ABSTRACT EXPRESSIVE STYLE AND PERCEIVED PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE—REJECTION by Erma Alperson This investigation concerned the relationship between male adolescents' reports of parental acceptance and re- jection and the directness with which dependency, aggression and sex are expressed in fantasy resolutions of conflict in- volving these three needs. One hundred and twenty Michigan State University male undergraduates rated each parent separately on their degree of acceptance and rejection on the Roe-Siegelman Parent- Child Relations Questionnaire. Subjects were then ranked into four groups of thirty each (Highest, Mid—High, Mid—Low and Lowest) on perceived parental acceptance and rejection. The subjects wrote story conclusions to stimuli depicting dependency, aggression and sex conflicts. These conclusions were subsequently rated for directness of expressive style. Information about the subjects' age, religious affiliation, parents' marital status and fathers' educational level was obtained. Subjects whose parents were dead or divorced were not included. Comparing high—accepted versus high-rejected subjects, it was postulated that: Erma Alperson (1) More of the high-accepted subjects would express de— pendency directly. (2 V More of the high-rejected subjects would express ag- gression directly. (3) More of the high—accepted subjects would express sexual passivity. '(u) More of the high-rejected subjects would express sexual assertiveness. All of these hypotheses were sustained at a high (p<.Ol) level of significance. Although neither chronological age nor fathers' edu- cational level correlated with expressive style, religious affiliation did. Non-religious subjects in contrast to reli- gious subjects, expressed aggression more directly, depen- dency less directly, and displayed greater sexual assertive- ness. A marked proportion of Catholic subjects over other participants projected their sexual impulses to an aggres— sive female. These findings demonstrate that the expressive style of male adolescents on projective productions is highly related to their perceptions of parental treatment. They also indicate that parents who are perceived as primarily accepting or primarily rejecting are likely to have sons who can deal without conflict only with respect to depen- dency or only with respect to aggression but not both at the same time. The greater than anticipated association between religious affiliation and expressive style suggests Erma Alperson that the present projective method provides a fruitful approach for exploring linkages between religious back- grounds and moral postures. EXPRESSIVE STYLE AND PERCEIVED PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE-REJECTION By 3. Erma’Alperson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1967 .¢ 1,. '1'? 3" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express appreciation to all those who made the completion of this thesis possible. Acknowledgments are made to Mr. Richard Does and Mr. Edward Lessin for their assistance in judging the data. Appreciation is also extended to the writer's guidance committee for their constructive help: Dr. John Hurley, chairman, Dr. Albert I. Rabin, Dr. Bertram P. Karon and Dr. Arthur Seagull. Finally, the writer wishes to thank her husband for the help and encouragement offered during the preparation of this thesis. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE TABLE OF CONTENTS Theoretical Foundation. Adolescence Dependency. Aggression. Sex III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. IV. HYPOTHESES. V. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. Subjects. Description of Measures Relationship of Measures to Hypotheses Treatment of Data . VI. RESULTS Findings Ancillary to Major Hypotheses. VII. DISCUSSION. Limitations of Present Study. Implications for Further Research VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES. 0 CONCLUSIONS iii Page ii iv vi Table l. 10. ll. l2. 13. 1A. LIST OF TABLES Perceived maternal acceptance and dependency expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived paternal acceptance and dependency expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived maternal rejection and dependency expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceived paternal rejection and dependency expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and dependency expression . . . . . . . Consistency in perceived parental rejection and dependency expression . . . . . . . Perceived maternal acceptance and aggression expression. . . . . . Perceived paternal acceptance and aggression expression. . . . . Perceived maternal rejection and aggression expression. . . . Perceived paternal rejection and aggression expression. . . Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and aggression expression . . Consistency in perceived parental rejection and aggression expression . . . . . Perceived maternal acceptance and sex expression. . . . Perceived paternal acceptance and sex expression. . . . . . . . . iv Page 39 39 40 A0 U2 A2 AA AA 45 45 A6 A6 A8 48 Perceived maternal rejection and sex Perceived paternal rejection and sex Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and sex expression Consistency in perceived parental rejection and sex expression . . Dependency expression and aggression Dependency expression and sex expression Aggression expression and sex expression Dependency expression and religious Dependency expression and religious affiliation (Combined religious versus non- religious groups). Aggression expression and religious Aggression expression and religious affiliation (Combined religious versus non— religious Groups). . . . . . . . . Sex expression and religious affiliation. Sex expression and religious affiliation (Combined religious versus non—religious Sex expression descriptive categories and religious affiliation. Page 119 ‘49 5O 50 52 52 52 54 5M 55 55 57 57 58 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. MEASURES The Story Completion Test. . . The Roe— Siegelman Parent- Child Relations Questionnaire. . . . . . The Family Data Questionnaire. SCORING CATEGORIES FOR STORY COMPLETION TEST PCR SUBTESTS' MEAN COMPARISONS FOR THREE SAMPLES. . . . . . . . . . . . MEASURES RELATED TO SUBJECTS'AGE Dependency Expression and Subjects' Age. Aggression Expression and Subjects' Age. Sex Expression and Subjects' Age . . . . Consistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance and Subjects' Age. Consistency in Perceived Parental Rejection and Subjects' Age. . . MEASURES RELATED TO FATHERS' EDUCATIONAL STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . Dependency Expression and Fathers’ Educational Status Aggression Expression and Fathers' Educational Status Sex Expression and Fathers' Educational Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance and Fathers' Educational Status. Consistency in Perceived Parental Rejection and Fathers' Educational Status. SEX EXPRESSION DESCRIPTIVE CATEGORIES AND RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. . . . . . THESIS RAW DATA; Subjects 1 through 120 Explanation of Column Heading Codes. vi Page 74 7A 77 91 93 100 102 102 102 102 103 103 105 105 105 105 106 106 108 110 111 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to investigate the re- lationship between perceived early parental treatment and the directness with which fantasy conflicts dealing with aggression, dependency and sex are resolved by late adolescent males. A major aspect of socialization consists of learning ways to inhibit the direct and immediate gratification of certain needs and of finding alternate means to satisfy these needs. An individual's characteristic ways of dealing with conflicts about the satisfaction of aggressive, dependent and sexual needs are learned in the social context of his family. The models of behavior which the parents pose for the child as well as the kinds of child-rearing practices they employ to transmit their moral values, help to define for the child, the rules with respect to whom and in what manner he may aggress, ask for help and obtain gratification of his sexual desires. The present study is an attempt to demonstrate how contrasted parental child-rearing behaviors, as perceived 1 VF'Mfl I" 7‘ ~ ”UMP—— by adolescent males, give rise to differences in the style with which these needs are satisfied by them in fantasy. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Theoretical Foundation Miller and Swanson (1960) have explored the various processes by which a person in conflict over the expression of morally unacceptable needs, arrives at alternate substi— tutes of need gratification. Their theoretical formulations and supporting evidence will be presented at this point because they constitute the basis for the hypotheses developed in this thesis. Although these formulations are not novel, and in fact originated with Freud (1959), they have the advantage of being couched in terms which can be empirically tested. Miller and Swanson (1960) posit that an individual is in conflict, whenever he is confronted with two needs at the same time, which oppose each other but are of approximate equal value to him. (This in essence is the approach- avoidance conflict paradigm of Miller and Dollard [19AM .) Miller and Swanson (1960) define a need as a "system of action tendencies" which a person is capable of and which are geared toward achieving a "final goal state." They define a need only by the end state. Thus, a need for food 3 is said to exist, if the individual engages in acts which culminate in the attainment of food. Needs may be analyzed in terms of their following components or dimensions: (A) The perceived origin of the action tendency (the agent.) (B) The action taken by the person to achieve the end goal state of a need (the intended act.) (C) The satisfaction of a need usually results in a change of feeling experienced by the person (the affect.) (D) Acts require the presence of things. Thus, if the act is eating, there must be an edible object (the object.) A person experiences conflict whenever he is prevented from satisfying a need in the most direct manner possible, as is the case when his moral standards intervene. The resolution of such a conflict, entails the substitution of certain action tendencies for others. The (latter) are higher in the hierarchy of preference but they are proscribed by moral standards. Certain clusters are selected from among the acceptable al— ternatives because of a tendency to favor one defense over another or one expressive style over another. (Miller and Swanson, 1960, p. 126) Both moral standards and defense mechanisms limit the range of possible substitutes that the person can find to satisfy a need. Moral standards do so by defining certain alternatives as unacceptable. Defense mechanisms restrict the group of substitutes to certain components of the for— bidden need, such as the object or the act. The moral +J.————_— _-_. fl standards and defense mechanisms learned by an individual also limit the expressive style he will use in obtaining need gratification. By expressive style is meant the vari— ations found among individuals in their manner of performing adaptive acts. Expressive style refers to how a person be- haves rather than what he does. Expressive styles can be analyzed in terms of the components of needs. Thus, hunger may be viewed in terms of the directness (a type of expres— sive style) with which a person seeks to gratify this need. The directness with which the need will be gratified, will depend on the hungry person (the agent), the kinds of edible objects that are available (the object), how hungry the per- son feels (the affect), and what action he is willing to engage in to obtain food (the intended act.) The particular types of defense mechanisms and expres— sive styles an individual uses in expressing his needs, have their origin in the types of identification he formed with his parents and the parental moral values he inter- nalized as a child. Swanson (1961) posits that there are two distinct types of parent-child identification possible: (A) Anaclitic Identification, where the child conforms to the standard provided by the model to achieve a greater reward than that which would result from the fulfillment of , .. 1! his aberrant motives. The term "anaclitic identification , was originally employed by Freud (1925) to designate the Child's emulation of his mother's behavior for fear of a lOSS of her love. v’v (B) Identification with an Aggressor, where the child identifies with a model to avoid a greater deprivation, i.e. the child inhibits the fulfillment of a need, not to gain a greater reward, but merely to avoid punishment. Again, Freud (19A8) first used this term to refer to a boy's identi— fication with his father, for the purpose of allaying the anxiety aroused by the Oedipal hostilities he feels toward his father. Clearly, an "anaclitic identification" offers greater reward value to the child than does an "identification with an aggressor." Evidence in support of the fact that parents actually do behave along a loving to hostile continuum comes from Schaeffer's (1961) theoretical and empirical studies on maternal and child behavior, which are represented by a circumplex conceptual model. He has identified two vari- ables, Love—Hostility and Autonomy—Control, which are inde— pendent and orthogonal to each other. Schaeffer and Bayley (1960) reported significant consistency in maternal behavior from infancy to adolescence on the Love-Hostility dimension and a lack of such consistency on Autonomy—Control. Evidence that greater identification does occur with a model that is perceived as rewarding than one which is perceived as rejecting comes from the laboratory experiments of Bandura and his colleagues (1962) who studied the effects of exposure to different types of adult models on young children. In one study, (Bandura, Ross and Ross, 1961) exposed different groups of nursery school children to three types of adult models: an aggressive model, a sub- dued one, and to no model at all. The children who were exposed to the aggressive model, displayed significantly more aggression than did the control group, while those exposed to a passive model, demonstrated significantly less aggression than the control group. The children in the aggressive model condition also showed with high frequency, the specific kinds of aggressive responses used by the model. Kagan (1958), in summarizing the research on sex-role identification, concluded that the establishment of an optimally strong identification, requires the fulfillment of three conditions: (1) the model must be perceived as nurturant to the child, (2) the model must be perceived as being in command of desired goals, especially of power, love from others, and task competent in areas the child regards as important, and (3) the child must perceive some objective similarity between himself and the model. These results support Swanson's (1961) contention that identification itself, is an evaluation of the desir— ability for conformity, i.e. if the evaluation of the model is positive, the child will inhibit from expression those motives which are not approved by the model. Further evidence that a strong identification with a parent implies a greater acceptance and internalization of A I Z a \ g I .7 ‘ a l . i . Y C “ } I " 9/ Is ; ‘/ 1 the model's moral values, comes from the research with child- rearing techniques. This research has yielded the following general results: The use of "love-oriented" techniques (i.e. praise, reasoning, isolation of the child from the parent, showing disappointment and withdrawal of love) correlate highly with internalized reactions to transgression, such as feelings of guilt, self—responsibility, and confession; whereas "power-oriented" methods (which include physical punishment, yelling, shouting, forceful commands and verbal threats) typically correlate highly with externalized re- actions to transgression (Becker, 196A.) Swanson (1961) found that the two types of identifi- cation mentioned earlier ("anaclitic identification" and "identification with an aggressor") give rise to two dif— ferent sets of defense mechanisms. Anaclitic identification, identification primarily to gain reward, gives rise to re— pression, turning against the self, isolation and reaction- formation, in that order. Identification with an aggressor, identification to avoid punishment, results in denial, projection, restriction of the ego and denial in fantasy. The order with which the various defenses evolve is believed by Swanson (1961), to follow various developmental stages of socialization. . In addition to giving rise to different kinds of de- fense mechanisms, there is evidence to suggest that the type of discipline employed by the parents can affect the expressive style with which children seek to satisfy their needs.B.Allinsmith (1954) found that parents who favored the use of love-oriented child-rearing techniques, raised chil- dren who expressed aggression indirectly in projective story endings; whereas corporally punished youngsters, expressed aggression in a predominantly direct way. In summary, an individual's particular preference for a given cluster of defense mechanisms and expressive styles in achieving need gratification, is subject to the kinds of early identifications formed with his parents, the moral beliefs of his parents and their enforcement thereof through certain child-rearing practices, the stage of socialization which the individual may have achieved, and the individual's peculiar role in his family (some parents encourage be— haviors in one of their children which seem to compensate for deficiencies in their own interpersonal skills.) Adolescence The adolescent years are particularly stressful for an individual because during this time he is besieged with many conflicts of the approach—avoidance type. The adoles— cent is in conflict over autonomy, i.e. over giving up some of his ties to his family in order to become more independent of it; he is also in conflict over the controlled versus un- restrained expression of his sexual and aggressive feelings. He is at a point in life where he is attempting to integrate the separatevmeral~worlds,of.his-family with.those of his 10 peers; of consolidating his own pattern of internal control and of moving toward new values (Douvan and Adelson, 1966.) Because conflict seems to be so pervasive during these years and this writer is interested in studying the direct— ness with which conflicts regarding dependency, aggression and sex are resolved in fantasy, the adolescent age group is a natural choice of focus. With a view toward formulating several hypotheses about the way late adolescent males resolve fantasy conflict in these areas, some of the findings in these three areas which relate to adolescents will be reviewed and inte— grated. Dependency During infancy, a child is totally helpless and de— pendent upon others for survival. Initially the child's dependency is fostered, but as he grows older his parents strive to modify the form and the objects of his dependency (Heathers, 1955.) The physical forms of dependency expres— sion are discouraged by his parents; instead, the child learns to express dependency in more mature ways, such as seeking his parents' interest, help and approval, parti— cularly in relationship to his achievements. Although a progressive transfer of dependency occurs throughout childhood, in many areas, the majority of adolescents still remain dependent on their parents for advice, help and emotional support (Bandura and Walters, 1959.) 11 Among the identified variables which influence the amount of dependency exhibited by children are: (A) The amount of affectional nurturance. If from infancy a child is rejected and receives little nurturance, his dependency strivings may be weakly developed. Studies of institutionally reared children, indicate that children who were severely deprived of maternal nurturance become socially unresponsive, affectionless and non—dependent (Casler, 1961; Yarrow, 1961.) Similar effects have been noted among non-institutionalized children who experienced early and prolonged separations from their mothers (Freud and Burlingham, 19UA.) The studies of Levy (1943) with overly dependent children, on the other hand, indicate that they were the progeny of overly solicitous mothers who also discouraged any attempts by their children to gain some independence. (B) The amount of frustration or punishment of de- pendency. In the severely deprived child who has never experienced any affectionate care, dependency seems to be undeveloped. On the other hand, the child who has experi- enced some nurturance, but at the same time has experienced much frustration and punishment, may have developed some capacity and desire for dependency, even though he may be ‘blocked by anxiety from behaving dependently (Yarrow, 1961.) Clinical evidence suggests that the lack of dependency involvements of many delinquents is due to conflict, rather 12 than to a failure to develop dependency needs. Initially these children are likely to be distant and distrustful, however, when their anxieties are reduced they often demonstrate intense dependency behavior (Ackerman, 19AM.) There are several factors in addition to the parental treatment of the child, which seem to have a delimiting effect over the stability of dependent behavior from birth to adulthood. Kagan and Moss' (1962) study of the long range stability of behavior from birth to adulthood in a group of middle-class subjects from the Fels Research Institute's longitudinal population, suggests some important conclusions regarding the relationship of sex-role identi— fication to behavioral continuities. Apparently, when sex— role standards dictate the inhibition of a particular be- havior for one sex, behavioral continuity from childhood to adulthood is minimal. Thus, childhood passivity and dependence in problem and stress situations predicts pas— sivity and dependence for adult women, but not for adult men; while aggressive and sexual behavior are good pre- dictors for adult males, but not adult females. Becker (196A) interprets these findings as suggesting that be- havioral stability is dependent on congruence with sex— role standards. Swanson (1961) and others, have shown that social class and sex differences influence the types of child- rearing techniques employed by parents, and these in turn, influence the amount of dependency that they tolerate from 13 their children. Thus, middle class parents, tend to make greater use of love-oriented techniques, while working class parents make greater use of power-oriented ones. Becker (1964) summarized some sex—role differences for both classes of children which have a bearing on parent-child interaction patterns. He found that mothers are usually seen as more loving and nurturant than fathers; also that mothers are perceived as using more psychological control (love—oriented methods), especially with girls. Fathers are perceived as stricter than mothers; as using more physical punishment, especially with boys, and as more fear-arousing than mothers. The opposite-sexed parent is rated as more likely to grant autonomy than the same-sex parent. The same-sexed parent is seen as being less benevolent and more frustrating, particularly by older children. Boys feel they get punished more than other members of the family. Girls are better socialized than boys. The following conclusions may be drawn from the pre- ceding research findings: Adolescents who have experienced the absence of parental nurturance or the occurance of ex- treme parental rejection during infancy for an extended period of time, are more likely than highly nurtured chil- dren, to experience anxiety over being dependent as adults. They are also more likely to respond with withdrawal and anger in dependency-eliciting situations. Social-class and sex-role standards place a limit on the amount and kind 14 of dependency behavior that will be tolerated of male adolescents in our culture. Aggression The conditions for the development of aggression are present for every infant. Frustrations are inevitable and although infants differ in the frequency and strength of their responses to frustration, all at some time respond by some form of motor or vocal discharge. However, it is only when the child has learned to attack persons or objects in his environment as to injure or damage them, that he can be described as "aggressing" (Bandura and Walters, 1959.) This transition from a protest response to an aggressive one, is possible only after the child has acquired some degree of motor control. Aggressive behavior appears to be instrumental; it is a means of obtaining something that is desired or getting rid of something that is unpleasant. Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) suggest two reasons for the maintenance of aggressive behavior. Firstly, the sign of pain or discom— fort may occur sufficiently often in conjunction with the removal of frustrations as to have acquired a secondary reward value. Secondly, an aggressive act may serve to reduce tension resulting from conflict. When frustrated, the young child readily resorts to thSical violence. As the process of socialization takes effect, he learns to substitute more readily tolerated 15 means of aggression for physical ones (Goodenough, 1931.) The process of socializing aggression involves training the child to react to frustration in socially acceptable ways (Miller and Swanson, 1960.) The frustration created by neglect and rejection frequently elicits anger and aggres- sion. There is evidence in the literature to support the contention that early and severe frustration of a child's dependency needs through rejection, is an important pre- condition for antisocial aggression (Bandura and Walters, 1959.) Longitudinal studies of institutionally-reared chil- dren, who had experienced early and severe affectional deprivation, have revealed a high incidence of aggressive disturbances (Goldfarb, 1945, Lowrey, 1960.) The most direct evidence that children respond to dependency frus- tration with aggression comes from the Iowa study of Sears g§_al. (1953.) They found a positive relationship between a lack of maternal nurturance and the incidence of aggressive behavior in boys. Although non-nurturance and rejection of a child's dependency needs appear to be important preconditions for the development of antisocial aggression, not all children who are rejected develop aggressive disorders. Where some affection is demonstrated and rejection is less severe, the child may learn to expect some affectionate behavior from his parents. If this behavior is made contingent 16 on his conformity to parental demands, the child is likely to strive to maintain his parents' affection by avoiding behaviors that will meet with parental disapproval. Gold- farb (1943), compared the behavior problems of adolescents who had been reared during the first three years of their lives in institutions with adolescents raised in foster homes, in which they presumably had experienced more con— tinuous affectionate care. The institutionally-reared children manifested predominantly aggressive disorders, while hyper—aggressiveness was rarely found among foster— home reared children. In comparing the family backgrounds of overinhibited and aggressive children, Hewitt and Jenkins (1946) and Lewis (1954) found that early and severe re- jection, particularly maternal rejection, was predominant in the histories of aggressive children. 0n the other hand, parents of over-inhibited children tended to be lacking in warmth, albeit not completely rejecting and to make their affection conditional on the child's conformity. There is some evidence, particularly from delinquency studies (McCord, 1956; Bandura and Walters, 1959) which indicates that a higher incidence of erratic or incon- sistent discipline, both within and between parents, con- tributes to anti—social behavior. McCord and associates (1961) found that when one parent was punitive and the other was non-punitive, boys were more likely to be aggres- sive than when both parents were punitive or non-punitive. 17 In summary, the research findings indicate that anger in children is frequently a response to frustration. In cases where children have been exposed to severe affectional deprivation during infancy, they are likely to become hyper- aggressive as adults. The incidence of inconsistent dis- cipline within and between parents, also appears to con- tribute to the expression of anti-social aggression. Sex There have been few studies on the sexual behavior of adolescents in which the adolescents themselves have served as informants. The average adolescent is probably more poorly prepared to cope with sexual impulses than with im- pulses of any other kind. Not only because of the relatively sudden biological changes that occur during this period, but also because of the process of socialization in our culture, provides the adolescent with few if any oppor— tunities to learn through progressive experimentation, how to express his sexual impulses in forms that will be per— mitted him when he reaches adult status. This is in contrast to the social training of aggression and dependency, of which certain attenuated forms are not only tolerated, but under some circumstances actually approved (Bandura and Walters, 1959-) Sears, Maccoby and Levin (1957) indicated that the growing child is given little opportunity to learn to identify the sexual urges, which increase during adolescence; 18 children are frequently not provided with the proper labels for parts of the body involved in sexual functioning, for sexual behavior, nor for sexual feelings. Parental anxiety over sex is reflected in the conscious inability of many parents to provide the growing boy with an adequate background of sex information. This was demon- strated by Bandura and Walters (1959) who interviewed parents of adolescents about their training practices over sexual behavior. The parents frequently indicated that they considered it important not to make an issue of sexual matters when training had to be imposed. Not making an issue of sexual matters usually implied not talking about them at all. In the same research, Bandura and Walters (1959), who studied two groups of adolescents, a socially aggressive group and a matched control group of non-aggressive boys, found that aggressive boys engaged much more freely in heterosexual relations, leading to intercourse, than did the control boys. The aggressive boys also displayed less anxiety about sexual behavior in general. The authors attributed these differences in part, to the greater per- missiveness for heterosexual behavior by the fathers of the aggressive boys. The mothers of both groups were equal in expressing the attitude that their sons should maintain self-control under all circumstances. The majority of the parents showed much confusion and ineptness in handling 19 their childrens' sexual curiosity. Many of them failed to provide their children with adequate sex information and those who did so, attempted this task so late that the boys had already gained their basic information from other sources. With regard to the mode of expression of sexual feelings, they found that for aggressive boys, sexual and aggressive impulses were closely associated; whereas, for the control boys, heterosexual impulses were more likely to be affiliative in character and to stop short of inter- course. In summary, few actual data are available on the sex behavior of adolescents. Apparently, parents ignore almost all direct training in the expression of sex and merely attempt to suppress its overt expression. One study by Bandura and Walters (1959), indicated a connection between sexual and aggressive impulses for aggressive boys and between sexual and affiliative impulses for non-aggressive boys. Collating the research findings on the relationship between parental training techniques and the three needs of focus-dependency, aggression and sex at adolescence, the following relationships are suggested. It appears that parental child—rearing behaviors can be ordered along a loving—hostile dimension. This dimension seems to hold consistently from infancy through adolescence. Parents who are consistently nurturant and use love-oriented - V I v | \ i 4‘ , Q . 1) i . \_ «k 1 I It b I 20 child-rearing techniques, encourage their children to be dependent and to suppress the expression of overt aggression. On the other hand, parents who are consistently rejecting and employ power-oriented disciplinary measures, encourage the expression of overt aggression and the inhibition of dependent behavior. The data available on the effects of parental rejection to the subsequent behavior of the child, have for the most part, been observational in nature and have been obtained either from clinical or institutionalized populations. In this culture, the direct training of sex expression is generally ignored by parents. Most parents attempt merely to inhibit the overt expression of sex. CHAPTER III STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The present study represents an attempt to measure the extent to which perceived parental acceptance and parental rejection affect the directness with which aggression and dependency are expressed by male adolescents in fantasy conflicts involving aggression and dependency. It has been shown by Bandura and Walters (1959), that overtly aggressive adolescent boys are made anxious by dependency behavior, while non-aggressive boys are made anxious by the expression of overt aggression. Child—rearing studies, indicate'that parents who are consistently nur- turant and use love—oriented techniques, also encourage their childrens' dependency behavior but discourage the overt expression of aggression; while highly rejecting parents who employ power-oriented methods, reward their childrens' non-dependent and overt aggressive behaviors (Becker, 1964.) B. Allinsmith (1954) found that parents using love—oriented techniques, produced children who ex- pressed aggression indirectly in projective story endings; whereas, children of parents employing power-oriented mea— sures, expressed aggression directly. 21 22 These findings suggest that an inverse relationship may exist for the directness of aggression expression and dependency expression among male adolecents, when their parents' earlier nurturant versus rejecting treatment of them, is taken into account. When presented with fantasy conflicts involving ag- gression and dependency, it is expected that male adoles- cents who perceive their parents as highly accepting of them as children, will experience great conflict over the ex- pression of aggression, but little or none over the ex— pression of dependency. Hence, this group should express dependency directly but aggression indirectly. 0n the other hand, male adolescents who feel they were strongly rejected by their parents as children, are expected to experience great conflict over the expression of dependency but rela— tively little over aggression. They, therefore, should express aggression directly and dependency indirectly. The present study also seeks to investigate the extent to which dependency and aggression may be viewed as gen— eralized expressive styles in other interpersonal situations. Clinical evidence supports the notion that styles of relating to one's parents or parent substitutes, generalize to other people (Fenichel, 1945.) Child-rearing studies indicate that parents strive to control and train the ex- pression of aggression and dependency very early in the child's life (Becker, 1964.) Bandura and Walters (1959) 23 found a connection between sexual and aggressive feelings among aggressive adolescents and between sexual and af- filiative feelings for non—aggressive adolescents. From these findings, it seems plausible to expect that aggression and dependency in themselves, become ex- pressive styles of transacting with others. When presented with a fantasy conflict about sex (an interpersonal situation, not directly calling for aggressive or dependent behavior), it is expected that dependent adolescent males will respond passively (in keeping with their formerly learned style of interacting with their parents) and aggressive adolescents will respond assertively in the same situation. CHAPTER IV HYPOTHESES Hypothesis I: Male adolescents who perceive their parents as accepting (parents who used love-oriented child- rearing techniques in the past), will express depen— dency more directly in resolving fantasy conflicts about dependency than male adolescents who perceive their parents as rejecting (parents who used power- oriented child-rearing techniques in the past.) Hypothesis II: Male adolescents who perceive their parents as rejecting, will express aggression more directly in resolving fantasy conflicts about aggression than male adolescents who perceive their parents as ac- cepting. Hypothesis III: Male adolescents who View their parents as accepting, will express greater passivity in resolving a fantasy conflict about sex than male adolescents who View their parents as rejecting. Hypothesis IV: Male adolescents who View their parents as rejecting will express greater assertiveness in re— solving a fantasy conflict about sex than male adoles- cents who view their parents as accepting. 24 CHAPTER V EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Subjects The subjects used in this study were 120 Michigan State University male undergraduates, ranging in age from 17 to 20 years. They were selected from Introductory Psychology classes taught on campus during the Spring and Summer of 1966. Originally 128 students were tested, but 8 subjects had to be discarded because they did not meet the criterion of having intact families, with both parents living at home. The choice of late adolescent males was dictated by the following considerations: The literature indicates that in our culture males tend to be less well socialized than females (Becker, 1964). Therefore, it was expected that males would give more differential responses, i.e. they would react less homogeneously as a group to tests involving conflict over the expression of dependency and aggression, than would females. It was also assumed that at this age they are mature enough to have developed charac- teristic styles of expressing these feelings; and also are experiencing some conflict about their expression. 25 26 The 120 subjects were broken down into four groups in accordance with the scores obtained by them on the two scales used to measure parental acceptance and parental re- jection (the Loving and Rejecting subscales of the Roe- Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire). Those subjects obtaining the 30 highest scores on the Loving subscale, constituted the Highest Accepted Group, followed by the 30 Mid-High Accepted, 30 Mid-Low Accepted and 30 Lowest Accepted Groups. A similar breakdown into four groups was made for the Rejecting subscale, yielding the following four groups of 30 subjects each: Highest Re- jected, Mid—High Rejected, Mid-Low Rejected and Lowest Re- jected Groups. There were separate groups formed for mothers and fathers. Subjects scoring in the mid ranges of the two sub- scales were included in the sample in order to find out how directly subjects who perceived their parents as average in acceptance and rejection, would express dependency and aggression. All subjects came from unbroken, middle-class families, where both parents were alive. Description of Measures Three tests were administered in this study: The Story Completion Test, the Roe-Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire and the Family Data Questionnaire. They were administered in that order. The Story Completion Test took ~ . “‘6 5 ”~— 27 approximately one hour to administer; the Roe-Siegelman PCR Questionnaire took about forty minutes and the Family Data Questionnaire, approximately two minutes. The tests were given to groups of subjects, ranging in size from 15 to 25 subjects per group. Standardized instructions were given all groups. A;_ The Story Completion Test This test comprises a total of seven story beginning (Appendix A-74). In the three Aggression story beginnings, the hero, a male, is in conflict over the expression of aggression: he wishes to hurt a person whom he also reveres. In the three Dependency story beginnings, the hero is in conflict over the expression of dependency: he wishes to make a decision which runs counter the wishes of someone he loves. In the Sex story, the hero is in conflict over his wish to act on his sexual desires when he runs the risk of being found out by someone he loves. Two of the Aggression story beginnings, slightly modified for use with a college population, were taken from the story completion tests used by Beardslee (1955) and w. Allinsmith (1954) respectively. The Sex story was the same one used by Bandura and Walters in their 1959 study on adolescent aggression. It too, had to be modified for use with a college sample. The remainder of the story beginnings used in the present study, were formulated by the author. 28 Both the Aggression and Dependency stories used in the present study were originally drawn from a larger pool of ten stories: five aggression and five dependency stories, which were administered to 30 pilot subjects. The selection of the final six stories used in the current study was made on the basis of the ambivalence they created in the subjects (i.e. if on a given story 15 subjects expressed direct aggression to the story, while the other 15 expressed in- direct aggression, the story was said to have maximum discriminating power and was considered a good choice for inclusion in the final pool of stories). The Story Completion test was the first test to be administered to the groups of subjects. Each subject was given a booklet containing the seven stories in random order. At the top of each 8"xll" sheet of paper, there appeared a printed story beginning; the remainder of the page was left blank to allow the subject space to write his story conclusion on. The test was introduced with the following instructions. We are interested in finding out what men your age are like. The booklet which you have just received contains a series of stories which we would like you to finish. Read each story in your booklet, then finish the story; starting where the story leaves off. You have the rest of the blank page on which to write your story ending. Be sure that you limit yourself to this one page. When you have completed the first story, please indicate that you are finished by raising your hand. We want to make sure that every- one is through at the same time. This is not an English class. Don't worry about spelling. There are no right or wrong answers; you can say anything you want in your stories, and use any language you 29 want. No one at the University, besides the experi- menter, will see your stories. Please read the first story beginning and then finish the story, telling what happens and how it turns out; and what the people in your story are thinking and feeling. These instructions are a modified version of those given by W. Allinsmith (1954). In an attempt to control the length of the stories, the subjects were asked to limit their story endings to one page and were allotted seven minutes per story. The endings to the Aggression stories were scored for directness of expression of aggression, following criteria patterned after B. Allinsmith (1954). She considered an ending to be most direct, if neither the affect, the act or the object toward which the anger was directed, were altered; less direct if the action was inhibited or expressed toward a different object; and least direct, if the affect was totally changed. Each story ending given by the subjects was read indi- vidually by a rater. The rater had no other information on the subjects other than the subject number assigned to each. The rater was supplied with a list of descriptive categories and corresponding code numbers (Appendix 8-93). The rater was asked to compare the story endings with the various descriptive categories and to assign to each that code number which best seemed to characterize the ending given. If the story ending received a rating from 1 to 3, it was assigned a "Direct" classification; if it received a 30 rating from 4 to 6, it was classified as "Indirect". After each story ending had received a code number, each subject was in turn classified as "Direct" or "Indirect" in his expression of aggression. He was considered to be a "Direct" expresser if two of his three aggression story endings were assigned code numbers from 1 to 3. On the other hand, if two out of three of his story endings were given code numbers from 4 to 6, he was classified as an "Indirect" expresser. B. Allinsmith (1954) obtained 88% agreement between two independent judges, using three categories for her story completions. Agreement was defined in the present study as concurrence in the code number assigned each individual story ending by two independent raters. The number of agreements was divided by the total number of stories rated to arrive at a percentage of agreement. Ninety percent agreement was obtained between two inde- pendent judges on their ratings of three Agression stories given by 30 subjects selected at random from the total sample of 120 subjects. A similar scoring procedure was.followed with the three Dependency stories. The story endings given by the subjects to these stories, were scored for directness of expression of dependency. As in the scoring of the Aggres- sion stories, if a subject expressed dependency directly in two of the three stories, he was classified as "Direct" 31 in his expression of dependency; whereas if he expressed dependency indirectly in two of the three stories, he was classified as "Indirect" in his expression of dependency. Ninety-three percent agreement was obtained by two independent judges on the three Dependency stories given by 30 subjects selected randomly from the total sample of subjects. The Sex story was scored as to the degree of initi- ative (either Passive or Assertive) taken by the subject in resolving the sexual conflict posed by the story. The action-taking responses ascribed to the hero by the subject, were classified as either "Passive" or "Assertive" in style. If the subject's response was regarded as "Passive," the subject himself was classified as a "Passive" subject; if however, his response was regarded as "Assertive", he was classified as an "Assertive" subject. An agreement of 97% was obtained by two independent Judges rating 30 randomly chosen subjects from the total number of 120 subjects on the Sex story. B. The Roe-Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire This test reviewed by Roe and Siegelman in 1963, measures the characteristic behavior of parents toward their children as recalled by the latter as adults. The reported behavior of the parents can be appraised along a Loving- ReJecting dimension. There are separate forms for father and mother differing only on 11 items, with 130 items in 32 all. Each item may be checked off once as being Very True; Tended to be True; None of the Descriptions is Quite Right; Tended to be Untrue; Very Untrue. These descriptive categories having score point values of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 re— spectively, in the order given. The forms for each parent take approximately 20 minutes each to administer. The scale was constructed in the following manner: a large number of items were culled and adapted from other parental scales to fit the ten categories proposed by Roe (1964) in a parent-child relations model conceived by her as being related in a circular continuum. These categories and items were submitted to four independent psychologists, who were asked to assign each item to a category or to discard it. All of the items included in the final draft of the questionnaire were assigned to the same category by all judges. The items used refer to specific behaviors, not to attitudes, in an attempt to reduce some of the difficulties deriving from the use of retrospective data. Roe and Siegelman (1963) factor analyzed the items and obtained highest factor loadings on a bipolar factor they called Loving-Rejecting. These authors describe rejecting parents in the following manner: . . . their attitude is a rejection of the childishness of the child. They are cold and hostile and make fun of him and his inadequacies and problems. They may frequently leave him alone and often will not permit other children in the house. They have no regard for the child's point of View. The regulations they establish are not for the sake of training the child, but for protecting the parent from his intrusions (Roe and Siegelman, 1963, p. 357). 33 By contrast, parents who are loving are described by Roe and Siegelman as: . . . parents (who) give the child warm and loving attention. They try to help him with projects that are important to him, but they are not intrusive. They are more likely to reason with the child than to punish him, but they will punish him. They give praise but not indiscriminately. They try speci- fically to help him through problems in the way best for him. The child feels able to confide in them and to ask them for help. They invite his friends to the house and try to make things attrac- tive for them. They encourage independence and are willing to let him take chances in order to grow towards it (Roe and Siegelman, 1963, p. 357). The Roe—Siegelman Questionnaire was administered to the groups of subjects, subsequent to the administration of the Story Completion Test. Each subject was provided with both forms of the Questionnaire, one for mothers and one for fathers alternatively (Appendix A-77)and an IBM scoring sheet on which to indicate their responses. The instructions given, were essentially the same as those given by Roe and Siegelman (1963) except for the slight modification required to make IBM machine scoring possible. The following instructions were read to all groups of subjects: In this folder are a number of statements which describe different ways that fathers (or mothers) act toward their children. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes how your father (or mother) acted while you were growing up. Think especially about the time before you were 12. After you have read each statement, blacken the appropriate space on the IBM sheet that indicates how true you think each statement was for your father (or mother). You will blacken space number 34 1 if Very True; number 2 if Tended to be True; number 3 if None of the Descriptions is Quite Right; number 4 if Tended to be Untrue; number 5 if Very Untrue. (An illustrative example was given with each form). The Questionnaire, including the form for both parents was given in its entirety, but only the Loving and Rejecting subscales, the only scales of interest to the present study, were used. The range of possible scores for both the Loving and Rejecting subscales extends from a minimum of 15 to a maximum of 75 points. The decision to use both of these subscales, rather than the range of scores obtained on just one of these sub— scales, was made on the basis that a Pearson product moment correlation of -.41 was obtained between the Mother Loving and the Mother Rejecting subscales, and one of —.53 for the Father Loving and Father Rejecting subscales. Corresponding data are not offered by Roe and Siegelman. The modest size of these Loving versus Rejecting correlations indi- cates that each subscale in fact, measures different aspects of parental discipline and that one cannot draw the in- ference that a parent who is perceived as low on the Loving subscale, will necessarily be perceived as high on the Rejecting subscale. For the purposes of this study, a parent will be considered to be an "Accepting" parent if he is described by his son as high on the Loving and low on the Rejecting subscales of the PCR Questionnaire. A "Rejecting" parent will be one who is considered to be high 35 on the Rejecting and low on the Loving subscales of the PCR Questionnaire. Roe and Siegelman (1963) list the means and standard deviations obtained by two samples, a sample of male Harvard seniors and a sample of adult male college graduates, on the various subscales included in their PCR Questionnaire. The means obtained by these two samples on the Father and Mother Loving and Rejecting subscales were compared with the means obtained on these subscales by the sample of the present study. Mean differences were tested for signifi— cance by means of t tests. The means of all three samples and t test results are listed in Appendix C. These show that Harvard seniors perceived their mothers as signifi— cantly less rejecting but as loving as did MSU under— graduates. The fathers of the Harvard students were perceived by their sons as significantly more loving and significantly less rejecting than were the fathers of MSU students. No significant differences were found between the MSU male undergraduates and the adult male graduates in their perception of their parents' acceptance or re- jection of them. C. The Family Data Questionnaire This one page information sheet was drawn up by the author for the purpose of obtaining the following infor— mation: age of the subject, grade level completed in college, religious affiliation, parental marital status 36 and father's educational status. This was done to secure a homogeneous sample in terms of social class and to ensure that all subjects came from unbroken homes with both parents still living. The Questionnaire was given to all subjects following the administration of the Story Completion Test and the Roe-Siegelman PCR Questionnaire. The subjects were simply instructed to fill in the blanks (Appendix A—77). Relationship of Measures to Hypotheses Hypothesis I: The Highest-Accepted and Lowest-Rejected Groups of subjects on the PCR Questionnaire, will give a higher proportion of "Direct" Dependency Story completions than the Highest—Rejected and Lowest— Accepted Groups of subjects. Hypothesis II: The Highest—Rejected and Lowest-Accepted Groups of subjects, will give a higher proportion of "Direct" Aggression Story completions than the Highest-Accepted and Lowest—Rejected Groups of subjects. Hypothesis III: The Highest-Accepted and Lowest—Rejected Groups of subjects, will give a greater number of "Passive" responses to the Sex story than will the Highest—Rejected and Lowest-Accepted Groups of subjects. Hypothesis IV: The Highest-Rejected and Lowest-Accepted Groups of subjects, will give a greater number of 37 "Assertive" responses to the Sex Story than will the Highest-Accepted and Lowest—Rejected Groups of subjects. Treatment of Data In the present study the hypotheses were conceived with the number of subjects falling in a particular category. Because of this, and because it is a non-parametric sta- tistical technique, Chi-Square was used as a test of significance for the data obtained. Differences at the .05 level of confidence were considered to be significant. CHAPTER VI RESULTS 1 .1 Tables 1 through 4 show the number of subjects who ‘45 were direct and indirect in their expression of dependency when ranked into four groups (Highest, Mid-High, Mid—Low and Lowest) of 30 subjects each on Maternal Acceptance f4 (Table l), Paternal Acceptance (Table 2), Maternal Rejection (Table 3), Paternal Rejection (Table 4). Using the cri— teria specified in the Experimental Procedure section (p. 29) 56 subjects were classified as Direct and 64 as Indirect in their expression of dependency. Tables 1 and 2 show that subjects who regarded their parents as having been highly accepting while they were growing up (i.e. the Highest and Mid—High groups), were more direct in their expression of dependency than were those who were low accepted (the Mid-Low and Lowest groups). The differences between these groups were significant (Chi Square = 17.41, p<.01 and Chi Square = 15.52, p<.Ol for Tables 1 and 2, respectively). Subjects who perceived their parents as having been most highly-rejecting of them (Tables 3 and 4), were most indirect in their expression of dependency, followed by the mid and lowest—rejected groups of subjects, in that 38 39 TABLE 1.-—Perceived maternal acceptance and dependency expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Maternal Acceptance Direct Indirect Highest 22 8 Mid—High 15 15 Mid—Low 13 17 Lowest 6 24 Chi Square = 17.41; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 2.--Perceived paternal acceptance and dependency expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Paternal Acceptance Direct Indirect Highest l7 l3 Mid—High 21 9 Mid-Low 11 19 Lowest 7 23 Chi Square = 15.52; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 40 TABLE 3.--Perceived maternal rejection and dependency expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Maternal Rejection Direct Indirect Highest 6 24 Mid-High 14 16 Mid-Low 16 14 Lowest 2O 10 Chi Square = 13.91; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 4.--Perceived paternal rejection and dependency expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Paternal Rejection Direct Indirect Highest 7 23 Mid-High l3 17 Mid-Low 16 14 Lowest 20 10 , Chi Square = 12.02; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 41 order. The differences between these four groups were also significant (Chi Square = 13.91, p<.Ol and Chi Square = 12.02, p<.01 for Tables 3 and 4, respectively). Tables 5 and 6 indicate how directly subjects ex— pressed dependency when their recollection of the consis— tency with which their parents expressed their acceptance m and rejection of them, was taken into account. Parents were considered to be Consistently—High on either Acceptance or Rejection, if the mother was given a score which was above the median score obtained by all mothers on Acceptance or on Rejection and also the father's score was above the median score obtained for all fathers. Parents were con- sidered to be Consistently—Low if both were viewed as lower than the median on Acceptance or on Rejection by their sons. The Inconsistent groups, were constituted of cases where one parent was perceived above the median, while the other as below the median on either Acceptance or Rejection. Subjects with consistently high—accepting parents (Table 5), expressed dependency significantly more directly than subjects with either consistently-low or inconsistently accepting parents (Chi Square = 18.24, p<.01). Conversely, subjects with consistently high—rejecting parents (Table 6), expressed dependency significantly less directly than subjects with consistently low or inconsistently rejecting parents (Chi Square = 12.68, p<.01). 42 TABLE 5.--Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and dependency expression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance Direct Indirect Both Parents High 35 16 Both Parents Low 5 18 Mother High, Father Low 3 6 Father High, Mother Low 13 24 Chi Square = 18.24; p «01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 6.--Consistency in perceived parental rejection and dependency expression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Rejection Direct Indirect Both Parents High 12 33 Both Parents Low ' 28 16 Mother High, Father Low 8 7 Father High, Mother Low 8 8 Chi Square = 12.68; p <01 significant with three degrees of freedom. ..n~ «g 43 Tables 7 through 12 describe how directly subjects expressed aggression, when ranked into four groups (Highest, Mid-High, Mid-Low, and Lowest) for Maternal and Paternal Acceptance (Tables 7 and 8) and Maternal and Paternal Re- jection (Tables 9 and 10), separately; and when ranked for Parental Consistency and Inconsistency on Acceptance and Rejection (Tables 11 and 12). When the criteria for the classification of aggressive subjects (p. 29) were applied, it was found that 52 subjects were Direct and 68 Indirect in their expression of aggression. Subjects who regarded their parents as most accepting (Tables 7 and 8), expressed aggression significantly more indirectly than subjects who perceived their parents as mid or low-accepting (Chi Square = 26.29, p<.01 and Chi Square = 34.43, p .01 for Tables 7 and 8, respectively). Subjects who perceived their parents as most rejecting (Tables 9 and 10), expressed aggression significantly more directly than subjects with either mid or lowest—rejecting parents (Chi Square = 21.94, p «01 and Chi Square = 31.18, p 901 for Tables 9 and 10, respectively). Subjects who thought they had had consistently high— accepting parents (Table 11), expressed aggression signi- ficantly less directly than either consistenly low or inconsistently accepted subjects (Chi Square = 32.49, p <01). Subjects who considered their parents consistently high—rejecting (Table 12) on the other hand, expressed u..— ' e’hr ..i54'3':"3'." ‘~ '1' v‘IL‘. n. v--. 44 TABLE 7.--Perceived maternal acceptance and aggression expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Maternal Acceptance Direct Indirect Highest 5 25 Mid—High 13 17 7" Mid-Low 10 2O Lowest 24 6 Chi Square = 26.29; p<.01 significant with three degrees .“4 of freedom. 1 TABLE 8.--Perceived paternal acceptance and aggression expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Paternal Acceptance Direct Indirect Highest 4 26 Mid-High 7 23 Mid-Low 17 13 . Lowest 24 6 Chi Square = 34.43; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 45 TABLE 9.--Perceived maternal rejection and aggression expression. Subjects' Group Rank on N Maternal Rejection Direct Indirect Highest 23 7 Mid-High 14 16 Mid-Low I 8 22 Lowest 7 23 Chi Square = 21.94; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 10.—-Perceived paternal rejection and aggression expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Paternal Rejection Direct Indirect Highest 24 6 Mid-High 16 14 Mid—Low 5 25 Lowest 7 23 Chi Square = 31.18; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 46 TABLE ll.--Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and aggression eXpression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance Direct Indirect Both Parents High 9 42 Both Parents Low 19 4 Mother High, Father Low 7 2 Father High, Mother Low 17 20 Chi Square = 32.49; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 12.--Consistency in perceived parental rejection and aggression expression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Rejection Direct Indirect Both Parents High 33 12 Both Parents Low 7 37 Mother High, Father Low 4 11 Father High, Mother Low 8 8 ~7va v V—Wfiv Chi Square = 31.98; p<.01 significant with three degrees of-freedom. 47 aggression significantly more directly than subjects who thought they had had consistently low or inconsistently rejecting parents (Chi Square = 31.98, p<.01). Tables 13 through 18 indicate how passive or assertive subjects were, when ranked on Maternal and Paternal Ac- ceptance (Tables 13 and 14) and Maternal and Paternal Re- jection (Tables 15 and 16), separately; as well as on Parental Acceptance and Rejection Consistency and Incon- sistency (Tables 17 and 18). When the criteria for the subjects' classification with regard to their sexual initiative were followed (p. 31) it was found that 83 were sexually Passive and 37 were sexually Assertive. Subjects with highly—accepting parents (Tables 13 and 14), ex- pressed more sexual passivity than subjects with low- accepting parents (Chi Square = 27.25, p<.01 and Chi Square = 11.96, p<.Ol for Tables 13 and 14, respectively). Similarly, subjects with low—rejecting parents (Tables 15 and 16), expressed more sexual passivity than subjects with high-rejecting parents (Chi Square = 19.46, p<.01 and Chi Square = 17.87, p<.01 for Tables 15 and 16, respectively). Proportionately more of the subjects who perceived both of their parents as either high—accepting or low— rejecting were classified sexually passive than subjects in the other groups. Subjects who perceived both of their parents as high-rejecting or where the father was viewed as high and the.mother as low accepting, tended to be sexually assertive. “ml. 48 TABLE l3.--Perceived maternal acceptance and sex expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Maternal Acceptance Passive Assertive Highest 28 2 Mid-High 23 7 “a ' \ Mid-Low 22 8 ' Lowest 10 20 Chi Square = 27.25; p<.01 significant with three degrees A{ of freedom. Vihmj TABLE l4.—-Perceived paternal acceptance and sex expression. Subjects' Group Rank on N Paternal Acceptance Passive Assertive Highest 25 5 Mid-High 25 5 Mid-Low 18 12 Lowest 15 15 Chi Square = 11.96; p<.Ol significant with three degrees of freedom. 49 TABLE 15.--Perceived maternal rejection and sex expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Maternal Rejection Passive Assertive Highest l3 l7 Mid-High 18 12 % Mid—Low 27 3 1 Lowest 25 5 Chi Square = 19.46; p<.01 significant with three degrees ,4 of freedom. ’ TABLE 16.4—Perceived paternal rejection and sex expression. N Subjects' Group Rank on Paternal Rejection Passive Assertive Highest 13 17 Mid—High 20 10 Mid—Low 28 2 ' Lowest 22 8 Chi Square = 17.87; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 50 TABLE l7.——Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and sex expression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance Passive Assertive Both Parents High 45 6 Both Parents Low 10 13 Mother High, Father Low 7 2 Father High, Mother Low 21 16 Chi Square = 18.81; p<.Ol significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 18.——Consistency in perceived parental rejection and sex expression. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Rejection Passive Assertive Both Parents High 20 25 Both Parents Low 39 5 , Mother High, Father Low 11 4 Father High, Mother Low 13 3 Chi Square = 21.94; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. 51 Findings Ancillapy to Major Hypotheses Table 19 shows the relationship between the directness with which subjects expressed aggression and the directness with which they expressed dependency. The results indicate that for the most part, those subjects who expressed ag— gression directly, were the same subjects who expressed dependency indirectly; while the majority of subjects who .§ expressed aggression indirectly, were more likely to express dependency directly (Chi Square = 61.67, p<.01). A tetrachoric correlation of .72 was obtained for the } relationship between the two categories used to designate the expression of aggression and dependency direct and indirect; indicating that they share 52% of their variance in common while 48% is independent of one another. Table 20 shows the relationships between the direct- ness with which subjects expressed dependency and the sexual initiative they expressed. Subjects who expressed dependency directly also tended to be more sexually pas- sive than subjects who expressed dependency indirectly (Chi Square = 23.62, p<.01). A tetrachoric correlation of .44 was obtained between the dependency and sex cate- gories; therefore, they share only 19% of their variance in common. Table 21 demonstrates the relationship between the directness of the subjects' aggression expression and the subjects' expressed sexual initiative. Subjects who 52 TABLE 19.—-Dependency expression and aggression expression. N Directly Indirectly Aggressive Aggressive Directly Dependent 3 53 Indirectly Dependent 49 15 Chi Square = 61.67; p<.01 significant with one degree a of freedom. '4', TABLE 20.--Dependency expression and sex expression. F N Sexually Sexually Passive Assertive Directly Dependent 51 5 Indirectly Dependent 32 32 Chi Square = 23.62; p<.01 significant with one degree of freedom. TABLE 21.--Aggression expression and sex expression. N Sexually Sexually Passive Assertive Directly Aggressive 22 30 Indirectly Aggressive 61 7 Chi Square = 31.04; p<.01 significant with one degree of freedom. 53 expressed aggression directly, expressed significantly greater sexual assertiveness than subjects who expressed aggression indirectly (Chi Square = 31.04, p<.01). A tetrachoric correlation of .51 was obtained between the aggression and sex categories; they share only 26% of their variance in common. To control for the effects of religion, age of the subjects and fathers' educational status (an indicator of social class status) analyses were made of the relation— ships between these attributes and the subjects' responses I to the Aggression, Dependency and Sex stories. Table 22 illustrates the relationship between the directness with which dependency was expressed by the subjects and their religious affiliation (as encompassed by four groups: 32 Catholics, 6O Protestants, 13 Jews and 15 Non-religious subjects). In order to clarify this relationship, Table 22 was re—partitioned into Table 22A. This re-partitioned table indicates that the 15 members of the non—religious group were significantly more indirect in their expression of dependency than were the 105 sub— jects of the combined religions' group (Chi Square = 11.02, p<.01). Table 23 shows the relationship between the subjects' directness of aggression expression and the subjects' religious affiliation. Table 23 was re—partitioned in an attempt to clarify the relationship between religious versus non—religious affiliation and aggression expression. 54 TABLE 22.--Dependency expression and religious affiliation. N Dependency Expression Catholic Protestant Jewish None Direct 16 33 6 1 Indirect 16 27 7 14 7‘ Chi Square = 11.45; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 22A.--Dependency expression and religious affiliation. N Dependency Expression Combined Religions No Religion Direct 55 1 Indirect 50 14 Chi Square = 11.02; p<.01 significant with one degree of freedom. 55 TABLE 23.--Aggression expression and religious affiliation. N Aggression Expression Catholic Protestant Jewish None Direct 14 19 5 l4 Indirect 18 41 8 1 Chi Square = 18.71; p <01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 23A.—-Aggression expression and religious affiliation. N Aggression Expression Combined Religions No Religion Direct 38 14 Indirect 67 1 Chi Square = 17.45; p<.01 significant with one degree of freedom. 56 Table 23A indicates that non-religious subjects expressed aggression significantly more directly than did subjects belonging to the combined religions' group (Chi Square = 17.45, p<.01). Table 24 demonstrates the relationship between the subjects' sex responses and their religious affiliation. Re—partitioning this table (Table 24A) reveals that non— religious subjects were significantly more sexually assertive than subjects affiliated with the combined religions' group (Chi Square = 31.40, p<.01). If non-religious subjects are excluded from Tables 22, 23 and 24, no significant relationship obtains be- tween religious affiliation and directness of expression of dependency, aggression or sexual initiative. When a breakdown was made of the number of subjects falling into the various categories used to describe sexual passivity and sexual assertiveness (Shown in Table 25), it was found that the majority of subjects belonging to religious groups, were sexually passive. Inspection of this table shows that approximately two-thirds of the Catholic group, fell into descriptive category 3 of the Passive category (where the subject casts the female in the story in the role of sexual aggressor or active seducer while the male hero is cast in the role of passive or naive seduced); while approximately two—thirds of the Protestant group fell into categories 1 and 2 (where the hero simply does not initiate any sexual activity). I . ' I' I ‘I (I r I I . I~ ‘ I I .._ i TABLE 24.--Sex expression and religious affiliation. N Sex Expression Catholic Protestant Jewish None Passive 27 46 9 1 Assertive 5 14 4 14 Chi Square = 32.49; p<.01 significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE 24A.——Sex eXpression and religious affiliation. N Sex Expression Combined Religions No Religion Passive 82 1 Assertive 23 14 Chi Square = 31.40; p 601 significant with one degree of freedom. mt a-“ 4 V‘r‘o-m‘x..;%guw._ ;, gr _ 58 TABLE 25.-—Sex expression descriptive categories and religious affiliation. Descriptive Sex Categories* Catholic Protestant Jewish None Passive l and 2** 6 41 8 1 3 21 5 l O Assertive u 4 12 3 l 5 1 2 l 13 Chi Square = 118.82; p<.01 significant with nine degrees of freedom. *For definition of these categories see **Passive descriptive categories 1 and 2 cause the expected values were too low in permit the appropriate use of Chi Square. table before combining categories 1 and 2 Appendix F. Appendix B-97. were combined be- category 1 to The original may be found in 59 In Appendices D and E are found tables showing the relationship between the subjects' age, fathers' educational status and the subjects' expressive styles on dependency, aggression and sex. None of these relationships were found to be significant. CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION The null hypothesis was rejected at a high (p<.01) level of confidence for all four investigatory hypotheses. These hypotheses were based on Miller and Swanson's (1960) contention that whenever the individual's learned moral standards prevent a need from being gratified directly, he is forced to find alternate, less direct means of gratifying the need. What makes one form of gratification less direct than another, is the degree of distortion which the need components (the agent, act, affect or object) are forced to undergo as a consequence of the amount of conflict experienced by the person. Subjects who perceived their parents as high-accepting expressed dependency significantly more directly than sub— jects who perceived their parents as high-rejecting (Hy— pothesis I, Tables 1 through 4). Conversely, subjects who viewed their parents as high—rejecting expressed ag— gression significantly more directly than subjects who viewed their parents as high—accepting (Hypothesis II, Tables 7 through 10). This inverse relationship found between the directness of fantasy dependency and fantasy aggression expression, 60 61 held only for the more highly—accepted or highly-rejected groups of subjects. When less highly-accepted or less highly-rejected subjects, were considered, it was not possible to predict the directness with which they would express dependency or aggression using the present pro- jective measure. Subjects who perceived both parents as either high on acceptance or high on rejection, showed a clearer pre— ference for a particular expressive style than subjects who perceived only one parent as high. Consistency between parents on high-acceptance was associated with a distinct preference for direct dependency expression; consistency between parents on high-rejection was associated with direct aggression expression. These results suggest that the adolescent sons of parents perceived as primarily accepting or primarily rejecting tend to have relatively specific (dependency or aggression) regions of conflict-free interpersonal encounter. Parents who are viewed as high-accepting have sons who apparently can deal effectively with dependency but ex- perience conflict over aggression. The converse appears true of males who perceive their parents as high-rejecting. The results obtained with the more extreme groups of the sample (the highly-accepted or highly-rejected sub- jects) were consistent with the results obtained by Bandura and Walters (1959), with a known delinquent, middle- class population of adolescent boys. They found that I ‘ Us ' ‘ L . . J \ I' . I - > I 62 socially-aggressive adolescent boys were made anxious by dependency situations; also that these boys engaged more freely in heterosexual relations and tended to associate sexual and aggressive feelings. The present findings indicate that similar results may be found among adoles- cents who are not necessarily socially-aggressive but who do perceive themselves as having been rejected by their fl parents in childhood. Becker (1964) has offered a detailed description of the mediational processes which may account for the predominance of actual dependent behavior among the children of parents who consistently employ love- oriented child-rearing methods and the aggression-inducing behavioral effects resulting from the consistent appli— cation of parental power-oriented child-rearing techniques. The hypothesized differences in sexual expression for the highly-accepted (hypothesis III) and the highly- rejected (hypothesis IV) groups of subjects also proved to be significant in the predicted direction (Tables 13 through 16). The data support the contention that parental acceptance and rejection, at least as viewed in retrospect by adolescent males influence the expression of dependency and aggression and these acquired styles of expression in - turn influence and generalize to other interpersonal situations, e.g. the way the individual copes with a sexual conflict. The perception of high parental acceptance and low parental rejection is related to the direct expression of IA 63 dependency and sexual passivity among male adolescents. Conversely, the perception of high parental rejection and low parental acceptance is associated with the direct expression of aggression and sexual assertiveness. The combination of high paternal but low maternal acceptance also is associated with sexual assertiveness. It is a. possible that sexual assertiveness may be derived from 1 at least two different sources-sexual assertiveness as sex—role congruent, in cases where a strong identification r‘, exists with an affectionate father; sexual assertiveness produced as a consequence of consistently experienced rejection, where the child learns to respond in all inter- personal situations with aggression. Religious affiliation was correlated with all facets of expressive style. When subjects were classified in accord with their religious affiliation, it was discovered that non—religious subjects expressed fantasy aggression more directly and fantasy dependency more indirectly than subjects belonging to the combined religions' group (composed on Catholics, Protestants, and Jews [Tables 22A and 23A]). Also, that a greater proportion of subjects professing a religious preference gave assertive resolutions to a fantasy sex conflict (Table 24A). Most religions, according to Weber (1963), are anti- pathic toward the overt expression of aggressive and sexual emotions. The rationale behind this antipathy, he believes, ~ - Q‘s..- v ”a.“ 11" '1. A _- Ml '- t ‘- ‘ ‘ 64 lies in the assumption made by most religions that these ‘particular emotions bind man to the animal level, and furnish the most powerful temptation away from a mystical quest. The fact that approximately two-thirds of the Catholic subjects' responses to the Sex story fell into descriptive scoring category 3 (where the hero reacts passively to a seduction by an aggressive female), while about two-thirds of the Protestant subjects' responses fell into descriptive scoring categories 1 and 2 (where a passive hero simply does not engage in any sexual activity), suggests that there may be differences in the type of passivity mani— fested by different religious groups. It is possible that Protestants learn to react to sexual conflict with denial, while Catholics learn to react with projection. Verification of this relationship must await a study de- signed to examine this issue. The subjects' expressive styles toward fantasy de- pendency, aggression and sex, were apparently not in— fluenced by either the subjects' age (Appendix D, Tables 1 through 5) nor their fathers' educational status (Appendix E, Tables 1 through 5). Limitations of Present Study An apparent limitation of the present study is that only the subjects' perception of their parents' child- rearing behaviors was ascertained, while neither the parents' actual or self-observed behaviors were studied. It appears however, that these adolescents' reports of their parents' child-rearing behaviors alone were relatively powerful predictors of the subjects' expressive styles as measured by fantasy responses. In addition, the relationship between these fantasy responses and more conventional or behavioristic modes of expressive styles remains cloudy. While direct tests of these relationships would, of course be desirable, some support for the generality of the relationships may be derived from the consistency of the present findings with Bandura and Walters' (1959) more behavioral data; as well as through the congruence of the present findings with the behavioral studies cited by Becker (1964). Implications-for Further Research A number of issues were raised by the present study which are possibilities for further research. The projective measure used in this study seems to offer a fruitful way to investigate the moral attitudes of individuals with varying religious backgrounds. A ramification of the present study would be an investigation of the coping mechanisms evolved by different religious groups to deal with sexual expression. The correspondence between the fantasy data obtained through the projective measure employed in this study and the actual expressed behavior of middle—class male 66 adolescents is yet to be examined. In addition, it would be of interest to know how female adolescents respond to the same projective measure so that an evaluation of sex— differences in expressive style could be made. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS Late adolescent males who recalled their parents as having been highly-accepting of them in childhood, resolved fantasy conflicts about dependency directly, aggression indirectly, and sex passively, respectively. Conversely, those reporting their parents as having been highly— rejecting of them during childhood resolved fantasy con— flicts about dependency indirectly, aggression directly and sex assertively, respectively. Perceived parental consistency in the utilization of love or power-oriented child-rearing practices accounted for most of the expressive style differences found among the more highly—accepted and more highly—rejected subjects. Subjects who viewed themselves as less highly-accepted or rejected as children, manifested fewer expressive style differences than did those who regarded themselves as having been highly-accepted or highly-rejected. Although neither chronological age nor fathers' educational status correlated with expressive style, religious affiliation, did. When compared with religious subjects, non-religious subjects expressed aggression more directly, dependency less directly and displayed 67 "1 114,- g, J— . .- ’U‘wm 68 greater sexual assertiveness. The Sex story hero was depicted as responding passively to a female seductress by a markedly larger proportion of Catholics than Pro- testants or other participants. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, N. W. Psychotherapy and giving love. Psychiat., 1944, 7, 129-137. Allinsmith, Beverly, B. Parental discipline and children's aggression in two social classes. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1954. Allinsmith, W. The learning of moral standards. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1954. Bandura, A. and Walters, R. H. Adolescent aggression. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1959. Bandura, R., Ross, Dorothea and Ross, Sheila, A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 575—582. Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. In Jones, M. R. (ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1962. Beardslee, Betty, J. The learning of two mechanisms of defense. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1955- Becker, W. C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In Hoffman, M. L. and Hoffman, Lois, W. (eds.), Review of child development research, Vol. 1, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Casler, L. Maternal deprivation: a critical review of the literature. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Developm., 1961, No. 26. Douvan, Elizabeth and Adelson, J. The adolescent experience. New York:. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. ~*Fenichel,.O..Thepsychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York:. W..W..Norton and Co., 1945. Freud, Anna and Burligngham, Dorothy, T. Infants without families. New York: International Universities Press, 1944. 69 70 Freud, Anna. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: International Universities Press, 1946. Freud, S. On narcissism: an introduction. In Collected Papers, Vol. IV, London: Hogarth Press, 1925. Freud, 8. Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. London: Hogarth Press, 1948. Freud, S. Instincts and their vicissitudes. In Collected Papers, Vol. IV. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959. Goldfarb, W. Infant rearing and problem behavior. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1943, 13, 249-260. Goldfarb, W. Psychological privation in infancy and subsequent adjustment. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1945, 15, 247-255. Goodenough, Florence, L. Anger in young children. Inst. Child Welf. Monogr. Ser,, No. 9 Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931. Heathers, G. Emotional dependency and independence in nursery school play. J. Genet. Psychol., 1955, 87, 37—57. Hewitt, L. E. and Jenkins, R. L. Fundamental patterns of maladjustment: the dynamics of their origin. Chicago: State of Illinois, 1946. Kagan J. The concept of identification. Psychol. Rev., 1958, 65, 296-305- Kagan, J. and Moss, H. A. Birth to maturity. New York: Wiley, 1962. Levy, D. Maternal overprotection. New York: Columbia < University Press, 1943. Lewis, H. Depriggd children. London: Oxford University Press, 1954. Lowrey, L. G. Personality distortion and early institutional care. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1940, 10, 576-586. McCord, W. and McCord, Joan. Psychopathy and delinquency. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1956. McCord, W., McCord, Joan, and Howard, A. Familial correlates of aggression in non-delinquent male children. J; Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1961, 62, 79-93. 71 Miller, N. E. and Dollard, J. C. Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Miller, D. R. and Swanson, G. E. Inner conflict and defense. New York: Henry Holt, 1960. Roe, Anne and Siegelman, M. A parent-child relations questionnaire, Child Develpm., 1963, 34, 355-369. Roe, Anne and Siegelman, M. The origin of interests, APGA Inquiry Studies, 1964, N. l. Schaefer, E. S. and Bayley, Nancy. Consistency of maternal behavior from infancy to preadolescence. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1960, 61, 1-6. Schaefer, E. S. Converging conceptual models for maternal behavior and for child behavior. In Glidewell, J. C. (ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Sears, R. R., Whiting, J. W. M., Nowlis, V. and Sears, Pauline, S. Some child-rearing antecendents of aggression and dependency in young children. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1953, 47, 135-234. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, Eleanor, E. and Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1957. Swanson, G. E. Determinants of the individual's defenses against inner conflict: review and reformulation. In Glidewell, J. C. (ed.), Parental attitudes and child behavior. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 19 1. Weber, M. The sociology of religion. Boston: Beacon Press, 1963. Yarrow, L. J. Maternal deprivation: toward an empirical and conceptual re-evaluation. Psychol. Bull., 1961, 58, 459-490- PPPPPPPPPP 73 . "f :‘bu'wwmmw-z w I. MEASURES Story Completion Test Aggression Stories: Jack looks up to his father and respects him very much, but when something goes wrong, Jack's father always blames him and not his brother. Last Saturday, Jack's brother took the family car to go out on a date. On the way back he hit another car and bent the front fenders. Next morning when the father saw the condition of the car, he began to reprimand Jack. He assumed that Jack was responsible for the accident. Fred has been saving for three years to buy a new car. The day after he gets his car, he lets his fiancee, Barbara, take it to go shopping. She leaves the car parked on a hill while she goes into a store. She had forgotten to put on the emergency brake and the car rolled down the hill and crashed into a fire hydrant. Fred has just found out what happened to his car. Harry is looking forward to the biggest football game of the season and has saved his money to buy some tickets for this afternoon's game. At lunch his mother informs him 74 75 that she'd gotten tired of having to remind him to clean up his room, so this morning, while he was away, she went ahead and cleaned it for him. She mentions burning some old useless papers that were lying around. Harry remembers that he left his tickets on the top of his desk and rushes upstairs to get them, only to find them gone. Dependency Stories: Michael has been attending MSU and living at home at the request of his parents. At his parents' home he has the privacy of his own room and is free to come and go as he ( pleases without any cost to him. Last week his best friend, Tom, asked him if he would not like to move in with him into the upper part of a large three-bedroom house. He would only have to contribute a third of the rental so that the money he is making at his part time job can probably cover this expense. Tom describes to him all the many attractive coeds who live in the lower section of the house. Jerry has been dating Susan, an extremely attractive coed, for almost a year. He feels that they have much in common and is seriously considering marrying her. Jerry values his mother's judgment and when Jerry tells his mother of his plans to marry Susan, she remains silent and looks greatly disappointed. When Jerry asks her what's wrong, she informs him that Susan is not only of a different 76 faith than theirs but has a reputation for being promis- cuous. She suggests that he weigh his decision to marry Susan more carefully. Don admires his father and has always felt close to him. When he graduated from college two years ago he went to work for his father. His father was so pleased when Don joined his Realty Company that he promised him that some- time in the future he would hand over the business to him. Last week one of his father's business associates made Don a job offer- a full partnership- in a very large and lu- crative Insurance Agency. Sex Story: One night about 10 o'clock, Ted is walking home from a friend's house. As a general rule he is expected to be home by 11 on week nights. He sees Sally sitting all alone on the front steps of her house. Sally is known as the girl in the neighborhood who looks most like Brigitte Bardot. She does a lot of dating and has a reputation for being sexy. Sally asks Ted if he would like to talk with her for awhile. She says that she's all alone because her parents have gone to Chicago for several days. .a:,-r~:-,grn~;m:_m awn gar—.3. PCR QUESTIONNAIRE — FATHERS Roe-Siegelman In this folder are a number of statements which de— scribe different ways that fathers act toward their children. Read each statement carefully and think how well it de- scribes how your father acted while you were growing up. Think especially about the time before you were 12. After you have read each statement, blacken the appropriate space on the IBM sheet that indicates how true you think each statement was for your father. You will blacken space number 1 if Very True; number 2 if Tended to be True; number 3 if None of these descriptions is quite right; number 4 if Tended to be Untrue; number 5 if Very Untrue. For example, if your memory is that your father often let you off easy when you did something wrong, you would mark the item as follows: Very Tended None Tended Very True to be to be Untrue My father true Untrue 1. Never let me off when I did some— thing wrong. 1[:] 2 [:3 3 [:J 4 [:3 5 III In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number on the answer sheet and that you give an-answer to every state— ment. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you.wish to change. Number Date 77 PCR QUESTIONNAIRE My father I. tried to get me everything I wanted. 2. complained about me to others when I did not listen to him. 3. made no concessions for my age. 4. let me spend my allowance any way I liked. 5. discussed what was good about my behavior and helped to make clear the desirable consequences of my actions. 6. punished me hard enough when I misbehaved to make sure that I wouldn't do it again. 7. took away my toys or playthings when I was bad. 8. was genuinely interested in my affairs. 9. kept forgetting things he was supposed to do for me. 10. took me places (trips, shows, etc.) as a reward. ll. spoiled me. 12. made me feel ashamed or guilty when I misbehaved. 13. let me know I wasn't wanted. 14. set very few rules for me. 15. compared me favorably with other children when I did well. 16. made it clear that he was boss. 17. slapped or struck me when I was improper. 18. made me feel wanted and needed. 19. was too busy to answer my questions. 20. relaxed rules and regulations as a reward. 78 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 79 was very careful about protecting me from accidents. nagged or scolded me when I was bad. thought it was my own fault if I got into trouble. gave me as much freedom as I wanted. told me how proud he was of me when I was good. never let me get away with breaking a rule. took away or reduced my allowance as punishment. made me feel what I did was important. did not care if I got into trouble. gave me new books or records as rewards. believed I should have no secrets from my parents. punished me by ignoring me. did not spend nay more time with me than necessary. let me off easy when I did something wrong. treated me more like a grown-up when I behaved well. pushed me to excel in everything I did. wouldn't let me play with other children when I was bad. encouraged me to do things on my own. paid no attention to what I was doing in school. let me stay up longer as a reward. protected me from teasing or bullying by other children. made me feel I wasn't loved any more if I misbehaved. did not want me to bring friends home. gave me the choice of what to do whenever it was possible. praised me before my playmates. 46. 47. 48. 49. 5o. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59- 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 80 told me how to spend my free time. spanked or whipped me as punishment. talked to me in a warm and affectionate way did not take me into consideration in making plans. rewarded me by letting me off some of my regular chores. did not want me to play rough outdoor games for fear I might be hurt. shamed me before my playmates when I misbehaved. disapproved of my friends. expected me to take everyday disappointments. expressed greater love for me when I was good. punished me without any thought or hesitation when I misbehaved. gave me extra chores as punishment. tried to help me when I was scared or upset. did not care whether I got the right kind of food. gave me candy or ice cream or fixed my favorite foods for me as a reward. made others give in to me. frightened or threatened me when I did wrong. went out of the way to hurt my feelings. let me stay up as late as I liked. gave me special attention as a reward. demanded unquestioning respect and deference. punished me by sending me out of the room or to bed. did not try to tell me everything, but encouraged me to find things out for myself. left my care to someone else.(e.g. a nurse or relative). 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 81 let me go to parties or play with others more than usual as a reward. taught me to go for help to my parents or teacher rather than to fight. told me how ashamed he was when I misbehaved. ridiculed and made fun of me. let me do pretty much what I wanted to do. praised me when I deserved it. always told me exactly how to do my work. took away my books or records as punishment. respected my point of View and encouraged me to express it. acted as if I didn't exist. rewarded me by giving me money, or increased my allowance. wanted me to have at least as large an allowance as my friends. compared me unfavorable with other children when I misbehaved. complained about me. let me work by myself. made me feel proud when I did well. pushed me to do well in school. punished me by being more strict about rules and regulations. let me do things I thought were important, even if it were inconvenient for him. paid no attention to me. hugged me, kissed me, petted me when I was good. tried to keep me out of situations that might be unpleasant and embarrassing. " ‘erfim 92. 93- 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99- 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 113. 82 reasoned with me and explained possible harmful con- sequences when I did wrong things. compared me unfavorable to other children no matter what I did. did not object to my loafing or daydreaming. praised me to others. would not let me question his reasoning. punished me by not taking me on trips, visits, etc., that I had been promised. tried to help me learn to live comfortably with myself. ignored me as long as I did not do anything to disturb him. gave me new things as a reward, such as toys. hated to refuse me anything. thought that it was bad for a child to be given affection and tenderness. did not tell me what time to be home when I went out. wanted to have complete control over my actions. was willing to discuss regulations with me, and took my point of view into consideration in making them. did not care who my friends were. worried about me when I was away. did not want me around at all when he had company. did not object when I was late for meals. taught me that he knew best and that I must accept his decisions. encouraged me to bring friends home, and tried to make things pleasant for them. left me alone when I was upset. worried a great deal about my health. ‘ 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 83 expected children to misbehave if they were not watched. was easy with me. expected prompt and unquestioning obedience. taught me skills I wanted to learn. did not try to help me learn things. wanted to know all about my experiences. believed a child should be seen and not heard. did not bother much about enforcing rules. was full of advice about everything I did. made it easy for me to confide in him. forgot my birthday. did not want me to grow up. avoided my company. did not check up on whether I did my homework. allowed me to make only minor decisions. said nice things about me. did not care whether I had the same kind of clothes as other children. PCR QUESTIONNAIRE - MOTHERS Roe-Siegelman In this folder are a number of statements which de— scribe different ways that mothers act toward their chil- dren. Read each statement carefully and think how well it describes how your mother acted while you were growing up. Think especially about the time before you were 12. After you have read each statement, blacken the appropriate space on the IBM sheet that indicates how true you think each statement was for your mother. You will blacken space number 1 if Very True; number 2 if Tended to be True; number 3 if None of these descriptions is quite right; number 4 if Tended to be Untrue; number 5 if Very Untrue. For example, if your memory is that your mother al- ways objected if you were late for meals, you would mark the item as follows: Very Tended None Tended Very True to be ' to be Untrue True Untrue My mother was late for 1.2:] BEIICI 5I:I meals‘ In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement agrees with the number -on the-answer-sheet and-that you give an answer to every vstatement. Make your marks heavy and black. Erase completely any answer you wish to change. Number 1. Objected when I Date 84 - .; r~¢}w_ PCR QUESTIONNAIRE My mother 1. tried to get me everything I wanted. 2. complained about me to others when I did not listen to her. 3. made no concessions for my age. 4. let me spend my allowance any way I liked. 5. discussed what was good about my behavior and helped to make clear the desirable consequences of my actions. 6. punished me hard enough when I misbehaved to make sure I wouldn't do it again. 7. took away my toys or playthings when I was bad. 8. was genuinely interested in my affairs. 9. kept forgetting things she was supposed to do for me. 10 took me places (trips, shows, etc.) as a reward. ll. spoiled me. 12. made me feel ashamed or guilty when I misbehaved. 13. let me know I wasn't wanted. 14. set very few rules for me. 15. compared me favorable with other children when I did well. 16. made it clear that she was boss. 17. slapped or struck me when I was improper. 18. made me feel wanted and needed. 19. was too busy to answer my questions. 85 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33- 34. 35. 36. 37- 38. 39- 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 86 relaxed rules and regulations as a reward. was very careful about protecting me from accidents. nagged or scolded me when I was bad. thought it was my own fault if I got into trouble. let me dress in any way I pleased. told me how proud she was of me when I was good. thought I should always be doing something. ;A.: took away or reduced my allowance as punishment. made me feel what I did was important. did not care if I got into trouble. gave me new books or records as rewards. couldn't bring herself to punish me. punished me by ignoring me. did not spend any more time with me than necessary. let me off easy when I did something wrong. treated me more like a grown-up when I behaved well. pushed me to excel in everything I did. wouldn't let me play with other children when I was bad. encouraged me to do things on my own. paid no attention to what I was doing in school. let me stay up longer as a reward. protected me from teasing or bullying by other children. made me feel I wasn't loved any more if I misbehaved. did not want me to bring friends home. gave me the choice of what to do whenever it was possible. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57- 58. 59- 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 87 praised me before my playmates. told me how to spend my free time. spanked or whipped me as punishment. talked to me in a warm and affectionate way. did not take me into consideration in making plans. rewarded me by letting me off some of my regular chores. did not want me to play rough outdoor games for fear I might be hurt. shamed me before my playmates when I misbehaved. disapproved of my friends. let me eat what I wanted to. expressed greater love for me when I was good. punished me without any thought or hesitation when I misbehaved. gave me extra chores as punishment. tried to help me when I was scared or upset. did not care whether I got the right kind of food. gave me candy or ice cream or fixed my favorite foods for me as a reward. taught me not to fight under any circumstances. frightened or threatened me when I did wrong. went out of the way to hurt my feelings. let me do as I liked with my time after school. vgave me special.attention as a reward. demanded unquestioning respect and deference. -punished.me by.sending me out of the room or to bed. did-not try to tell me everything, but encouraged me to find things out for myself. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75- 76. 77- 78. 79- 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 88 left my care to someone else (e.g. nurse or relative). let me go to parties or play with others more than usual as a reward. taught me to go for help to my parents or teacher rather than to fight. told me how ashamed she was when I misbehaved. ridiculed and made fun of me. let me choose my own friends. 1 praised me when I deserved it. always told me exactly how to do my work. took away my books or records as punishment. respected my point of view and encouraged me to express it. acted as if I didn't exist. rewarded me by giving me money or increasing my allowance. preferred to have me play at home rather than to visit other children. compared me unfavorable with other children when I misbehaved. complained about me. let me work by myself. made me feel proud when I did well. pushed me to do well in school. punished me by being more strict about rules and regulations. let me do things I thought were important, even if it were inconvenient for her. paid no attention to me. hugged me, kissed me, petted me when I was good. 91. 92. 93- 94. 95- 96. 97- 98. 99- 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. didn't let me go places because something might happen to me. reasoned with me and explained possible harmful consequences when I did wrong things. compared me unfavorable to other children no matter what I did. did not object to my loafing or daydreaming. praised me to others. would not let me question her reasoning. punished me by not taking me on trips or visits etc., that I had been promised. tried to help me learn to live comfortably with myself. ignored me as long as I did not do anything to disturb her. gave me new things as a reward, such as toys. hated to refuse me anything. thought that it was bad for a child to be given affection and tenderness. did not tell me what time to be home when I went out. wanted to have complete control over my actions. was willing to discuss regulations with me, and took my point of view into consideration in making them. did not care who my friends were. worried about me when I was away. did not want me around at all when she had company. did not object when I was late for meals. taught me that she knew best and that I must accept her decisions. encouraged me to bring friends home, and tried to make things pleasant for them. left me alone when I was upset. .._. 4'. " «grungy; . ~—~ 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. .128. 129. 130. 90 would not let me try things if there were any chance I would fail. expected children to misbehave if they were not watched. was easy with me. expected prompt and unquestioning obedience. taught me skills I wanted to learn. did not try to help me learn things. wanted to know all about all my experiences. believed a child should be seen and not heard. did not bother much about enforcing rules. kept the house in order by having a lot of rules and regulations for me. made it easy for me to confide in her. forgot my birthday. did not want me to grow up. avoided my company. did not check up on whether I did my homework. “allowed.me to make only minor decisions. said nice things about me. did not care whether I had the same kind of clothes as the other children. 10. 11. 12. FAMILY DATA QUESTIONNAIRE Name 2. Last Grade Completed Age 4. Birthdate Month Day Year Religion Father's Job 7. Highest Grade Completed by Father Description of Father's Job Mother's Job 9. Highest Grade Completed by Mother Description of Mother's Job Are both of your parents alive? If not, which parent is deceased Date of Death (Check one below) Are your parents: Married and living together Separated Divorced Other 91 7.4-.“ :~ “I'M __7 APPENDIX B 92 SCORING CATEGORIES FOR AGGRESSION STORIES Direct: 1. Affect of anger expressed, accompanied with action of a physical or verbal nature toward object which elicited anger reaction. e.g. Harry immediately begins yelling and screaming at his mother. She in turn informs him that if he had cleaned his room this would not have happened. Harry does not agree and is still mad. Affect of anger expressed, but no real action taken; instead fantasied action, such as fantasied retri— bution, revenge or sarcasm is engaged in or contem— plated against object eliciting anger reaction. e.g. Fred is angry with Barbara but acts cool. He figures that in the future he will get even with her somehow. Affect of anger expressed toward proper object, accompanied with some real action, but is later un- done or taken back. e.g. Harry is angry and proceeds to argue with his mother. He feels his mother should at least repay him. She does. He rushes to the ticket box, but the game is sold out. Realizing the money will do him no good now, he meekly returns home and apologizes to his mother for his earlier actions. 93 94 Indirect: 4. Affect of anger expressed toward proper object; however, no action is taken and the affect is later undone or taken back. e.g. Fred is mad, however he covers it up and doesn't belittle or scold his fiancee. He has the car fixed and although he's hesitant to let Barbara take the car again, he willingly let's her drive it. 5. Affect of anger displaced toward another object (other than one eliciting anger reaction); either toward a third party or toward hero himself. e.g. This constant reprimanding of Jack for things he didn't do soon gave Jack an inferiority complex. Before long his ways changed. He was no longer the happy go lucky kid whom everyone liked. Jack began smoking and drinking to cover up his complex. Within a short time Jack had become a first class juvenile delinquent. This condition continued into adulthood. Jack turned to crime and was convicted of murder and sen— tenced to life in prison. 6. Denial of affect of anger. Another affect is sub- stituted in lieu of affect of anger. e.g. Fred races out of the house to see how much damage was done to the car. He finds Barbara standing by the car in tears. Fred tells her not to worry because the damage is covered by his insurance. It took a week for the car to be fixed. But it was ready just in time for the wedding. Direct: SCORING CATEGORIES FOR DEPENDENCY STORIES 1. Person takes dependent action without expression of ambivalence about it. Feels content or certain of decision to be dependent. e.g. Michael says no to the offer. He feels he's in college for an education and not to have parties. It also costs him nothing to live at home; so keeps a cool head and turns down Tom's offer. 2. Dependent action taken; however decision accompanied with some ambivalence. Hero does ask for help, assistance or aid in some form, but is not happy about doing so. e.g. Indirect: 3. Hero Michael was anxious and excited. He had always wanted to be out of his parents' home and have an apartment. The coeds who lived in his new would be home sounded good also as Michael was a big flirt. Michael talked it over with his parents and they left the choice up to him. Michael wanted to so very bad but he knew it just might hurt his parents and his grade point so he turned the offer down. decides not to be dependent; however, he expresses conflict over decision. e08. All his life Jerry has followed his mother's wishes but in a case such as this Jerry decided that his mother can go to hell. Which of course solves the problem because Jerry's mother never again will speak to him and he is free to marry Susan. 95 96 Hero expresses no need to be dependent. No accompanying conflict expressed over it. He's happy or certain of decision. e.g. Jerry thinks it over and decides he will continue his relation with Susan. The matter of religion can be settled without any real problem. He feels Susan will make him a very good partner in life. SCORING CATEGORIES FOR SEX STORY Passive: 1. Ted ignores Sally. No action taken by Ted toward Sally. He doesn't even stop to talk to her. e.g. Ted knows what kind of reputation Sally has around the neighborhood so he decided not to have anything to do with her and sticks to the "nice" girls in town. 2. Ted merely talks to Sally. There is no move on his part to initiate anything sexual. e.g. He says O.K. and sits down to talk. As time goes by he looks at his watch and sees that it is 10:00. Knowing he is expected he starts to close off his conversation and it is 10:30 by the time he gets home. His folks asked him what kept him and he explained and then said good-night and went to bed. 3. Sally is perceived as the one who takes the initiative. She is seen as a seductress or as the one who is active in pursuing Ted sexually. e.g. Ted sees his chance of proving his manhood. Al— though he knows he should be home, the power of a girl is more than the power of his parents. Ted goes in to Sally's house. She offers him a drink and before long, she has him in the bed— room. Ted doesn't know what to do so he lets Sally be the aggressor. The next day Ted feels foolish for what he did. Assertive: 4. Ted talks to Sally and also initiates some sexual activity over which he expressed some guilt. 97 98 e.g. Ted knows that he should be home at 10:00 o'clock but feels if he is going to be punished it might be worth it if his plans work out. Every move he makes to Sally was not at all rejected. These actions finally led to the bedroom and the bed. Ted finally got home at 1:00 o'clock and was punished but Ted thinks it was all well worth it. Ted actively pursues Sally sexually without any ex- pression of guilt about it. e.g. This is where Ted gets his first hand look at sex, and if he's had a first hand look already, then he gets a little more experience. Being an old American boy, Ted takes Sally to bed and after thrashing for a while Ted goes home. He plans to go back for more of the same tomorrow. PCR SUBTESTS' MEAN COMPARISONS FOR THREE SAMPLES Present Sample Male College Harvard Sample Graduate Sample N=120 N=44 N=142 Subtest Mean Mean Mean Fathers Loving 51.71 51.3 56.0* Rejecting 30.34 30.6 27.0* Mothers Loving 57.76 57.1 59.4 Rejecting 27.71 26.7 25.2* *Significant p differences between means found at .05 level of confidence. 100 APPENDIX D 101 102 TABLE D1.-—Dependency expression and subjects' age. N Dependency Expression Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen Twenty Direct 10 17 16 13 Indirect 12 25 15 ..12 Chi Square = 1.22; p Non-significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE D2.--Aggression expression and subjects' age. N Aggression '__ Expression Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen Twenty Direct ll 19 12 10 Indirect 11 23 19 15 Chi Square = .85; p Non-significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE D3.--Sex expression and subjects' age. N Sex __ Expression Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen Twenty Passive 14 28 23 18 Assertive 8 l4 8 Chi Square = .90; p Non-significant with three degrees of freedom. 103 TABLE D4.--Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and subjects' age. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Acceptance Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen Twenty Both Parents High 6 18 16 11 ’7 Both Parents Low 7 7 5 4 Mother High, Father Low 3 l 2 3 Father High, j Mother Low 6 l6 8 7 Chi Square = 8.66; p Non—significant with nine degrees of freedom. TABLE D5.-—Consistency in perceived parental rejection and subjects' age. N Consistency and Inconsistency in Perceived Parental Rejection Seventeen Eighteen Nineteen Twenty Both Parents High 8 13 12 12 Both Parents Low 8 l5 l2 9 Mother High, Father Low 3 6 4 2 Father High, Mother Low 3 8 3 2 Chi Square = 3.26; p Non—significant with nine degrees of freedom. 105 TABLE El.—-Dependency expression and fathers' educational status. N Grade High Graduate Dependency Expression School School College School Direct 3 25 18 10 Indirect 7 25 25 7 Chi Square = 5.11; p Non-significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE E2.--Aggression expression and fathers' educational status. N Grade High Graduate Aggression Expression School School College School Direct 7 l9 l9 7 Indirect 3 31 24 10 Chi Square = 3.55; p Non—significant with three degrees of freedom. TABLE E3.--Sex expression and fathers' educational status. N Grade High Graduate Sex Expression School School College School Direct 6 40 27 10 Indirect 4 10 16 7 Chi Square = 4.83; p Non-significant with three degrees of freedom. 106 TABLE E4.--Consistency in perceived parental acceptance and fathers' educational status. I N I Consistency and Inconsistency in I Perceived Parental Grade High Graduate 7 Acceptance School School College School I Both Parents High 3 23 19 6 A I .1 I Both Parents Low 2 7 9 5 Mother High, Father Low 2 4 3 0 Father High, Mother Low 3 16 12 6 W Chi Square = 5.85; p Non-significant with nine degrees of freedom. TABLE E5.--Consistency in perceived parental rejection and fathers' educational status. N Consistency and Inconsistency in . t Perceived Parental Grade High Gradua e Rejection School School College School Both Parents High 5 17 15 8 Both Parents Low 0 20 18 6 Mother High, Father Low 2 7 6 0 Father High, Mother Low 3 6 4 3 Chi Square = 10.78; p Non-significant with nine degrees of freedom. APPENDIX G 109 weuwn.3w...