felt caught between two worlds and experienced a pronounced alienation from society. Finally, Fishbane notes that communication about the holocaust in these families was normally restricted and the children experienced intense conflicts over issues of separation. Wanderman (1976) states that the depressive features of the children are caused 22 by the internalization of unexpressed anger towards their parents. Ego development, she hypothesizes, is hindered by the parents attempts to secure their own identities through their children. The result being a sense of worthlessness. Freyburg (1980), on a different note, traces the difficulty experienced by the child of survivors to boundary blurring. More specifically, to the critical rapprochment subphase of the separation individuation process. The rapprochment subphase is a critical period for the development of autonomy and the child needs mother's love and support. Yet it is at this crucial stage "that the child's independence, anger, and separateness are threatening to the holocaust survivor mother, who has already suffered catastrophic losses" (Freyburg, 1980, p. 92). The mother's withdrawal and disapproval, Freyburg continues, arouses fear of abandonment resulting in panic, rage and a depressive mood state. Freyburg concludes that "the holocaust child emerges from rapprochment with incomplete individuation and some emotional pathology." "This is evidenced in the blurring of ego boundaries, confusion of self and ob- ject, regressive identification with the object, feelings of emptiness and loneliness, lack of clarity about mood states, and difficulties in distinguishing personal feelings and opinions from those of significant others" (p. 92). Insofar as I am able to discern, these assumptions and observations are based on clinical case records and are not supported by systematic research data. Again, the exclusive focus on the pathological consequences of camp survival clouds the genetic perspective which would focus on an individual survivor's capacity to parent given his or her developmental history. 23 Ornstein (1980) observes that there is a fine line between experiencing parental expectations as a burden and experiencing these as challenges. This fine line may provide the answer to the seemingly contradictory phenomenological and research findings. Clinical subjects may indeed experience parental expectations as a burden and this potential source of bias limits the generalizability of clinical findings to the larger children of survivor population. It is with this position in mind that I have chosen the family unit as the meaningful context within which to view the survivor parents' and child's interaction. In other words, the study of perceptions of emotional bonding, role relationships, and individual autonomy within the family system, as they relate to the offspring's level of functioning, may lead to a clearer understanding of the interactional complexities which effect both survivors and their children. The focus on family interactions and family structures seeks to critically examine the question of an alleged transmission of psychic trauma to subsequent generations. The empirical evidence reviewed thus far does not support a uniform child of survivor syndrome. Rather, the second generation's level of personality functioning might be more productively viewed as related to the types of family structures that evolved in the process of recovery. These family structures, I contend, are significantly related to the survivor's pre-persecution personality and how they themselves were patented. In a similar vien, Rosenberger (1973) has stated that any pathology shown by children of holocaust survivors can be more parsi- moniously attributed to the particular handling by the parents as a 24 reflection of their own personality. Furman (1973) supports this position in her statement which bears presenting in its entirety. All individuals have to grapple with these factors throughout their continuing lives. For each, his manner of integrating them is in turn affected by all that he faces in his on-going life, good and bad alike. This painful, endless process of gradual integration is again a most highly individual one and affects differently the many aspects of personality functioning. Even for the individual, it varies from time to time so that no person can be characterized as using a set form of mechanisms. The specific, direct effects on the child of his parents' camp experiences are therefore not only difficult to isolate but may become meaningless unless seen in the context of the parents' and child's individual person- alities and their interactions. (Furman, 1973, p. 379) It is with due regard to the individual personalities and their interactions that I have chosen to explore the family structures within holocaust survivor families. The adoption of this approach should not be taken as a dismissal of the value of detailed clinical case studies, however I do feel that isolated studies of alleged transmitted effects on children of holocaust survivors become meaningless when separated from the overall family context. FAMILIES OF HOLOCAUST SURVIVORS Much of the work and observations of families of holocaust sur- vivors have been guided by the conceptual hypotheses laid down by Sigal (1973). Sigal contends that individuals who experience chronic deprivation or distortions of other kinds in their psychological environ- ment will subsequently develop distortions in their capacities for human relations. These distortions will then hamper the survivor's ability to form healthy parenting relationships with their children. Finally, Sigal asserts that the subsequent distortions inthe parent-child 25 relationship will produce maladaptive behavior in the second genera- tion. These conceptual hypotheses are based on extensive case work with a client population and caution should be observed with regard to their applicability to a normative population. Here we will proceed to review the relevant family literature which bears directly on this topic. Regrettably, the majority of the family studies in this area show little empirical support and share an unfortunate tendency towards overgeneralization. A number of clinicians (Aleksandrowicz, 1973; Danieli, 1980; Freyburg, 1980; Klein, 1979; Trachtenberg & Davis, 1978) have observed that immediately after the war a great number of survivors entered hastily ill-planned marriages. These "marriages of despair" (Danieli, 1980) disregarded differences in pre-war socio-economic background or any of the ordinary criteria for marriage. In part, Klein (1973) states, this was necessary in order to alleviate the intense mourning and separation anxiety the survivors were experiencing. Recreating a family was an act to compensate for their losses, to counter the massive dis- ruption in their lives, and undo the dehumanization they had experienced. In an attempt to conceptualize the psychodynamic forces within holocaust survivor families, Kestenberg (1972, 1973) studied 20 holocaust families and hypothesized that there were three main features that characterized those families. First, there was a loss of love and rejection by their social group through exile and public degradation of their image. Then, there was a loss of integrative functions necessary for child rearing because of the impossibility of completing the mourning process. Finally, they were characterized by the sadistic fantasies 26 which has come alive because of the bizzare reality they had experi- enced. Aleksandrowicz (1973) makes similar observations in his study of 34 holocaust families. He reports an "affective deficiency" syndrome accompanied by hyperrepression in his family sample. Others (Sigal & Rakoff, 1971) support the hypothesis of a loss of integrative functions needed for child rearing due to a pre-occupation with mourning. This pre-occupation with mourning hypothetically led to difficulty in responding to their children's needs with adequate affect, and diffi- culty in setting limits on their children's behavior. The children, in turn, tended to respond to their parent's difficulty with disruptive, sometimes explosive behavior (Kestenberg, 1972; Sigal, 1971). Finally, the high incidence of acting out by the children has been attributed to identification with their parents' persecutors (De Graf, 1975). Although the above observations are interesting, great caution should be observed in generalizing from these findings. This psycho- pathological emphasis is in part due to the selective research conducted only with regard to a client population. The proliferation of these overgeneralizations without sound empirical support have served only to stigmitize the majority of survivors while neglecting a serious inquiry into the psychology of recovery. As an example, mothers in these families have been described (Freyburg, 1980) as withdrawn, depressed, fearful, uncommunicative, unexpressive, and detached. Fathers in these families have been de- scribed (Danieli, 1980; Freyburg, 1980) as remote, overdemanding, controlling, given to unpredictable outbursts of temper, as well as, 27 timid, passive, and work oriented. Freyburg (1980) notes that both parents have "seemingly universal difficulties in affective communi- cativeness" (p. 92). She feels that the child learns at an early age that the world is unsafe, uncaring, and treacherous, and that the family needs to band together in order to survive. This binding, or extreme form of cohesion has its etiology in the extreme loss suffered by the parents and the paucity or absence of an extended family. Freyburg continues by observing that parental vigilance and over- protection is experienced by the offspring as overcontrolling, inter- fering, and demanding. Danieli (1980) observes that survivor parents regard the establish- ment of boundaries of any kind by their children as a severe threat to the intactness of the family. In other words, an atmosphere of symbiotic devotion is fostered and any acts of autonomy, independence, or desire for privacy by the children are condemned as acts of betrayal and abandonment. In terms of the familial structure, Danieli observes, that children often had to act as mediators in the new environment which led to a role reversal and overprotection became mutual. The offspring's overprotection hampered their ability to establish outside relationships, thus reinforcing the symbiotic family structure. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that both Freyburg and Danieli view the holocaust family as characterized by extreme forms of cohesion and loyalty. Reiss (l97la, 1971b) has described this pattern of family behavior as concensus- sensitive. These are families that allegedly do not tolerate dissent or acts of autonomy by family members. In summary, this view of the holo- caust survivor families predicts enmeshed family interactions. 28 The present study does not share this view, rather I view holo- caust survivor families as characterized by a number of diverse patterns of family behavior. The particular pattern developed by any given family then is a function of the adaptive and coping mechanisms of its members as determined by the pre-persecution personality and ensuing life events. In other words, the diverse patterns of family behavior are viewed as a reflection of the individual personality differences of both the survivors and their children. This alternate view of survivor families has recently begun to emerge. Kestenberg (1973) has observed that survivor families can manifest a surprising vitality, stability, and strength in the upbringing of their children. This is a classic understatement when we consider that the survivor families faced the task of reorganizing their lives at a time when they were still homeless, jobless, countryless, and suffering the physical consequences of their internment. Klein (1971, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1980) in a series of studies has explored the adaptive regenerative mechanisms in survivor families in Israel and the United States. He finds the hypotheses of intergenerational transmission of pathology as lacking in that they neglect to adequately discuss the process of re- birth and reindividuation. Survivors, he observes, are more than witnesses since they have accepted and chosen life while reasserting their individuality through the rebirth of the family ego. Klein (1973) states his position as follows: Families of survivors exhibit a unique family life style by much display of affection, overprotectiveness, and openness among members. The affect-ladden manner is understood as a re-emergence of affect suppressed during the holocaust which has been recathected with the 29 restituted love objects--an expression of the libidini— zation of the overcathected objects which replace lost objects and a defense against an emerging anxiety con— cerning new losses. The overcathexis of these families is distinguished from that of neurotic families in which the affect laden quality is rooted in a reaction towards death wishes. In these survivors families, expressions of closeness are especially evident at times when parents re- late their terrible past and when they confront real external danger. The overprotectiveness and overcathexis is to be understood as a coping mechanism rather than an expression of pathology (p. 405-406). In other words, the same sense of cohesion which dominated small group life in the camps was now focused on the family unit. Rather than the aforementioned "marriages of despair" the average survivor entered a period of "procreative involvement" (Erikson, 1980) with their new families. Ornstein (1980) feels that this adult productivity con- stitutes the significant factor in the survivor's recovery. Rather than being unable to fulfill healthy parental functions most survivor parents were able to be empathically responsive to their children. The parents' capacity to respond to the child's needs, Ornstein feels, is more closely linked to the way in which they themselves were parented than with the severity of their war experiences or their ability to talk about them. In the present study I hope to explore the significance of the traumatization on the family structures as it is influenced by the survivor's relationship to his own parents, the pre-persecution person- ality, the later course of live events and the surrounding social structure. Although data cannot be collected on all of these variables, an investigation of the types of family structures which evolved in holocaust survivor families may provide important data from which sound inferences may be drawn. Two dimensions of family functioning will be of particular interest in this study: family cohesion and family 30 adaptability. These two dimensions have been identified by both the holocaust literature and the wider body of the family systems literature as key areas in family functioning. Before presenting the hypotheses of the present study, a review of the family literature should serve to acquaint the reader with the characteristics of family functioning as it bears on this area of study. FAMILY SYSTEMS The dimensions of family cohesion and family adaptability have been identified by a large number of researchers as crucial in the study of family functioning. The former dimension deals with the degree to which an individual is separated or connected to his or her family system, and the latter dimension deals with the extent to which the family system is flexible and able to change. The hypothesis underlying much of our work is that too much or too little family cohesion or family adaptability is detrimental to family functioning. Effective family functioning is then characterized by moderate levels on these two dimen— sions. I do not assume that holocaust survivor families always operate in a moderate manner, rather my assumption is that healthy functioning families maintain a degree of flexibility or balance on these dimensions. On the other hand, I expect maladaptive functioning families to main- tain extreme levels of these dimensions. Recently, Olson, Russel, and Sprenkle (1979) developed a circumplex model of marital and family systems based on the two dimensions of family cohesion and family adapt- ability. The advantage of their model to the present study is that it rep— resents a parsimonious framework for reducing the enormous complexity of family systems. Before proceeding to a discussion of the circumplex 31 model as it bears on the present study, let us briefly review the wide range of theoretical concepts and empirical studies upon which it is based. The study of the social system of the family through structural relations within the family has a long history in the psychoanalytic and research literature. Freud (1909), early in his writings, called attention to the generational boundary which divides the family into those that are sexually active with each other and those for whom this is interdicted. In his description of the oedipal conflict, Freud notes the role of the same sexed parent as a role model for identification while the opposite sexed parent provides the basic love object. Wynne (1961), in his early work with schizophrenic families, ob- served that alliances and alignments, splits and alientations, were phenomena observable in all families. He regarded the above as structural points of reference within the family system. In schizophrenic families, wynne observed a random shifting of alliances which he called "pseudo mutuality." Haley (1959) reached a similar observation when he noted that schizophrenic families allowed no alliances nor were members per- mitted to establish an intimate coalition with someone outside the family. A number of studies (Lidz, Fleck, & Cornelison, 1966; Fleck, Lidz, Cornelison, Schafer, & Terry, 1959) have explored the role of parental personality patterns in schizophrenic families. Lidz, Fleck, and Cornelison (1966) reported finding chronic marital disharmony among parents of schizophrenics. They elaborated by hypothesizing that the achievement of a cohesive identity depends upon a reasonably harmonious integration of identification with two parents. Two types of maladaptive 32 schizophrenic family systems were classified: the schismatic family of openly warring spouses, and the skewed family with one pathological spouse and one passive appeasing partner. In their review of these studies Click and Kessler (1974) add three more types of dysfunctional families to the two cited above. The "generation gap" family with strong marital bonds but conflictual intergenerational interaction. The "pseudo-domocratic" family in which roles are ill-defined and confused. Lastly, the "disengaged family" where cohesive bonds are rare or non-existent. Boszormeny-Nagy and Spark's (1973) work with families elaborated early family conceptualizations by focusing on the intergenerational framework and issues of separation. They introduced the term loyalty to describe the "reciprocal obligations and merits existentially owed between family members." Loyalty, however, also produces conflicts for the developing child. "A very important deepuseated paradox lies in the antithetical relationship between individuation and family loyalty" (p. 51). Bowen (1966) recognized the role of individuation when he proposed a "differentiation of self" in order to separate from the amorphous "undifferentiated family ego mass." The developmental task of separation is not easily accomplished. Bowen describes two dys- functional family separation styles. "Exploding" is a style characterized by little contact after separation, while "cohesive" is a style with very close and continued contact with parents. Stierlin (1974) clarified the separation-individuation struggle by identifying two opposing forces, centripetal and centrifugal. High family cohesion is sparked by centripetal force while centrifugal force 33 pulls family members away from the family system. Minuchin (1967) in a study of multi-problem families reached similar conclusions by describing the disengaged and enmeshed families of the slums. Reiss (1971a, 1971b) carried out a systematic study of the cohesion dimension with normal, delinquent, and schizophrenic families. He identified three patterns of behavior which he described as environmentwsensitive (normal families), interpersonal-distance sensitive (delinquent families), and consensus-sensitive (schizophrenic families). Environment-sensitive families fall at the midpoint of the cohesion dimension in that input from family members is respected. Interpersonal—distance family members on the other hand experience the rejection of their ideas as a rejection of themselves. They seek independence at the expense of family closure which represents the lower end of the cohesion dimension. Finally, the consensus-sensitive families do not tolerate dissent, and closure is maintained at all times. This type of enmeshed interaction represents the upper end of the cohesion dimension. Small-group theorists and social psychologists have also identified the dimension of cohesion. Cartwright and Zander (1962) describe cohesion as "the resultant of all the forces acting on all the members to remain in the group" (p. 74). Levinger (l965),employing the concepts formulated in small-group theory, studied marital cohesion and identi- fied the following factors: sources of attraction; sources of barrier strength; and sources of alternative attraction. He hypothesized that marital cohesion was directly related to affectional rewards, socio- economic rewards, and similarity in social status, which are sources of attraction. Barrier forces, he hypothesized, were inversely related to the attractiveness of alternative relationships. 34 Hawkins (1968) in a study of 20 clinics and 28 non-clinic families developed a scale of marital cohesion. The scale, which had high split-half reliability (r - .92) and a low correlation ( r = .28) with the Marlow-Crown Social Desirability Scale, successfully differentiated between the two groups on the cohesion dimension. Rosenblatt (1975, 1976), in a series of studies, describes the extremes of cohesion as "togetherness" and "apartness" and states that families need to find an optimal balance between the extremes. Turnbull (1972) in his provocative field work with the mountain people describes what may happen to family cohesion under extreme stress. The Ik who were threatened by starvation and loss of control of their own destiny lost their capacity for any except exploitative relationships. Family ties were ruptured and extreme forms of disengagement became prevalent. Turnbull states that this extreme form of family disorgani- zation may result when a culture loses control of its own destiny, loses viable strength-giving myths, and becomes helpless to effect change. Another cluster of variables that has been explored by researchers are concepts related to the adaptability dimension. Parsons and Bales (1955) defined the primary family tasks as: the socialization of the children and the stabilization of adult personalities. Aldous and Hill (1967) in their extensive review of 12,850 family studies pub- lished between 1900 and 1964 find similar common threads. The threads include: power distribution, flexibility, autonomy, expressiveness and openness to change. Westley and Epstein (1974) in a study of 96 families reached the same conclusions. The five dimensions they found that successfully differentiate well functioning families from 35 maladaptive families were power, psychodynamics, roles, status, and work. Father-led families had the most adaptive functioning while the psychodynamics needs of the family tended to vary for any given culture and time. Two groups of variables clearly distinguished between the adaptive and maladaptive families: problem solving and communication (family adaptation), and the balance of autonomy and dependency (family cohesion). The factor they found critical to the emotional health of the children was the nature of the relationship be- tween the parents. The nature and strength of the marital bond has been investigated by a number of researchers. Sprenkle and Olson (1978) looked at the balance of power in a study of 25 couples in counseling and 25 matched controls. The authors found that under stressful conditions in an interaction game (SIMFAM) clinic couples resorted to a no-leadership style or an authoritarian leadership style significantly more than con- trol couples. In another study of power relationships, Epstein and Santa-Barbara (1975) classified couples as Doves (flexible), Dominant- Submissive (structured), Hawks (rigid), and Mugwumps (chaotic) on the basis of their behavior in a mixed motive interaction game. They reported that Doves and Dominant-Submissives were able to vary their strategy in the game while Hawks and Mugwumps maintained their extreme strategies. Angell (1936) conducted the first major study to combine the con- cepts of cohesion and adaptability. In his work on the era of the depression, he looked at styles of coping for families under stress. ‘Hill (1949) employed the same concepts in a study of Families Under Stress in a measure that he called dynamic stability.‘ He investigated 36 the coping styles of 135 families who were forced to deal with war, separation, and reunion. He reported that the most productive coping styles were found in families of medium integration and high adapt- ability. A number of studies have followed Hill's lead in an empirical approach towards investigating these family styles. Van der Veen (1976) developed the Family Concepts Test to assess the individual's per- ception of attitudes, feelings and expectations towards one's family. The 80 item test was administered to a large sample and the data were factor analyzed. A second order factor analysis revealed two higher order dimension: family integration and adaptive coping. Lewis et. a1. (1976) in an ongoing research project developed the Family System Rating Scales (FSRS) in order to search for the characteristics of the optimally functioning family. Videotaped interactions of 33 non-patient and 70 patient families were rated on 13 subscales of the FSRS by independent raters. The sum total scores reported on the FSRS were found to be highly correlated (r = .90) with a one item Global Family Health-Pathology Scale, even though inter-rater reliability was low. In their aptly titled book, No Single Thread, the authors conclude that cohesion, adaptability, and communication styles successfully differen- tiate among types of family systems. In our review, thus far, we have observed that a wide variety of theoretical and empirical studies cited cluster around the cohesion and adaptability dimensions. Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1979) have developed a circumplex model of marital and family systems based on these dimensions. In addition, they have developed the Family 37 Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) which served as a major instrument in this study. In the circumplex model, family cohesion is defined as the "emotional bonding that family members have toward one another and the degree of individual autonomy a person experiences in the family system" (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979, p. 5). The specific subscales which measure cohesion include: emotional bonding, independence, boundaries, coalitions, time, space, friends, decision making, and interests and recreation. The four levels of cohesion range from extremely high (enmeshed), to moderately high (connected), to moderately low (separated), to extremely low (dis- engaged). Family adaptability is defined as: "the ability of a marital/ family system to change its power structure, role relationships and re- lationship rules in response to situations and developmental stress" (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979, p. 12). The specific subscales which measure adaptability include: assertiveness, control, discipline, negotiation styles, role relationships, relationship rules, and feed- back. The four levels of adaptability range from extremely high (chaotic), to moderately high (flexible), to moderately low (structured), to extremely low (rigid). Figure 1 graphically displays the 16 possible types of families based on their location in these two dimensions. The four levels of cohesion are (from low to high): disengaged, separated, connected and -enmeshed. The four levels of adaptability are (from low to high): rigid, structured, flexible, and chaotic. Three basic groups of family types can be located within the model. One group has scores at the I. L}?! ‘°‘~l|. I.n|.lll|y‘ 38 L304----¢-oocdcoccoooooouocer..’tono-------—----n---o-----3k yn ” M..__“‘ l -\ \ "yr" . \‘ ’e’ f \ :nastically :hiOt;:lllv , seper3t=i ; :onnected ‘\. \ ,1 / /. .s-:aoti:ally :Alefi;320i :.‘.so:::3l;3- ‘1. ‘ x ' "‘~. ‘ enmesnei \ \ . ‘\\k I x 1 \ '3 ‘ \ flexibly flexible 1 flexible ’lexibiy disenqeqed sepereteness i connectedness ermested ‘ V scruszuzally :1:uc:u:ed ‘1 otruCtureJ Itru::urnllg iisenaaqed seperszeneee ; connec2ednesn annesned / :gqgiif disenqaaod \\\\\ r;;x:1y r:q;11y ~\{:E:::fed . :onnected N \ . _, 1“ “\ : 4d!" ‘ ,,..¢P \. ._.-'fl..- "' Figure 1: Cir:umtlex Wode.: Sixteen ?oss:ble F3211? TVPC9 385.4 3“ Lev'l’ 3‘ a. ~ Familv Cohesion and .azilv Adaptab;l::= 39 moderate level on both dimensions (four types); another group has extreme scores on both dimensions (four types); and a third group that has extreme scores on only one dimension (eight types). The four optimal types, represented in the center circle of Figure 1, include: flexible separateness; flexible connectedness; structured connectedness; and structured separateness. The four extreme types in the outer circle are the least functional family systems and include: chaotically dis— engaged; chaotically enmeshed; rigidly enmeshed; and rigidly disengaged. The remaining eight types are represented in the middle circle of Figure 1 and indicate extreme scores on only one dimension. An empirical study to validate the circumplex model was carried out by Russell (1979). Thirty-one families with female adolescents were participants in the Structured Family Interaction Game (SIMFAM) and completed questionnaires that measured cohesion, adaptability, support, and creativity. High family functioning was reported as associated with family cohesion and adaptability, and low family functioning was associated with extreme scores on these dimensions. Russell also reports that high functioning families were also high on the facilitating dimensions of support and creativity. Another test of the circumplex model, conducted by Druckman (1979), employed the cohesion and adaptability dimensions as outcome variables in family therapy. As predicted by the circumplex model, pretest low scores on cohesion and high scores on adaptability (rigid) were followed by posts test scores which were moderate on both dimensions for successful therapy cases. In summary, there appear to be a large number of clinical and empirical findings that demonstrate the utility of the circumplex model. 4O Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1979), in their comprehensive review of the literature, conclude that "there are a growing number of studies that have found the two circumplex dimensions to be important for under— standing marital and family systems." One such study, not cited above, is of particular interest in the present research. Strodbeck (1958) compared the typical world-view of Eastern European Jewish families with that of Southern Italian families on the dimensions of values and achievement. Strodbeck described the Jewish families as having a "belief in a rational mastery of the world," and as open to the technical and non-personal aspects of the wider community. In other words, these families were environment-sensitive and would be expected to be in the midrange of the circumplex model. In contrast, Strodbeck reports that Southern Italian families saw the world as unpredictable and unmasterable. These families bonded together and were consensus-sensitive which would place them in the high cohesion range. Strodbeck's work presents an interesting point of departure for the present study in that the holo- caust survivors are Eastern European Jewish families, yet they have experienced long-term psychic trauma in a hostile, unpredictable, and unmasterable environment. UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND RATIONALE FOR HYPOTHESES The central hypothesis which underlies this research effort is that in healthy functioning families a balance is maintained with respect to the degree to which an individual is separated or connected to the family system (cohesion) and the extent to which a family system is flexible or structured in response to change (adaptability). In this imanner, the midpoints of the circumplex dimensions of cohesion and 41 adaptability are understood as indicators of healthy family balance and resiliency. The nature of the relationship between these dimensions and family health is non-linear. Thus the healthiest families strike an optimal balance on the degree of cohesion and adaptability experienced within the family. In other words, the nucleus of healthy family adjust- ment is the dynamic balance maintained by family members. Too much or too little family cohesion or family adaptability is then hypothesized as detrimental to family functioning. In this manner, the extreme forms of enmeshment or disengagement from the family system (cohesion) and the extreme forms of chaos or rigidity in response to change (adaptability) characterize less healthy families. This definition of optimal balance is based on the theoretical positions developed in Freud's notion of narcissistic balance, the Jungian framework of the persona, and Erikson's implications of interpersonal egocenticity. Further, the argument contends that healthy functioning individuals perceive their families as moderate or balanced on these dimensions while less healthy individuals perceive their families as more extreme on these dimensions. The definition of health employed here is not based on the absence or presence of psychopathology. Rather, it is based on the overall degree of satisfaction (wellbeing) that an individual reports in a number of life areas and the core level of ego development attained by that individual. Higher levels of ego development are characterized by cognitive complexity, a richness of interpersonal relationships, and a concern for responsibility. Lower levels, on the other hand, are characterized by conceptual simplicity, superficial niceness, and Obedience to rules. 42 The review of the literature and the theoretical guidelines above have led me to formulate a number of hypotheses concerning the relation- ship of family cohesion and adaptability to levels of ego functioning. The major hypotheses evolve from a number of positions with regard to the holocaust which bear further clarification. First, that although many holocaust survivors experienced the same or similar chronic depri- vation and massive trauma this does not necessarily produce irreparable distortions in their capacities for human relations. Rather the impact of the massive trauma is best understood within the framework of an individual's pre-war personality. Second, the unsupported overgeneral- ization that survivors are unable to fulfill healthy parental functions is untenable. As Ornstein (1980) has pointed out the capacity to empathically respond to their childrens needs is more related to the pre-war personality than to the severity of the war experiences. Finally, that the offspring of holocaust survivors are not a uniform homogeneous group whose developmental history revolves solely around their parent's experiences. Rather they are a widely heterogeneous group of individuals with varying developmental histories. I feel that the heterogeneity of the pre-persecution personality and ensuing life events play a commanding role on the cohesion dimension. AS Klein (1980) has pointed out, the affect laden manner, expressions of closeness, and overprotectiveness of the survivor family are most productively viewed as a reassertion of individuality through the re- birth of the family ego. The loyalties that bind the healthy functioning offspring of holocaust survivors are hypothesized as centripetal and cohesive. On the other hand, the loyalties that bind the less healthy 43 offspring of holocaust survivors are hypothesized as centrifugal and exploding. In other words, we expect perceptions of cohesion to be a function of level of ego development for both offspring of holocaust survivors and a comparison group and not a function of family type (Holocaust versus non-Holocaust). Thus, high functioning offspring, according to a priori criteria for level of functioning, are expected to perceive their families within the optimal range (connected or separated) of cohesion while low functioning offspring are expected to perceive their families as extreme on this dimension (enmeshed or disengaged). On the adaptability dimension, I expect that holocaust families will be perceived by their offspring as significantly different as compared to the perceptions of the comparison sample. Thus, the pre- dicted major effect of the concentration camp experience will be in the survivor's instrumental attitudes towards adaptability. These attitudes and behaviors during internment included: automatic behavior and incon- spicuous behavior as well as hyperalertness and hyperadaptability. This adaptive strategy seems to have relied on the ability to rapidly shift from a position of rigid prescriptions for survival to a strategy of extreme flexibility. Ornstein (1980) has called this adaptive strategy a sense of reality. For "to be realistic means not to live With illusions and not to live with illusions creates a greater degree 0f self reliance." Further she states that "in the camps and in ghettos, the function of our intelligence was not to contemplate our autonomy or to concern ourselves with philosophical alternatives, but to make the most of each day's opportunity for getting through that 44 day" (Ornstein, 1980). It is then this unique sense of reality which I expect to be reflected in the offspring of survivors perceptions of family adaptability. In other words, I expect low functioning off- spring of holocaust survivors, as well as low functioning comparison group subjects, to perceive their families as extreme on adaptability (rigid or chaotic). Further, I expect high functioning offspring of holocaust survivors to perceive their families as more extreme on this dimension than high functioning comparison group subjects. In addition to the above predictions regarding family structures, I have a number of predictions concerning the relationship between the severity and impact of the war experience on the subsequent ego develop- ment of offspring of holocaust survivors. First, I predict that the number of extended family members who survived the concentration camps will be significantly correlated with the core level of ego development of the offspring. Here I expect that the offspring's development of autonomy and individuality was enhanced when parents had alternate sources of family relationships available to them. In addition, I feel that the extended family might have been employed as an invaluable resource for the sharing of grief and mourning. Second, I expect perceived parental communication patterns and perceived parental ‘Willingness to share the past to be significantly correlated with the core level of ego development of the offspring. This prediction evolves from the notion that only well adapted offspring of holocaust survivors Will be able to perceive the mission of continuity as a valuable affective and cognitive experience. Finally, I predict ng_significant correlation between either the duration of parental internment or the 45 age of parental internment, and the core level of ego development of the offspring. In part, this prediction evolves from a position that the impact of the concentration camp experience cannot be assessed by absolute interval measures but is more appropriately viewed as dependent on the great number of intervening variables cited earlier. 46 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES The review of the literature led me to formulate two major hypotheses. These hypotheses focus on the family dimensions of co- hesion and adaptability as outlined in the circumplex model. The remaining two minor hypotheses regard the parameters of parental trauma and their relationship to the functioning of children of survivors. Major Hypotheses HYPOTHESIS I High functioning* offspring, regardless of family type, will per- ceive their families as optimal on cohesion while low functioning off- spring will perceive their families as extreme on cohesion. *Based on levels of ego development and satisfaction with well- being. HYPOTHESIS II Perceptions of family adaptability will be significantly dependent upon levels of subject functioning. In addition, we expect high func- tioning offspring of holocaust survivors to perceive their families as less optimal than high functioning offspring of the comparison group. flnor Hypo theses HYPOTHESIS III The offspring's core level of ego functioning will be positively correlated with the number of extended family members who survived the hOlocaust. 47 HYPOTHESIS IV The offspring's core level of ego functioning will be positively correlated with survivor communication patterns. In addition to the above hypotheses, we predict that neither the length of parental internment nor the age of parental internment will be significantly correlated with the offspring's core level of ego functioning. 48 METHOD Subjects Two groups comprised of 141 individuals served as subjects for the study. The criteria for selection and subject group characteristics are described below. The offspring of holocaust survivor group consisted of 24 males and 49 females who were Jewish and born after the repatriation of their parents. These second generation subjects were children of Jewish concentration camp survivors and/or children whose parents were held captive in a slave labor camp during the period of June 1940 through May 1945. Second generation subjects resided in a number of major metro- politan areas in the United States. Names of the participants were obtained from children of holocaust survivor organizations in Detroit, Chicago, New York, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and Lansing. These organi— zations are groups which were formed in the past five years in order to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, information, and experi- ences regarding the holocaust. Members in these groups represent a cross section of young Jewish adults with no particular religious or political affiliation other than their common interests as children of survivors. . Comparison group subjects for this study consisted of 34 male and 34 female individuals who reside in major metropolitan areas in the United States. Names of control participants were provided by the Jewish Human Rights Council at Michigan State University, and the Hillel Foundation in Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati. 49 Table 1 presents a comparison of the two subject groups on a number of demographic variables. Both groups achieved uniformly high socio-economic scores on a two factor index of social position (Hollingshead, 1957). In addition, the groups were not significantly different on either family size or subject birth order position. Significant differences were found between the two groups on subjects age, Father's age, Mother's age, and sex composition of the groups (X2 a 4.0, p - .05). However, subsequent analysis of the data re— vealed no significant effect for any of these factors on any of the major variables in this study (see Appendix F for complete analysis of the data). In addition to the variables listed in Table 1, the groups were compared on a number of other dimensions. All subjects in the study Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Major Demographic Variables by Subject Group Second Generation Comparison Level of n=73 n=68 Significance Mean SD Mean SD Age 28.6 4.7 26.0 5.1 3.2 .002 Family Size 2.7 1.1 2.9 1.0 1.6 .11 Birth Order Position 1.7 .9 2.0 .9 1.8 .08 Socio-economic Status 21.9 8.5 22.9 8.8 .7 .46 Father's Age 60.7 6.1 58.0 8.9 2.0 .04 Mother's Age 58.0 5.5 54.1 8.5 3.2 .002 50 had completed at least one year of college. Forty-nine percent of the second generation subjects and 43 percent of the comparison group subjects had completed graduate professional training. In both groups over 80 percent had received their elementary school education in the public school system, with 14 percent of the second generation subjects having attended yeshiva (Jewish parochial schools) compared to nine percent of the controls. Finally, 60 percent of the second generation subjects were married compared to 40 percent of the comparison group and second generation subjects reported a higher mean personal income than did the comparison group. It is important to note that while the groups are closely matched on the above variables, only eight percent of the control group was born outside the United States compared to 42 percent of the experi- mental group (X2 = 22.83, p‘<.001). Subsequent analysis of the data revealed no significant effect for this variable on any of the major variables in this study (see Appendix F). Measurement Instruments The principal instruments in this study were: (1) Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire (2) Washington University Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger & Wessler, 1970) (3) Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (Olson, Bell & Portner, 1978). In addition, a participant questionnaire designed by the experimenter was employed to assess demographic data and attitudes towards the holo- caust . 51 Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire Levy and Guttman (1975) presented a partial theory for the structure of intercorrelations among the varieties of wellbeing. They defined an item of the universe of wellbeing items as, "if and only if cognitive level its domain asks for affective assessment of the of the . treatment instrumental state of a social group in some life area, and the range is ordered from 'very satisfactory' to 'very unsatisfactory' according to the normative criterion of the respondent for that area of life" (Levy & Guttman, 1975, p. 364.) The technique used for expressing the design is the mapping sentence, which incorporates both the universe of items and the popula- tion studied. The mapping sentence presented by Levy and Guttman con- tained a number of facets which specified both the domain and range of the items. In the present study, our concern is with wellbeing state of self rather than the wider model presented by Levy and Guttman, who investigated wellbeing state of reference groups and treatment by government. The present 20 items (Appendix B) are a sample of the possible wellbeing questions which may be asked of each respondent. No strictly systematic sampling design was attempted in the selection of the 20 items. However, it was endeavored that half the items represent cognitive or affective assessments of a wide array of life areas. Some further distinctions are that the majority of the items focus on primary environments, on both a general and specific level. Each wellbeing item was followed by a five point Likert-type scale and total wellbeing scores were arrived at by summing the scores 52 for each item. Test-retest reliability was established by testing a sample of 30 adults and then retesting after a two month interval. The Pearson product moment correlation was computed and found to be satisfactory (r - .95). Washington University Sentence Completion Test Form 9-62 for men and form 9—62 for women of the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (Loevinger 8 Wessler, 1970) was used to ascertain the level of ego development (Appendix C). Stand- ardized instructions were attached to each form. Responses to the sentence completion test were rated in conjunction with a scoring manual for females (Loevinger, Wessler, & Redmore, 1970) and one for males (Redmore, Loevinger, Tamashiro, Wright, & Rashbaum, 1978). The manuals consist of examples of responses at each ego level for each sentence stem. Trained raters assign an ego level score to each sentence stem response and a total protocol rating (TPR) is arrived at through the application of a set of ogive rules (Loevinger, Wessler, 6 Redmore, 1970). Loevinger, Wessler, and Redmore have reported interrater reliability, for both expert and less experienced raters, for the core ego level score at .85 and median interrater item correlations as .75. In addi- tion, Loevinger and Wessler (1970) reported a series of validity studies. Ego development ratings, based on structured interviews were compared to the levels obtained from the sentence completion test and found to correlate quite highly. In the present study, two trained raters scored item protocols after the responses had been transcribed from the test forms and grouped 53 by item, in order to avoid a halo effect bias by raters. Raters then assigned an ego level score to each sentence stem response. The cumulative frequency distribution was then tabulated for each subject and a TPR was assigned in accordance with the ogive rules. The percent of agreement between raters was 89 percent for the TPR rankings. TPR rankings in dispute were discussed between the raters and compromise rankings were arrived at. The model presented by Loevinger and her colleagues is the product of a test construction project spanning ten years. The concept of ego development in this schema represents the integration of common ele- ments in the personality models of several noted theorists. In a sense it represents the intersection of various psychological aspects of development, such as cognitive, interpersonal relations, impulse control and character development. The hierarchy of levels of ego development is presented in Table 2 below. The present study focused on those subjects at the conformist level (13), the self aware level (13/4), and the conscientious level (I4) and above. Conformists are characterized by superficial niceness, obedience to rules, emphasis on the need to belong, and concern with issues of social appearance. Their cognitive style is characterized by conceptual simplicity and stereotyped cliches. Self aware subjects, on the other hand, evidence a differentiation of norms and goals. These individual's interpersonal style is characterized by awareness of self in relation to the group. Finally, conscientious subjects are characterized by their selfevaluativesmandards, formulation of long term goals, and concern for responsibility. These individuals Amamm>v mofiuwcau :uoaoo .mcommou wcfiofims .mEoHnoua .asouw co cofiumdmw mamow .msuoc umaEpOmcou >owofiaawuasz .ucmaumafib< oH mama mo mpm3< mo COHumHucouowmwa «\MIH Imsowucmwomcoo uoH> monofido lasso .mwofiaoow moans wcfixmouo .moazuoououm Hmong .Aufiawnm mmocooH: pom sawsw .osmsm .xufiowaaawm luaooom Hmfioom Hmfiofiwumosm .mmaou Hmcuouxo Hmauaoocoo .mo:mumoao< .wofiwooamm cu zuwauomcoo MIH umepomcoo Houucoo .mmwmu oHumHCSuaoaao Icm>vm .mwofinu .oSmHn magma nonmaB .mansouu m>HuMuHoHexm namououxm .uswomo .o>wuoouououmaom .o>fiumaaawomfi .zumz wofion mo Home < m>Huomuopmlmamm :onsm o>fimmmuwwm pom o>wumufloaaxo .5 1:00 Hmsuaooooo Hmsxom haamaooomm .ucmbooamb :ofiumfiamuow .wowomuomuoum .mwcfifiomw mawbom .wofi>woomm uo boom .o>HmH:oEH NIH m>me=oE~ mousse: .m> Loam essencesm HIH gauoaneam owumwuo< Hmfioomoum mcofiumosooooum unmEooHo>ma nouomumso z . m ma um o>wuwc ou mooHomcou mmzum HmcomumoumucH .Houucoo emanaEH oboe mwmum quSoon>ma owm mo mascumoafiz mEow N magma mafi>wuomfioo .mdoom moons .>ua:wwn5m wow coaumuoaou 5 5 uxoucoo Hmfioom a“ «How .ucoEHwaasm Imamm .cowuamoaoo oHou .uog>mnmn mo :owummsno HmowmoHonoxmo .Hmofiwoaosozma commune Xmas pom Hmofiwofio« meson coaumuoaou Iaoo .xuwxoao Imago mo cowumuw scooobuouCa .mmoo: woos“ IEoo Hmoudmocoo smucfi .mwcfiaomm .onGOusm wcfiuowawcoo bmmmouocH bo>o>coo >Hbfi>fi> How uooamom mmmfl :uwB mafiaoo «mmfl mIH mDOEoc0u3< umuso Scum mafia pose“ no :oHumauco . -uoouae .mama oEoouso Boom snows an“ Emanouo mmoooud mo loom .uooa Hmoowuofio mm zufiamsbfi>wocfi :owuoofiumwn "mmfl Incam>oa "mmfl mocmbcmdmn "mmfl uOM uomamom wmmfl m\qu oHumfiHmsbw>HmcH :ofimmouoxo .muwmuu maoobfi .mucoEo>mwcom pom mamow Show wcwououumo .uooamoutuaom cowumoasaaaoo rwcoH .moocosoochU mo meow .uoH>m£oo MOM you cwmocoo wow uawow .amfiofiuwuo .muuxmaasoo mo>wuos .mwofiaomm .Hmause .oanam immmm .mbumbomum Hmsuomocoo boumwucmuowmwa Incomes .m>wm:mu:H counsHm>oermm qIH msowucmwomcou mamum m>fiuflcwoo mcowwmmwwmwwum mazum HmcomumauoucH qufiMMHMWWQdMMWMNMmso oboo ammum A.s.u=ouV N sassy 56 .ommfi .mmmmlkommow zn uswfiukooo “new:H>moq .5 an mmwwomnu can mcowumoocoo "ucoEmon>mb oww Boom "muoz .Ho>oa moofi>ouo ecu cu wofimaaam :ofiudfiuomop osu ou oofiufibbo a“ momma :bb<: "ouoz odomsfimu Iowa: «0 coaum twocscou .muoaaw zuwamsbfi>fibca Iooo Macaw >uwucmnH ”mmfl mo moanmwuono “mmfl mafiawocooom "mmfl 01H moumumoucH mcofiumosooomum maowomcoo ueoaaoao>mn Houomumno maxum o>wuficwoo mahum HmcomuoououcH .Houuooo omasosH oboo ammum A.u.u:oov N magma 57 show concern for patterns of communication with others and are conceptually complex. Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) FACES, developed by Olson, Portner and Bell (1978), is a self report scale designed to assess systematically levels of family cohesion and adaptability (Appendix D). The instrument was based on the circumplex model (Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979) which uses these two dimensions. The model generates four levels of family cohesion and four levels of family adaptability, which in turn leads to 16 (4 x 4) possible family typologies. The 111 item instrument contains seven subscales of adapt- ability and nine subscales of cohesion (Table 3a, Table 3b). Family cohesion is defined as: "the emotional bonding which members have toward one another and the individual autonomy that a person has in the family system: (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978). Family adaptability is de- fined as: "the ability of a marital/family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationships rules in response to situational and developmental stress" (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978). Initially, the scales comprised of 204 statements were tested by the researchers (Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978) on a sample of 410 students. The data were factor analyzed and eigen values and percent of variance computed. Analysis of the items within each factor re- vealed a strong correspondence between reSponse strength of an item and the factors. Chaotic, rigid and moderate items of the adaptability dimension were concentrated in three factors accounting for 84.3 percent of the variance. Disengaged, enmeshed, and moderate items of the 58 .mammuo>ou oaou owbmuoom .moHou mo mowomso eaafis .waaams .boumzm on xme .moHou moamuoououm .mumazm ofiou ofiumamua mom wofiumnm oHom usb .oaomum moaom .muwbwmfiu oaom mmqox .mcofiusaom coo: .moofiuaaom .bomoaafi cowusaom .mcoausfiom o>HmHaQEH boouw< .moofiumwuomm: manmcommom .maowu .moofiumwuowo: .mcofiumfiuowo: mmoabom manfixoam .wafi>aom Infiuowm: bmuauozuum payee“: .m:H>Hom .w:fi>aom Emanoua uoom Emanouo boou .mow>aom Eonnouo woou Emanouo uoom oneHufimm >Hsufim .moocmaommcoo .ommooo nomooo unoumfimsouoH .comooo mmumfiuowmz manmuofiboum .oHumuo mamas .uofiuum .oufimwlnommamq .oaunpooaob xafimso: Ioaov AHHmuocmu .oaumnooua< mzHamHomHa .mowcmno bfiaam a .afinmuobmma .owamnobmoa suds ofinmuopmma .bomooefi zfibcwx can Hmoowuwvnue Adwnmuobmoav ofiumuum uo\bom boauaaq cowumufiamscm oHnmum ma afinmuobmoq .:mfiumuwuo:ua< domezou .mcumuumo maomuowv .oon .oowuomuouow nouns: .mmazum o>Hm Imouwwm mums £ua3 .:0fimmoumwm osom cow: mo moamum o>Hm Imoumwm mam o>fimmmm o>fiuuommm Adamsusz o>Huuommm Hmuoomo Imouwwmlo>fimmmm mmmzm>memmmm< oauomno monoxmaa muouosmum raHAHmmm mm magma 59 .maooa m>Humwoo 3mm mmaooH o>fiUHmoa mfifiuuafium .maooH o>Hummoo coca o>Huwwoa one: .mmoo~.w>fiuwmoa :mnu o>fiumwms duo: .mooOH o>wufimoo 3mm “mecca o>au tome: zafiumafium MuHaham moasm .wmaau awofifiaafi osom .moaou uwoaaaxo use: .mmwomco mass 3mm .bmohowoo hauofluum madam .mmH5H ufiowHaEa has: .moH3u uaowaaxo has: .mmaau names mmqsm essence manaxmaa ououosuum A.o.ucoov mm manna wwwwm 60 .bouoauumou .vouowuumou .mmovfi can no: endow can moon“ can madooa oHoooa obfimuso .mmobfi can oaoooa maaooa oofimuso Aowcmoofiumfimm Hmcuouxmv mbfimuso mo mucosaon mo Houunoo osom oofimuao on code no oocoaamcH mmHm4H2Homao:u :o .uocuo zoom Isa .mmuuomouo son .bouuououa voodoo muooaoa co endgame zdfiamw can vomwusooco can bowmusoooo zafiaom .ooaov Amocmocoaon msmuo>v mo mocobooaob 5w“: ma mooobcoaoa . muoobcmombcH Icooobcfi swam mozmnzmmmnzH .bouomamow .vmuooamou . mmocouwuwoom woodman Mom .mouoauuoou you vooz pooz .vouuowoua .huamhoa mmocoumumoom wouuomouo pom pom vowmssoo no mmmcomoao .oovomaov xuamzoa mowmusooco new: use moosmuou mo xoma .mmo: Ammocomoau mo mwowaoomv .mmocomoao meduuxm Immoao Hmcowuosm nmaom HwCOfiuoam Imumumamm oaouuxm quozom A4H2fiuom poasbonom .mbcoawm hawamw meow .saaamo suns .mmooawm hawfimw 30m .mcon \oaoooo .mbcoaum oEom .mbcowum mousse mpaowuw comm mbcoaum Hmsbw>fibofi mamas“; Hmsbw>fibcfi oaom Hmabfi>fibou Hmabw>fibcfi :finz mazmHmm .bouooomou .oomam zafiamm . .mouuwsuoa woman oum>fium mo wcwumcm .pouuoumpo Aamoowuosm woman ouoSHuo .omuumwmua woman .bmuuowoua can become uo\b:m Hmofim>smv on yo mama“; afiwamm wowumcm woman monumaom woman oumumoom moHO>QH U 0C .mumououcfi .vouuoaasm aafiamm .aafiamw .hawamm Hmsbw>fibcfi :H mmwuw>fiuom uaozuaa moon seas bmumnm bm>ao>ow %H«Emm Hmsbfi>wu=H mmHuH>Huom on umae mumoumuofi .mmuufi>wuom zafiEmm .mofiuw>fiuom hawamm Hmabfi>fibcfi new manua>auum umoz emaaemnom maom msomemucoam usom saaumEaua oneouaam on owns .afinmoowumaou pom Hmcomuoo soon .mcofimfioob Had mum mGOfimHo Imp Hmsbfi>wp ncH .ecas ca hafiamm Sofia some moowmwoob umoz no mcowmfioob u:«0n oxma ou oao< .mbma saasse4>aeafi moofimfioob umoz mawamm Hofiuo Lugs wcwxooso oz .moowmfio Imp Hmavfi>fibow >Hflumefium OZH¥ v." GHQ—mm. mo meowumamuuoo mo xwuumz ' 77 Table 14 (cont'd.) Note. The variable names have been deleted in Table 14 and can be determined by the key listed below. A-Loevinger Ranking B=Father's age of internment C=Months of internment-father D-Number of survivors-father's family E-Percentage of survival-father's family F-Mother's age of internment G=Months of internment-mother H=Number of survivors—mother's family I-Percentage of survival-mother's family J-Survivor communication patterns K=Shared mourning and involvement L=Total J+K M=Wellbeing N-Age of entry to the United States O=Number of survivor parents P-Adaptability Q-Cohesion RaDEVADAP S=DEVCOH T=Social desirability U=Sex 3p < .05 bp‘<.01 Cp < .001 core level of ego functioning. An inspection of Table 14 supports this prediction in that neither of these variables was significantly corre- lated with any of the major variables of this study. In fact, the age 78 at which an individual was interned in a concentration camp or slave labor camp is only significantly correlated with their marital part- ner's age of internment. This finding seems to reflect the grim fact that the great majority of indiviudals who survived the holocaust were between the ages of adolescence and young adulthood. In a similar manner, length of internment of either parent is significantly correlated with the marital partner's length of internment. Additional Findings The present investigation also provided an opportunity to explore a number of different possible relationships for which no hypotheses were offered. In this regard the pattern of correlations (Table 14) among major variables may serve as a starting point. The trend of correlations among the parental communication measure, the shared mourning and involvement measure, and the other variables is interesting. The number of survivors and the percent of survival in the paternal holocaust generation family are both positively corre- lated with open communication patterns within survivor families regarding the holocaust. In a similar manner, percent of survival in the maternal holocaust generation family is positively correlated with parental communication patterns. However, none of the above variables are significantly correlated with a measure of shared mourning and involve- ment. This measure, as derived from subjects' responses to a Likert- type scale for mourning and involvement, is positively correlated with the wellbeing score, approaching significance at p = .09. Finally, it is interesting to note that both the measure of communication patterns and the measure of shared mourning and involvement are posi- .31). tively correlated with social desirability (r = .36, r 79 There are also differences between one parent survivor (lP/S) and two parent survivor (2P/S) families on a number of variables. In the present study 21 subjects were from families with one holocaust sur- vivor parent and 52 subjects were from families where both parents were holocaust survivors. Subjects from families where both parents were holocaust survivors were significantly older (t = 2.04, p = .04), as were their parents. These families were also distinguished by greater length of parental internment, larger initial pre-war family sizes for both parents, and a smaller percentage of survival. However, no significant differences were found between offspring of 1P/S and 2P/S families on socio-economic status (t = .19, p = .85) or the self determined wellbeing score (t = .30, p = .77). Perceptions of family cohesion and family adaptability by off- spring of 1P/S and 2P/S families are presented in Table 15. An in- spection of the results for the comparison of means reveals that subjects from families where both parents were holocaust survivors perceived their families as significantly more extreme on the adapt- ability dimension. Further data analysis revealed that age of entry to the United States for offspring of 2P/S families was significantly correlated (r = .43, p <.05) with more extreme perceptions of family adaptability (DEVADAP). Age of entry to the United States for off- spring of lP/S families, on the other hand, was significantly corre— lated (r = .95, p <.05) with more extreme perceptions of family cohesion (DEVCOH). In addition, it is interesting to note that in 1 P/S families length of mother's internment was significantly corre- lated (r = .76, p <.01) with DEVCOH scores. 80 Table 15 Mean FACES Scores for One Parent Survivor Families and Two Parent Survivor Families Level of lP/S ZP/S t DF Significance Cohesion 248.4 247.3 .20 71 .84 Adaptability 170.4 169.9 .09 71 .93 DEVCOH 13.5 16.7 .91 71 .37 DEVADAP 10.7 18.6 1.99 71 .05 The final area of additional interest involved an analysis of the data for those second generation subjects born in the United States and those born in Europe. Subjects who were born in Europe were significantly older (t = 6.67, p“.001) than native Americans, although both groups were from similar socio-economic backgrounds (t a 1.18, p a .24). Survivor parents of subjects born in Europe were older, came from larger families themselves, were interned for long periods in concentration camps, and lost a greater percent of their family members in the holocaust. Perceptions of family cohesion and family adaptability for these two groups are presented in Table 16. The t test for the comparison of means revealed no significant differences between second generation subjects who were born in Europe and those born in the United States. Further data analysis revealed that for second generation subjects born in the United States there was a significant correlation be- tween the number of survivor parents and extreme perceptions of 81 Table 16 Mean FACES Scores for Second Generation Subjects by Place of Birth Level of United States Europe t DF Significance Cohesion 249.5 244.9 .93 71' .36 Adaptability 172.1 167.2 .91 71 .37 DEVCOH 16.9 14.2 .88 71 .38 DEVADAP 18.2 13.9 1.17 71 .25 family adaptability (r = .31, p <.01). The pattern of results is different for second generation subjects who were born in Europe. For these subjects, age of entry to the United States was significantly correlated with extreme perceptions of family adaptability (r = .41, p‘<.05). Finally, for these subjects both the father's pre—war family size and the mother 's pre-war family size were significantly correlated with extreme perceptions of family adaptability (r = .48, p<.01; r = .41, p< .05). 82 DISCUSSION This study has explored the possible long range effects on survivor families as a result of the massive trauma endured by sur- vivors of concentration camps. The underlying theoretical argument advanced was that an analysis of the types and patterns of family structures which evolved in the process of recovery would provide the meaningful context within which to view the functioning of both sur- vivors and their children. Therefore, the method of study relied on the perceptions of children of holocaust survivors as to their experi- ences within the family unit. The results of the present study revealed a wide variety of family structures within holocaust survivor families. On the cohesion dimen- sion, these families ranged from enmeshed to disengaged as did the comparison families. On the adaptability dimension, the range was from rigid to chaotic for both survivor and comparison families. The average holocaust survivor family in this study was characterized by structured separateness. In the circumplex model, this type of family functioning represents moderate scores on both family cohesion and family adapt- ‘ ability. Structured separateness is indeed a far cry from the picture of the holocaust family portrayed in the literature to date. This por- trayal has included: extreme forms of enmeshment; symbiotic de- votion; blurring of boundaries; and disturbances in affective communicativeness. The results of this study found no support for the above formulations. However, the results do reflect a wide range of family structures for both survivor families and comparison families. This heterogeneity of family structures, I feel, is a 83 reflection of the individual personality differences of both the survivors and their children. Rather than a "flagrant uniformity" (Koryanyi, 1969, p. 167) or the leveling of pre-war personality differences, I contend that the range of family structures is re- lated to the crucial interaction of the pre—persecution personality, the holocaust experience, and ensuing life events. Family Cohesion in Holocaust Survivor Families The results of the present study with respect to offspring's per- ceptions of family cohesion indicate that both children of holocaust survivors and control subjects view their families in the midrange of the circumplex model. In addition, it has been demonstrated that extreme perceptions of family cohesion, namely enmeshment or disen- gagement, are significantly related to a subject's level of functioning and not family type. Level of functioning in turn was demonstrated to be distributed evenly for both children of holocaust survivors and the control group. The above findings lead us to conclude that there is no demonstrable long range effect on perceptions of family cohesion which is solely attributable to being a child of holocaust survivors. Further corroboration of this was provided by results which indicate no significant correlation between a number of variables based on parental holocaust experiences and perceptions of family cohesion. These results differ markedly from a host of clinical and phenomenological articles reviewed earlier. Early investigators in this area argued that since holocaust survivors experienced similar chronic deprivation and massive trauma this would necessarily produce irreparable distortions in their capacity for human relations: This 84 distortion and their pre-occupation with mourning, the argument continued, would also distort their relationships with their children. Finally, these investigators have argued that the child of survivors emerges from the holocaust family with incomplete individuation and emotional pathology. The hypothesized pathology of the second genera- tion being due to symbiotic devotion fostered within the holocaust family. In this study, holocaust families did not differ from com- parison families on the cohesion dimension and deviations from the optimal levels within the circumplex model were a function of the offspring's sense of wellbeing and level of ego development (Loevinger). How then are we to understand the clinical literature in light of our results? First, there are quite a number of methodological inadequacies which made the interpretation of the earlier investigations problematic. Solkoff (1981), in a critical review of the literature, found a large number of methodological problems including: instru- ment selection; inadequate control groups; and liberal interpretations and re-interpretations of the data. In fact the great majority of the published articles in this area rely on anecdotal data and un— supported findings which have served to stigmitize a very substantial group of children of holocaust survivors and their parents. Re~ grettably, the sweeping generalizations about intergenerational effects of the holocaust have been "rooted in nothing more than un- reliable data gathered from biased samples in poorly designed experi- ments" (Solkoff, p. 41). Second, the different pattern of results may be attributable to the issues of sampling. Heretofore, the majority of studies have 85 focused on holocaust families who have sought therapeutic inter- vention. These samples included individuals who were self referred or individualsreferred by social agencies due to various forms of maladaptive behavior. The present sample consists of normal functioning individuals from a uniformly high socio-economic back- ground. The majority of the subjects are engaged in professional or semi-professional careers and rate themselves as moderate to high on overall wellbeing. In fact, less than five percent of the entire sample rated themselves as less than average 0n overall wellbeing. In other words, the different pattern of results might be more parsi- moniously explained by the difference in the level of functioning of subjects in this study compared with subjects in past studies. Further, the results of the earlier studies can be seen as a predicted outcome of the significant relationship between level of functioning and perceptions of family cohesion. A clinical sample, which may be operationally defined as low level functioning, would be expected to have extreme perceptions of family cohesion (enmeshed or disengaged). However, these extreme perceptions are not a function of family type as has been generally hypothesized in the literature. Rather, these perceptions are related to the lower levels of ego functioning expected in a patient sample. Family Adaptability in Holocaust Survivor Families The results presented earlier indicate that both groups perceive overall family adaptability in the midrange of the circumplex model. Comparison subjects perceive their families as more extreme on this dimension depending on their level of functioning. Low functioning 86 comparison subjects viewed their families as rigid or chaotic while high functioning comparison subjects viewed their families as structured or flexible. Perceptions of family adaptability for the second generation subjects presented a more complex pattern. Low functioning second generation subjects viewed their families as rigid or chaotic, as had low functioning comparison subjects. High functioning second generation subjects, on the other hand, viewed their families as significantly more structured or rigid as compared with perceptions of high functioning comparison subjects. Hypothesis II argued that extreme perceptions of family adapt» ability may be a long term effect of the holocaust. This hypothesis evolved from the notion that survivor parents may have passed on instrumental attitudes towards dealing with the world to their children. These instrumental attitudes have been described as rigid prescriptions for living by some and an adaptive sense of reality by others. Although the data support Hypothesis II, it would be best to proceed with caution. The data analysis also revealed that age of entry to the United States as well as the number of survivor parents within holo— caust survivor families were significantly correlated with extreme perceptions of family adaptability. In other words, caution in interpreting the results seems warranted. At this point a number of alternate explanations can be offered which hopefully will lead to further empirical investigations. First, that the results do reflect a long term effect of the holocaust experience, as has been argued earlier. This argument contends that holocaust survivor parents taught their children the adaptive strategy 87 which was crucial to their survival in the camps. An adaptive strategy which relies on the ability to rapidly shift from a position of rigid prescriptions for survival to one of extreme flexibility. In fact, this formulation may account for the frequently cited phenomena in the clinical literature of the ambivalent attitudes of holocaust parents towards their children. These attitudes fluctuate from one of overprotection to an alternate attitude which fosters extreme self reliance on the part of the children. In part this fluctuation in attitudes may be due to a grim sense of reality shared by holocaust survivors. For the holocaust marked the first time in human history that over one million children were willfully and systematically murdered. Thus, the 'overprotectiveness', Klein (1973) suggests, is to be understood as a coping mechanism rather than an expression of pathology. The difficulty encountered with the above explanation is that it represents a restricted psychological assessment of survivors. Re- stricted in the sense that the assessment of survivors focuses on the one outstanding feature of their history, namely that they were in a concentration camp. An alternate explanation of the results for per- ceptions of family adaptability is that these results are significantly effected by the pre-persecution personalities and the post—war re- settlement process. In other words, variables such as personality patterns of the survivor generation, degree of difficulty in the resettlement process, length of the resettlement process, age of the child during the resettlement process, and the general effects of being part of an immigrant group all play a role in the evolving family structures. Clearly, further research is needed. 88 Children of Holocaust Survivors Children of holocaust survivors have been alternately described as overprotected, overfearful, mistrusting, suspicious, paranoid, and hostile as well as 'naches' (sources of pride) machines with de— pressive sadomasochistic drives. In the present study no support was found for the alleged child of survivor syndrome. Levels of functioning and self determined wellbeing scores were uniformly distributed in both the second generation and comparison groups. Again, we would argue that the alleged child of survivor syndrome is a result of biased sampling and an overly rigid focus on psychopathology. Axelrod's (1980) definitive work on hospitalized children of holocaust survivors posed a few interesting questions. First, does the degree of parental trauma correlate positively with the pathology of the child? Second, does the number of extended family members who survived the holocaust correlate positively with the adjustment of the child? Finally, do parental communication patterns significantly effect the adjustment of the child? The results of our study indicate that neither the length of parental internment nor the age at which either parent was interned was significantly correlated with the core level of ego functioning of the offspring. This was a predicted outcome since we expected that the impact of the massive traumatic holocaust experience could not be assumed to be homogeneous nor be assessed by absolute interval measures. Rather, it was more productively viewed as idiosyncratic and heterogeneous effecting given individuals in different ways as determined by their pre-persecution personality. 39 In regard to the number of extended family members who survived the holocaust, we found no significant correlation between this variv able and the offspring's level of ego functioning. In part this may be due to the fact that immediately following the war holocaust sure vivors formed a large network of survivor organizations which may have served the functions normally assumed by the extended family. These organizations provided a framework for shared mourning, support, and a forum for the exchange of ideas and information. This pattern of group affiliation has been noted by several authors in their first hand accounts of life within the concentration camps. Finally, open communication patterns within holocaust families regarding the holocaust were positively correlated with the off- spring's level of ego functioning, although this did not reach the required level of significance. Further, the degree of communication within holocaust survivor families was significantly correlated with the offspring's assessment of their shared mourning and involve— ment with regard to the holocaust. Both of these variables were significantly related to social desirability. This interesting relationship may reflect the tremendous growth in recent years of children of holocaust survivor groups in the United States. In this manner it seems that the need for affiliation and group support which was an integral part of life for the survivor generation has become an equally important aspect of the second generation's life. Some concluding remarks seem in order with respect to the parenting functions within holocaust survivor families. A great deal has been written and hypothesized with regard to these 'marriages 90 of despair' and an alleged uniform 'affective deficiency syndrome', which was said to preclude normal parenting functions. The re- sults of this study found no support for these formulations. Rather, the data indicated a wide variety of family structures which we hypothesize are a reflection of the individual personality differences of both the survivors and their children. In fact, major holocaust variables such as age of internment, duration of internment, number of survivors, and place of internment were only significantly corre- lated with the spouse's data on these same variables. In other words, in the period of confusion and bewilderment after the war many of the marriages were formed on the basis of age and shared experiences. Rather than despair as the motivating force, I contend that procreative involvement and the re-establishment of nuclear families played a decisive role in the psychology of recovery. As Ornstein (1980) has eloquently stated, it was the adult productivity which constituted the significant factor in the survivor's recovery. At the outset of this study the author acknowledged the diffi- culty in adequately describing the phenomenological world of those who survived. However, this difficulty is hardly overcome by regarding survivors and their families as suffering from a uniform syndrome. The view of the maimed survivor and the pathological survivor family is untenable in that it denies the heterogeneity, individuality, and personal history of both survivors and their offspring. The present study does not presume to present all the relevant data in this complex area nor has it provided all the definitive answers to a large number of important questions. However, an understanding of the past and its 91 impact on the present can only be gained through the integration of many such empirical studies and the phenomenological accounts of those who survived. 92 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study was concerned with the long term impact of the holocaust on the types of family structures within holocaust survivor families. The focal theoretical questions which sparked this study include: (1) Is the hypothesis of a uniform survivor syndrome tenable? (2) Is there a transmission of trauma to subsequent generations? (3) What are the characteristics of the integrated adaptive survivor family? What are the characteristics of the maladaptive survivor family? The second generation group of children of holocaust survivors consisted of 49 female and 24 male Jewish adults born after the repatriation of their parents. The comparison group was composed of 34 female and 34 male Jewish adults. The groups were compared for age, socio-economic status, elementary school education, level of education, age of mother, age of father, and level of functioning. All subjects in the study completed the Satisfaction with Wellbeing Questionnaire, the Washington University Sentence Completion Test, the Family Adapt- ability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales, and a questionnaire designed by the researcher. The specific hypotheses that were examined in this research were the following: HYPOTHESIS I High functioning offspring, regardless of family type, will per- ceive their families as optimal on the cohesion dimension while low functioning offspring will perceive their families as extreme on cohesion. 93 HYPOTHESIS II Perceptions of family adaptability will be significantly dependent upon levels of subject functioning. In addition, we expect high functioning offspring of holocaust survivors to perceive their families as less optimal than high functioning offspring of the comparison group. HYPOTHESIS III The offspring's core level of ego funCtioning will be positively correlated with the number of extended family members who survived the holocaust. HYPOTHESIS IV The offspring's core level of ego functioning will be positively correlated with survivor communication patterns. The results were obtained on the basis of a comparison of the two 'groups by use of analysis of variance and multiple regression analysis. Hypothesis I was supported since perceptions of family cohesion were significantly determined by level of subject functioning, regardless of family type. Hypothesis II was supported since perceptions of family adaptability were significantly determined by level of subject functioning. In addition, high functioning second generation subjects perceived their families as less optimal than high functioning comparison subjects. Hypotheses III and IV were rejected since no significant correlation was found between the number of extended family members or the measure of communication patterns and the core level of ego functioning attained by the offspring. 94 A number of additional findings and trends were discussed. These included: duration of parental internment; age of parental internment; family type within holocaust survivor families; and age of entry to the United States. Finally, a number of explanations were offered in an attempt to integrate the contrasting phenomenological and empirical findings. In general, it was concluded that no support could be found for the alleged uniform child of survivor syndrome nor for the formulations of uniform pathological survivor families. Rather, the data indicated the significant interaction of a number of major intervening variables on the types of family structures which evolved in the process of recovery. LI ST 0F REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Aldous, J., & Hill, R. International bibliogpaphy of research in marriage and family, 1900-1964. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967. Aleksandrowicz, D. Children of concentration camp survivors. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.), The child and his family (V. 2). New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Angell, R. The family encounters the depression. New York: Charles Scribner's & Sons, 1936. Axelrod, S. Hospitalized offspring of holocaust survivors: Problems and dynamics. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1980, 44, 1-14. Barocas, H. & Barocas, C. Manifestations of concentration camp effects on the second generation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1973, 8, 189-190. Bastiaans, J. Psychosomatische geroigen van onderdrukking en verzet. Amsterdam: Noort Holland V. M., 1957. Bensheim, H. Die K-Z-neurose rassisch vervoltger. Nervenarzt, 1960, ‘31, 462-491. ' Bettelheim, B. The informed heart. New York: .Avon Books, 1960. Bluhm, H. How did they survive? American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1948, 2, 300-320. Boszormeny-Nagy, I., & Sparks, G. Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in intergenerational family therapy. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Bychowski, B. Permanent character changes as an after effect of persecution. In H. Krystal (Ed.). Massive psychic trauma. New York: International Universities Press, 1968. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Illinois: Row and Peterson, 1962. 95 96 Chodoff, P. Late effects of the concentration camp syndrome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 8, 323-333. Chodoff, P. Effects and extreme coercive and Oppressive forces-- Brainwashing and concentration camps. In S. Arieti (Ed.). American handbook of psychiatry (Vol. 3). New York: Basic Books, 1966. Danieli, Y. Families of survivors of the nazi holocaust: Some long and short term effects. In N. Milgram (Ed.), Psychological stress and adjustment in time of war and peace. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Press, 1980. De Graf, T. Pathological patterns of identification in families of survivors of the holocaust. Israel Annals of Psychiatry, 1975, 335-363. De Wind, E. The confrontation with death. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1968, 31, 322-324. De Pres, T. The survivor: An anatomy of life in the death camps. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Dor-Shav, N. K. On the lopg-range effects of concentration camp internment on nazi victims and their children. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference on Psychological Stress and Adjustment in War and Peace, Tel-Aviv, January, 1975. Druckman, J. A family oriented policy and treatment program for juvenile status offenders. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1979. Eitinger, L. .Concentration camp survivors in Norway and Israel. London: Allen and Unwin, 1964. Eitinger, L. Psychosomatic problems in concentration camp survivors. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1969, 13, 183-190. Eitinger, L. A follow-up of Norwegian concentration camp survivors' mortality and morbidity. Israel Annals of Psychiatry, 1973, ‘11, 199-209. Epstein, N., & Santa-Barbara, J. Conflict behavior in clinical couples: Interpersonal perceptions and stable outcomes. Family Process, 1975, 14 (1), 51-66. Erikson, E. Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1959, 1, 18-164. Fackenheim, E. Observations on the significance of the holocaust for western civilization. Paper presented at the meeting of the First Western Regional Conference on the Holocaust, San Jose, February, 1977. 97 Federn, E. The terror as a system: The concentration camp Buchenwald as it was. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1948, 22_(52), Part I. Fishbane, DeKoben M. Children of survivors of the nazi holocaust: A psychological inguipy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1979. Fleck, S., Lidz, T., Cornelison, A., Schafer, S., & Terry, D. The intrafamilial environment of the schizophrenic patient: Incestuous and homosexual problems. In J. Masserman (Ed.), Individual and familial dynamics. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1959. Frankl, V. E. Man's search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959. Freud, A. The writipgs of Anna Freud's research at the Hampstead child therapy clinic and other papers. New York: International Universities Press, 1969, 131-135. Freud, S. Three essays on the theoty of sexuality. London: Standard Editition, Hogarth Press, 1905, 1, p. 226. Freyburg, J. Difficulties in separation-individualtion as experienced by offspring of nazi holocaust survivors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1980, §9_(1), 87-95. Friedman, P. Some aspects of concentration camp psychology. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1949, 105, 601-605. Furman, E. The impact of the nazi concentration camp on the children of survivors. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.), The child and his family (V. 2). New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Gay, M.,Shulman, S. Comparison of children of holocaust survivors with children of the general population in Israel. Unpublished Manuscript, 1980. (Available from (Henrietta Szold Institute, 9 Columbia Street, Jerusalem 96583, Israel)). Click, I., & Kessler, D. Marital and family therapy. New York: Grunne and Stratton, 1974. Goodman, J. The transmission of parental trauma: Second generation effects of nazi concentration camp survival (Doctoral disserta- tion, California School of Professional Psychology, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39 (8-13), 4031. Haley, J. The family of the schizophrenic: A model system. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1959, 129, 357-374. Hawkins, J. A measure of marital cohesion. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1968. 98 Helweg-Larsen, P. Famine disease in German concentration camps. Acta Psychiatric Scand., 1952, 83) (Suppl.). Hill, R. Families under stress. New York: Harper, 1949. Hollingshead, A. B. Two-factor index of social position. Unpublished manuscript, 1957. (Available from (1965 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut)). Hoppe, K. Chronic, reactive aggression in survivors of severe persecution. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1971, 12, 230-237. Jaffe, R. Dissociative phenomena in former concentration camp inmates. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1968, 42, 310-312. Jucovey, M. Personal communication, April, 1980. Kardiner, A. Traumatic neuroses of war. In S. Arieti (Ed.). American handbook of psychiatry (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books, 1959. Karr, S. Second generation effects ofthe nazi holocaust (Doctoral dissertation, California School of Professional Psychology, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1973, 34_(6-13), 2935-2936. Kestenberg, J. Psychoanalytic contributions to the problems of children of survivors from nazi persecution. Israel Annals of Psychiatry & Related Disciplines, 1972, 19 (4), 311-325. Kestenberg, J. Introductory remarks, In E. J. Anthony (Ed.). The child in his family (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Klein, H. Families of holocaust survivors in the kibbutz: Psychological studies. In H. Krystal and W. Niederland (Eds. ). International Psychiatry Clinics: PWW individuals and communities (Vol. 8). London: Little, Brown 8 Company; 1971;‘ Klein, H. Children of the holocaust: Mourning and bereavement. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.). The child and his family (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Klein, H. Delayed effects and after-effects of severe traumatization. Israel Annals of Psychiatry, 1974, 12, 293-303. Klein, H. Attitudes toward persecutor representations in children of non-traumatized parents: Cross-cultural comparison. Adolescent Psychiatry, 1978, 29 (6), 560-568. Klein, H. Personal communication, April 15, 1980. 99 Klein, H., Zellermayer, J., & Shanan, J. Former concentration camp inmates on a psychiatric ward. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 8, 334-342. Koranyi, E. Psychodynamic theories of the "survivor syndrome." Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 1969, 23, 165-174. Koenig, W. Chronic or persisting identity diffusion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1964, 120, 1081-1084. Kris, E. Notes on the development and on some current problems of psychoanalytic child psychology. In R. Eissler (Ed.). The psychoanalytic study of the child (5). New York: Inter- national Universities Press, 1950, 24-46. Krystal, H. (Ed.). Massive psychic trauma. New York: International Universities Press, 1968. Krystal, H., Niederland, W. (Eds.). International psychiatry clinics: Psychic traumatization after-effects in individuals and communities (Vol. 8). London: Little, Brown & Company, 1971. Last, U. & Klein, H. The transgenerational impact. Unpublished manuscript, 1980. (Available from (Henrietta Szold Institute, 9 Columbia Street, Jerusalem 96583, Israel)). Lazarus, R. Psycholsgical stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Levinger, G. Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: An integrative view. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1965, 22, 19-28. Levy, 8., & Guttman, L. On the multivariate structure of wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 1975, 2, 361-388. Lewis, J., Beavers, W., Gusset, J., & Phillips, V. No single thread: Psycholpgical health in family systems. New York: Bruner/ Mazel Publishers, 1976. Lidz, T., Fleck, S., & Cornelison, A. Schizophrenia and the family. New York: International Universities Press, 1966. Lifton, R. Death in life: Survivors of hiroshima. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967. Lipkowitz, M. The child of two survivors: A report of an unsuccessful therapy. Israel Annals of Psychiatry & Related Disciplines, 1973, 22 (2), 141-155. Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. Measuring ego development 1: Constru- tion and use of a sentence completion test. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. 100 Loevinger, J., Wessler, R., & Redmore, C. Measuringpego development 2: Scorigg manual for women and girls. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Mattussek, P. Internment in concentration camps and its conspguences. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1975. Minuchin, 8., Montalvo, B., Guerney, B., & Rossman, B. Families of the slums. New York: Basic Books, 1967. Nathan, T., Eitinger, L., & Winnik, H. The psychiatric pathology of survivors of the nazi holocaust. The Israel Annals of Psychiatry and Related Disciplines, 1963, 1, 113. Niederland, W. The problem of the survivor. Journal of the Hillsdale Hospital, 1961, 19, 233-247. Niederland, W. Psychiatric disorders among persecution victims. Journal of Neur. Mental Disturbance, 1964, 139, 458-474. Niederland, W. Clinical observations on the survivor syndrome. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1968, 42, 313-315. Olson, D., Bell, R., & Portner, J. Family adaptabilipy and cohesion evaluation scales. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1978. Olson, D., Russell, C., & Sprenkle, D. Circumplex model of marital and family systems II: Empirical studies and clinical intervention. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1979. Olson, D., Sprenkle, D., & Russell, C. Circumplex model of marital and family systems I: Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 1979, 14, 1-35. Ornstein, A. The effects of the holocaust on life cycle experiences: The creation and recreation of families. Paper presented at the Boston Society for Gerontologic Psychiatry, November, 1980. Ornstein, A. Personal communication. November, 1980. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. Fami1y socialization and interaction process. Glencoe,Illinois: Free Press, 1955. Phillips, R. Impact of nazi holocaust on children of survivors. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1978, 3; (3), 370-378. Rabinowitz, D. New lives: Survivors of the holocaust living in America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976. 101 Rakoff, J. Long term effects of the concentration camp experience. Viewpoints, 1966, 1, 17-21. Rakoff, V., Sigal, J., & Epstein, N. Children and families of concentration camp survivors. Canada's Mental Health, 1966, 14, 24-46. Rappaport, E. Beyond traumatic neuroses. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1968, 42, 719-731. Redmore, C., Loevinger, J., Tamashiro, R., Wright, D., Rashbaum, D. Measuringvego development: Scoring manual for men and boys. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, St. Louis, 1978. Reiss, D. Varieties of concensual experience I: A theory for relating family interaction to individual thinking. Familnyrocess, 1971, (a) 19, 1-27. Reiss, D. Varieties of concensual experience 11: Dimension of a family's experience of its environment. Family Process, 1971 (b), 1Q, 28-35. Rosenberger, L. Children of survivors. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.). The child in his family. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Rosenblatt, P., & Titus, S. Together and apart in the family. Humanities, 1976, 12, 367-379. Rosenblatt, P., & Budd, L. Territoriality and privacy in married and unmarried cohabiting couples. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 21, 67—76. Russell, A. Late psychological consequences in concentration camp survivor families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1974, ‘44, 611-619. Russell, C. Circumplex model of marital and family systems 111: Empirical evaluation with families. Family Process, 1979, 18, 29-45. Rustin, S. Guilt, hostility, and Jewish identification among a self- selected sample of late adolescent children of Jewish con- centration camp survivors (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 3; (3-B), 1959. Rustin, S., & Lipsig, S. Psychotherapy with the adolescent children of concentration camp survivors. Jgurnal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 1972, 4_(2), 87-94. 102 Shanan,J. The subconscious motivation for the appearance of psycho- somatic skin disorders in concentration camp survivors and their rehabilitation. Psychosomatics, 1970, 11, 178-182. Shuval, J. Some persistent effects of trauma: Five years after nazi concentration camps. Social Problems, 1957, 2, 230-243. Sigal, J. Second generation effects of massive trauma. In H. Krystal and W. Niederland (Eds.). International psychiatry_clinics: Psychic traumatization after-effects in individuals and communities (Vol. 8). London: Little, Brown, & Company, 1971. Sigal, J. Hypotheses and methodology in the study of families of holocaust survivors. In E. J. Anthony (Ed.). The child in his family (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. Sigal, J., & Rakoff, V. Concentration camp survival: A pilot study of effects on the second generation. Canadian-Psychiatgy Associa- tion Journal, 1971, 16, 393-397. Sigal, J., Silver, D., Rakoff, V., & Ellin, B. Some second generation effects of survival of the nazi persecution. American Journal of Orthppsychiatry, 1973, 43, 320-327. Simenauer, E. Late psychic sequelae of man-made disasters. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1968, 42, 306-309. Solkoff, N. Children of survivors of the nazi holocaust: A critical review of the literature. American Journal of Orthppsyphiatry, 1981, §1_(1), 29-42. Spitz, R. Anaclitic depression. Psychoanalytic study of the child .ll» 1946, 313-342. Sprenkle, D., & Olson, D. Circumplex model of marital systems III: Empirical study of clinic and non-clinic couples. Journal of Marraige and FamilyfiCounselling, 1978, 4, 59-74. Stierlin, H. Separating parents and adolescents. New York: Quadrangle, 1974. Strodbeck, F. Family interaction, values, an achievement. In D. McClelland (Ed.). Talent and Society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1958. Tas, J. Psychic disorders among inmates of concentration camps and repatriates. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1951, 5, 679-690. Trachtenberg, M., & Davis, M. Breaking silence: Serving children of holocaust survivors. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 1978, 54, 294-302. 103 Trossman, B. Adolescent children of concentration camp survivors. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 1968, 12, 121-123. Turnbull, C. The mountain people. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972. Tuteur, W. Concentration camp survivors twenty years later. The Israel Annals of Psyghiatry and Related Disciplines, 1966, 4, 78-90. VanderVeen, F. Content dimensions of the Family Concept Test and their relation to childhood disturbances. Unpublished manuscript, 1976. (Availalbe from (Institute for Juvenile Research, Chicago, Illinois)). Vanzlaff, U. Die psychoreactiven storungen nach entshadigung spflichtipgen erengnissen. Berlin: Gottinger, 1958. Wanderman, E. Children and families of holocaust survivors: A psychological overview. In L. Steinitz & D. Szonyi (Eds.). Living:after the holocaust reflections py the post-war generation in America. New York: Block Publishing Company, 1976. Westley, W., & Epstein, N. The silent majority. Sah Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Wiesel, E. One generation after. New York: Random House, 1965. Wynne, L. The study of intrafamilial alignments and splits in exploratory family therapy. In N. Ackerman, F. Beatman, and S. Sherman (Eds.). Exploring the base for family therapy. New York: Family Service Association of America, 1961. APPENDICES APPENDIX A Cover Letter to Subjects Dear Sir or Madam: I am writing to you to enlist your cooperation in a study of holocaust families, since you are part of a nationwide select sample of children of holocaust survivors. The present study is designed to assess the wellbeing of holo- caust families and their children. Your responses to the enclosed questionnaires would be greatly appreciated. Participation in this study is completely voluntary and there will be no remuneration other than your own incentive to understand our past. Please excuse the impersonal salutation which is necessary in order to keep all materials strictly confidential. Neither the questionnaires nor the answer sheets asks for your name or is coded in any way. However, if you wish individual feedback or the results of the study, please enclose a separate envelope with your name and address. The present research is being conducted unter the super- vision of Professor A. I. Rabin of Michigan State University and we welcome your comments and observations. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely yours, Zoli Zlotogorski Department of Psychology Michigan State University 104 APPENDIX B WELLBEING QUESTIONNAIRE Please circlue your answer to the following questions and then fill in the appropriate spaces on the right. Generally speaking are you happy these days? 1. very happy 2. happy 3. average 4. unhappy 5. very unhappy How is your mood these days? 1. very good 2. good most 3. average 4. not good 5. not good all the time of the time most of almost the time all the time In general, how do you evaluate your family life? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not good at all . In general, are you satisfied with the way you spend your leisure time? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. not satisfied 5. not at all satisfied In general, how do you evaluate your health these days? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . Is your family income today sufficient? 1. definitely 2. sufficient 3. average 4. not sufficient sufficient 5. not at all sufficient . Are you satisfied with your education level? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. not sufficient 5. very unsafisfied . 105 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 106 In general, are you satisfied with the apartment/house you live in? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. not satisfied 5. very unsatisfied . )In general, how do you evaluate the neighborhood you live in? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . Do you want very much to continue living in this town/city? 1. definitely 2. yes 3. unsure 4. no 5. definitely no . yes Are you satisfied with your present work situation? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. unsatisfied 5. very unsatisfied Are you satisfied with your emotional wellbeing? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. unsatisfied 5. very unsatisfied In general, how do you evaluate the existing situation in your place of work with respect to work relations between employees and employers? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . Are you satisfied with your sex life these days? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4 unsatisfied 5. very unsatisfied Are you satisfied with your spouse/present living partner? 1. very satisfied 2. satisfied 3. average 4. unsatisfied 5. very unsatisfied In general, how do you evaluate your success in making friends? 1. very good 2. good 3, average.4. not good 5, not at all good In general, how do you evaluate your success in job performance? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . 18. 19. 20. 107 In general, how do you evaluate the quality of life you can afford? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . . In general, how do you evaluate your success in reaching your personal goals? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . In general, how do you evaluate your overall sense of wellbeing? 1. very good 2. good 3. average 4. not good 5. not at all good . APPENDIX C Washington University Sentence Completion Test SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR WOMEN (Form 9-62) Name Marital Status Instructions: 1. Raising a family 2. Most men think that women 3. When they avoided me 4. If my mother 5. Being with other people 6. The thing I like about myself is 7. My mother and I 8. What gets me into trouble is 9. Education 10. When people are helpless ll. WOmen are lucky because 12. My father 13. A pregnant woman 14. When my mother spanked me, I 15. A wife should 108 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Age Education Complete the following sentences. I feel sorry When I am nervous, I A woman's body When a child won't join in group activities Men are lucky because When they talked about sex, I At times she worried about I am A woman feels good when My main problem is Whenever she was with her mother, she The worst thing about being a woman A good mother Sometimes she wished that 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 109 When I am with a man When she thought of her mother, she If I can't get what I want Usually she felt that sex For a woman a career is My conscience bothers me if A woman should always SENTENCE COMPLETION FOR MEN (Form 9-62) Name Age Marital Status Education Instructions: Complete the following sentences. 1. Raising a family 20. He felt proud tha: Fe 2. Mbst women think that men 21. Men are lucky beg. :: 3. When they avoided me 22. When they talked about sex, I 4. If my mother 23. At times he worried about 5. Being with other people 24. I am 6. The thing I like about 25. A man feels good when myself is 26. My main problem is 7. A man's job 27. When his wife asked him to 8. If I can't get what I want help with the housework 9. I am embarrassed when 28. When I am criticized 10. Education 29. Sometimes he wished that 11. When people are helpless 30. When I am with a woman 12. WOmen are lucky because 31. When he thought of his mother, he 13. What gets me into trouble is 32. The worst thing about being 14. A good father a man 15. If I were king 33. Usually he felt that sex 16. A wife should 34. I just can't stand people who 17. I feel sorry 35. My conscience bothers me if 18. When achild won't join in 36. Crime and delinquency could activities be halted if 19. When I am nervous, I 110 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. APPENDIX D Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales The following statements pertain to your nuclear (original) family. Please rate each statement on the answer sheet. 4- true all the time 2= true some of the time 3= true most of the time 1= true none of the time Family members were concerned with each other's welfare. Family members felt free to say what was on their minds. We didn't have spur of the moment guests at mealtime. It was hard to know who the leader was in our family. It was difficult for family members to take time away from the family. Family members were afraid to tell the truth because of how harsh the punishment would be. Most personal friends were not family friends. Family members talked a lot but nothing ever got done. Family members felt guilty if they wanted to spend some time alone. There were times when other family members did things that made me unhappy. In our family we knew where all family members were at all times Family members had some say in what was required of them. The parents in our family stuck together. I had some needs that were not being met by family members. Family members made the rules together. It seemed like there was never any place to be alone in our house. 111 112 4= true all the time 2= true some of the time 3. true most of the time l= true none of the time 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 342 35. 36. It was difficult to keep track of what other family members were doing. Family members did not check with each other when making decisions. My family completely understood and sympathized with my every mood. Family ties were more important to us than any friendship could possibly have been. When our family had an argument, family members just kept to themselves. Family members often answered questions that were addressed to another person. The parents checked with the children before making important decisions in our family. Family members liked to spend some of their free time with each other. Punishment was usually pretty fair in our family. Family members were encouraged to have friends of their own as well as family friends. Family members discussed problems and usually felt good about the solutions. Family members shared almost all interests and hobbies with each other. Our family was not a perfect success. Family members were extremely independent. No one in our family seemed to be able to keep track of what their duties were. Family members felt it was "everyone for themselves." Every new thing I've learned about my family has pleased me. Our family had a rule for almost every possible situation. We respected each other's privacy. Once our family had planned to do something, it was difficult to change it. 113 43 true all the time 2= true some of the time 3= true most of the time 13 true none of the time 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. In our family we were on our own when there was a problem to solve. I have never regretted being with my family, not even for a moment. Family members did not turn to each other when they needed help. It was hard to know what other family members were thinking. Family members made visitors feel at home. Parents made all of the important decisions in our family. Even when every one was home, family members spent their time separately. Parents and children in our family discussed together the method of punishment. Family members had little need for friends because the family was so close. We felt good about our ability to solve problems. Although family members had individual interests, they still participated in family activities. My family had all the qualities I've always wanted in a family. Family members were totally on their own in developing their ideas. Once a task was assigned to a family member, there was no chance of changing it. Family members seldom took sides against other members. There were times when I did not feel a great deal of love and affection for my family. When rules were broken, family members were treated fairly. Family members did not enter each other's areas or activities. Family members encouraged each other's efforts to find new ways of doing things. Family members discussed important decisions with each other, but usually made their own choices. 114 4= true all the time 2= true some of the time 3- true most of the time 1= true none of the time 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. If I could have been part of any family in the world, I could not have had a better match. Home was one of the loneliest places to be. In our family, it was important for everyone to express their opinion. Family members found it easier to discuss things with persons outside the family. There was no leadership in our family. We tried to plan some things during the week so we could all be together. Family members were not punished or reprimanded when they did some- thing wrong. In our family we knew each other's close friends. Our family did not discuss its problems. Our family did not do things together. If my family had any faults, I was not aware of them. Family members enjoyed doing things alone as well as together. In our family, everyone shared responsibilities. Parents agreed on how to handle the children. I don't think anyone could possibly have been happier than my family and I when we were together. It was unclear what would happen when rules were broken in our family. When a bedroom door was shut, family members would knock before entering. If one way did not work in our family, we tried another. Family members were expected to have the approval of others before making decisions. 115 4= true all the time = true some of the time 3-I true most of the time 1= true none of the time 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. Family members were totally involved in each other's lives. Family members spoke their mind without considering how it would affect others. Family members felt comfortable inviting their friends along on family activities. Each family member had at least some say in major family decisions. Family members felt pressured to spend most free time together. Members of our family could get away with almost anything. Family members shared the same friends. When trying to solve problems, family members jumped from one attempted solution to another without giving any of them time to work. We had difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. Family members understood each other completely. It seemed as if we agreed on everything. It seemed as if males and females never did the same chores in our family. Family members knew who would agree and who would disagree with them on most family matters. My family could have been happier than it was. There was strict punishment for breaking rules in our family. Family members seemed to avoid contact with each other when at home. For no apparent reason, family members seemed to change their minds. We decided together on family matters and separately on personal matters. Our family had a balance of closeness and separateness. Family members rarely said what they wanted. It seemed that there were always people around home who were not members of the family. 116 4= true all the time 2= true some of the time 3- true most of the time l= true none of the time 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. Certain family members ordered everyone else around. It seemed as if family members could never find time to be together. Family members were severely punished for anything they did wrong. We knew very little about the friends of other family members. Family members felt they had no say in solving problems. Members of our family shared many interests. Our family was as well adjusted as any family in this world could be. Family members were encouraged to do their own thing. Family members never knew how others were going to react. Certain individuals seemed to cause most of our family problems. I did not think any family could live together with greater harmony than my family. It was hard to know what the rules were in our family because they always changed. Family members found it hard to get away from each other. Family members felt that the family would never change. Family members felt they had to go along with what the family decided to do. APPENDIX E PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions as completely as possible. Questions 1-11 deal with personal information. Questions 12-25 ask about your parents. Questions 26-35 ask you to rate a number of statements concerning the holocaust. Please use a pencil to fill in the appropriate spaces which reflect your answer to a particular question. A11 answers and information provided will remain strictly confidential. 1. Sex 1. female 2. male 2. Age (years) 3. Birthplace 1. Asia 2. Europe 3. USA 4. Other (please specify) 4. Age upon entering the United States 5. Number of brothers and sisters 6. Your position in birth order 7. Education 1. Graduate professional training 2. College 3. Partial college 4. High school 5. Partial high 6. Junior high school 7. Less than seven years 8. Marital status 1. single 2. married 3. divorced 4. remarried 9. Occupation (please Specify) 10. Personal income 1. less than 15,000 2. 15-20,000 3. 20-25,000 3. 25-30,000 5. 30,000 plus 117 118 11. Elementary education 1. Yeshiva 2. Public school 3. Private school 12. Father's age 13. Father's country of origin 1. Poland 2. Russia 3. USA 4. Germany 5. Other 14. Number of months of internment 15. Place of internment l. Dachau 2. Auschwitz 3. Bergen-Belsen 4. Treblinka 5. Other 16. .Number of silbings in father's family 17. Father's position in the birth order 18. Number of survivors in father's family 19. Mother's age 20. Mother's country of origin 1. Poland 2. Russia 3. USA 4. Germany 5. Other 21. Number of months of internment 22. Place of internment 1. Dachau 2. Auschwitz 3. Bergen-Belsen 3. Treblinka 5. Other 23. Number of siblings in mother's family 24. Mother's position in the birth order 25. Number of survivors in mother's family Please rate the following statements on a scale of 1-5. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. neutral 4. disagree 5. strongly disagree 26. My parents talked about their holocaust experiences to help me understand. 119 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. neutral 4. disagree 5. strongly ' disagree 27. It was important for my family to commemorate those lost in the holocaust. 28. At times, I have dreamt or fantasized about the holocaust. 29. My parents shared their thoughts and feelings about the holocaust. 30. At times, I experience sadness or anger when thinking about the holocaust. 31. Our family communicated openly and in a positive manner about the past. 32. My parents encouraged me to share in the mourning process. 33. Today, as an adult, I am still significantly involved with under- standing the holocaust. 34. My parents shared their past with us. 35. The way the past was protrayed was generally positive. APPENDIX E Subsequent Analyses of the Data Table 17 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVADAP Scores for Subject Group by Sex SOurce of Variation Mean Square DF F1 Level of Significance Subject Group 266.45 1 1.5 .221 Sex 132.71 1 .8 .387 Interaction 165.91 1 .9 .333 Error 176.11 134 Table 18 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Group by Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Subject Group 174.39 1 .9 .345 Sex 774.39 1 3.9 .048 Interaction 17.74 1 .1 .763 Error 194.05 134 120 121 Table 19 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Wellbeing Scores for Subject Group by Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Subject Group 34.64 1 .3 .578 Sex 364.37 1 3.2 .073 Interaction 56.08 1 .5 .480 Error 111.64 134 Table 20 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Loevinger Rankings for Subject Group by Sex Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Subject Group .09 l .2 .695 Sex .759 1 1.3 .253 {Interaction .099 1 .2 .679 Error .575 134 122 Table 21 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVADAP Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace Source of Variation Mean Square 'DF F Level of Significance Subject Group 435.17 1 2.5 .117 Birthplace 399.76 1 2.3 .133 Interaction .01 l .0 .995 Error 174.94 135 Table 22 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance of DEVCOH Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Subject Group 119.73 1 .6 .437 Birthplace 172.68 1 .9 ' .351 Interaction .08 1 .0 .983 Error 197.2 135 123 Table 23 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Wellbeing Scores for Subject Group by Birthplace Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Subject Group 3.28 1 .03 .864 Birthplace 277.85 ’ 1 2.48 .117 Interaction 58.12 1 .52 .472 Error 111.63 135 Table 24 Summary of Cell Means and Sources of Variance for Loevinger Rankings for Subject Group by Birthplace Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Leyel of Significance Subject Group .001 1 .002 .960 Birthplace .751 1 1.318 .253 Interaction .320 1 .562 .455 Error .570 135 124 Table 25 Analysis of Variance for Loevinger Rankings by Age of Father Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Between Groups 15.85 2 .264 .768 Within Groups 59.98 127 Table 26 Analysis of Variance for Loevinger Rankings by Age of Mother Source of Variation Mean Square DF F Level of Significance Between Groups 42.66 2 .787 .457 Within Groups 54.19 132 "‘illllllllllllllf