Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Defense Choice And Identification
(USC Thesis Other)
Defense Choice And Identification
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 66-7073 KAWIN, M arjorie Ruth, 1923- DEFENSE CHOICE AND IDENTIFICATION. U n iversity of Southern C aliforn ia, P h .D ., 1966 P sych ology, c lin ica l University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan DEFENSE CHOICE A ND IDENTIFICATION by M arjorie Ruth Kawin A D is s e rta tio n P resented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t of the Requirements fo r th e Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) January 196 6 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by ........................ Marjoxie.-Rutli.KSuwAiL.......................... under the direction of h$.x..„Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y v Dean Date January., ...1.966................................ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE PLEASE NOTE: Some pages are not original copy. They tend to "curl". Some pages have faint print. Filmed in the best possible way. University Microfilms, Inc. ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS I wish to take t h i s opportunity t o express my a p p re c ia tio n to the many people who helped in the planning and execution of th e p resen t stu d y . F i r s t , I would lik e to thank Dr. A lfred Jacobs, my committee chairman, f o r h is help in designing th e study. Thanks, a l s o , to Dr. Norman C l i f f and Dr. James P ete rso n , whose suggestions added much to th e f i n a l form of the r e p o rt. To th e Board of D irecto rs and s t a f f of the Westside Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles I owe a s p e c ia l debt of g r a titu d e . The Board of D irec to rs made the f a c i l i t i e s of th e nursery school a v a ila b le . The w holehearted i n t e r e s t and cooperation of the s t a f f helped immeasurably in th e recru itm en t of su b je c ts and in t e s t i n g the c h ild re n . B elle M ille r , the school d ir e c to r , devoted much time and energy in gaining the support of the p a re n ts. In a d d itio n , she spent many hours w ith me d e sc rib in g th e p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the fam ilies who c o n s titu te d the experim ental sample. The te a c h e rs —N a ta lie Halpern , Goldie Lazar, Rena P e te r s , La Vada Reese, N e ttie S c h lo sser, and C laire S tark — p a tie n tly s u ffe re d in te r r u p tio n s of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s as t e s t e d ch ild re n l e f t and re tu rn e d to t h e i r i i i groups. T h eir a s s is ta n c e , and th a t of th e "helping mothers" was in v a lu ab le in e s ta b lis h in g ra p p o rt with the c h ild re n , and in moving them toward the t e s t s i t u a t i o n . S pecial a p p re c ia tio n is due to those p aren ts who p a r tic ip a te d in the s tu d y , giving t h e i r time t o f i l l out the q u e s tio n n a ire s and t h e i r perm ission to t e s t t h e i r c h ild re n . To the c h ild re n , I say thanks fo r the fun we had " t e l l i n g s t o r i e s . " F in a lly , my deepest debt of g ra titu d e is to my own c h ild re n . I t is t h e i r c o n trib u tio n of many i r r e t r i e v a b l e hours of "mothering" t h a t made th is study p o ssib le . TABLE O F CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 Chapter I . THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ......................................................... 3 H istory of th e Concept of Defense . . . . . 3 The Choice of Defenses ........................................... 6 P sychoanalytic theory and defense choice .................................................... 6 S o cia l le a rn in g theory and defense c h o i c e .............................................. .. . 10 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ............................................................ .. . 20 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and im ita tio n . . . . . . 20 Theories of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ............................. 21 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : sex and r o l e .........................24 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : th e s o c ia l s ta n d a rd , a g g re ssio n , and defense . . . . . . . 26 Summary ............................ 30 I I . RELEVANT STUDIES...................................................................... 3 2 Defense ....................... 32 Family I : d en ia l and p ro je c tio n . . . . 32 Family I I : tu rn in g a g a in st the s e l f and r e v e r s a l of a f f e c t .......................................36 Sex d i f f e r e n c e s ....................................................3 7 Sex-Role and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ................................. 39 Sex d iffe re n c e s in s tr e n g th of ro le and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ................................................ 40 Learning fa c to r s in e s ta b lis h in g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .................................................... 43 S ex-role d iffe re n c e s in ag g ressiv e b e h a v i o r ........................................................................49 S ex-role d iffe re n c e s and the s o c ia l s t a n d a r d ............................................................ . 5 6 i v V Chapter Page I I I . PURPOSE........................................................................................ 6 3 IV. HYPOTHESES..................................... 65 Hypothesis I ........................................................................... 65 P re d ic tio n 1 .................................................................. 65 P re d ic tio n 2 ....................... 65 Hypothesis I I ...................... 66 P re d ictio n 1 .................................................................. 66 P re d ic tio n 2 .................................................................. 67 P re d ictio n 3 . . . .................................................... 67 P re d ictio n 4 ..................................................................67 Hypothesis I I I ........................... 68 P re d ic tio n 1 .................................................................. 68 P red ictio n 2 .................................................................. 68 P re d ic tio n 3 ..................................................................69 V. METHOD...................................................................................................70 S u b j e c t s .....................................................................................70 Instrum entation ............................................................. 71 Test d e v e lo p m e n t.........................................................73 Parent P erception Test 7 7 C h ild ren 's S itu a tio n Test ............................ 81 Defense Learning T e s t ........................................... 84 Parent Q uestionnaire .......................................... 87 P aren ts' S itu a tio n Test . . . . . . . . 89 P r o c e d u r e ................................................................................90 S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures ............................................... 92 VI. RESULTS.........................................................................................9 7 Test R e l i a b i l i t i e s ........................................................9 7 Parent Perception Test ..................................... 9 7 C h ild ren 's S itu a tio n Test ............................ 98 Parent Q uestionnaire .......................................... 101 P aren ts' S itu a tio n Test . ...............................104 Defense Learning T e s t ....................................10 7 T esting the F ir s t Hypothesis ............................... 10 8 T esting th e Second Hypothesis .......................... 114 T esting the Third Hypothesis ............................... 125 A dditional Findings ................................................... 130 Analyses of v ariance: defense t e s t s . . 130 D ifference among defense v aria b les . . . 139 P are n ta l consistency .......................................... 143 C o rrelatio n s among defense v a ria b le s . . 151 VII. DISCUSSION ..................................................................... 156 v i Chapter Page P rin c ip a l Questions and Hypotheses ...................... 156 D iscussion of Hypothesis I .............................15 9 D iscussion of Hypothesis I I ..............................160 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : The Parent Perception T e s t ......................................... 161 Defense p r o f i l e a n a ly sis ........................ 16 9 P a re n ta l co nsistency ............................... 171 Summary ...................................................177 D iscussion of Hypothesis I I I .............................. 178 Summary . . . . . . . 180 A d d itio n al Findings ....................................................... 181 D efense-fam ily hypothesis ............................. 181 M iscellaneous s p e c u l a t i o n s ................................184- Deni a3. ..................................................................... 184- Aggression ............................................................185 G u i l t ......................................................................187 T h e o re tic a l Im p lic atio n s ................................. . . 189 D e f e n s e ..........................................................................189 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ......................................................... 192 C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the t e r m ......................... 192 Parent p erce p tio n ............................................... 195 P r a c tic a l A pplications f o r Experim ental Findings ........................................... 195 V III. SUMMARY..........................................................................................197 APPENDIX A: PARENT PERCEPTION TEST ........................................... 203 APPENDIX B: CHILDREN'S SITUATION TEST ................................ 20 8 APPENDIX C: DEFENSE LEARNING TEST ........................................... 228 APPENDIX D: PARENTS' DEFENSE TESTS ........................................... 234 APPENDIX E: M EANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ALL TEST VARIABLES......................................... 250 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 258 LIST OF TABLES T able Page 1. C h ild re n 's A g e s ................................................ ........................71 2. E ducational and Occupational Level of Parents , . 72 3. Parent Perception T est: Uncorrected and Spearman-Brown Corrected S p lit- H a lf R e l i a b i l i t i e s.............................................................................. 99 4. C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est: U ncorrected and Spearman-Brown C orrected S p lit- H a lf R e l i a b i l i t i e s ........................................................................... 100 5. Parent Q uestionnaire: U ncorrected and Spearman-Brown Corrected S p lit- H a lf R e l i a b i l i t i e s ........................................................................... 10 2 6. P a r e n ts 1 S itu a tio n T est: Uncorrected and Spearman-Brown C orrected S p lit- H a lf R e l i a b i l i t i e s ........................................................................... 10 5 7. C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est: C o rrela tio n s between "Child" and "Mother" and "Child" and "F ather" Responses .................................................... 10 9 8. C o rrela tio n s between "Child" I n s tr u c tio n s , C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e st, and P a ren ts' Responses to the Parent Q uestionnaire and P are n ts' S itu a tio n T e s t ................................ « . 110 9. Parent P erception T est: T otal Scores A ttrib u te d to " M o t h e r " .......................................... 115 10. Parent P erception T est: D ifferences between Boys and G irls in P erception of Parents as N u rtu ra n t, Punishing, and P o w e r f u l ....................... 117 11, Defense P ro f ile Analysis of C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e s t ...................................................................... 12 0 v i i i T able Page 12. Defense P ro f ile A nalysis Comparing Child Reported Data and Parent Reported Data . . . . 121 13. Defense P ro f ile A nalysis: D istance between C h ild 's Report of "Mother" and Mother's Report as Compared with C h ild 's Report of "Father" and F a th e r’s Report ................................. 12 3 14. Defense P ro file A nalysis: D istance between G ir ls ' Defense P r o f ile and G ir ls ' P a re n ts' Defense as Compared to Distance between Boys’ Defense P ro file and Boys' P a re n ts' Defense P r o f i l e ......................................................................124 15. Defense Learning T est: D ifference in Number of Correct R e sp o n se s--lst t o 3rd Learning T r i a l s .........................................................................................12 7 16. C o rre la tio n s between Parent P erception Test V ariables and Defense Learning T est ........................ 12 8 17. Defense Learning T est: Mean D ifferences between Boys' and G ir ls ' Im ita tio n of "Mother" and "Father" ......................................................... 12 9 18. Summary of the A nalysis of Variance of the "Total" Scores: C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test ...................................................................... .... 132 19. Summary of the A nalysis of Variance of the "T otal" Scores: Parent Q uestionnaire ................... 133 20. Summary of th e A nalysis of Variance of the "Total" Scores: P a re n ts ’ S itu a tio n Test . . . 134 21. Mean D ifferences among Defense V ariables: Boys' and G ir ls ' "Child" Scores on C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est .......................................... 140 22. Mean D ifferences among Defense V ariab les: Defense Scores of Mothers and Fathers C o m b in e d .................................................................................... 141 2 3. Mean D ifferences between Defense V ariables Reported by P arents of G irls and Parents of B o y s ........................................................................................144 i x T ab le Page 24. C o rre la tio n s between Responses of Mothers and F athers: P arent Q uestionnaire and Parent S itu a tio n T est ............................ . 146 25. I n tra - P a r e n t C onsistency: C o rre la tio n s and Mean D ifferences between "Adult" and "Child" I n s tr u c tio n s on the Parent Defense Tests ......................................................... 149 26. C o rrela tio n s between Defense Modes: C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est ............................................... 152 27. C o rre la tio n s between Defense Modes: P a re n ts' Defense T e s t ............................................................ 154 LIST OF FIGURES Histogram of Mean Defense Scores fo r Boys and G ir ls — C h ild re n ’s S itu a tio n T e s t, "C hild," "Mother," "F ather" I n s tr u c tio n ; Line Graph above In d ic a te s Mean "Total" Score fo r All I n s tr u c tio n s Combined .................................................... Histogram of Mean Defense Scores f o r Mothers and Fathers of G irls Derived from the "Adult" and "Child" Scales of the Parent Q uestionnaire and the P a r e n ts ’ S itu a tio n T est. The Line Graphs above Show P arents of G ir ls ' Mean T otal Defense Scores fo r Each T est and the Mean of the G ir ls ' Scores, "Child" I n s tr u c tio n s from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test ................................. Histogram of Mean Defense Scores f o r Mothers and Fathers of Boys Derived from th e "Adult" and "Child" Scales of the Parent Q uestionnaire and th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est, The Line Graphs above Show P arents of Boys Mean T o tal Defense Scores f o r Each T est: and the Mean of the Boys' S cores, "Child" I n s t r u c t i o n s , from th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test » ...................................... INTRODUCTION The concept of defense is a co rn ersto n e of psycho a n a ly tic theory and c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e , but i t i s one which has been accepted w ith l i t t l e q u e stio n or in v e s tig a tio n . I t i s g e n e ra lly agreed t h a t defenses a r i s e out of c o n f l i c t s , th a t defenses a s s i s t the in d iv id u a l in coping w ith h is unacceptable th o u g h ts, im pulses, and a c t s , and t h a t defenses are c r u c ia l fa c to rs in the maintenance of e g o - i n t e g r i t y . A b r i e f overview of th e b a s ic l i t e r a t u r e q uickly leads to the conclusion th a t th e re is no c le a r agreement as to what c o n s titu te s a d efen se, or how a p a r t i c u l a r defense comes in to e x is te n c e ; why an in d iv id u a l fav o rs one defense over an o th e r, o r a t what p oint defensive o p eratio n s become p a th o lo g ic a l. With the growth of ego psychology and p u b lic a tio n of Anna Freud's book on Mechanisms of Defense (1946), g re a t impetus has been given t o c o n s id e ra tio n of defense mechanisms in psychotherapy. L i t t l e r e s e a rc h , however, has been focused on c l a r if y in g the e tio lo g y of defenses. I t i s th e purpose of th is re se a rc h d ir e c tly to in v e s tig a te th e o rig in of defenses as an aspect of r o le behavior in the context of s o c ia l le a rn in g theory. The 2 main hypothesis to be examined w ill be th a t defenses are le a rn e d , and th a t the le a rn in g is a sso cia ted w ith the process of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . CHAPTER I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND H istory of the Concept of Defense Freud formulated th e concept of defense early in the development of h is th in k in g . A paper e n t i t l e d "The Defense Neuro-Psychoses" published in 1894 contains a reference to the pushing out of awareness of unbearable perceptions (S. Freud, 1949, Vol. I ) . In "F urther Remarks on Defense Neuro-Psychoses" (1949, Vol. I ) , published a few years l a t e r , he used the term "repression" as a generic name fo r the defense process. I t was not y e t c le a r in the l a t t e r paper whether rep ressio n was the only defense, or whether perhaps a l l o th e r defenses depended upon rep ressio n as a kind of underlying mechanism. By 1915, in a paper t i t l e d "Repression" (1949, Vol. IV) he had come to view rep ressio n as only one of many techniques the ego had at i t s d isp o sa l fo r warding o ff unpleasant percepts. At the same tim e, he added some b r i e f , sp ecu la tiv e comments about the presence and modes of a p p lica tio n of o ther defenses. In " I n h ib itio n s , Symptoms, and Anxiety," in 1936, Freud defined defense as "a general designation fo r a l l the 3 techniques which th e ego makes use of in c o n f lic ts which may lead to a n e u ro sis" (1949, p. 155). L ater he s ta te d th e concepts of defense would be used t o "cover a l l processes w ith t h e i r same purpose—namely, the p ro te c tio n of the ego a g a in s t i n s t i n c t u a l demand" (p. 157). In t h i s paper he began t o sp e c u la te on the p re c ise r e la tio n s h ip s between a p a r t i c u l a r defense and a p a r t i c u l a r n e u ro sis . The r e la tio n s h i p s are considered in more d e t a i l by Anna Freud (1946) and by Fenichel (1945). Since th e development of ego psychology, defense mechanisms have been thought of in terms of t h e i r a d a p tiv e , as w ell as t h e i r p a th o lo g ic a l, a s p e c ts. Lampl-DeGroot (195 7) expressed t h i s view when she s ta te d : We view the n e u ro tic defense mechanism as p a th o lo g ic a lly exaggerated or d i s t o r t e d re g u la tio n and adaptation mechanisms, which in themselves belong t o normal development. (p. 117) Anna Freud agreed t h a t pathogy seems t o e x i s t in the lo ss of f l e x i b i l i t y of defensive choice. Lois Murphy (1960) d is tin q u is h e d between coping devices and defense mechanisms. She defined coping devices as " s p e c if ic a c ts which d ea l w ith s t r e s s , d i f f i c u l t i e s , c h a lle n g es, new o p p o r tu n itie s , e t c . , which cannot be handled by r e f le x or o th e r autom atic a c tio n ." She defined defense mechanisms as " in tra p s y c h ic o p eratio n s u t i l i z e d by th e c h ild to reduce an x iety aroused by in n e r c o n f lic t between pressu res from the o u tsid e and i n s i d e ." She re p o rte d th a t by the ages of two to f o u r , a l l th e c h ild re n in the Meninger Foundation Study group had developed a r e p e r to ir e of defense mechanisms which played t h e i r p a r t in the t o t a l coping behavior o f the c h ild . In agreement w ith Anna Freud, she observed th a t the d if fe re n c e between h ap p ier and le s s happy ch ild re n was in the f l e x i b i l i t y of re a c tio n and in the success of th e o v e r a ll coping p a tte r n in p r o te c tin g and aid in g the c h i l d ’s ca p acity f o r g r a t i f i c a t i o n , r e l a t i o n s h ip s , and growth. P sy ch o lo g ists have only re c e n tly begun t o study d e fe n s e s. Much of th e p re se n t work involves p e rc e p tu a l t defense (Dember, 1960). While r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s have been o b ta in e d , no firm t h e o r e t i c a l bridge between th ese psychophysical phenomena and th e defense mechanisms described in p sy c h o an aly tic l i t e r a t u r e has been firm ly e s ta b li s h e d , and t h e r e f o r e , the data w ill no t be considered in the context of the p re se n t stu d y . M ille r and Swanson have e x te n siv e ly d e a lt w ith p sy ch o an aly tic concepts of defense in s o c ia l le a rn in g term s. They have c a te g o riz e d defenses according t o a system based upon an a n a ly sis of the f u n c tio n a l p ro p e r tie s of the various mechanisms (1956) and in v e s tig a te d r e la tio n s h ip s between such v a r ia b le s as s o c ia l c la s s and p aren t a t t i t u d e s on th e o rig in of defense mechanisms (M ille r and Swanson, 1960; Swanson, 1961). The Choice of Defenses 6 Psychoanalytic ‘ Hieory and Defense Choice While i t has been generally agreed th a t c o n f lic t is the e s s e n ti a l condition f o r the development of a defense, p sy c h o an aly tica lly o rie n te d th e o re tic ia n s have never attem pted to deal d ir e c tly with the conditions underlying an in d iv id u a l's tendency t o choose one type of defense over another. T heir focus has been on the age of the in d iv id u a l when a p a r t i c u l a r type of c o n f lic t was not adequately resolved (as in o r a l , a n a l, and oedipal s tr u g g le s ) , as w ell as on the in tra -p s y c h ic adjustments made in response t o the ebb and flow of psychic energy and/or t o s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n s . Thus, Anna Freud s ta te d : Whenever a tran sfo rm atio n of an a f f e c t occurs, . . . the ego has been a t work and we have an opportunity of studying i t s operations . , . Obviously, however, one and th e same ego can have a t i t s d isp o sal only a lim ite d number of p o ssib le means of defense. At p a r t i c u l a r periods of l i f e and according to i t s own s p e c if ic s tr u c tu re the in d iv id u a l ego s e le c ts now one defensive method, now another . . . an ’ these i t can employ both in i t s c o n f lic t with the in s t i n j L 's and in i t s defense ag a in st lib e r a tio n of a f f e c t . (1946, p. 3 4) To i l l u s t r a t e the p o in t, Miss Freud (1946, pp. 48-51) described how a g i r l who experiences penis-envy in r e la tio n to h e r b ro th ers and jealousy of h e r mother because of the m other's many pregnancies might defend ag a in st the anger which, i f expressed d i r e c t l y , might evoke p a in fu l punishment and destroy the m other's lo v e, of which she could not b ea r to be deprived. Miss Freud hypothesized th a t the c h i l d ’s ego might defend a g a in st the i n s t i n c t s f i r s t through d isp la c in g the h a tre d onto more remote female o b je c ts . This proving in e f f e c tiv e a t la te n c y , th e ego may tu rn the h a tre d inward. This may be followed by p r o je c tio n s , and on adulthood the p a tie n t is diagnosed as paranoid. Given the same c o n d itio n s , an h y s t e r i c a l neurosis may have developed in the p a tie n t had the ego rep resse d the sex u al and aggressive im pulses, transform ing them in to bodily symptoms, " i f th e p a tie n t possesses the capacity f o r conversion and som atic conditions are fa v o ra b le ," In o th e r c a se s , the ego may p ro te c t i t s e l f a g a in st the r e a c tiv a tio n of the o r ig in a l c o n f lic t by developing a phobia and avoiding the occasions of tro u b le . In o b sessio n al n e u ro s is , again the impulses are re p re sse d , but here the ego secures i t s e l f a g a in s t t h e i r re tu rn by means of r e a c tio n -fo rm a tio n , followed by ob sessio n al cerem onials to p r o te c t the mother from an outbreak of ag g ressiv e impulses and an exaggerated moral code to check the m a n ife sta tio n of sexual im pulses. Fenichel (19 45) e x te n siv e ly sp e c u la te s upon the r e la tio n s h i p of defense t o i d , ego, and superego, and the e x te r n a l environment. The e x te rn a l environment i s considered as re le v a n t only to the e x te n t th a t i t has been in te r n a liz e d as superego. For F en ich el, defensive operations o r ig in a te in in tra p s y c h ic c o n f l i c t . The motives of defense are rooted in e x te rn a l in flu e n c e s . However, the e x te rn a l world as such cannot r e p r e s s . I t can only compel th e ego to develop re p re ssin g fo rc e s . Without an in tra p s y c h ic i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t re p re se n ts and a n tic ip a te s the e x te rn a l world, no defense and no n eu ro sis could a r i s e . The e x te rn a l world cannot ward o f f impulses except through the ego. Whenever a stim ulus gives r i s e to p a in fu l f e e lin g s , a tendency is developed not only t o ward o ff these fe e lin g s but a ls o to ward o ff the stim u lu s. However, none of th ese n e u ro tic f a l s i f i c a t i o n s of r e a l i t y can be d is tin g u is h e d ex a ctly from re p re ssio n s th a t are d ire c te d a g a in s t one's own impulses . . . s it u a ti o n s th a t are avoided or fo rg o tte n because they rep re se n t an in n e r i n s t i n c t u a l demand. (pp. 130-131) In d isc u ssin g the d i f f e r e n t i a l e tio lo g y of various types of defen ses, Fenichel (1945, pp. 523-525) notes th a t even normal persons who are f le x ib le and able to r e a c t adequately show "h a b its . . . in th e ways the ego chooses fo r solving i t s t a s k s ." He l i s t s the follow ing fa c to rs which determine f ix a tio n of defense mechanisms and c h a ra c te r a t t i t u d e s : 1. The n atu re of th e i n s t i n c t u a l impulses th a t preem inently have to be warded o ff. 2. The time when the decisiv e c o n f lic t was experienced, with e a r l i e r c o n f lic t a ro u sa l r e s u lt in g in more in te n se d istu rb a n c e , as w ell as c e r t a in defense mechanisms th a t are more in the foreground than oth ers a t c e rta in developmental p erio d s. Thus, f o r example, th e defense of p ro je c tio n i s more complex than t h a t o f re a c tio n form ation and may be observed a t a l a t e r age. Another development f a c to r i s the re la tio n s h ip between a p a r t i c u l a r p ro h ib itio n and th e i n s t i n c t u a l impulse in q u e stio n . 3. The co n ten t and in te n s it y of the f r u s t r a t i o n s and th e n atu re of th e f r u s t r a t i n g f a c t o r s . The p e rs o n a lity of th e f r u s t r a t i n g parent in flu e n c e s th e c h i l d 's re a c tio n through h is a t t i t u d e s , which determine in p a rt how th e c h ild experiences the f r u s t r a t i o n . A lso, the usual re a c tio n t o the f r u s t r a t i n g parent i s am bivalence, which may " r e s u l t in an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith him; the c h ild then becomes e i t h e r s im ila r or markedly d is s im ila r to the f r u s t r a t i n g person, o r t o one aspect of t h i s person" (p. 524). 4. Whether or not s u b s t i t u t e g r a t i f i c a t i o n s are a v a ila b le at th e time of f r u s t r a t i o n . In most c a se s , however, Fenichel s t a t e s : 5. The a t t i t u d e was fo rced on the in d iv id u a l d i r e c t l y by a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n ; e i t h e r i t was the most s u ita b le a t t i t u d e in a given s i t u a t i o n , and a l l l a t e r s it u a ti o n s are then re a c te d t o as i f they s t i l l were th e pathogenic one, or a l l o th e r p o ssib le a t titu d e s were blocked in a given s i t u a t i o n , or the a t t i t u d e was favored by some model in the c h i l d 's environm ent, with whom the c h ild i d e n t i f i e d h im s e lf, or th e a t t i t u d e is ex a ctly opposite to t h a t of a model whom the c h ild did not want to be lik e . Thus, Fenichel has o u tlin e d a number of d if f e r e n t ways in which a p a r t i c u l a r defensive method of coping with in tra p s y c h ic c o n f lic ts may o r ig in a t e , but he provides us 10 with no way of p re d ic tin g how much weight may be properly given to one over an o th er, or how these fa c to rs are i n t e r r e l a t e d in the in d iv id u a l's experience. E xternal in flu en c es and id e n tif ic a tio n processes are suggested, but not in a form th a t is useable in in c re a sin g p re d ic tio n in a given case. S ocial Learning Theory and Defense Choice In t h e i r attempt t o reco n cile psychoanalytic and le arn in g th eo ry , Dollard and M iller (195 0) deal but b r i e f l y with the e tio lo g y of d e fe n s e s, and then in terms of response p a tte rn s which have taken t h e i r place on the h a b it h ie rarch y through the process of response reinforcem ent. L i t t l e i s sa id about how the response o r ig in a lly was evoked or why and how i t might have been r e in fo rc e d , or by what e x te rn a l or in te rn a l agent the reinforcem ent might have been adm inistered. They do r e f e r t o the le a rn in g of complex v erb al p a tte rn s through 1 1 matched-dependent im ita tiv e beh v io r," b u t do not r e l a t e th is to defensive o p e ra tio n s . M ille r and Swanson (1956, 1960) and Swanson (1961) have attem pted to sharpen the issu es involved in the study of defense mechanisms, developing new ways of ca te g o riz in g and d efin in g defenses in o p era tio n a l term s. In Inner C onflict and Defense (19 60) th e etio lo g y of defense was sought in such v a ria b les as s o c ia l cla ss and .11 p aren t a t t i t u d e s . Defenses here were defined in the follow ing fu n c tio n a l te rm s : Defenses f a c i l i t a t e the i n h ib i tio n and s e le c tio n of i n d i r e c t o u tle ts fo r needs whose d i r e c t ex p ressio n would e i t h e r c re a te s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , e l i c i t g u i l t , o r lead to an overwhelming em otional s t a t e . In a d d itio n , c e rta in mechanisms perm it the red u ctio n of e x te rn a l sources of a n x ie ty . To e s ta b li s h th e e x is te n c e of a d efen se, one must dem onstrate the occurence of d isc re p a n t unconscious r e a c tio n s . (pp« 210-211) These authors d i f f e r e n t i a t e d th re e fa m ilie s of defense. The f i r s t family in clu d ed d e n ia l in a c t and fa n ta s y , w ithdraw al, and r e s t r i c t i o n of the ego. These defenses are c h a ra c te riz e d by s i m p lic ity , maximum p e rc e p tu a l d i s t o r t i o n , g e n e ra lity o f use t o a l l types of s i t u a t i o n s , and the c re a tio n of major d i f f i c u l t i e s in s o c i a l r e la tio n s h i p s . They a re i n e f f e c t i v e in so lv in g problem s, sin c e they remove the in d iv id u a l from the s i t u a t i o n com pletely, and may even r e s u l t in th e s u b s t i t u tio n of fan tasy f o r r e a l i t y . These authors p o s tu la te th a t the source of anxiety determ ines th e s p e c i f i c mechanism used h e re . Thus, s t r e s s f u l e x te rn a l circum stances would r e s u l t in p h y sic al w ithdraw al; i n t e r n a l s t r e s s from which the in d iv id u a l cannot run away may r e s u l t in b l o t t i n g experience from awareness by f a in ti n g or going t o s le e p , r e t r e a t to daydreams, or m is in te rp r e ta tio n of th e f a c t s . The authors hypothesized th a t the above defenses would e x i s t where p aren ts exact to o many p e n a ltie s or o f f e r to o few rew ards, and would be more o ften found in working c la s s 12 fam ilies where one finds a s t r e s s f u l environment as w ell as harsh p h y sical d is c ip lin e and a r b itr a r y req u ests f o r obedience. The second family of defense included p r o je c tio n , displacem ent of the o b je c t, i s o l a t i o n , r e v e r s a l , and tu rn in g a g a in st th e self* These are complex mechanisms in which only a p o rtio n of th e p ercep tu al f i e l d i s d is to r te d . The preceding defenses may be only ap p lica b le to s p e c if ic types of s i t u a t i o n s , may r e s u l t in s o c ia lly approved behavior, and are more conducive to adequate problem s o lv in g , sin ce d is to r tio n is le s s . Thus, fo r example, to "tu rn ag ain st oneself" means the in d iv id u a l has acquired the complex wish t o belong to c e rta in s o c ia l groups ; he has a need to d is tin g u is h between him self and o t h e r s ; he perceives h is body image; and he acknowledges c e rta in approved forms of aggression. He understands the purpose and functions of s o c ia l groups. In c o n tra st t o d e n ia l, he is s t i l l aware of h is h o s t i l i t y , but only confines d is t o r ti o n of h is response to the object of ag g ressio n . In using th e defense of i s o l a t i o n , only the a f f e c t is d is to r te d and d isp laced . I t was assumed by M ille r and Swanson (1960) th a t defenses in the second family would be a s s o c ia te d w ith th e middle cla ss and with chi Id -re a rin g p ra c tic e s th a t encourage th e development of s k i l l s req u ired f o r the m aster of second family defenses. Thus, parents would 13 have to make t h e i r ru le s as c le a r as p o s s ib le , be fle x ib le in d is c ip li n e , and o ffe r inducements fo r conform ity. C h a r a c te r i s tic of the th ir d family defenses are su b tle s h i f t s in th e in t e n s i t y a ttr ib u te d by the in d iv id u a l to h is p e rc e p tio n s. Thus, the in d iv id u a l may, in ste a d of fe e lin g rage where a p p ro p ria te , f e e l only a l i t t l e "put o u t." These defensive operations are very complex, do only minimal v iolence to the accuracy of p ercep tio n , and are applied t o s p e c i f i c , encapsulated areas of experience. They are s o c i a l l y acceptable, and often remain s o c ia lly unrecognized (Kovacs, 195 8). A fte r th e p u b lic a tio n of Inner C onflict and Defense Swanson (19 61) a lte r e d both the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of defenses and the t h e o r e t i c a l basis upon which t h e i r e tio lo g y may be understood. He now f e l t th a t the o r ig in a l research was conducted in th e context of the more t r a d i t i o n a l psycho- a n a ly tic a lly o rie n te d approach, seeing defenses as the re a c tio n of th e in d iv id u a l to a s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n , and as constructed by th e in d iv id u a l. In t h i s l a t e r paper, he proposes the hypothesis th a t "a defense is an aspect of (the i n d i v i d u a l ’s) ro le in a s itu a tio n " (p. 8). Rather than being p rim a rily constructed by him, i t i s "imported in to him. " Swanson d efin es a mechanism of defense as a "blocking of the d i r e c t , overt expression of a p e r s is ta n t motive in order t o avoid th e d eprivations consequent upon such 14 e x p re s sio n ." D efenses, he s t a t e s h e r e , are ways o f liv in g with o n e's unexpressed d e s ire s and with the dangers which i n h i b i t t h e i r e x p re s s io n s , not of abandoning the d e s ire or circum venting the dangers. They re p re se n t a compromise between a p a r t i c u l a r d e s ire and a p a r t i c u l a r environm ental sta n d a rd (p. 31). Swanson b e lie v e s t h a t a l l th r e a ts a r e , in the f i n a l a n a ly s is , e x te r n a l. What we dread is some response of th e world around us. Conscience, superego, and s i m i l a r terms r e f e r t o a n tic ip a tio n s of such responses. He proposes th a t th e d i s t i n c t i o n between the fam ilies of defense is founded, not d i r e c tly on the n atu re of the o b sta c le encountered by the in d iv id u a l, as suggested by Anna Freud (1946), but on the terms of r e c o n c ilia tio n between the s o c i a l sta n d a rd and the w ish--on whether th e gain from submission i s found p rim a rily in achieving some reward or in avoiding some d e p riv a tio n . W ill a c h i ld , fo r example, obtain a ff e c tio n and a id i f he i n h i b i t s h is aggressiveness ( r e s u ltin g in a n a c l i t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ) , or w i l l he only avoid harsh punishment ( r e s u l t i n g in i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith the ag g resso r)? The in d iv id u a l conforms t o the s o c ia l sta n d ard s e t f o r him and, in a s e n s e , i d e n t i f i e s w ith , or becomes l i k e , the s o c i a l p r e s c r ip tio n . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , he s t a t e s , is not a mechanism of defense but r a th e r an e v a lu a tio n of the d e s i r a b i l i t y t o conform. I t i s at t h i s p o in t in h is reasoning t h a t Swanson suggests th a t the mechanisms of 15 defense developed by an in d iv id u a l are r e la te d to h is i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a t te r n s . I f th e in d iv id u a l lim its the expression of h is d e s ire s (conforms to the s o c ia l sta n d ard ) in o rd er to avoid some punishment o r d e p riv a tio n no t compensated by the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the s o c ia ll y unacceptable m otives, he i s , in a se n se, id e n tif y in g with the ag g resso r. The defense mechanisms a s s o c ia te d with t h i s type o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are s im ila r to those of the f i r s t fam ily. He in clu d es here d e n ia l, p r o je c tio n , r e s t r i c t i o n of the ego, d en ia l in fa n ta sy , and d e n ia l in a c t. Where these defenses are employed, the s o c ia l stan d ard i s le ss im portant to th e in d iv id u a l than the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of the wish. The in d iv id u a l who lim its the ex pression of h is d e sire s because he expects to be rewarded, as w ith love and ap p ro v al, is id e n tif y in g with the s o c ia l sta n d ard in a manner analogous to a n a c l i t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Defensive operations a s so c ia te d w ith t h i s form o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are s im ila r t o those in M ille r and Swanson's second fam ily. They include re p r e s s io n , tu rn in g a g a in s t s e l f , i s o l a t i o n , r e a c tio n form ation, and undoing. The d iffe re n c e between Swanson’s (1961) b a s is fo r c a te g o riz in g defenses and th a t proposed by M ille r and Swanson (1960) may be demonstrated by the placement of p ro je c tio n in t h i s f i r s t family by Swanson, while i t had, in o th e r systems been placed with the second fam ily. In 16 the previous work, th e defense of p ro je c tio n was thought of as re p re se n tin g displacement of the agent of aggression. In t h i s subsequent paper Swanson s p e c if ic a lly excluded displacement as a d efense, seeing i t as the ’'s e le c tio n of some a v a ila b le way of expressing a d e s ire when more s u ita b le methods are unavailable or too c o s tly ." He thus dism isses displacem ent as "a p o ssib le consequence of defensive behavior; not an in stan ce of such behavior" (p. 32). P ro je c tio n is described by Swanson as a compromise between a p a r tic u la r d e s ire and a p a r t i c u l a r environmental sta n d a rd , in t h a t (1) the in d iv id u a l values the wish more than the sta n d a rd , (2) the in d iv id u a l sees him self as hemmed in by th re a te n in g forces which he must co n stan tly f ig h t and a g a in st which he achieves a s ta n d - o f f , but never an enduring tru c e or v ic to r y , (3) the standard is not challenged, but those who i n s i s t on conformity are seen as making unreasonable demands, (M -) the in d iv id u a l has to lim it th e range of behavior to which the standard is a p p lic a b le , (5) the in d iv id u a l deceives him self concerning the s i n c e r i t y of h is devotion to the stan d ard , (6) th e re is no reward fo r conformity to the sta n d a rd , only avoidance of pain. While Swanson has extended the th e o r e tic a l bounds of the study of defenses d ir e c tly in to the area of the s o c ia l le a rn in g o r ie n ta tio n and suggested a r e la tio n s h ip between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and choice of the defense, he has not 17 c le a r ly dem onstrated j u s t how i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p atte rn s and defense p a tte rn s are r e la te d . At one p o in t, he s ta te s th a t th e defense i s chosen as a consequence of the type of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; in an o th e r, he s ta te s th a t c e rta in underlying s o c ia l and psychological conditions are conducive t o the development of a p a r t i c u l a r defense and a p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , with no im p lica tio n of c a u s a lity . His hypotheses are derived from a r e -a n a ly s is of research undertaken in th e more t r a d i t i o n a l context t h a t th e in d iv id u a l "c o n stru c ts" h is defen ses, and l i t t l e new d a ta was su p p lied to support Swanson's theory t h a t the defense i s imposed upon the in d iv id u a l through s o c ia l le a rn in g . He is content to s t a t e th a t a r e la tio n s h ip e x i s ts between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d efen se, but never r e a l l y su p p lies th e read e r with a lo g ic a l d e riv a tio n of such a r e la tio n s h i p . He makes "ro le " c e n tr a l t o h is th eo ry , but never goes on to develop the ro le aspect of the h y p o th e tic a l sta tem en t. He speaks in s o c ia l le a rn in g terms of reward and punishment, but is very vague about the d e t a i l s of such reinforcem ent. Despite the incom pleteness of h is fo rm u la tio n s, Swanson seems to have c a rr ie d the th e o r e t i c a l framework forward to terms which can be d e a lt w ith on an o p e ra tio n a l, experim ental le v e l. T herefore, the o r ie n ta tio n of the p rese n t study w i l l revolve around h is d e f in it io n of defense and h is c a te g o riz a tio n of s p e c if ic defenses. 18 A defense mechanism th e n , w ill be defined as a response by which th e in d iv id u a l a f f e c ts a compromise between h is wish or need d ir e c tly to express a p e r s i s t e n t m otive, and the dangers which the in d iv id u a l expects to encounter from the environment should he so express them. I t i s assumed h e r e , th a t the in d iv id u a l must i n h i b i t the impulse because he has learned a s o c ia l stan d ard which lim its i t s fre e ex p ressio n . Swanson's f i r s t family of defenses included those which have d e n ia l a t t h e i r c o re , i . e . , p r o je c tio n , r e s t r i c t i o n of the ego, d e n ia l in fa n ta sy , and d e n ia l in a c t. These defenses serve t o reso lv e a c o n f lic t by (1) denying i t s ex isten c e through p h y sic al or psychic w ithdrawal ( d e n ia l) , (2) r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the motives of e x te rn a l agents in accordance with one's in n e r needs, and d is t o r ti o n s w ith minimal re fe re n c e to e x te rn a l r e a l i t y ( p r o je c tio n ) , (3) re lu c ta n c e to accept e x te rn a l s tim u li or le a rn s k i l l s ( r e s t r i c t i o n of eg o ), (4) s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a p le a sa n t fan tasy f o r the unpleasant r e a l i t y (d e n ia l in f a n ta s y ), and (5) a c tio n by which the in d iv id u a l t r i e s to dem onstrate th a t th e wish o r v io la tio n of a sta n d ard never occurred (d e n ia l in a c t ) . The second fam ily of defense in clu d e t f - s e which have re p re ssio n a t t h e i r core; tu rn in g a g a in s t the s e l f , i s o l a t i o n , and r e a c tio n form ation. These defenses serv e to m itig a te the c o n f lic t between p erso n al need and s o c ia l sta n d ard by giv in g more weight to the sta n d a rd , a t the expense o f the in d i v i d u a l 's wish. Thus, in re p re s s io n , the in d iv id u a l fo rg e ts or f a i l s to become aware of i n t e r n a l impulses or e x te rn a l events which, as a r u l e , re p re se n t p o s s ib le tem p tatio n s or punishment f o r , or mere a llu s io n t o , o b je c tio n a b le i n s t i n c t u a l demands (F e n ich e l, 1945). T u rn in g -a g a in s t-th e -s e lf i s the defense u su ally a s so c ia te d with s e l f - d e s t r u c t i v e o r s e lf- d e p r e c ia tin g behavior. Here the in d iv id u a l recognizes h is d e s ir e , which he perceives as very d if f e r e n t from th e s o c ia l standard t o which he is committed. He b e lie v e s th a t he f a l l s sh o rt of meeting t h i s stan d ard whether because of d e s ire or because of la ck of s k i l l . When using i s o l a t i o n , the in d iv id u a l admits h is d e s i r e s , but attem pts to sep arate them from h is normal behavior p a tte rn s in o rd er to conform to the sta n d a rd , saying th a t he does not take them s e rio u s ly o r th a t he would never a c t on them. In re a c tio n form ation, he adopts the wish or behavior opposite to what he would en jo y , and behaves in almost s t r i c t accordance with the s o c ia l sta n d a rd . A fte r th e v io la tio n of the s o c ia l sta n d a rd , the behavior a s so c ia te d with th is second family of defense would be undoing, i . e . , th e in d iv id u a l t r i e s to make r e s t i t u t i o n fo r th e tra n s g re s s io n . Thus, in each c a se , the in d iv id u a l m odifies th e unacceptable p a rts of h im self in o rd er to gain the rewards asso cia ted with the acceptance of h is s o c ia l group ( p a re n ts , p e e rs, e t c . ) . I t is behavior 20 a s so c ia te d with these defenses th a t i s usually chosen as the dependent v a ria b le in stu d ie s concerned with g u ilt and conscience form ation. Which p a r tic u la r p aren tal a t tr i b u te s are acquired depends, in p a r t , upon the manner in which the parent and h is behavior is experienced by the ch ild . I d e n tif ic a ti o n I d e n tif ic a ti o n and Im ita tio n : C la r if ic a tio n of Terms Bandura (1962) uses th e term im ita tio n learn in g in behavior theory synonymously with id e n tif ic a tio n in p e rs o n a lity th e o ry , s in c e , he n o te s, both encompass the same b eh a v io ral phenomenon, i . e . , "the tendency fo r a person t o match th e behavior or a t titu d e s as ex h ib ited by a c tu a l o r symbolized models" (p. 216). For other t h e o r i s t s , th i s re p re se n ts r e d u c tio n is tic o v ersim p lifica tio n . Lazowick (1955) defines " id e n tif ic a tio n " as matching behavior f a l l i n g w ith in a c lass of responses defined in terms o f meaning. The word im ita tio n is reserved fo r highly s p e c if ic a c ts . Parsons (195 5) thinks of i d e n tif ic a tio n in terms of a d if f u s e , generalized, dynamic attachm ent between su b je c t and model. Im ita tio n , ag ain , is c h a ra c te riz e d by s p e c i f i c i t y with no dynamic attachment n ecessary . Mowrer (19 50) d if f e r e n tia te s between im ita tiv e and id e n t i f i c a t o r y behavior in terms of the presence or absence of the model. 21 The p re se n t au th o r w i l l r e t a i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and i m i ta t io n , w ith i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e p re s e n tin g a b ro a d er, more g e n e ra liz e d , complex le v e l of b eh av io r in which meaning, as w e ll as sex , r o l e , s o c ia l e x p e c ta tio n s , and dynamic in tra p s y c h ic forces are re le v a n t f a c t o r s . Im ita tio n w i l l be re ta in e d f o r the r e p e t i t i o n of s p e c i f i c a c ts performed by a model. I t is to be assumed th a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is never wholly w ith one p a re n t o r a n o th e r, but r a t h e r t h a t an in d iv id u a l i m i ta t e s , i n t e r n a l i z e s and thus i d e n t i f i e s s e le c tiv e l y w ith c e r ta in asp ects of each p a r e n t 's behavior and a t t i t u d e s . I t is the complex p a tte rn of the acquired ac ts and a t titu d e s as they are i n t e r r e l a t e d w ith in the in d iv id u a l th a t c o n s titu te s h is p a r t i c u l a r i d e n t i t y . T heories o f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Fenichel (19 45) a s s e r ts th a t the o u tstan d in g i d e n t i f i c a t i o n takes place with th a t p aren t who is regarded as th e source of th e d e c is iv e f r u s t r a t i o n . However, he a s s e r t s , b io lo g ic a l fa c to rs g e n e ra lly p r o h ib it in te n s iv e cro ss-se x ed i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s . W hiting (1959, 196 0) has extended the Freudian defensive i d e n t i f i c a t i o n th e o ry . For W hiting, i d e n t i f i c a to ry behavior i s the outcome of riv a lro u s in t e r a c t i o n between the c h ild and the p aren t who occupies an envied consumer s t a t u s . Whiting hypothesizes t h a t where a c h ild 22 competes unsuccessfully with an ad u lt fo r a f f e c tio n , a t te n t io n , food, and c a re , the ch ild w i l l envy the ad u lt who gains th e reward, and consequently id e n tify with him. Maccoby (1959), Mussen and D is tl e r (1959), and Parsons (195 5) assume the power theory of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i . e . , th a t the c o n t r o ll e r of resources w i l l be the primary ob ject of im ita tio n . The model gains h is a b i l i t y to co n tro l others by m ediating both p o s itiv e and negative reinforcem ent. A model whose power i s prim arily derived through th r e a t or coercion may be im ita te d so th a t the su b je c t may acquire the th re a te n in g power of the feared o b je c t, and thus reduce anxiety. This has been termed id e n t i f i c a t i o n with the aggressor (A. Freud, 1946, p. 121). Though h is behavior may be accepted, the model him self assumes a negative v alen ce, and looses h is e ffe c tiv e n e ss in a l t e r i n g the behavior of others beyond the immediate s o c ia l s it u a t i o n . Where the model co n tro ls through the m anipulation of such rewards as a ffe c tio n and approval, the su b je c t may im ita te due to anxiety over a n tic ip a te d lo ss of love. The a ttr a c tiv e n e s s and secondary reward value of the power fig u re who uses th is form of control i s enhanced through the rep eated a s s o c ia tio n of h is a t t r i b u t e s with p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t, and th e c o n t r o l l e r 's power may thus extend over a wide range of behavior. Mowrer (19 50) focused on th is le a rn in g aspect of the 23 power theory of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , extending i t with the hypothesis t h a t th e c h ild , by matching the responses of th e model (1) ad m in isters p o s itiv e reinforcem ent to h im s e lf, and (2) o b tain s more approval from the e x te rn a l r e in f o rc in g a g e n t. According t o Mowrer’s theory i t is f i r s t assumed t h a t a v a r ie ty of responses in a p a r t i c u l a r c la ss are in n a te ly a v a ila b le to the organism. Response choice is i n i t i a l l y mediated by c l a s s i c a l c o n d itio n in g . Because the model rewards the c h ild , the b eh av io ral a t t r i b u t e s of the model are p a ire d re p e a te d ly with p o s itiv e reinforcem ent. Through t h i s p ro c e ss, the model’s behavior acquires secondary r e in f o rc in g p r o p e r tie s . Through stim ulus g e n e r a liz a tio n , responses resem bling those of the model are a ls o rewarding when reproduced by the ch ild h im se lf. At t h i s p o in t, symbolic r e h e a r s a l, as w ell as overt perform ance, may be rewarded by the in d iv id u a l h im self. However, the performance of im ita tiv e responses thus learn ed are l i k e l y to be rewarded by e x te rn a l agents and thus come to fu n ctio n as in stru m e n ta l responses as w e ll. Thus, the c h ild who e x h ib its a t t i t u d e s o r behavior s im ila r t o the p aren ts w i l l win approval. Bandura (1962) su b scrib es to a theory of im ita tiv e le a rn in g which places primary emphasis on contiguous sensory stim u la tio n as a s u f f i c i e n t co n d itio n fo r th e a c q u is itio n of most forms of matching responses. Reinforcem ent, and such o th e r fa c to rs as s u b je c t and model 24 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , m o tiv a tio n al v a r ia b le s , and stim ulus programming f a c i l i t a t e im ita tiv e le a rn in g , but are not necessary p reco n d itio n s fo r th e occurance of a response. Bandura deals s e p a ra te ly w ith i m i ta t io n , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , r o l e , responses to f r u s t r a t i o n , ag g ressio n , and the development o f moral judgment, but never r e l a t e s these stu d ie s to th e in h ib i tio n of drive and/or defensive behavior. The above d isc u ssio n has d e a lt w ith what might be termed "personal i d e n t i t y . " Described were p a re n t-c h ild in te r a c ti o n p a tte r n s which would f a c i l i t a t e th e le a rn in g of any c h a ra c te ro lo g ic a l a t t r i b u t e , re g a rd le ss of sex or ro le . These p a tte rn s would in flu en ce th e development of the c h ild even before he became conscious o f h im self as boy or g i r l , and before he learned s e x -ro le a p p ro p ria te behavior. They would continue to be e f f e c tiv e throughout the c h ild - re a rin g p e rio d , in flu e n c in g and being in flu en c ed by sex- ro le v a r ia b le s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : Sex and Role I t is apparent from review of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n theory th a t a c h i l d 1s major personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n need not be with the same-sexed p a re n t. The Freudian view p o s tu la te s th a t se x -ty p in g is the outcome of the r e s o lu tio n of the Oedipal complex through which the c h ild adopts the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of th e riv a lro u s lik e - s e x p a re n t, thereby 25 reducing an x iety over a n tic ip a te d punishment from t h i s p a r e n t, as w ell as v ic a rio u s ly gaining th e a f f e c t io n a l g r a t i f i c a t i o n s of th e opposite-sexed p a re n t. Other th e o rie s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n lead to no such conclusion. While b io lo g ic a l lik e n e ss may be a re le v a n t f a c t o r in focusing th e c h i l d 's a t te n t io n on a p a re n t, a more s i g n i f i c a n t f a c to r in developing " a p p ro p ria te ” s e x -ro le behavior may be th e rewards obtained by th e c h ild when he responds in a c u l tu r a lly approved way. Brown (195 7) s t a t e s t h a t s e x -ro le id e n tity r e f e r s t o "behavior a s s o c ia te d with one sex or the o th e r th a t the in d iv id u a l i n t r o j e c t s and acq u ires as h is own." S ex-role p re fe re n c e , on the o th e r hand, r e f e r s to "behavior a s so c ia te d with one sex or the o th e r t h a t th e in d iv id u a l would lik e to adopt, or t h a t he perceiv es as th e p re fe rre d or more d e s ira b le b e h a v io r." While i t is u su a lly tr u e th a t s e x -ro le i d e n t i t y and preferen ce are c lo se ly a s s o c ia te d , i t is not n e c e s s a r ily t r u e . Where men are rewarded w ith more s o c io - c u ltu r a l advantages than women, th e re is lik e ly t o be a tendency f o r g i r l s to p r e f e r th e masculine r o l e , even though m aintaining a feminine i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (Brown, 1957; Lynn , 195 9 ). Many s p e c if ic a t t i t u d e s and behaviors are im ita te d and in c o rp o ra te d in to th e i n d i v i d u a l 's t o t a l id e n t i t y which are considered eq u ally a p p ro p riate to e i t h e r sex. This may be tr u e of defense mechanisms. However, th e s e x -ro le 26 id e n t i f i c a t i o n processes may influence the le arn in g of defenses in d i r e c t l y . Thus, fo r example, the c h ild may be more highly s e n s itiz e d to the behavior of his lik e-sex ed p a re n t, and s o c ia l pressures may motivate him to im ita te th a t p a r e n t’s behavior. Also, d i f f e r e n t i a l lik e -sex ed and cross-sexed in te rp e rs o n a l re la tio n s h ip s between parents and c h ild re n are stro n g ly influenced by s o c ia l and psycho lo g ic a l v a ria b le s which cre a te d if f e r e n t reward and punishment p a tte rn s f o r the same behavior in boys and g i r l s , and thus in flu en ce id e n t i f i c a t i o n and/or im ita tio n of s p e c if ic t r a i t s . I t has often been suggested th a t observed sex d iffe re n c e s in aggression and in responses to tra n sg re s sio n of s o c ia l standards are somehow re la te d to variance in reward and punishment based larg e ly on psycho s o c ia l f a c to rs . I f we accept Swanson's p o s itio n th a t the major function of defense is to help th e in d iv id u a l compromise between h is impulses and his s o c ia l sta n d ard , then anything which stro n g ly a f f e c ts e i t h e r impulse or standard should also a f f e c t th e process th a t balances them. I d e n tif ic a ti o n : The S ocial Standard, A gression, and Defense Having accepted the view th a t a defense mechanism functions to help the in d iv id u a l compromise h is drives with h is s o c ia l s ta n d a rd s , i t is necessary to consider how these 27 v a r ia b le s develop in c h ild re n , and how they may be in flu e n c e d by s e x -ro le and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r ia b le s . The Freudian view of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as d escrib ed by F enichel (1945, p. 37) p o s tu la te s a close r e la tio n s h ip between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , g u i l t , and defense. The f i r s t s t a t e of primary n a rc issism in which th e re i s o b je c t re p r e s e n ta tio n soon changes as p ercep tu al-m o to r f a c u l t i e s of the ego develop and as the in d iv id u a l attem pts to p r o te c t h im self a g a in s t too in te n se s t i m u l i . This p ro te c tio n is o r ig in a l ly accomplished by the s h u ttin g o ff of the fu n ctio n of p e rc e p tio n — "the model f o r a l l l a t e r defense mechanisms." A p rim itiv e attem pt a t th e mastery of in te n se s tim u li c o n s is ts in the i n f a n t i l e eg o 's im ita tin g t h a t which is p erce iv ed , and i s a form of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Another p rim itiv e re a c tio n t o th e f i r s t o b je c t i s ta k in g - into-the-m outh and s p i t t i n g - o u t , the b asis fo r a l l p e rc e p tio n . This q u a lity i s n o tab le in l a t e r re g re s s io n s . I d e n tif ic a ti o n - - d e f in e d by Fenichel as the im ita tio n of th e d e s ira b le a t t r i b u t e s of the o th e r—is considered to be a re g re s s io n to or r e p e t i t i o n of the a rc h a ic primary n a r c i s s i s t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , though i t comes a t a tim e when id and ego are s e p a ra te . I t is t h i s l a t e r process of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which i s involved in the development of the superego, whereby ch ild re n accept th e standards and ideas a s s o c ia te d with the p a re n ts . The p a r e n ta l o b je c t is in te r n a liz e d through a process of i n t r o j e c t i o n . The 28 superego becomes an "in n e r mother" th re a te n in g punishment or withdrawal of a f f e c tio n should th e standards be v io la te d . G rinder (1962) s t a t e s th a t th e re is gen eral agreement upon the theory th a t conscience development i s a consequence of th e degree to which the in d iv id u a l has i n te r n a liz e d , le a rn e d , or id e n t i f i e d with a d u lt behavior and v alu es. Grinder p o s tu la te s th a t d i f f e r e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of g u i l t are a fu n ctio n of the kind of model parents provide. In a d d itio n , a c h ild w i l l le a rn to respond to tra n s g re s s io n and r e lie v e g u i l t in a manner which w ill be rewarded by p a re n ta l approval. Aronfreed (1963) reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e on th e development of c h i ld r e n 's moral responses. He concluded th a t c h ild r e n 's in te r n a liz e d responses to tra n s g re s s io n assume a g reat v a rie ty of forms and o ften re v e a l l i t t l e evidence of co g n itiv e re so u rc e s. For example, s e l f - c r iti c is m was not found to be the most freq u en t response t o f a i l u r e t o conform t o the s o c ia l sta n d ard . Numerous responses were c h a ra c te riz e d by the p erce p tio n of e x te rn a lly defined consequences of tr a n s g r e s s io n . He found t h a t d if f e r e n t responses were a t t r i b u t a b l e t o d if f e r e n t p a tte rn s of s o c ia l reinforcem ent in t h a t they were p re d ic ta b ly r e la te d to the socio-economic s ta tu s and sex- * r o le of the c h ild , and, t o a l e s s e r degree, to m aternal d is c ip lin a r y p r a c tic e s . 29 Berkowitz (196 2) was in te r e s te d in aggressive behavior* g u i l t , and a l te r n a ti v e responses to f r u s t r a t i o n which, in Swanson's term s, might be thought of as compromise s o lu tio n s and th e re fo re defensive o p e ra tio n s. Aggression anxiety may be evoked when th e in d iv id u a l perceives some fe a tu re s of the f r u s t r a t i n g s it u a ti o n as dangerous and thus b elie v e s he must hide h is h o s t i l i t y i f he i s t o avoid punishment. G uilt may be a s so c ia te d with aggression when the experienced h o s t i l i t y re p re se n ts a v io la tio n of h is moral sta n d a rd s, and consequently ag g ressiv e re a c tio n s to any anger he f e e ls are in h ib i te d . Learning may in flu en c e aggressive beh av io r, Berkowitz s t a t e s : (1) by in flu en c in g the d e f in itio n of the s i t u a t i o n which determ ines which g o a l-d ire c te d a c t i v i t i e s are blocked; (2) by determ ining whether any o th er responses tendencies are aroused th a t are s tro n g e r than th e e l i c i t e d ag g ressiv e a c t s ; and (3) by a f f e c tin g the exact nature and i n t e n s i t y of th ese a c ts . There i s a g reat deal of experim ental evidence t h a t overt and a n t i - s o c i a l aggressive behavior i s more a p p ro p ria te t o the masculine r o l e , while in h ib i tio n of aggression and p ro -s o c ia l aggression is more a p p ro p ria te t o the female r o le . L i t t l e u se fu l theory has been developed to deal with th i s d a ta , aside from vague sp e cu la tio n s of a r e la tio n s h ip to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and so c ia l-p s y c h o lo g ic a l r o le -e x p e c ta tio n th e o ry . 30 Summary The c o n s tru c t of d efen se, in both the psy ch o an aly tic and s o c i a l le a rn in g t h e o r e t i c a l frameworks, re p re se n ts a un ify in g c o n s tru c t. Any p a r t i c u l a r defensive o p eratio n i s a response whose function i t i s to am eliorate a c o n f lic t between a drive (whether termed i d , a g g ressio n , sex, a n x ie ty , or unacceptable wish) and the stan d ard s e t by the environment (whether termed superego, conscience, p a r e n t, or c u l tu r e ) . The process of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s r e le v a n t, whether one th in k s in p sy ch o an aly tic terms and p o s tu la te s a necessary r e la tio n s h i p between the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of o b je cts and superego form ation, or in the so c ia l-p sy c h o lo g ic a l framework of r o l e , o r in the s o c ia l- le a r n in g framework of reward and punishm ent. T h e o re tic a l d iffe re n c e s e x i s t as to whether defense mechanisms are c o n stru c te d by the in d iv id u a l through some process of response m ediation as he re a c ts to a s i t u a t i o n , or whether they are acquired by the in d iv id u a l through a le a rn in g akin t o im ita tio n . In the former case, the defense mode favored should be more a fu n ctio n of the i n d iv i d u a l’s s o c ia l sta n d ard as w ell as some in tra p s y c h ic organizing process such as developmental sta g e or "ego s t r u c t u r e ." Learning theory suggests th a t defense behavior i s developed as the c h ild im ita te s such behavior modeled by the p a re n t. Some s e l e c t i v i t y in im ita tio n is f a c i l i t a t e d by the le v e l of reward and punishment a s so c ia te d w ith the 31 a c q u is itio n of a p a r t i c u l a r p a r e n t 's behavior. S o cia l le a rn in g theory would p re d ic t t h a t , among nursery school c h ild r e n , defensive o perations w ill vary with sex and r o le . On th e b asis of the psychoanalytic theory of the o rig in of d e fe n s e s , th e se mechanisms should be u n re la te d to sex d iffe re n c e s among c h ild re n . One might p re d ic t from o th e r asp ects of p sy ch o an aly tic theory th a t th r e e - to fiv e -y e a r old g i r l s would have developed more of the mature defenses — Swanson's (1961) second fam ily—because t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the mother is s t a b l e , while th e boy must s h i f t h is model to the f a th e r a t t h i s age (S e a rs, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957), However, only s o c ia l le a rn in g th eo ry would p r e d ic t a c o r r e la tio n between a c h i l d 's defense s tr u c t u r e and the defense s tr u c t u r e of one of the p a r e n t s . The focus of the rem ainder of t h i s paper w i l l be on rese arch d ea lin g with d efense, and t o r e la te d s tu d ie s which dem onstrate d iffe re n c e s in c h i ld r e n 's s e x -ro le p a tte rn s in terms of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , ag g ressio n , and g u i l t . Also noted w i l l be c h ild - r e a r in g antecedents a s s o c ia te d with such p a tte r n s which r e f l e c t v a r ia tio n s in reward and punishment t h a t might in flu e n c e th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p ro cess. CHAPTER II RELEVANT STUDIES Defense Family I : Denial and P ro je c tio n Two stu d ie s of d en ia l in fan tasy w ill be considered h e re —one by Beardslee rep o rted in M iller and Swanson (I9 6 0 ), the o th e r by Kovacs (1958). Beardslee chose 96 p re-ad o lescen t boys from the middle and lower c la s s . She gave them a sto ry completion t e s t involving f a ilu r e s it u a ti o n s before and a f t e r the boys experienced r e a l i s t i c f a i l u r e . She found t h a t boys who used d e n ia l, as opposed to re p re s s io n , came from homes in which the mother req u ired obedience without d isp lay in g much s e n s i t i v i t y fo r the c h i l d 's f e e lin g s , provided only occasional rewards, and employed psychological d is c ip lin e . Also more lik e ly to use t h i s defense were boys from the lower c la ss and ch ild re n of average (as opposed to high) in te llig e n c e in the middle c la s s . Higher in te llig e n c e among lower c la ss boys tended to outweigh the e f f e c t s of the c la ss s t a t u s . I t was found t h a t , f o r a l l groups, d e n ia l was more fre q u en tly used when 32 33 average verbal I.Q . was combined with co rp o ral punishment, and when low v erb al I.Q . was combined w ith p sychological punishment. High v e rb a l I.Q. and m other's use o f reasoning reduced the use of d e n ia l. Reasonable req u ests plus p sychological d is c ip li n e and frequent reward was l e a s t a s so c ia te d with d e n ia l. Frequent reward made l i t t l e d iffe re n c e to c h ild re n whose p aren ts fre q u en tly used p h y sical punishment. In g e n e ra l, however, p a re n ta l demands fo r obedience was a more s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r than th e method of punishment alone in developing d e n ia l. This l a s t fin d in g supports Swanson's view th a t th e r e c o n c ilia tio n of c o n f lic t between wish and s o c ia l stan d ard is the essence of defense. The e n t ir e study suggests th a t d e n ia l is used where the c h ild experiences severe s t r e s s and l i t t l e rew ard, a u to c r a tic demands o f obedience, and when i n t e l l e c t lim its th e use of th e "reasoning" provided by th e p a re n ts. Kovacs (195 8) stu d ie d a group of 110 adolescent M ethodist boys of middle and lower c la sse s s t a t u s . He p resen ted them with s t o r i e s t o be completed by the m u ltip le choice s e le c tio n of predeterm ined endings. He did not fin d in te llig e n c e a s i g n i f ic a n t v a r ia b le a s so c ia te d w ith th e use of d e n ia l in fa n ta sy . His use of an o b je c tiv e t e s t method which minimized verbal s k i l l may account fo r th e d isc re p ancy between h is and Beards l e e ’s fin d in g reg ard in g the importance of I.Q . Denial in fan ta sy was found to be r e l a t e d to p u n itiv en e ss of m other's d i s c i p l i n e , t o b e l ie f s 34 i in the n e c e s s ity fo r breaking t h e i r c h ild r e n 's w i l l s , to f a i l u r e t o provide c le a r standards of conduct, and to m other's a c tiv e encouragement of d e n ia l. In th e working c l a s s , p aren ts re in fo rc e d the use of d e n ia l in fantasy through p u n itiv e d is c ip li n e . In th e middle c l a s s , d e n ia l was more fre q u e n tly used where mothers a lso used t h i s d efen se, as measured by a q u e s tio n n a ire . "Denial" items on t h i s q u e s tio n n a ire r e f le c te d the themes t h a t people should th in k about more p le a sa n t th in g s when they are faced with problems, and daydreaming helps to solve c o n f l i c t s . " I f the mother i s h a rsh ," Kovacs s t a t e s , "he denies h is problems. I f she encourages th e d efense, he clin g s to i t " (p. 175). F a th e rs' a t t i t u d e s and b e h a v io ra l measures were a s s o c ia te d with the boys' use of d e n ia l. This suggested to Kovacs t h a t the c h i l d 's e a rly r e la tio n s h ip t o th e mother is c r u c ia l in le a rn in g to deny c o n f l i c t . I t might a lso in d ic a te th a t boys le a rn t h e i r defense s tr u c t u r e more through im ita tio n o f , or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith , t h i s aspect of th e m other's p e r s o n a lity . Swanson (1961) p o stu la te s a dynamic r e la tio n s h i p between d e n ia l and p ro je c tio n . There i s no experim ental d ata to support t h i s n o tio n , though th e se defenses are o ften observed t o occur to g e th e r in o b se ssio n a l neuroses and in sc h izo p h ren ia. Boatman and Szurik (1960) stu d ie d 200 fa m ilie s in which one o r more c h ild re n had been 35 diagnosed sc h izo p h ren ic or schizoid* T h eir data su g g e st, as did K ovacs', th a t th e c h ild who tends t o use d e n ia l, p r o je c tio n , and r e s t r i c t i o n of the ego has been t r e a t e d h a rsh ly and taught th e se defenses by p a r e n ta l example. The m other's in flu e n c e was g r e a te r than th e f a t h e r 's in the c h i ld r e n 's defense-developm ent. Family I I : Turning A gainst the S e lf and R eversal of Affect Along with h e r study of d e n ia l, B eardslee (1960) measured re p re s s io n . Here, re p re ssio n was defined in terms of the tendency t o remember more successes or completed ta sk s than f a i l u r e s or incom pleted t a s k s , on a t e s t in which the su b je c ts were highly m otivated t o succeed. This defense was most o ften found among boys from the middle c l a s s , o r among boys whose p aren ts had explained t h e i r re q u e sts f o r obedience and e i t h e r favored psychological d is c ip li n e and/or freq u en t rewards. S t i l l an o th er asp ect of B e a rd sle e 's (1960) research involved c h i ld r e n 's use of the second fam ily defense mechanisms in response t o a r e a l c o n f lic t between aggres sio n and g u i l t . Adolescent boys f i r s t completed th re e s t o r i e s , then were led t o b e lie v e t h e i r m others, when in te rv iew ed , had rep o rte d t h e i r sons' behavior in n eg ativ e term s. Subsequently, a second s e t of s t o r i e s was completed. I t was found t h a t , when made anxious about ag g ressiv e n e e d s , boys in the middle c la ss in c re a se d t h e i r 36 use of tu r n in g a g a in s t the s e l f , minimized an g er, and maximized p o s it iv e a f f e c t ; boys in the working cla ss tended n o t t o do so . A rb itra ry p a re n ta l re q u e sts f o r obedience were a s s o c ia te d w ith in c re a se in tu rn in g a g a in s t th e s e l f among middle c l a s s , bu t not lower c la ss boys. Use o f defenses in th e second family among both c la s s e s was maximized when a r b i t r a r y req u ests f o r obedience were combined w ith o cc a sio n al rew ards. Occasional reward plus ex p lain ed re q u e s ts f o r obedience minimized t h i s type of d e fe n s iv e n e ss. Type of d i s c i p l i n e , weaning, and t o i l e t t r a i n i n g were not s i g n i f i c a n t fa c to r s in th e development of se lf-m o d ify in g d efen ses. Greening (195 8) used th e o b je c tiv e m u ltip le choice s to ry com pletion method with Kovacs' sample o f adolescent M ethodist boys. He found th a t tu rn in g a g a in s t the s e l f was a s s o c ia te d w ith ex ten siv en ess of m aternal stan d ard s a g a in st both ag g ressio n and ag g ressiv e th o u g h ts. Boys using th is defense had mothers who ta lk e d about a g g re s sio n , but did not punish f o r d i r e c t a tta c k . In g e n e ra l, no n -co rp o ral methods of punishment were favored. In t h i s same sample, Greening found r e v e r s a l of a f f e c t ( r e a c tio n form ation) used by middle c la s s boys whose mothers su ppressed i n d i r e c t aggression and punished o ffe n s e s . The type of punishment was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Working c la s s boys seldom used t h i s defense. I t was found 37 th a t c o rre la tio n s between th ese two defenses were high enough to j u s t i f y t r e a t i n g them to g e th e r fo r research purposes. Like Kovacs, Greening found the use of tu rn in g - a g a in s t- th e - s e lf and re v e rs a l of a f f e c t to be a sso cia ted with m aternal encouragement of these defense modes. Greening did not d ir e c tly question fa th e rs regarding t h e i r a t t i t u d e s . Sex D ifferences The only experiment dealing d ir e c tly with the r e la tio n s h ip between defense choice and se x -ro le id e n t i f i c a t i o n was Lansky's 1960 c o n trib u tio n to the work of M ille r and Swanson. He took a developmental view, notin g th a t Cl) th e o b ject of masculine id e n t i f i c a t i o n s h i f t s from the mother t o the f a th e r as the boy grows; (2) various aspects of ro le ap p ro p riate behavior are s e t at d if f e r e n t phases in l i f e ; and (3) th a t the more p rim itiv e defenses (d en ia l) are learned e a rly , while more complex defenses ( i . e . , re p ressio n ) are a product of g re a te r m atu rity . A large sample of college undergraduate males were divided in to th ree groups: Those who were o v ertly and unconsciously fem inine, the o v ertly masculine but unconsciously fem inine, and those wholly m asculine. I t was found t h a t , under em otional s t r e s s , the f i r s t group favored the defenses of d e n ia l and w ithdraw al; th a t the second and 38 t h i r d groups were more lik e ly to tu rn aggression a g a in st th e m selv e s; and th a t th e t h i r d group were more lik e ly to make r e a l i s t i c attem pts to resolve c o n f l i c t s . Again, as with Kovacs' stu d y , th e re i s a h in t th a t th e use of d e n ial in boys i s r e la te d to a feminine i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Lansky sp e cu lated th a t th ese feminine males had (a) denied much of the m a scu lin e-o rien te d stim u li around them, (b) were the le a s t m ature, and (c) had no p a r t i c u l a r i d e n tity c o n f l i c t . The group which was am bivalent in i t s s e x -ro le was su b je c te d to the g r e a te s t amount of in tra p s y c h ic c o n f l i c t , though they had reduced t h e i r c o n f lic t with the s o c ia l stan d ard by conforming. G reening's (1958) p r e - t e s t sample c o n siste d of both boys and g i r l s . He re p o rted th a t g i r l s were more lik e ly than boys to rev erse t h e i r anger. A rough re -s c o rin g of th e c h ild re n 's s t o r i e s in Kawin's (1962) d o ll play study rev ealed some d iffe re n c e s r e l a t e d to sex and r o le . In d o ll play in te ra c tio n s in v o lv in g f r u s t r a t i o n by th e "mother," g i r l s used defenses in the second fam ily more than those in the f i r s t and t h i r d fam ily, though th e d iffe re n c e was not s i g n i f i c a n t . In d o ll play in te r a c ti o n s in v o lv in g f r u s t r a t i o n by the " f a th e r ," th e se same g i r l s used t h i r d family defenses more fre q u e n tly than f i r s t fam ily defenses. The d iffe re n c e between frequency of second and t h i r d family defense modes was n ea r s ig n ific a n c e . In d o ll play in te ra c tio n s invo lv in g 39 f r u s t r a t i o n by e i t h e r "mother" o r " fa th e r" boys used second fam ily defenses somewhat more often than f i r s t fam ily d efense, and r a r e ly used t h i r d fam ily defenses. Comparing frequency of defense choice re g a rd le ss of p a re n ta l stim u lu s, g i r l s and boys used the second family e q u a lly ; boys tended t o use the f i r s t family defenses more than g i r l s ; and g i r l s used t h i r d family defenses more than boys. In a d d itio n , in d iv id u a l c h ild re n tended to choose one defense mode more than o th e rs , even though oth ers were at t h e i r d is p o s a l. This d a ta , though derived po st hoc and roughly measured from a sm all sample of s u b je c ts , does suggest th a t sex and r o le fa c to rs are s i g n i f i c a n t v a ria b le s in the s e le c tio n of a predominant mode of defense among normal nursery school c h ild re n . Sex-Role and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n At th i s p o i n t , i t would be w ell t o c le a rly d i f f e r e n t i a t e between: (1) s e x -ro le i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , whereby the in d iv id u a l im ita te s and/or accepts a model's behavior because he p r e fe rs to e s ta b lis h h im self as a member of th e m odel's sex-group; and (2) personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , whereby th e in d iv id u a l accepts a model’s a t t i t u d e s and a c tio n s which, because of th e p a r t i c u l a r r e la tio n s h ip with th a t model, have assumed p o s itiv e or negative value t o th e in d iv id u a l. In th e case of personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith a model, the behavior adopted may or 40 may not be s o c ia lly accepted as '•masculine" o r "fem inine." R esearchers studying se x -ro le behavior u su ally ask ch ild re n to choose among o b je cts which have been c u l tu r a lly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d in terms of t h e i r a p p ro p riaten ess to the sexes ( i . e . , c lo th e s , to y s , i n t e r e s t s ) . S ex-role p reference may a ls o be determined by asking the c h ild to choose between a male and a female model who perform r e l a t i v e l y n e u tra l ta sk s ( e . g . , take d if f e r e n t paths to a t a b l e ) . In v e s tig a to r s compare the s im ila r it y of response between the c h ild and the ad u lt model. They may ask how the c h ild p erceives h is p a re n ts , and what the p aren ts mean to him. I t i s im possible to e n t i r e l y se p a ra te s e x -ro le and personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n v a r ia b le s , because the c h ild experiences in te n se in tr a p s y c h ic , p a r e n ta l, and peer pressure t o in c o rp o ra te se x -a p p ro p riate a t t i t u d e s and behavior in t o h is p erso n al id e n t i t y . Sex-D ifferences in S trength of Role and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n " Brown (195 7) devised the I.T .S .C . by means of which he asked ch ild re n to choose between se x -a p p ro p ria te o b je c ts . He found t h a t ch ild re n tend t o behave in ways which are c u l tu r a lly defined as ap p ro p riate to t h e i r sex. However, g i r l s are more v a ria b le than boys in t h e i r choice of feminine o r masculine ap p ro p riate behavior u n t i l they reach adolescence. Boys, on the o th e r hand, ea rly accept masculine r o le behavior and m aintain i t . m F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964), using a sex-typed game in v e n to ry , found t h a t , from ages 5 through 11, boys, in c o n tra s t to g i r l s , id e n tif ie d more with the se x -ro le ste re o ty p e than with the lik e-sex ed p aren t. While g i r l s remained v a ria b le in t h e i r se x -ro le a c tiv i ty choices from ages 5 through 11, boys' choices became in c re a sin g ly ste re o ty p ed . Lynn's (1959) review of the research l i t e r a t u r e supports the above fin d in g s. He suggests se v e ra l fa c to rs in the s o c ia l m ilieu which might account fo r the stro n g masculine ro le preference among boys and the v a r i a b i l i t y of preference observed among g i r l s . Thus males are o ffered more p re s tig e and p r iv ile g e , are punished fo r in a p p ro p riate ro le behavior, and are presented with a c le a r ste re o ty p e of masculine ro le behavior. Fauls and Smith (1956) suggest th a t preschool ch ild ren perceive t h e i r parents as having d i s t i n c t preferences regarding se x -ap p ro p riate modes of behavior fo r t h e i r ch ild re n . Maas and Michael (1964-) added the v aria b le of s o c ia l c la ss t o t h e i r study of sex -a p p ro p riate i n t e r e s t s among k in d e rg a rte n c h ild re n . They found m iddle-class c h ild re n most lik e ly t o choose i n t e r e s t s which have been s o c ia lly denoted as ap p ro p riate fo r t h e i r gender, upper c la ss ch ild re n were le a s t lik e ly to choose se x -ap p ro p riate i n t e r e s t s . Middle class g ir ls were more sure of t h e i r i n t e r e s t s than were middle c lass boys; upper c la ss boys 42 were l e a s t sure of t h e i r p o s itio n . Irre s p e c tiv e of a c t i v i t y - i n t e r e s t and s o c ia l c l a s s , c h ild ren lik e d to th in k of themselves as belonging to th e c o rre c t gender. These in v e s tig a to r s note t h a t middle cla ss p a r e n t s , p a r tic u la r ly f a t h e r s , are more concerned about the se x -ro le behavior of t h e i r c h ild ren than are parents in o th e r c la s s e s . That s e x -ro le id e n t i f i c a t i o n and personal i d e n t i f i catio n with th e lik e -se x ed parent may be independent was suggested by the fin d in g s of Hartup (1962). His 3- to 6- y e a r-o ld su b je c ts completed the I.T .S .C . as w ell as 18 forced-choice problems in which they im ita te d e i t h e r the mother or the f a th e r model. G irls ' choice of feminine- ap p ro p riate o b jects on the I.T .S .C . was re la te d to im ita tio n of the mother in preference to the f a th e r in the two-choice problem. Among boys, however, m asculine-object choice was independent of the tendency to im ita te the f a th e r in preference to th e mother in the two-choice problems. N ev e rth e less, boys, more than g i r l s , im ita te d th e f a th e r. Hartup concluded th a t boys, in c o n tra s t to g i r l s , learn group-approved se x -ro le behavior more than the s p e c if ic a t t r i b u t e s of the lik e -sex ed p aren t. F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964) a lso found th a t se x -ro le and personal id e n t i f i c a t i o n are not n e c e s s a rily c o rre la te d . As noted above, they found th a t boys were more sex- stereo ty p ed in t h e i r game-choice than were g i r l s . Using a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l on the same sample, they found th a t 43 a t no age between 5 and 11 was the f a th e r a s ig n i f ic a n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n fig u re f o r the boys, whereas f o r th e g i r l s the mother was th e primary model fo r th e e n t ir e develop mental period u n t i l th e f i f t h grade, when th e re tended to be a n o n -s ig n ific a n t s h i f t to a ste re o ty p e of fe m in in ity . S ears, Maccoby, and Levin (195 7) found th a t k in d e rg a rte n boys are not as stro n g ly i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r fa th e rs as g i r l s are w ith t h e i r mothers. S ears, W hiting, Nowlis , and Sears (1953) concluded from d o ll-p la y stu d ie s th a t g i r l s id e n tif y more stro n g ly with t h e i r mothers than do boys. These in v e s tig a to r s b e lie v e t h a t both boys and g i r l s id e n tif y w ith the mother in e a rly childhood. Boys, however, must s h i f t t o a masculine i d e n tity between the t h i r d and f i f t h y ea r. P re-school boys, th e n , would not be expected t o be as stro n g ly i d e n t i f i e d with e i t h e r p a re n t, whatever t h e i r ro le -p re fe re n c e might be. The re p o rted d iffe re n c e s in choice of ro le and in stre n g th of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between sexes and among s o c ia l c la sse s suggest th a t both p erso n al and s e x -ro le i d e n t i f i c a tio n are learned phenomena. The next s e c tio n w ill d escrib e s tu d ie s which suggest th a t c e r ta in p a re n ta l a t t r i b u t e s have been found to f a c i l i t a t e the le a rn in g of p a re n ta l behavior p a tte r n s . Learning F actors in E s ta b lis h in g I d e n tif ic a ti o n Experiments which have focused on the r e la tio n s h ip 44 between p aren t-b e h av io r and c h i l d - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n tend to support Mowrer's theory th a t the p arent most lik e ly to be the primary o b ject of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is th e one who possesses rewarding power— not only in th a t he gives n u rtu ra n c e , but a ls o th a t he may tak e i t away as a form of punishment. Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) d ir e c tly compared the s ta tu s of envy, s o c ia l power, and secondary reinforcem ent th e o rie s of i d e n t i f i c a t o r y le arn in g among nursery school c h ild re n . I t was found t h a t while ch ild re n im ita te d some aspects of a l l the m odel's b eh av io r, they im ita te d p rim arily the model who possessed rewarding power, r a th e r than com petitors f o r the rewards. Moreover, power in v e rsio n s on th e p a rt of male and female models produced cross-sexed im ita tio n , p a r t i c u l a r l y in g i r l s . Im ita tio n was g re a te s t when the same-sex model mediated the p o s itiv e r e in f o r c e r s , and t h i s e f f e c t was more pronounced f o r boys than fo r g i r l s . These in v e s tig a to r s found data in support of Brown (1957) and Lynn (1959), who observed t h a t boys show a decided p referen ce fo r th e masculine r o l e , while ambivalence and masculine ro le preferen ce are widespread among g i r l s . Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) found th a t su b je c ts may be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a ffe c te d by th e sex of the model, as w ell as by the degree t o which th e behavior in question is sex- typed. Thus, f o r such highly m asculine-typed behavior as 45 p h y sic al ag g ressio n , both boys and g i r l s tend to im ita te th e male ag g ressiv e model more than the female aggressive model, and boys tend to im ita te such behavior more than do g i r l s . On the o th e r hand, v erb al ag g ressio n , which i s le ss c le a r ly se x -ty p e d , is b e s t learned from the same-sexed model. Mussen and D i s t l e r (1956) stu d ie d 38 Caucasian boys of k in d e rg a rte n age from fa m ilie s o f middle socio-economic s t a t u s . Using two groups of c h ild re n , high and low sc o re rs on a t e s t of s e x -ro le preference (Brown's I .T .S .C .) , they then measured th e c h ild r e n 's p ercep tio n of t h e i r parents as n u rtu ra n t o r punishing. I t was found t h a t the boys who were more hig h ly i d e n t i f i e d with th e masculine r o le perceived t h e i r fa th e rs as. both more n u rtu ra n t and more p u n itiv e than those le ss h ig h ly i d e n t i f i e d . Both groups perceived t h e i r parents as more n u rtu rin g than punishing, but the low m ascu lin e-ro le group perceived them as more punishing than th e high m ascu lin e-ro le group. There were no d iffe re n c e s between th e m others' scores in th e two groups when taken alone. Payne and Mussen (1956) obtained s im ila r r e s u l t s w ith a group of 182 adolescent boys. Here th re e q u e s tio n n a ire s were adm inistered t o the boy and h is p a r e n t s , w ith i d e n t i f i c a t i o n measured by the s i m i l a r i t y of response. The 20 h ig h e st and lowest id e n t i f i e d boys then completed s t o r i e s in d ic a tin g whether t h e i r p aren ts were rew arding or 46 punishing. I t was found th a t th e degree to which boys id e n tif y with t h e i r fa th e r s is r e la te d t o th e degree to which they p erceive t h e i r f a th e r as rew arding. Only p a r t i a l support was given to th e hypothesis t h a t the f a th e r is seen as more rewarding than the mother among highly f a t h e r - i d e n t i f i e d boys. Kagan and Lemkin (19 60) questioned ch ild re n 3 to 8 years of age, reg ard in g t h e i r p ercep tio n s of t h e i r p a re n ts. Though a l l c h ild re n la b e lle d th e f a th e r as p u n itiv e and mother as n u r tu ra n t, g i r l s in comparison w ith boys la b e lle d the f a th e r more p u n itiv e and more a f f e c t io n a te . G irls s ta te d a d e s ire to be lik e the mother, but perceived the f a th e r as w iser and s tro n g e r. The mother, th u s , seemed le ss competent. Again, th e fin d in g s are congruent with those which suggest g i r l ’s r o l e - i d e n t i t y i s not stro n g . Kagan, Hosken, and Watson (1961) in q u ire d in to c h ild r e n 's symbolic c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of t h e i r p a re n ts. A ll c h ild re n viewed t h e i r parents in terms of conventional s o c ia l r o l e s , and th i s tendency was g r e a te r in the case of the f a th e r . Both g i r l s and boys thought of the f a th e r in such terms as dark, p u n itiv e , and angular. They concluded t h a t th e s o c ia l ste re o ty p e a f f e c ts the c h i l d 's view o f the r e a l f a th e r , Kawin's (196 2) study of nursery chool ch ild re n and t h e i r p aren ts suggests Kagan's s u b je c ts may have a c c u ra te ly seen th e f a th e r as p u n itiv e . According t o parent r e p o r t, 47 mother's punished t h e i r boys and g i r l s eq u ally and used psy ch o lo g ical punishment more than p h y sical punishment. F athers were more lik e ly t o use p h y sic al methods of punishment w ith both boys and g i r l s , but the frequency of p h y sical punishment was g r e a te r beyond the .001 le v e l fo r boys than f o r g i r l s , Other s tu d ie s of c h ild r e n ’s p ercep tio n s of t h e i r p a r e n t s ’ b eh av io r, reviewed by Becker (196 3) in d ic a te d th a t (a) mother i s u su a lly seen as more loving and n u rtu ra n t than f a t h e r , (b) f a th e r is s t r i c t e r , (c) mothers are more apt to use p sychological c o n tr o l, e s p e c ia lly with g i r l s , Cd) p h y sic a l punishment is more lik e ly t o be used by f a th e r with boys, (e) boys f e e l they get punished more than o th e r members of th e fam ily, (f) th e opposite-sexed p arent i s more lik e ly t o grant autonomy than the same-sexed p a re n t, (g) th e same-sexed p aren t i s seen as being le s s benevolent and more f r u s t r a t i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y in o ld e r c h ild re n , and (h) f a t h e r i s viewed as more f e a r arousing. Turning fo r a moment to p a r e n ts ’ p ercep tio n s of t h e i r c h ild re n , two stu d ie s suggest s e x - d if f e r e n c e s . Kawin (1962) found th a t among th e sample of 12 mothers of g i r l s , 8 thought they were th e dominant p aren t with the c h i ld , 4 th a t th e fa th e rs dominated. Of the 12 f a th e rs of g i r l s , 8 agreed th a t th e mother dominated, 2 th a t the f a th e r dominated, and 2 t h a t the p aren ts were eq u al. On the o th e r hand, a l l 12 of the mothers of boys thought they were the 48 dominant p aren t with th e c h ild , but only 6 of the fa th e rs agreed. Four f a th e rs thought they were dominant, and two t h a t the p a re n ts were equal. Carlson (1963) asked 6th-grade c h ild re n and t h e i r p aren ts t o f i l l out q u e s tio n n a ire s d e sc rib in g themselves and an id e a l c h ild . Parents c o n s is te n tly favored, and were more approving and understanding, of boys than of g i r l s . This tendency was g r e a te r among mothers than f a th e rs . A ll th e mothers of boys overestim ated t h e i r so n 's s im ila r it y to the m aternal id e a l ; only 2/3 of the mothers of g i r l s so id e a liz e d t h e i r c h ild re n . Brim (195 8) observes th a t parents form d if f e r e n t types of s o c ia l r e la tio n s h ip s with t h e i r son and daughter. He suggests th a t th e varying ex p ectatio n s of th e groups w ill r e s u l t in varying behavior. The stu d ie s reviewed in d ic a te t h a t , not only are ex p ecta tio n s d if f e r e n t f o r boys and g i r l s among mothers and f a t h e r s , but also p a tte rn s of reward and punishment are d i f f e r e n t , and th e perception of the in d iv id u a ls involved in th e in te r a c tio n s are d i f f e r e n t . Following Swanson's hypothesis th a t an in d iv i d u a l's choice of defense w ill be a learned response, and a t le a s t in p a r t , a fu n ctio n of h is s o c ia l r o l e , t h i s se c tio n and the next w i l l focus on stu d ie s in which sex d iffe re n c e s have been observed in th e responses of ch ild re n to s i t u a t i o n s which may be considered re le v a n t to th e use of 49 defensive o p e ra tio n s. These s tu d ie s have d e a lt with aggression and response t o v io la tio n of the s o c ia l stan d ard ( g u i l t ) . Sex-Role D ifferences in Aggressive Behavior P sychologists have devoted much time and energy to th e study o f various f a c to rs a s so c ia te d with the expression and displacem ent of aggression (Berkow itz, 1962). The in h ib itio n of aggression has been considered in le ss d e t a i l , but is an im portant f a c t o r in a study of defensive o p eratio n s. In terms of Swanson's (1961) lo g ic , the in h ib itio n of aggression rep re se n ts a r e s t r i c t i o n of the expression of an a f f e c t Or wish in favor of the acceptance of s o c ia l sta n d a rd s. S ex -d ifferen c es in aggressive behavior have been re p o rte d in every study in which th is f a c to r has been a re le v a n t v a r ia b le . Vague sp e cu la tio n s (Bandura and Huston, 1961) have been made su g g estin g a re la tio n s h ip between such d if f e r e n c e s , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a t te r n s , and socio-economic f a c to r s . The bulk of experim ental work w ith ch ild re n has focused on c o r r e la tin g parent and c h ild behavior v a r ia b le s . Such parent behavior may be thought of in terms of s o c ia l reward and punishment, which may in flu e n c e the c h i l d 's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a t te r n . I t is u s e f u l, then t o note some of these r e la tio n s h ip s . Pauline Sears (1951) was among the f i r s t to observe sex d iffe re n ce s in ag g ressiv e behavior in h e r d o ll play s tu d ie s of p re-sch o o l c h ild re n . She found th a t boys were more lik e ly to express fan ta sy aggression in bodily in ju r y , in terms of agent and o b je c t, t h a t they used more non- personal o b je cts and were more lik e ly to r e f e r t o demons. G ir ls , on th e o th e r hand, used more verbal ag g ressio n , i . e . , sc o ld in g . She noted t h a t ch ild re n tended to id e n tify most stro n g ly with the d o ll th a t rep resen ted h is most im portant source of c o n f lic t r e l a t i n g to aggression and a g g re ssio n -co n tro l in the fam ily. S ears, W hiting, N ow lis, and Sears (1953) in v e s tig a te d the c h iId -re a rin g antecedents of aggression and dependency in p re-sch o o l c h ild re n , using mother in te rv ie w s, te a c h e r r a tin g s c a le s , and d o ll play se ssio n s with th e c h ild re n . I t was found t h a t , fo r boys, the r e la tio n s h ip between the amount of aggression shown and th e se v e rity of m aternal pu n itiv en ess was c le a r ly p o s it iv e . For g i r l s , however, the r e la tio n s h ip was c u r v i l i n e a r , both most and l e a s t sev erely punished g i r l s being le ss ag g ressiv e than those exposed to an in term ed iate amount of punishment. They proposed th a t the g i r l s ' g r e a te r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the mother made the e f f e c t of a s im ila r amount of punishment g r e a te r fo r these childreno Many d iffe re n c e s were found in o th e r a re a s , such as c h ild re n ’s dependency b eh a v io r, in d ic a tin g th a t s im ila r parent behavior in flu en c ed boys and g ir ls q u ite d if f e r e n t- 51 In t h e i r extensive study of re la tio n s h ip s between c h ild -re a rin g p ra c tic e s and c h ild behavior among 5 y ear o ld s, based e n t ir e ly on interview s with m others, S ears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) noted th a t g i r l s were more lik e ly to use s o c ia lly approved ways of expressing ag g ressio n , while boys expressed more a n t i - s o c i a l aggression. G irls also were s ig n if ic a n tly h ig h e r in aggression a n x ie ty . Two fa c to rs found to c o rre la te s ig n i f ic a n t ly with c h ild aggression in the home were s e v e rity of m aternal punishment and perm issiveness fo r the expression of aggression toward the p a re n ts , though these two f a c to rs were n eg ativ ely c o rre la te d with each o th er. The conclusion was drawn th a t perm issiveness rep resen ted both s ig n a l i n s t ig a t io n to aggression and an im plied reinforcem ent. Punishment, on the o th er hand, produced i n s t ig a t io n to aggression through f r u s t r a tio n and c o n f lic t. In some c a ses, punishment acted as a temporary i n h ib i to r . The follow-up study ( S e a rs ,.1961) of aggression among these ch ild re n 7 years l a t e r included a q u estio n n aire to be completed by the c h ild re n . In lin e with the l a t e r research reported by M iller and Swanson (1960), Sears found th a t non-permissiveness r a th e r than punishment was the technique used fo r c o n tro llin g aggressive behavior with t h i s o ld e r sample. I t was now found th a t both boys and g ir ls who had been severely punished fo r aggression a t age 5 were low in a n t i- s o c ia l expression of aggression. The in h ib ito ry 52 e f f e c t of punishment had app aren tly taken e f f e c t . In boys, a t both ages 5 and 12, high perm issiveness of aggression towards p aren ts was a s so c ia te d w ith high a g g ressio n ; in g i r l s , t h i s e f f e c t was c le a r ly ev id en t only a t the e a r l i e r age, with a mere su sp icio n o f i t l a t e r . A p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h i p was found, a t age 12, between punishment fo r aggression t o p aren ts and aggression among g i r l s , but not among boys. Both p r o -s o c ia l aggression and aggression anxiety are p o s itiv e ly c o r re la te d with punishment f o r aggression though s i g n i f i c a n t l y so only fo r g i r l s . P ro je cte d and s e lf-a g g re s s io n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c ia te d w ith each o th e r f o r both boys and g i r l s , and w ith aggression anxiety and p ro -s o c ia l aggression only among boys; only p ro je c te d aggression was r e la te d to aggression an x iety and p ro -s o c ia l aggression among g i r l s . For g i r l s , non-perm issiveness was a s so c ia te d with high p ro je c tio n ; in boys, the r e l a t i o n was n o n s ig n ific a n tly o p p o site. Analysis of data from the ch ild re n who were high in a n t i - s o c i a l aggression at the age of 5, and low a t the age of 12 suggested t h a t the e f f e c t iv e suppression of an aggressive c h i l d ’s e a rly expression of aggression in the home tends t o in c re a se the s tre n g th of p ro - s o c ia l and s e l f aggression in l a t e r y e a rs . The boys whose aggression had decreased were h ig h e r on aggression a n x ie ty , s e lf - a g g r e s s io n , and p ro -s o c ia l aggression than were g i r l s . There were no d iffe re n c e s on p ro je c tiv e aggression in e i t h e r sex. 53 P ro je cte d and s e lf - a g g r e s s io n , in S e a r's stu d y , are analogous t o the defenses of p ro je c tio n and tu rn in g a g a in st the s e l f in Swanson's (1961) system. This data suggests th a t th e defenses of p ro je c tio n and tu rn in g a g a in st the s e l f a r e , a t le a s t in p a r t , independent of each o th e r, and thus may be se p arated in to two fa m ilie s , according to Swanson's scheme. I t also suggests th a t the choice of defense is r e la te d to sex d iffe re n c e s in p re-ad o le scen t c h i ld r e n . Kagan and Moss (1962) found th a t g i r l s withdraw more, while boys are more a g g re s siv e . They concluded th a t sex- ty p in g is an im portant v a ria b le in flu e n c in g age and sex d iffe re n c e s . Maternal r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s during the f i r s t th ree years (d efin ed as the degree to which mother attem pted to force th e c h ild , through punishment and t h r e a t , to adhere t o h e r sta n d a rd s, and the degree to which d ev iatio n s from standards were punished) was r e la te d t o high dependency fo r g i r l s , b u t low dependency f o r boys. For g i r l s , m aternal r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s remained c o n s is te n t over age p e rio d s , but not f o r boys. Boys of mothers who remained r e s t r i c t i v e were f e a r f u l and dependent from the ages of 3 t o 10, a t which time they became more com petitive and aggressive in a manner which suggested they were attem pting to gain p e e r acceptance and re b e llio n from m other's c o n tro l. R e s tric te d g i r l s were aggressive and not withdrawn a t the 3- t o 6-year p e rio d , and were low in 54 achievement mastery and independence. A fter th is p e rio d , th e aggressive elements appeared to drop out and r e s t r i c t i v e n e s s led to a p a s s iv e , dependent g i r l . Kawin's (196 2) d o ll play study produced a number of s e x -r e la te d d iffe re n c e s in response t o s i t u a t i o n s involving f r u s t r a t i o n . Using displacem ent of the o b je c t of aggression as a measure of aggression a n x ie ty , i.t was found t h a t g i r l s d isp laced aggression f u r th e r than did boys, and th a t both boys and g i r l s d isp lace d aggression f u r th e r in response to m aternal than to p a te rn a l f r u s t r a t i o n . Sex d iffe re n c e s were most apparent in response to s it u a ti o n s in which punishment would be expected by the c h ild . As noted above, in Kawin's sample, f a th e r s used p h y sic a l methods of punishment with t h e i r sons very s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than w ith t h e i r d a u g h te rs, and husbands were more p u n itiv e than w iv es. Boys responded with th e most d ir e c t expression of aggression ( l e a s t anxiety) where p a te rn a l punishment was ■ expected. Some boys d isp lace d aggression i n response to expected punishment from both p a re n ts , but more d is p la c e ment was ev id en t in s it u a ti o n s in v o lv in g mothers than in those in v o lv in g f a th e r s . These fin d in g s lend some support to th e no tio n th a t s e x -ro le ex p ectatio n s and the s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n are s i g n i f i c a n t v a ria b le s in determ ining an i n d iv i d u a l's p a tte rn s of aggression and aggression in h ib i t i o n . They a ls o perm it some s p e c u la tio n in terms of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Kawin's fin d in g i s s im ila r to Bandura's (1961) noted above; i . e . , th a t both boys and g i r l s are more lik e ly to im ita te an ag g ressiv e male model th a n the aggressive female model, and t h a t boys are more lik e ly than g i r l s to im ita te the ag g ressiv e male. Kawin's fin d in g s are a ls o congruent with those of Bandura, Ross, and Ross (196 3) who observed the responses of nursery school c h ild re n to two aggressive male models. Boys were most in c lin e d t o i n h i b i t aggres sions when they e i t h e r observed the aggressive model punished or had no exposure t o aggression. The observation of a non-aggressive model had the g r e a te s t in h ib itin g e f f e c t on th e g i r l s ' ex p ressio n of aggression. These in v e s tig a to r s suggest the h ypothesis th a t "where aggression is stro n g ly in h ib ite d o r weakly e s ta b lis h e d , the p ro v isio n of models dem onstrating incom patible p r o -s o c ia l behavior may be hig h ly e f f e c tiv e in the a c q u is itio n and maintainance o f s e l f - c o n t r o l ." Moore (196 4) stu d ie d displacem ent of aggression in the absence of th e o r ig in a l f r u s t r a t o r by means of a card game in which e i t h e r lo ss e s or winnings were asso ciated w ith a c h ild f ig u re . The s u b je c ts were then given an opportunity to make an ag g ressiv e re s p o n s e , the o b je ct of the response being chosen from among fig u re s of varying degrees of p h y sical s i m i l a r i t y t o the fig u re used in the card game. I t was found th a t su b je c ts tended to be c o n s iste n t in t h e i r p a tte rn s of response, e i t h e r ex p ressin g aggression d i r e c t l y 56 or i n d i r e c t l y . Sex d iffe re n c e s were evident under the low f r u s t r a t i o n co n d itio n only in t h a t boys expressed aggression more d i r e c t l y than g i r l s . Under high f r u s t r a t i o n , where i t was supposed th a t both aggressive fe e lin g s and aggression anxiety would be more in te n s e , boys behaved more s im ila rly to g i r l s . Sex-Role D ifferences and The S o cial Standard While the f i r s t study t o be considered (H einicke, 195 3) did n o t deal w ith s e x -ro le d iffe re n c e s in response to the s o c ia l s ta n d a rd , i t did con cep tu alize such responses on a f e a r - g u i l t dimension which i s , in many ways, lik e Swanson's f i r s t and second defense fa m ilie s (1961). He examined 42 f iv e - and s ix - y e a r- o ld boys from a middle class school population in d o ll play and in terv iew s e s s i o n s , and interview ed t h e i r m others. "Fear" was defined in terms of a low degree of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s o c i e t a l v alu es. Fear- dominated ch ild re n would conform to s o c i e t a l values only in the presence of a c tu a l pressu re from a u th o r ity , and would tend to show tim id ity and resentm ent of th a t a u th o rity . This tim id ity and resentm ent would be lik e ly to m otivate such ac tio n s as h id in g , running away, and counter aggression when the c h ild had dev iated in some way from p a r e n ta l v a lu e s. G uilt-dom inated c h ild re n would tend to conform to s o c i e t a l values in the absence as w ell as in the presence of a u t h o r it y , and such ch ild re n would evidence 57 need fo r reassurance from a u th o rity in i t s r e a l or in te rn a liz e d form. The need fo r reassurance would m otivate such a c tio n as se lf-b la m e, self-punishm ent, c o n fe ssio n s, and re p a ra tio n s , when the person tra n sg re s se d some value. Fear was lik e ly to be a sso cia ted with e x tro p u n itiv e behavior, while g u ilt was more lik e ly to be a s so c ia te d with in tro p u n itiv e behavior. Heinicke found ch ild re n f a l l i n g a t the fe a r end of the continuum received le ss nurturance and more punishment than ch ild ren a t the g u ilt-e n d . When the amount of nurturance was held c o n s ta n t, the ch ild re n high on g u i l t were su b je c t to more d en ial of love (as measured by se v e rity of weaning, the use of lo v e -o rie n te d techniques of punishment, and the presence of one, c o n s is te n t, r a th e r s t r i c t agent of d is c ip lin e ) than ch ild re n low on g u i l t . Also, the ''p re stig e " of the parents of the high g u i l t ch ild re n was higher than th a t of the parents of the o th e r c h ild re n . Children high on g u ilt were high in "general ad u lt r o le ," same-sexed parent i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and possibly fantasy aggression. On th e o th e r hand, th ese ch ild re n were found to be lower in overt ag g ressio n , c a s tr a tio n a n x ie ty , and bedwetting. Most stu d ie s dealing with conscience development (G rinder, 19 62) agree t h a t , fo r both boys and g i r l s , psychological forms of d is c ip lin e lead to stro n g conscience development and s e l f - c o n t r o l , while p h y sic al forms of punishment lead t o le ss c o n tro lle d behavior and more 58 aggression. Looking f u r t h e r , we again fin d s e x -r e la te d d iffe re n c e s in c h ild - r e a r in g antecedents of g u i l t . While not d efin in g t h e i r dependent v a ria b le s in Swanson's term s, th e stu d ie s of g u i l t and conscience development are re le v a n t t o the se lf-m o d ify in g defenses such as tu rn in g a g a in st the s e l f . S e a rs, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) measured conscience by the m other's re p o rt of the ease with which a c h ild confessed h is misdeeds. As did Beardsley above (p. 35), S e a rs, e t a l . (195 7) found th a t c h ild re n , e s p e c ia lly g i r l s , whose mothers accept them and/or use p sy chological punishment ( p r a i s e , i s o l a t i o n , withdrawal of lo v e, reasoning) are more lik e ly to develop stro n g consciences by the age of 5 than ch ild re n whose mothers r e j e c t them and/or use p h y sic al punishment (d e p riv a tio n of t an gi b le rew a rd s ). G rinder (1962) found se x -d iffe re n c e s in c h ild re n 's responses t o te m p tatio n . Five- and s ix -y e a r-o ld g i r l s confessed v o lu n ta r i ly , and showed more signs of g u i l t a f t e r tra n s g re s s io n . Boys confessed only when q u estio n ed . This may r e f l e c t the c u l t u r a l view t h a t confession is a sign of weakness f o r boys. G rinder b e lie v e s i t supports S ears' sp e c u la tio n th a t conscience is le s s developed among boys due to t h e i r need t o s h i f t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n model. Aronfreed (1961, 1963, 1964) has conducted a number of experim ents based on s o c ia l le a rn in g p r in c ip le s to c l a r if y the mechanisms underlying the development of moral responses to tra n s g r e s s io n . In the f i r s t of these (1961), he used the s to ry completion technique with a sample of 122 s ix th -g ra d e boys and g i r l s from middle and working c la s s e s . He categ o riz ed responses to tra n s g re s s io n according to whether the focus of the re s o lu tio n of the c o n f lic t was on i n t e r n a l or e x te rn a l f a c t o r s , i . e . , s e l f - c r i t i c i s m and c o rre c tio n o f deviance v s. disco v ery , punishment, and unpleasant f o r tu ito u s consequences e x te rn a lly i n i t i a t e d . He found t h a t one-fourth of th e ch ild ren showed no evidence of s e l f - c r i t i c i s m , and t h a t , where used, th is response seldom accompanied c o rre c tio n of deviance and e x te rn a l r e s o lu tio n . The l a t t e r were th e more fre q u en tly found responses to tra n s g re s s io n . C onsistent sex and c la ss d iffe re n c e s were found. Middle c la ss c h ild re n , re g a rd le ss of s e x , showed more evidence of s e l f - c r i t i c i s m than did working class c h ild re n . They were le s s lik e ly t o re so lv e tra n s g re s s io n s through the percep tio n of f o rtu ito u s consequences or focus on e x te rn a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Middle cla ss mothers used psychological techniques of punishment ( i . e . , r e j e c t i o n , reasoning) s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than did working class m others, who used v erb al a s s a u lts and p h y sic al punishment. Maternal punishment c o rre la te d s i g n i f ic a n t ly with s o c ia l c l a s s , but not w ith sex of the c h ild . Boys, ir r e s p e c tiv e o f t h e i r c l a s s , did not emphasize e x te rn a l r e s p o n s ib ility as fre q u en tly as did th e g i r l s , and appeared much to o 60 dependent on an e x te rn a l i n i t i a t i o n of t h e i r own moral a c tio n s . The tendency of g i r l s to d isp lay t h e i r moral re a c tio n s p u b lic ly more o ften than boys was f a i r l y uniform , though i t did not a t t a i n s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e in the working c la s s group. Aronfreed suggests t h i s might have been a determ ining f a c t o r in the S e ars, Maccoby, and Levin (195 7) fin d in g th a t conscience development is more advanced among 5 -y ea r-o ld g i r l s than b o y s, th i s fin d in g having been based on m aternal r e p o r ts of lik e lih o o d to confess tr a n s g r e s s io n s . Aronfreed concludes from th i s d ata t h a t d if f e r e n t re a c tio n s to v io la tio n of a moral code should be t r e a t e d as d i s t i n c t phenomena, and not as eq u iv a le n t r e f le c tio n s of an underlying u n ita ry concept such as "conscience." The close r e la tio n s h ip between moral responses and s o c ia l c la s s suggests t o him t h a t , r a th e r than being a fu n ctio n of s e q u e n tia l development with age, th ese responses re p re s e n t s ta b le e n d -re s u lts of d if f e r e n t p a tte rn s o f s o c ia l reinforcem ent. S e l f - c r i t i c i s m and e x te rn a l r e s o lu tio n of c o n f lic t may be seen as p a r a l l e l and complementary consequences of tra n s g re s s io n . While th e se two v a ria b le s are not defined e x a c tly as Swanson defines p ro je c tio n and tu r n i n g - a g a i n s t - t h e - s e l f , th e re i s enough s i m i l a r i t y to lend a d d itio n a l support to Swanson's (1961) revised c a te g o r iz a tio n . A llinsm ith (196 0) c o rre la te d p re-ad o lescen t boys' 61 ” g u ilt" responses to s to ry completion ta sk s with c h ild re a r in g p r a c tic e s and s o c ia l c l a s s . As in A ronfreed’s work, i t was found th a t th e su b je c ts e x te rn a liz e d blame or the source of punishment more o ften than they re s o rte d to s e lf - c r itic is m ,. Again i t was found t h a t among middle c la ss boys, high g u i l t about anger was a s so c ia te d with p sy ch o lo g ical d is c ip li n e by the mother. Both s e v e r ity of in te n s it y of g u i l t and m aternal use of psychological punishment c o rre la te d w ith e x te r n a liz a tio n of blame a f t e r tra n s g re s s io n . Bandura and McDonald (196 3) dem onstrated th a t c h ild re n ’s moral judgments could be r e a d ily m odified through the u t i l i z a t i o n of a d u lt modeling cues. This fin d in g i s in c o n tra s t to P ia g e t's view th a t the assumption of s u b je c tiv e or o b je c tiv e r e s p o n s i b ilit y f o r deviant ac ts is a g e -s p e c ific . One group of 5- to 1 1 -y ear-o ld ch ild re n observed female a d u lt models who expressed moral judgments counter to the g roup's o r ie n ta tio n and were re in fo rc e d with approval f o r adopting th e models’ e v a lu a tiv e resp o n ses. A second group observed the m odels, but rece iv ed no reinforcem ent fo r matching t h e i r behavior. A t h i r d group of ch ild re n observed no models, but were re in fo rc e d fo r moral judgments th a t ran counter t o t h e i r dominant e v a lu ativ e te n d e n c ie s. The two conditions u t i l i z i n g modeling cues proved almost eq u ally e f f e c t i v e , and both co n d itio n s were even more e f f e c t iv e than operant c o n d itio n in g . I t was a lso found t h a t modeling combined w ith reinforcem ent e x e rte d a g r e a te r in flu e n c e on g i r l s than on boys. Boys were more responsive to un rein fo rced modeling cues. CHAPTER I I I PURPOSE This rese arch proposes to examine the defense s tr u c t u r e of c h ild re n in r e la tio n t o the defense s tr u c t u r e o f t h e i r p a re n ts . The b a s ic question i s : Does a c h ild le a rn to use one defense mode more than another by observing and im ita tin g the defense behavior of the p a re n t w ith whom he most i d e n t i f i e s ? P sychoanalytic theory and rese arch conducted in t h i s context suggests t h a t a g e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and some u n sp e c ifie d in tra p s y c h ic mechanisms are im portant fa c to rs in e s ta b lis h in g a p referen ce f o r one type of defense over an o th er. Research conducted in a s o c ia l-p s y c h o lo g ic a l frame of re fe ren ce has dem onstrated th a t s o c ia l c l a s s , e x te n s ity of p a r e n ta l c o n tro l, and c e r t a in types of d is c ip lin e promote defense p re fe re n c e s. S tudies of ad o lescen t boys have suggested t h a t a preferen ce f o r th e defense of d e n ia l may be learn ed from a p a re n t, w ith th e mother th e more im portant fig u re in t h i s reg ard . Swanson (1961) has p o s tu la te d a fu n c tio n a l r e la tio n s h i p between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the le a rn in g of defense beh av io r. 63 64 An e x ten siv e review of experim ental l i t e r a t u r e c le a rly in d ic a te s t h a t s e x -ro le fa c to rs fu n ctio n in the learn in g of aggressive behavior. The data suggests t h a t , while the male i s the model f o r p h y sic a l ag g ressio n , the female i s a more im portant model fo r th e in h ib i tio n of aggression as w ell as v erb al and p r o -s o c ia l ag g ressio n . Sex-role f a c to rs a lso fu n ctio n in the development in in d iv id u a ls of re a c tio n s t o t h e i r own v io la tio n s of a s o c ia l stan d ard . M aternal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n has been suggested as an im portant v a ria b le in producing the observed d i f f e r e n t i a l between sexes in the development of g u i l t . Swanson (1961) d efin e s a defense mechanism as an attem pt to reduce a c o n f l i c t between one's wish to fre e ly express an emotion and one's knowledge th a t such expression would v io la te o ne's accepted s o c ia l sta n d ard . I f one accepts Swanson's d e f in it io n of d efense, then i t seems reasonable t o hypothesize th a t those fa c to rs which f a c i l i t a t e th e le a rn in g of the expression of a ffe c tiv e behavior as w ell as th e le a rn in g of re a c tio n s to v io la tio n s of the s o c ia l stan d ard should a ls o f a c i l i t a t e the learn in g of defense mechanisms th a t m itig a te c o n f lic ts between them. The study to be rep o rte d w i l l devote i t s e l f to the experim ental development of t h i s h y p o th e sis. CHAPTER IV HYPOTHESES Hypothesis I In accordance with the sp e c u la tio n s of Swanson (1961), s o c ia l le a rn in g th e o ry , and the re le v a n t stu d ies reviewed above (pp. 10-20), i t is p la u s ib le to assume th a t c h ild re n develop a preference fo r p a r t i c u l a r defense modes through an o rd erly system of s o c ia l le a rn in g . P re d ic tio n 1 There w ill be a p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n between the c h i l d ’s perceived s e l f defense and the c h i l d ’s p ercep tio n of h is p a re n ts ' defense as measured by the c h i ld 's re p o rt of h is own and h is p a r e n ts ' defense preferences on the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est. P re d ic tio n 2 There w ill be a p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n between the c h i l d 's perceived s e l f defense and h is p a re n ts ' perceived s e l f defense as measured by the s i m i l a r i t y of the c h i l d 's re p o rt of h is own defense on the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est 65 66 and the parents* re p o rt of t h e i r defense preferences on the Parent Q uestionnaire and the Parents* S itu a tio n T est. Hypothesis I I In accordance with the sp e cu latio n s of Fenichel (1945) and Swanson (1961) and the previous evidence presented by Aronfreed (1963), Kovacs (1958), and Lansky (1960), i t is p la u sib le to assume th a t id e n t i f i c a t i o n is a rele v an t fa c to r in the in d iv id u a l's choice of primary defense modes. The lik e lih o o d t h a t c h ild ren between the ages of th ree and fiv e are more highly id e n tif ie d with t h e i r mothers than with t h e i r fa th e rs was suggested by the th e o r e tic a l sp ecu latio n s of Fenichel (1945) and by the research of Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961), F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964), Hartup (1962), Pauline Sears (1951), S ears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), S ears, W hiting, Nowlis, and Sears (1953). I f ch ild re n do id e n tify p rim arily with t h e i r mother, and i f id e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a re le v a n t f a c to r in the development of defense preferences in c h ild re n , then i t is p la u s ib le to assume th a t the defense preferences of children w ill be more lik e those of t h e i r mothers than of t h e i r f a th e rs . P re d ictio n 1 Both boys and g i r l s of ages 3 to 5 w ill id e n tif y more with t h e i r mother than with t h e i r f a th e r as measured by the 67 d iffe re n c e between the "Mother" and "Father" Total Scores on the Parent P erception T est. P re d ic tio n 2 G irls w ill id e n tif y more with the mother than w ill boys, as measured by the d iffe re n c e between boys' and g i r l s ' "Mother" and "Father" T o tal Scores on the Parent Perception T est. P re d ic tio n 3 I f m o th e r-id e n tific a tio n is g r e a te r than fa th e r- i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and i f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a re le v a n t f a c to r in defense choice, then boys' and g i r l s ' primary defense mode w ill more o ften resemble th a t of the mother than th a t of the f a th e r . Defense s im i l a r i t y w ill be measured by d e fe n s e -p ro file a n a ly s is . Comparisons w ill be made between the c h i l d 's responses to the C hildren’s S itu a tio n Test in terms of "Mother," "F ath e r," and "Child" preferences fo r c e rta in defense endings. Comparisons w ill also be made between c h ild r e n 's response to the C h ild ren 's S itu a tio n Test and t h e i r p a re n ts ' responses to the Parent Q uestionnaire and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. P re d ic tio n * * I f g i r l s are more highly id e n tif ie d with mothers than are boys, then g i r l s ' primary defense mode w ill more often 68 resemble t h a t of the mother than w i l l boys' primary defense mode, as measured by the comparisons noted in P re d ic tio n 3. Hypothesis I I I In accordance with the Power and Secondary R einforce ment th e o rie s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (pp. 21-24), and w ith the stu d ie s of Bandura, Ross, and Ross (196 3, and others (pp. 43-49) i t is p la u s ib le to assume th a t defenses are acquired by means of im ita tio n of the primary id e n tif ic a n d . P re d ic tio n 1 Children w i l l learn the new defense of th e p aren t with whom they most c lo se ly i d e n t i f y , as measured by c o r r e la tio n s between the Defense Learning T est and the Parent P erception T est. P re d ic tio n 2 I f both boys and g i r l s id e n tif y more with t h e i r mothers th an with t h e i r f a t h e r s , and i f defenses are acquired by means o f im ita tio n of th e primary id e n tif ic a n d , then both boys and g i r l s are more lik e ly t o change t h e i r defense choice t o match th e "M other's" a l t e r e d choice r a t h e r than th e " F a th e r 's ," as measured by th e d iffe re n c e between th e number of tim es ch ild re n im ita te the "M other's" new defense mode as compared with th e " F a th e r's " on the Defense Learning T est. 69 P r e d ic tio n 4 I f g i r l s are more h ig h ly i d e n t i f i e d with mothers than are boys, and i f defenses are acquired by means of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the primary i d e n tif ic a n d , then g i r l s w ill be more lik e ly than boys to im ita te the m other's a lte r e d defense choice as measured by th e d iffe re n c e between g i r l s and boys in the frequency w ith which th e "M other's" new defense i s chosen as compared w ith the " F a th e r 's ." CHAPTER V M ETHOD Subjects Subjects were vo lu n teers s e le c te d from the Westside Jewish Community Center Nursery School. Twenty boys and twenty g i r l s and t h e i r re s p e c tiv e p a re n ts c o n s titu te d th e sample. Children were chosen who: (1) liv e d in an i n t a c t home in which th e re was no a c tiv e " th ir d " parent ( i . e . , grandparent, f u ll- tim e m aid); (2) whose p aren ts both agreed to complete th e parent q u e s tio n n a ire s ; and (3) who were w illin g to se p a ra te themselves from th e nursery school group. The fa m ilie s were of upper middle c la s s socio-economic s t a t u s . The group was a ty p ic a l in two ways. F i r s t , th e m ajority of th e population was of th e Jewish f a i t h , though the p ra c tic e of the r e lig io n was not a major focus of t h e i r l i v e s . Second, th e p aren ts tended t o espouse l i b e r a l p ro g ressiv e views on education and c h iId - re a r in g . Among th e ch ild re n t e s t e d , two boys and th re e g i r l s were not Jew ish. The mean age of boys and g i r l s was four y e a rs , th re e months. Boys’ ages ranged from 3 y e a rs , 3 70 71 months t o 5 y e a rs , 1 month (Table 1). The c h ild re n rep re se n te d a normal population in th a t none had been recommended f o r p s y c h ia tr ic tre a tm e n t. Children who were m oderately d istu rb e d and n o t t r e a t e d p s y c h ia tr ic a lly e lim in a te d themselves from the sample. The new s i t u a t i o n frig h te n e d them, and they would not e n te r in to i t . TABLE 1 CHILDREN'S AGES Subjects Mean S td. Dev. Range G irls 4 y r s . 3 mos. 5.74 mo. 3 y r s . 6 mos.-5 y r s . 1 mo. Boys 4 y r s . 3 mos. 6.84 mo. 3 y r s . 3 mos.-5 y r s . 1 mo. I n s t rume nt a t i on Two h y p o th e tic a l c o n s tru c ts re p r e s e n t th e core of the experim ental v a ria b le s t o be explored. These are i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and defense. Five t e s t instrum ents were used to measure th e se v a r ia b le s . The c h ild re n were adm inistered th re e t e s t s : The Parent P erception T e s t, th e C h ild re n s' S itu a tio n T e s t, and th e Defense Learning T est. T h eir p aren ts were adm inistered two t e s t s : The P arent Q uestionnaire and the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. Except fo r the Parent Q u estio n n aire, th e t e s t s are ip s a tiv e in n a tu re . The P aren t P erception T est asks which p aren t i s more li k e l y than the o th e r p aren t t o evidence TABLE 2 EDUCATION AND OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL OF PARENTS Item G irls Boys Fathers Mothers Fathers Mothers Education College—5 y rs . or more 9 6 7 0 4 y r s . 4 3 7 6 1-3 y rs . 5 6 4 13 Completed high school 2 5 2 1 Occupational P ro fessio n al 18 9 20 9 S k ille d labor 0 9 0 9 U nskilled labor . 2 0 0 0 c e r ta in a t t r i b u t e s . From t h i s data we hope to i n f e r th a t a c h ild i s more lik e ly to id e n tif y with or le a rn from one parent r a t h e r than an o th er. W e are not i n t e r e s t e d , in th is stu d y , in th e ab so lu te e x te n t to which th e c h ild i d e n t i f i e s with e i t h e r , both, or n e i th e r p a re n t. So, a ls o , the s i t u a t i o n t e s t s are not concerned with th e general le v e l of d e fe n siv e n e ss, b u t r a th e r w ith which defense i s more lik e ly to be used than an o th er. Only in responding t o the Parent Q uestionnaire can the a d u lt su b je c t in d ic a te a le v e l of d efen siv en e ss. Here he i s fre e to s t a t e th a t he would agree with a l l th e statem ents re p r e s e n ta tiv e of the fo u r defenses chosen f o r s tu d y , or with none of them. The defense modes s e le c te d as the dependent v a ria b le s in the p re se n t study re p re s e n t th e two defense fam ilies in Swanson’s scheme. They are E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial from Defense Family I ; and Turning Against the S elf and R eversal of A ffec t from Defense Family I I . Previous rese arch has suggested t h a t th e se are defense modes which may be found in th e behavior r e p e r to ir e of c h ild re n , as w ell as of a d u lts (Greening, 195 8; Kovacs, 1958; Murphy, 1960). Test Development The items of th e defense t e s t s were f i r s t w ritte n according to the model provided by the Kovacs (195 8) and Greening (1958). C onstruct v a l i d i t y was e s ta b lis h e d by the 74 agreement between a psychologist and a psychiatrist-*- th a t each item represented the designated defense. These t e s t s were then adm inistered to parents and pre-school ch ild re n of 11 non-nursery school fa m ilie s. Parents were encouraged to question and c r i t i c i z e the items on the ad u lt defense t e s t and to note where wording did not r e f l e c t language s u ita b le to parents of 3- to 5- y e a r-o ld c h ild re n . The items were rev ise d on the b asis of these su g g estio n s. New t e s t items were again subm itted fo r evalu atio n and no item was accepted fo r the f in a l t e s t u n t i l the psychologist and p s y c h ia tr is t independently agreed th a t i t represented the designated defense. While the d ire c t-q u e stio n method produced l i t t l e defensiveness among p are n ts, many ch ild ren were e i t h e r unable to or r e lu c ta n t to respond to the examiner concern ing h is own and h is p a r e n ts 1 behavior. Previous stu d ie s (Hanfmann and G etzels, 19 53; Kagan and Lemkin, 1960) demonstrated th a t the m a te ria l obtained from ch ild ren by sentence completion and in d ir e c t questioning was very much lik e th a t obtained by the d ire c t-q u e s tio n method, though more inform ation is obtained because the su b je c t is le ss anxious and defensive. I t was decided, then, to design the c h ild r e n ’s t e s t s (the Parent Perception Test and C h ild ren 's S itu a tio n T est) ^Jeannette P. Maas, Ph.D., and Louis P au l, M.D. 75 as lim ite d p r o je c tiv e te c h n iq u e s , using a p ic tu re of a mother, f a t h e r , and lik e -s e x e d c h ild along with questions t o which the s u b je c t could respond in the t h i r d person, re p o rtin g what he thought the p ic tu re d c h ild , mother, and f a th e r might do or say in the s i t u a t i o n . In i n t e r p r e t i n g the d ata derived from th e c h ild r e n 's t e s t s , i t is to be assumed th a t the c h i l d 's re p o rt of the p ic tu re d fa m ily 's behavior re p re se n ts h is p erce p tio n of h is own and h is p a re n ts ' probable behavior under s im ila r c o n d itio n s. This assumption is based not only upon the s tu d ie s c ite d above (Hanfmann and G etz els, 1953 ; Kagan and Lemkin, 1960), but a ls o upon th e p r o je c tiv e hypothesis (Frank, 19 39) th a t in d iv id u a ls organize stim u li according to t h e i r own unique manner of p e rc e p tio n , t h e i r f e e lin g s , and the meanings they a t t r i b u t e t o th e se s tim u li. The s u b j e c t 's unique manner of o rganizing stim u li are assumed to be based upon h is experiences. In search in g f o r the most e f f e c tiv e method of o b ta in in g r e l i a b l e d a ta , i t was found t h a t , given the p a r e n ts ’ fo u r-ch o ice problem, 3- t o 5 -y ear-o ld c h ild re n tended t o respond with e i t h e r the f i r s t or l a s t item of the s e t . Given a p ic tu re card with fo u r faces re p re se n tin g four d efen ses, c h ild re n tended to choose one in a p e rse v e ra tiv e fa s h io n , or to run t h e i r hands over the e n t i r e card in d is c rim in a te ly . A v e r b a l, binary forced choice technique in which the c h ild was asked to choose 76 between a defense from Family I (E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame or D enial) as opposed to Family I I (Turning a g a in st the s e l f o r R eversal of A ffec t) was a s a t i s f a c t o r y method of gaining in fo rm atio n , but the data obtained led the experim enter to qu estio n the assumption th a t such a c le a r - cut dynamic d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n could be made on the b a sis of defense fa m ilie s . I t was deemed a d v isa b le , th e n , to c o n stru c t the t e s t so th a t Swanson's (1961) theory could be te s te d . In i t s f i n a l form, the c h ild re n were given the opportunity t o choose among th e fo u r defenses in response to each s i t u a t i o n , as were the p aren ts in t h e i r defense t e s t s . While the C h ild re n 's and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n s Tests are ip s a tiv e in n a tu re , the f a c t th a t fo u r defenses are measured makes i t p o ssib le fo r any two to be p o s itiv e ly c o rre la te d i f th e re i s a r e la tio n s h ip between them. I t was recognized th a t high scores on any two v a ria b le s would be accompanied by low scores on the o th e r two. The Parent Q uestionnaire was co n stru c ted so t h a t the r e la tio n s h ip s among th e fo u r defenses would not be so lim ite d by the mechanics of th e t e s t . The f i n a l forms of th e defense t e s t s , as w ell as th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t , are described in the s e c tio n s th a t follow . They are p rin te d in Appendixes A through D. 77 The Parent P ercep tion T est I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , i t was noted, may be considered in terms of se x -ro le id e n t i f i c a t i o n and personal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . These two v a ria b le s may be se p a ra te ly defined in o p e ratio n a l terms but are dynamically i n t e r r e la te d w ithin the in d iv id u a l such th a t the e f fe c ts of one cannot be stu d ied e n t ir e ly independently of the o th e r. The focus of the present study is on the in te ra c tio n between the p aren t and h is c h i ld , and the p re d ic tio n s are s ta te d in terms of the ch ild le a rn in g th e s p e c if ic behavior p a ttern s modeled by the parent with whom the c h ild most clo sely i d e n t i f i e s . The a c q u is itio n of p a re n ta l a t tr i b u te s on the b a sis of t h e i r s o c ia lly defined s u i t a b i l i t y to a p a r t i c u l a r s e x 's ro le was of le ss i n t e r e s t . In the research reviewed, th re e methods of measuring i d e n tif ic a tio n were employed. Payne and Mussen (19 56) used s im ila r it y of p a re n t-c h ild response to the MMPI; F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (196 4) used the Semantic D if f e r e n tia l ; and Kagan and Lemkin (1960), Kagan, Hosken, and Watson (1961), and Mussen and D is tle r (195 6) questioned th e ch ild ren regarding t h e i r perception of t h e i r parents as n u r t u r a n t , punishing, and powerful. The f i r s t two methods are perhaps more u se fu l with an o ld e r sample of ch ild ren than the p re school sample to be employed in the p re se n t study. The th ir d method has been employed with children of pre-school age and has the advantage of d ir e c tly measuring the 78 reinforcem ent values of parent behavior as the ch ild perceives i t . The weight of evidence derived from these instrum ents suggests th a t the parent who is perceived by the c h ild as th e most powerful c o n tr o lle r of n u rtu ra n t reso u rce s—both in h is a b i l i t y to give and to deprive the c h ild of these re s o u rc e s --is th e parent with whom th e ch ild i s most lik e ly to id e n tif y , whether the parent thus perceived i s of th e same or opposite sex. I t i s hypoth esized (Mowrer, 1950) th a t the ch ild is more lik e ly to im ita te t h i s parent*s behavior because he receives more p o s itiv e than negative reinforcem ent by accepting t h i s parent*s a t t r i b u t e s . When the c h ild in co rp o rates more of one p a re n t's a t t r i b u t e s than th e o th e r 's and perceives him self as more lik e th a t p aren t than the o th e r, we may then i n f e r th a t he i d e n tif ie s with th a t parent more than with the o th e r. Where the term "id e n tifica tio n '* is used in the remainder of th i s paper in r e la tio n to the t e s t t o be d escrib ed , i t i s im portant to remember th a t i t in d ic a te s the lik e lih o o d th a t a ch ild w i l l learn most of a p a re n t's a t t r i b u t e s ; i t does not in d ic a te th a t he h a s, in f a c t , inco rp o rated them as an in te g r a l p art of his own dynamics or th a t he perceives him self as more lik e one parent than another. The instrum ent used to measure i d e n tif ic a tio n in th is study is the Parent Perception Test. I t was adapted from a s im ila r t e s t designed by Kagan and Lemkin (19 60). These 79 in v e s tig a to r s compared th re e methods of d ata c o l le c tio n — d ir e c t q u e s tio n , i n d ir e c t q u e s tio n , and p ic tu re q u e s tio n . I t was found t h a t , while a l l th re e provided eq u iv ale n t in fo rm atio n , responses to the l a s t two seemed to give the most inform ation with th e l e a s t d efen siv en ess. In o rd er to in c re a se the le n g th , and th e re fo re perhaps the r e l i a b i l i t y of the t e s t , and to f a c i l i t a t e i t s a d m in is tra tio n , th e follow ing changes in the t e s t were made. 1. The I n d ir e c t Questions and P ic tu re Questions were combined. 2. The se p a ra te p ic tu re s were e lim in a te d , but the v e rb a l questions th a t accompanied th e p ic tu re s were r e ta in e d . A sin g le p ic tu r e re p re s e n tin g the c h i l d , mother, and f a th e r were used f o r a l l item s. 3. The o r ig in a l t e s t s , when combined, contained 8 n urturance ite m s , 7 punishment ite m s , and 7 power ite m s. One of the n u rturance items was elim in a ted ("Someone is giving th e c h ild an ice-cream cone"). •+. Another q u e s tio n , "Who would t h i s b o y /g ir l lik e to be lik e when h e/sh e grows up?" was e lim in a te d , being more lik e ly than the o th ers to e l i c i t a ste re o ty p e d s e x -ro le response. The Parent P erception Test is divided in to 3 subscales co n tain in g 7 items each. The items were designed to obtain from th e c h ild h is p ercep tio n of th e e x te n t to which one 80 p aren t could be described as more n u r t u r a n t , punishing, or powerful than the o th e r. The Nurturance s c a le contains such items as: "Who gives the c h ild th e most p resen ts?" "Who lik e s t o please the c h ild the most?" The Punishment s c a le contains such items as: "Who spanks th e most?" "Who gets mad a t th e child?" The Power s c a le contains such items as: "Who is boss a t home?" " I f th e c h ild were frig h te n e d by a dog, and both p aren ts were th e r e , who would the c h ild run to?" One p o in t was given to each parent designated as the more lik e ly to possess the a t t r i b u t e d escrib ed . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n was defined as the sum of th e sco res obtained by each p a re n t on the 21 t e s t item s. A copy o f th e Parent P erception T est may be found in Appendix A. Questions were arranged in counterbalanced o rd er so th a t two questions measuring the same v a ria b le would not be contiguous. This was done to minimize p e rse v e ra tiv e re sp o n se s. The t e s t was adm inistered in th e follow ing way: The c h ild was shown the p ic tu re of a fam ily which co n siste d of a mother and a f a th e r stan d in g on e i t h e r sid e of a c h ild who was the same sex as the s u b je c t. The c h ild was asked t o h elp w rite some s t o r i e s about t h i s fam ily. However, 81 before w ritin g the s t o r i e s , the ch ild was to ld i t would be necessary to know a l i t t l e about the fam ily, e s p e c ia lly how they f e l t about each o th e r. A fter gaining the s u b j e c t 's acceptance of th e ta s k , the questions were read and the su b je ct asked t o s t a t e which parent the c h ild in the p ic tu re would be most lik e ly to describe in the in d ic a te d manner. The c h ild was encouraged to make a choice r a th e r than to respond "n e ith er" or "both." I f a noncommital response was made, the question was repeated. I f he s t i l l could not choose, the score of one (both) or zero (n e ith e r) was given to both parents as in d ic a te d by the c h ild . Each parent received a score which in d ic a te d the c h i ld ’s perception of h is n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful p o sitio n r e la tiv e to the o th er p aren t. Summing these th re e s c o r e s , a score c a lle d " I d e n tific a tio n " was obtained. The C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test The C h ild ren ’s S itu a tio n Test was devised adapting Kovacs' (195 8) and Greening's (195 8) m ultiple choice sto ry completion defense t e s t to the a b i l i t i e s of pre-school c h ild re n . In I t s f i n a l form, the t e s t co nsisted of nine s t o r ie s with accompanying p ic tu re s p resen tin g a same-sexed c h ild in a f r u s t r a t i n g s it u a ti o n in which stro n g a f f e c t would be ap p ro p riate. 82 B r ie f ly , the s t o r i e s involved c h ild re n confronted with nine f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s , as follow s: 1. Child f a l l s from h is b ic y c le . 2. Friend s i t s on c h i l d 's p a in tin g . 3. Child s p i l l s milk during "company d in n e r." 4. P arents fo rb id c h i l d 's s e le c tio n of a promised dog. 5. Child wants to sta y up w ith p a re n ts ' im portant company. 6. Child sees mother get in an ac cid en t w ith the new c a r. 7. F ath er breaks th e c h a ir he has spent a l l day f ix in g . 8. Mother drops the c h i l d 's b irth d ay cake. 9. F a th e r, p a in tin g th e liv in g room, finds p a in t on th e r u g . Defense endings were w ritte n t o give the c h ild in th e sto ry an o p p o rtu n ity to reduce anxiety by e x p lain in g the s i t u a t i o n in terms of some d i s t o r t i o n — e i t h e r by changing h is p ercep tio n o f th e s i t u a t i o n (E x te rn a liz a tio n o f Blame and D enial) or by a se lf-m o d ify in g defense (Turning a g a in st the S e lf o r R eversal of A ffe c t). For example, a f t e r the f i r s t s to r y , the experim enter sa id : "The f i r s t th in g the c h ild fe e ls lik e saying i s : E. There must have been something wrong with th e b ic y c le , or D. I t was n o th in g —I don’t f e e l bad." "Might th e c h ild say: 83 S. I should be more c a re fu l, or R. I t ' s b e t t e r to sm ile than to cry about i t . " The ch ild was then asked, in s im ila r form, what the p ic tu re d mother and f a th e r might say about the s it u a t i o n . "Child" in s tru c tio n s were always f i r s t , "Mother" and "Father" in s tru c tio n s a l te r n a te ly second and t h i r d . Forced choice combinations of E, D, S, and R were sy stem a tic a lly v aried . A card with faces and hands d ep ictin g four defense modes was placed in fro n t of the ch ild a f t e r each sto ry was read. The faces were described as follow s: "This face (E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame) sa y s, ' I t wasn’t my f a u l t , ' The second face (Denial) sa y s, 'I d o n 't c a r e .' The th ir d face (Turning a g a in st the S elf) sa y s, ' I t ' s my f a u l t . ' The fo u rth face (Reversal of A ffect) say s, 'Be h ap p y '." A fter the reading of each s to r y , the c h ild was presented with two defense endings , the wording of which was ap propriate to the s to r y , while th e experim enter pointed to the corresponding face s. The c h ild could respond with one of the two spoken endings or p oint to any of th e p ic tu re s in fro n t of him. He was then given the remaining two defense choices v erb ally and again could respond v erb ally o r point t o any of the four f a c e s . The tendency was to choose between the defenses presented by the experim enter. He was encouraged to p o in t t o an a lte r n a te face or give an 84 a l te r n a te v erb al response, i f he wished. The v erb alized defense endings were p resen ted in counterbalanced o rd e r, so t h a t the choice could be made e i t h e r between or w ith in the p o stu la te d defense fa m ilie s . This t e s t was scored by giving a p oint to each defense chosen under "C hild," "Mother," and "Father" i n s t r u c tio n s . As previously noted (p. 75), t h i s t e s t is se m i-p ro je c tiv e in n a tu re , and the data derived from i t w ill be in te r p r e te d as re p re se n tin g the c h i l d 's p erce p tio n of h is own and h is p a r e n t s ’ probable behavior in s im ila r s i t u a t i o n s . These responses may or may not re p re se n t th e a c tu a l behavior of the c h ild and p a ren t. R ather, they may in d ic a te how the c h ild experiences the behavior thus p re se n te d , or perhaps h i s wish th a t he or h is p aren ts might behave as he d e s c rib e s. S im ila rity between the s u b j e c t 's percep tio n of the "Child" and the "Parent" may be very cau tio u sly in te r p r e te d as a measure of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The t o t a l score on t h i s t e s t was derived by summing th e s u b j e c t ’s defense choices under a l l in s t r u c tio n s and may be in te r p r e t e d to re p re s e n t the c h i l d 's view o f th e defense p a tte r n of the e n t i r e fam ily. The Defense Learning Test The C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test provides a measure of th e c h i l d 's p re se n t defense s t r u c t u r e , as w ell as some in d ic a tio n of the e x te n t t o which he sees c h ild and parent 85 defense behavior as s im ila r . The Defense Learning Test is designed to measure from which parent th e c h ild i s most lik e ly t o le arn th i s type of behavior. The u n it of measure i s the number of times the c h ild responds to the given s i t u a t i o n with the p a r e n t's new defense mode. The t e s t c o n s ists of the nine s t o r i e s from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test plus th re e more in v o lv in g both p aren ts and the c h ild . These th re e s t o r i e s involve th e follow ing s i t u a t i o n s : 1. Mother, F ath er, and Child drop a p o tte ry bowl they had made, 2. The TV breaks so the family cannot watch a s p e c ia l program. 3. The fa m ily 's b e a u tif u l garden w i l t s . In ad m in isterin g the t e s t , a response card was placed in fro n t of the c h ild on which were two comparable faces re p re se n tin g a mother and a f a th e r . The mother had h er hand on h e r ch in ; next t o h er face the numbers 1, 2, 3; and above h e r the words "Forget i t . " Under h e r face was th e word "Mother," The f a th e r had h is hand on h is forehead; next t o h is face the l e t t e r s A, B, C; and above h is head th e words "Never mind." Under h is face was the word "F a th e r." The experim enter chose a d e n ia l-ty p e o f defense a f t e r p r e - t e s t i n g in d ic a te d th a t t h i s was the defense th e ch ild re n chose th e l e a s t . The faces and phrases were found to be eq u iv ale n t in meaning and d e s i r a b i l i t y to ch ild re n of th is age. 86 The in s tr u c tio n s given to th e c h ild were as follow s: "This tim e , when we t e l l the s t o r i e s , the mother and f a th e r have new ways to keep from f e e lin g angry when something bad happens. When the mother has tr o u b le , and she doesn’t want to f e e l angry, she rubs h e r forehead, says ’ 1, 2, 3 fo rg e t i t . ' When the f a th e r has tro u b le and he d o e s n 't want to f e e l angry, he rubs h is forehead and s a y s , 'A, B, C fo rg e t i t . ' Now we w ill read the s t o r i e s a g a in ." A fte r each s to ry was re a d , th e experim enter repeated the new d efenses, a l t e r n a t e l y p u ttin g mother and f a th e r f i r s t . She s t a t e d , "Mother (F ather) does not want t o f e e l angry about t h i s , so she (he) . . . " While the new defense response was re a d , th e experim enter pointed to the a p p ro p riate gesture or word on th e Defense Learning Test ca rd . A fte r both new p aren t defenses had been s t a t e d , the experim enter s a id to the s u b je c t: "The c h ild in th e s to ry wants to keep from f e e lin g angry, to o . What w ill the c h ild say?" The c h ild , th e n , was fre e to respond as he did b e fo re , in a new way, or in any of th e s ix modes p resen ted by th e "Mother" and " F a th e r ." Following th e 3rd, 6 th , and 9th s t o r i e s , a new s i t u a t i o n was p rese n te d , This tim e, the s u b je c t was asked what the "Mother" and "Father" would say in o rd er to (1) determine t h a t the c h ild was c le a r ly d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g th e responses of "Mother" and "F a th e r," and (2) t h a t he was le a rn in g th e new resp o n ses, even though he might not choose 87 to use them. A fter s t a t i n g what the "parents" would say, he was then asked, again, what he thought th e p ic tu re d c h ild would say to avoid anger. In sco rin g th e t e s t fo r defense choice, when th e c h ild was asked, "What would the c h ild say?", the su b je c t was given one point fo r each response which rep rese n ted one of the th ree aspects of the new parent defenses. Thus, the c h ild might say, "The c h ild would say 'I rub my forehead, say 1, 2, 3, we can f ix i t . ' " He would then receiv e 1 p o in t fo r "F ath e r," 1 point fo r "Mother," and 1 po in t fo r "Own Response." I f , on one of the le arn in g t r i a l s , he gave t h i s response fo r "F ath er," he would receive one c o rre c t response and two in c o rre c t responses. I f the su b je c t responded on each of the twelve s t o r ie s by s t a t i n g th a t th e "Child" would use the e n t ir e new defense p a tte r n of the same p a re n t, he could receive a t o t a l of 36 p o in ts . The t e s t was designed to in d ic a te : (1) the c h i l d 's tendency to im ita te the defense p o s itio n of one parent over th e o th e r, and (2) the degree to which the c h ild r e s i s t s such im ita tio n and clin g s to his own response mode. The Parent Q uestionnaire This was designed as a general a t t i t u d e survey c o n s is tin g of f o rty - e ig h t statem ents to which the parents responded on a H-point ag ree-d isag ree s c a le . Each of the four defenses was rep resen ted by 12 sta tem en ts; 6 of the 12 88 involved a t t i t u d e s re le v a n t to a d u lt problem s; 6 of th e 12 involved a t t i t u d e s re le v a n t to c h i ld r e n ’s problems. Examples of "Adult" defense items a re: (E) Somehow, I o ften fin d m yself i n d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s through no f a u l t of my own. (D) There are some th in g s th a t go on in th e world today th a t i t i s b e st to avoid h earin g to o much about. (S) When I have a problem, I f i r s t tr y to d isc o v er what I did wrong. (R) P u ttin g on a happy face when we f e e l sad makes th in g s b e t t e r . Examples of "Child" defense items are: (E) Other c h ild re n o ften seem to pick on my c h ild . (D) When ch ild re n are frig h te n e d or w o rrie d , i t i s a good id e a to t e l l them t o fo rg e t i t and th in k about something e ls e . (S) Children should le a rn a t an e a rly age how t h e i r behavior can h u rt o th e r people. (R) When my c h ild h u rts h im s e lf, I o ften tr y to help him laugh h is t e a r s away. The t e s t was scored by assig n in g a sco re of 4 to "Strongly Agree," 3 to "Mildly Agree," 2 to "Mildly D isagree," and 1 to "Strongly D isagree." Obtained from t h i s t e s t was a score f o r each of th e fo u r defenses in "Adult" and "Child" t e s t co n d itio n s as w ell as a composite 89 T otal sc o re . The r e s u l t s can be in te rp r e te d in terms of th e s u b j e c t 's defense a t t i t u d e s which may or may not be p ra c tic e d in s p e c i f i c f r u s t r a t i n g c h ild -re a rin g s i t u a t i o n s . The P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test This t e s t c o n s is ts of th e o r ig in a l nine s i t u a ti o n s from th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e st, plus th e th re e a d d itio n a l s t o r i e s from the Defense Learning T est. Thus, th e re are twelve f r u s t r a t i n g s itu a tio n s in a l l . An attem pt was made t o eq u alize th e age and t e s t a d m in istra tio n d iffe re n c e s between c h ild re n and parents in th e follow ing ways: (1) The parents were in s tr u c te d to m aintain an em otional s e t of f r u s t r a t i o n and anger by imagining th e s i t u a t i o n had occurred s e v e ra l tim es; (2) the s t o r i e s were lengthened t o include d e s c rip tiv e words th a t were unnecessary f o r the c h ild re n , whose s to r ie s were accompanied by p ic tu r e s . The parents were asked to r a te statem en ts re p re s e n tin g the four defenses in th e o rd e r of the lik e lih o o d of occurrence. Each sto ry was ra te d tw ice; once in terms o f what th e p a re n t would say to him self but not n e c e s s a rily to the c h ild , and once in terms of what the p aren t would say to the c h ild . For example, the follow ing defense choices followed Story 5: THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: (E) These people are to o im portant, and c h ild re n a re u n p re d ic ta b le . 90 (S) I w i l l be embarrassed i f he d o e s n 't behave w ell. (D) I t d o e s n 't r e a l ly m atter to me w hether he s ta y s up or goes to bed. (R) I t w ill be fun to have th e c h ild around. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD I S : (D) You r e a l l y w ouldn't be in te r e s te d in our grown-up t a l k . CE) The company w ill want i t to be q u ie t. (S) You are too young to sta y up so l a t e . (R) You w i l l be h ap p ier in bed with your toys. The defense mode ra te d "Most lik e ly to make" was given a score of 3; "Less lik e ly " was given a score of 2; and "Rarely lik e ly " a score of 1. A zero score was assigned to responses marked "Not lik e ly to make" o r l e f t blank. The scores f o r each defense mode were added s e p a ra te ly . Obtained from t h i s t e s t , th e n , was a sco re f o r each of the four defenses in "Adult" and "Child" t e s t c o n d itio n s , as w ell as a composite T o tal sc o re . The r e s u l t s can be in te r p r e t e d in terms of th e s u b j e c t 's defense behavior in s p e c i f i c c h ild - r e a r in g s i t u a t i o n s . Procedure T est booklets were d is t r ib u t e d to a l l the parents of the nursery school w ith i n t a c t homes in which th e re was no a c tiv e " th ird " p a re n t. P arents were asked to respond during the f i r s t week, e i t h e r by r e tu r n in g t h e i r completed q u e s tio n n a ire s , ex p ressin g t h e i r in te n tio n of completing 91 them, or ex p ressin g t h e i r wish no t to be involved in th e study. Each p aren t was o ffe re d a summary of the r e s u l t s of the study in r e tu r n f o r h is cooperation. Children were chosen from the nursery school group a f t e r re c e iv in g perm ission from th e p aren ts to involve th e c h ild in the stu d y . Children were s e le c te d in the follow ing o rd er: (1) those whose p aren ts had retu rn ed completed forms; (2) c h ild re n who were w illin g to leave t h e i r play and come with th e experim enter. The t e s t room was a v e s tib u le used only before and a f t e r n u rsery -sch o o l hours. The ex p erim en ter’s p et r a b b it was kept in a cage o u tsid e of the room as an inducement to the c h ild re n t o e n te r th e experim ental s i t u a t i o n . The c h ild re n could see the r a b b it but not play with i t . At "going home time" a l l the c h ild re n in the school could play with the r a b b it. Experim ental su b je c ts were rewarded with t h e i r choice of colored s t a r s , c la y , or p e n c ils a t the end of each s e s s io n . C hildren were to ld t h a t the experim enter was w ritin g a c h ild re n ’s sto ry book and th a t she would lik e t h e i r h elp in deciding how th e s t o r i e s would tu rn o u t. The experim enter went among th e ch ild re n in the sc h o o l, e s ta b lis h e d rap p o rt in the school s e t t i n g where p o s s ib le , and s e le c te d th e c h ild ren t o be t e s t e d . Each c h ild was seen th r e e tim es. During the f i r s t s e s s io n , the c h ild responded to the Parent Perception T est. During th e second s e s s io n , the C h ild re n 's 92 S itu a tio n T est was completed. The t h i r d se ssio n was fo r the Defense Learning T est. Where p o s s ib le , t e s t se ssio n s were scheduled a t f o r ty - e ig h t hour i n t e r v a l s . Some variance in schedule was necessary due to school schedule and c h ild absences. S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures A ll t e s t d ata was scored according to the methods described above in the "In stru m en tatio n " s e c tio n . The r e s u lt s were then subm itted to the L. E. CORR. program a t the Computing Sciences L aboratory, U n iv ersity of Southern C a lifo rn ia . This program provides Pearson c o r r e la tio n m a tric e s , t t e s t m a tric e s , means, and stan d ard d e v ia tio n s . Test r e l i a b i l i t i e s were determined by the "odd-even" procedure described by Cronbach (1949), That i s , a Pearson product-moment c o r r e la tio n was computed between a score based on the odd-numbered items and a score based on the e/en-numbered ite m s, and the Spearman-Brown Formula ap p lied . For the Parent P erception T est, C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e s t, P arent Q u estio n n aire, and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T e st, th e r e l i a b i l i t y was determined s e p a ra te ly fo r each of th e subscales as w ell as f o r the e n tire t e s t . R esults from the th re e defense t e s t s (C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e s t, Parent Q u estio n n aire, and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est) were subm itted to an a n a ly sis of variance of the Type VI design (L in d q u ist, 1953, pp. 293-296), This 93 was an e x p lo ra to ry device, the purpose of which was to discover whether any gross d iffe re n c e e x is te d among c h ild sex , parent se x , and defense v a r ia b le s . In th e a n a ly sis of the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e st, the betw een-subjects dimension is c h ild s e x , and the w ith in -s u b je c ts dimensions are in s t r u c tio n s and d e fe n s e s . The in s tr u c tio n s dimension r e f e r s t o whether the c h ild was asked to respond in terms of d e sc rib in g h im s e lf, h is mother, or h is f a th e r ; the dimension thus has th re e le v e ls . The defense dimension has fo u r le v e ls : E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame, D enial, Turning a g a in st th e S e l f , and R eversal of A ffec t. The a llo c a tio n of degrees of freedom i s in d ic a te d in Table 18. The Parent Q uestionnaire and the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n s l Test were s im ila rly analyzed, with the exception t h a t one of the w ith in -s u b je c ts dimensions is p a re n t sex r a th e r than in s tr u c tio n s as in the an a ly sis of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test d ata . The a llo c a tio n of degrees of freedom fo r th e Parent Q uestionnaire and P are n ts' S itu a tio n Test are given in Tables 19 and 20. In order to t e s t Hypothesis I p re d ic tin g a p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n between c h ild and p a ren t defense p re fere n c e , re g a rd le ss of sex d if f e r e n c e s , Pearson r ’s were computed r e l a t i n g c h ild r e n 's and p a re n ts ' defense choice as expressed in response t o the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e s t, Parent Q u estio n n aire, and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. Pursuant t o the f i r s t two p re d ic tio n s posed in 94 Hypothesis I I , th a t pre-school ch ild re n would id e n tif y more with t h e i r mothers than w ith t h e i r f a th e r s , d ata from the Parent Perception Test was analyzed by t t e s t s of mean d iffe re n ce s between boys and g i r l s in the perception of the same p are n t, as w ell as d iffe re n c e s between parents as observed by the same sexed c h ild re n . R elativ e to th e th ir d and fo u rth p red ic tio n s of t h i s h y p o th esis, th a t c h ild re n would tend to acquire the defense preference of the primary id e n t i f i c a n d , th e defense scores of ch ild ren and parents were compared on the basis of sex- d iffe ren ces in defense p a tte rn . Here, the data from the s e v e ra l defense t e s t s were compared s p e c if ic a lly in terms of the re la tio n s h ip s between parents and ch ild re n as regards each of the four defense v a ria b le s . In a d d itio n , d iffe re n ce s in d istan ce between defense p r o f ile s derived from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est, Parent Q uestionnaire, and P aren ts' S itu a tio n Test were computed by means of the Cronbach-Gleser D s t a t i s t i c (Cronbach, 1953). Raw score data from the th ree defense t e s t s could not be compared d ir e c tly because of the d if f e r e n t systems of sco rin g . T herefore, raw scores were converted to standard scores by the formula X-M +5. This produced a lin e a r transform ation such th a t the d is t r ib u t io n of transform ed scores had a mean of 5 and a standard d ev iatio n of 1. In the Cronbach-Gleser method, D is the square ro o t of the sum, over k v a r ia b le s , of the squared d iffe re n c e 95 between the su b je c t or group in question and another s u b je c t or group. T h erefo re, D re p re se n ts the " li n e a r d istan ce between £ and a group (or two £ ' s , or two groups) in a k-dim ensional space in which each of th e k v a ria b le s serves as a dim ension." (Hadley, 1963). In the p re se n t a p p lic a tio n , the k v a ria b le s were the four defense modes-- E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame, D enial, Turning a g a in st the S e lf , and Reversal of A ffect as re p o rte d by ch ild ren and parents under th e various t e s t c o n d itio n s. Where the p r o f ile s rep resen ted c o rr e la te d d a ta , as between defense p r o f ile s of c h ild re n and t h e i r p a re n ts , the magnitude of d istan ce between D values was determ ined by a t t e s t of c o rre la te d means. Where d ata was u n c o rre la te d , as between boys and g i r l s , a t t e s t of u n c o rre la te d means was employed. In o rd er t o determine the e x te n t to which a c h ild d i f f e r e n t i a t e s h is r e la tio n s h ip to h is own parent as compared with any o th e r p a ren t in th e group, a lik e -se x e d "co n tro l" c h ild was s e le c te d a t random from the pool of lik e -s e x e d experim ental s u b je c ts , and defense p r o f il e s compared along vario u s dimensions. The only lim ita tio n s to random s e le c tio n were th a t no su b je c t could serve as h is own c o n tro l, and no su b je c t could serve as a c o n tro l t o two experim ental s u b je c ts . The technique of drawing numbers from a box was used fo r s e le c tio n of "c o n tro l" s u b j e c t s , th ese numbers being assigned consecutively to a l i s t of "experim ental" s u b je c ts . To t e s t th e th ir d h y p o th e sis, t h a t ch ild re n would le a rn th e new defense behavior of th e p aren t w ith whom they most i d e n t i f i e d , the Defense Learning Test was analyzed. D ifferences in th e number of " c o rre c t" responses between f i r s t and th i r d le a rn in g t r i a l s were subm itted to t t e s t , as were d iffe re n c e s in th e number of tim es each p a r e n t's response was im ita te d by the c h ild . Pearson r ' s were obtained to determine th e r e la tio n s h ip between responses to Parent P ercep tio n Test v a ria b le s and th e r e s u lt s from the Defense Learning T est. While Swanson's (1961) theory of defense fa m ilie s was not d i r e c t l y t e s t e d by th e p re se n t s tu d y , the q u e stio n n a ire s were so designed th a t the r e la tio n s h ip s between the defense v a ria b le s could be examined. Pearson c o r r e la tio n s were employed f o r th is a n a ly s is . Means, standard d e v ia tio n s , Pearson r and t t e s t m atrices f o r a l l v a ria b le s may be found in Appendix E , Tables 1 through 5. CHAPTER VI RESULTS Test R e l i a b i l i t i e s I n te rn a l-c o n s is te n c y r e l i a b i l i t y fig u re s were obtained in order to assess the e x te n t t o which each measure may be considered to be a coherent measure of some dimension r a th e r th an an aggregate of r e l a t i v e l y independent b e h a v io ral observations a r b i t r a r i l y combined t o y ie ld a sco re. S p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s and Spearman-Brown c o rre c te d c o e f f ic ie n ts fo r the Parent P erception T e st, th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e st, th e Parent Q u estio n n aire, and th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est are p resen ted in Tables 3 through 6. Means and stan d ard d ev iatio n s fo r a l l t e s t v a ria b le s are p resen ted in T ab le s 2 8 through 3 2 in Appendix E. Parent P erception Test This t e s t co n tain s 3 b ip o la r s c a le s re p re s e n tin g , r e s p e c tiv e ly , the c h i l d 's tendency to p erceive h is mother as more or le s s n u r tu r a n t, more o r le s s p u n itiv e , and more o r le ss powerful than h is f a th e r . The sum of th e scores on th e se 3 s c a le s y ie ld s a fo u rth s c o re , defined as "mother- 97 98 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " or tendency to id e n tif y with th e mother r a t h e r th a n the f a th e r . Low scores on t h i s s c a le re p re s e n t p e rce iv in g the f a th e r as more n u r tu ra n t, more p u n itiv e , and more powerful than the mother, and are in te r p r e t e d to re p re s e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the f a th e r r a t h e r than the mother. R e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r boys and g i r l s were determined s e p a ra te ly f o r each of th ese 3 subscales and the mother- i d e n t i f i c a t i o n sc o re . Means, standard d e v ia tio n s , i n t e r h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n s , and Spearman-Brown c o rre c te d r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n ts are p resen ted in Table 3. The consistency with which both boys and g i r l s perceived t h e i r p a r e n t s ’ behavior along th e se dimensions i s r e f le c te d in the r e l a t i v e l y high r e l i a b i l i t y f ig u r e s . Boys tend to be s l i g h t l y , but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y , more r e l i a b l e than g i r l s in t h e i r r e p o rtin g of p a re n t-p e rc e p tio n d a ta . C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test As was described above, the c h ild was asked to t e l l what he thought the p ic tu re d c h i ld , mother, and f a th e r would say in response to each of nine f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Each of th e se th ree s e ts of in s t r u c tio n s y ie ld e d a T otal score fo r each defense. Table 4 p re se n ts the mean, stan d ard d e v ia tio n , i n t e r - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n , and Spearman-Brown c o rre c te d r e l i a b i l i t y f o r each of th e se s ix te e n s c o r e s , determined s e p a ra te ly f o r boys and fo r g i r l s . I t may be noted t h a t the o v e ra ll r e l i a b i l i t y of 99 TABLE 3 PARENT PERCEPTION TEST: UNCORRECTED AND SPEARMAN- BRO W N CORRECTED SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITIES Source Subjects G irls Boys Nurturance Uncorrected rxx S-B Corrected r j:x .5 34** .696 .800** .889 Punishment Uncorrected rxx S-B C orrected r X x .691** .817 .720** .837 Power Uncorrected rxx S-B C orrected rxx .603** .752 .496* . 663 T o tal Mother I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Uncorrected rxx S-B C orrected rxx .565** .722 .759** . 863 * .05 p o in t = .378, 1 - ta il e d t e s t . ** .01 p oint = .516, 1 - ta il e d t e s t . TABLE 4 CHILDREN'S SITUATION TEST: UNCORRECTED AND SPEARMAN- B R O W N CORRECTED SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITIES S ource G irls Boys Child Mo. Fa. Total Child Mo. Fa. T otal E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Uncorrected rxx S-B Corrected r xx .70 6** .827 .420* .591 .819** .900 .823** .902 .45 3* .623 .350 .734** .518 .846 .726** .841 Denial Uncorrected r Xx S-B Corrected r xx .375 .545 .602* .751 * .448* .618 .635** . 776 .228 .371 .606** .403* .754 .574 .235 .380 Turning ag ain st S elf Uncorrected r Xx S-B Corrected r xx .327 .492 .532* . 694 * .366 .,5 35 .793** . 884 .7 86** .880 .411* .0 89 .582 .163 .743** . 852 Reversal of A ffect Uncorrected r Xx S-B Corrected r xx .70 3** .825 .233 .377 .719** .836 .722** .838 .507* .672 .6 88** .6 81** .815 .810 .748** .855 * .05 point = .378, 1 - ta ile d t e s t ** .01 point = .516, 1 -ta ile d t e s t 100 101 t h i s t e s t fo r both boys and g i r l s i s reasonably good, with the exception o f th e Denial s c a le . The s h o r te r subscales are more v a ria b le from sample to sample in t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y , and some caution must be used in i n t e r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s based on th e se s e c tio n s of th e t e s t . Parent Q uestionnaire This q u e s tio n n a ire contains f o r ty - e i g h t items c o n s is tin g o f two s e ts of q u e s tio n s, one having t o do with p a r e n ta l a t t i t u d e s reg ard in g ad u lt s it u a ti o n s and the o th er having to do w ith p a re n ta l a t titu d e s regarding c h ild s i t u a t i o n s . This q u e s tio n n a ire thus y ie ld s th re e scores fo r each of the fo u r defenses--one based on the "Adult" q u e s tio n s , one based on th e "Child" q u e s tio n s , and a T otal score obtained by adding the "Adult" and "Child" sc o re s. R e l i a b i l i t i e s of th e se twelve scores were determined s e p a ra te ly f o r each of fo u r samples: mothers of g i r l s , f a th e rs of g i r l s , mothers of boys , and fa th e rs of boys. Table 5 p re se n ts the i n t e r - h a l f c o r r e la tio n s and Spearman- Brown co rre cted r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , means, and stan d ard d ev iatio n s f o r th e se twelve scores fo r fo u r sam ples. As w ith the c h ild r e n 's t e s t , th e r e l i a b i l i t y of the s h o r te r su b scales v a rie s from in s t r u c tio n to in s t r u c tio n and from s c a le to s c a le . R e l i a b i l i t y is p a r t i c u l a r l y low f o r th e Denial "Adult" and "Child" su b scales of boys' 102 TABLE 5 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE: UNCORRECTED AND SPEARMAN- BR O W N CORRECTED SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITIES Mothers Item G irls Boys Adult Child T otal Adult Child T otal E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Uncorrected r xx S-B Corrected r xx .336 .502 .3 80 .550 A A n n .517 .681 A A ft n .523 .686 .466 .635 * ft .590 .742 Denial Uncorrected r xx S-B Corrected r A X A A .680 . 813 ft ft .697 . 821 A A ft ft . 765 . 866 .133 .234 .295 .455 ft .408 .579 Turning Against th e S elf Uncorrected r xx S-B Corrected r vv A X A A it .714 .863 .302 .463 * ft .563 .720 .204 . 338 .317 .481 A A ft ft .528 .691 R eversal of Af fe ct Uncorrected r S-B Corrected r xx * ft .599 .749 A A rt ** .787 . 880 .846 .916 . 395 .566 A A ft n .595 .746 ft ft .749 . 856 103 TABLE 5— C ontinued Fathers G irls Boys Adult Child T o tal Adult Child T otal A A .635 .120 * .428 .008 ft .492 . 325 .776 .214 .599 .016 .659 .490 .024 .624 * ft .578 ft .425 .2 40 * .451 .046 .768 .732 .5 96 .387 .621 .004 .718 ft .677 .5 08 A A 3* .570 A A 4m .530 .007 . 835 . 807 .673 . 726 .692 A A 4m ft ft ft • V «*< 4% «> ft ft ft* .882 .452 . 766 .716 .821 .749 .937 .622 .867 . 834 .901 .856 * .05 point = .378, 1 - t a i l e d t e s t ** .01 po in t = .516, 1 - t a i l e d t e s t 10 4 m others, and fo r the Turning A gainst th e S e lf "Adult1 1 and "Child" su b scales of th e mothers of both boys and g i r l s . F athers of boys evidenced low r e l i a b i l i t y in the "Adult" E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and "Child" Denial s c a le s . However, th e T o tal scores are s u b s t a n tia lly c o n s is te n t, with t h i r t e e n of the s ix te e n c o rre c te d r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f ic ie n ts found to be over .66, 9 of th ese over .70, and 6 over .80. Parents* S itu a tio n Test In t h i s t e s t , th e re were two s e ts of in s t r u c tio n s . The parent was asked (1) what he would say to him self and (2) what he would say t o th e c h ild in response to each of twelve f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . This t e s t thus y ie ld e d th re e scores f o r each o f the fo u r defenses: an "Adult" s c o re , a "Child" sc o re , and a T otal obtained by adding these two sc o re s. As w ith the parent q u e s tio n n a ire , r e l i a b i l i t i e s were determined se p a ra te ly fo r each of th e se twelve scores on each of the fo u r samples. I n t e r - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n s , Spearman-Brown c o rre cted r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s , means, and stan d ard d ev iatio n s a re presented in Table 6. Again we fin d the r e l i a b i l i t y of the subscales v arie s from condition to c o n d itio n . Among mothers of g i r l s , th e r e l i a b i l i t y of the "Adult" Denial subscale and the "Child" Turning a g a in st th e S e lf subscale i s to o low to perm it us 105 TABLE 6 PARENTS' SITUATION TEST: UNCORRECTED AND SPEARMAN- BR O W N CORRECTED SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITIES Mothers Item G irls Boys Adult Child T otal Adult Child T otal E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame xx Uncorrected r xx =665 S-B Corrected r xx *79 8 Denial Uncorrected r xx .2 88 S-B Corrected r xx .447 Turning Against the S e lf x Uncorrected r xx .436 S-B Corrected r xx .60 7 Reversal of A ffect xx Uncorrected r xx .6 84 S-B Corrected r xx .812 xx .678 xx . 703 .808 .825 xx . 729 .885 xx .662 . 843 xx 795 796 .7^1 xx . 809 .877 .894 .295 .455 xx .703 . 825 .280 .437 .282 . 439 xx .769 . 869 xx .670 .802 .613 x . 442 XX .719 .836 xx .639 xx .614 .779 .760 XX XX .793 .006 .682 .884 .110 .810 106 TABLE 6— C ontinued Fathers G irls Boys Adult Child T o tal Adult Child T otal XX .740 XX .625 XX .794 XX .600 .248 XX .582 . 850 . 769 . 885 .750 .397 . 735 XX .582 XX . 890 X .514 .372 X . 488 X . 437 . 735 .941 .678 .542 .655 .608 X .510 .162 XX .520 XX .640 XX .639 XX .740 .675 .278 .684 .780 .779 . 850 XX . 735 X .511 XX .631 XX . 891 .277 X .431 .847 .676 .773 .942 . 433 .602 .05 p o in t = . 378 , 1 - ta il e d t e s t .01 p o in t = .516 , 1 - ta il e d t e s t 107 t o place much confidence in th e se d a ta . R e l i a b i l i t y f o r mothers of boys was extremely low in th e ''Child'1 subscale f o r R eversal of A ffect and poor f o r the Denial T otal and "Adult" su b sc a le s. W e fin d the f a th e rs of g i r l s p a r t i c u l a r l y low in th e "Child" subscale f o r Turning a g a in st the S e lf . Fathers of boys were low on the "Adult" Denial su b scale and on the "Child" R eversal of A ffect s u b s c a le . As with th e Parent Q u estio n n aire, combining the subscales produces a more c o n s is te n t p ic tu r e . F ifte e n of the s ix te e n Spearman-Brown co rrec te d c o r r e la tio n c o e f f i c ie n ts f o r the T otal scores are found t o be over .60. Of th ese eleven are over .70, and seven are over .80. Examining the r e l i a b i l i t y data f o r both the c h ild r e n ’s and p a re n ts ' defense t e s t s leads to the conclusion th a t each of the s c a le s is r e l i a b l e fo r some group of su b je c ts and not f o r o th e rs . Some caution must be e x e rc is e d , th e r e f o r e , in i n te r p r e t in g r e s u l t s based upon the p a r t i c u l a r subscales which have proven low in r e l i a b i l i t y . I t may be noted th a t over a l l su b je c ts and c o n d itio n s , the sc ale of Denial tends to be the le a s t r e l i a b l e of the four defenses stu d ie d . Defense Learning Test This t e s t was designed to y ie ld an estim a te of (a) the c h i l d 's a b i l i t y to le a rn the behavior a t t r i b u t e d by E to 108 "mother*' and to " f a t h e r ," and (b) th e e x te n t to which the c h ild adopts f o r him self th e b eh a v io ral modes ascrib ed to p a re n ta l models. No d eterm ination of r e l i a b i l i t y was attem pted fo r t h i s t e s t because the e stim a te s of le arn in g are based on too few behavior samples to perm it an in te r n a l-c o n s is te n c y a n a l y s i s , and i t was not p o ssib le to ad m in ister th e t e s t tw ice to obtain a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . T estin g th e F i r s t Hypothesis I t was p re d ic te d in th e f i r s t hypothesis th a t a p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h i p would be found between defense p referen ce s of c h ild re n and t h e i r p a r e n t s , re g a rd le ss of sex d iffe re n c e s . This hypothesis was te s te d by (1) c o r r e la tin g se p a ra te defense v a ria b le s w ith in the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n t e s t ; and (2) c o r r e la tin g the "Child" scores from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est with "A dult," "C hild," and T o tal scores from th e Parent Q uestionnaire and th e P a re n ts ' S itu a tio n T est. O n e-tailed t e s t s of s ig n ific a n c e were used, the p re d ic tio n having been made th a t th e r e la tio n s h ip would be a p o s itiv e one. Table 7 p resen ts th e data from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est. C h ild re n 's re p o rts of the p ic tu re d c h i l d 's defense behavior have been c o r re la te d with t h e i r re p o rts of the p ic tu re d p a re n ts ' defense behavior. Three o f the e ig h t r e la tio n s h ip s te s te d were s i g n i f i c a n t fo r g i r l s ; four of 109 TABLE 7 CHILDREN'S SITUATION TEST: CORRELATIONS BETW EEN "CHILD" AND "MOTHER" AND "CHILD" AND "FATHER" RESPONSES Source I n s tru c tio n s Defense 1 G irls Boys Child-Mo. Child-Fa . Child-Mo. C hild-Fa. E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame .332 .487* .597** .441* Denial .245 -.063 .222 .243 Turning A gainst S elf .66 3* .629** .374 .343 Reversal of A ffect .152 .047 .529** .585* * .05 po in t ** .01 po in t = .378, = .516, 1 - ta il e d 1-t a i l e d t e s t t e s t 110 the e ig h t f o r boys. Denial was the only defense in which no s i g n i f ic a n t c o rre la tio n , was found between the c h i l d ’s re p o rt of the p ic tu re d c h ild and his p ic tu re d p a re n ts. I t w ill be remembered th a t ev alu atio n of the t e s t s led to the conclusion th a t Denial was one of the weaker s c a le s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r boys. This data suggests th a t the more fre q u e n tly a c h ild s e le c te d a defense fo r the c h ild in the s to r y , th e more fre q u en tly he tended to a sc rib e i t to one of the p aren ts in the s to ry . R e latio n sh ip s between the defense scores of parents and t h e i r c h ild re n are re p o rte d in Table 8. Here, the TABLE 8 C o rre la tio n s between "ch ild " in s t r u c tio n s - - C h ild r e n ' s S itu a tio n T e s t, and p a r e n ts ’ responses to the Parent Q uestionnaire and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test Source Mothers Fathers G ir ls ' Boys' G i r l s ’ Boys' Child Child Child Child Parent Q uestionnaire E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Adult -.171 -.042 .336 .090 Child -.334 .014 .091 .118 Total -.295 -.015 .309 .138 Denial Adult .16 7 .150 .157 .197 Child .660 . 143 .184 .084 Total .528 . 183 .196 . 168 I l l TABLE 8— Continued Mothers Fathers Source G ir ls ' Boys’ Child Child G i r l s ' Boys' Child Child Turning Against the S e lf Adult .295 .280 -.007 .378 Child .119 . 025 -.026 .058 T otal .251 .156 .021 .213 R eversal of A ffect Adult -.353 -.063 -.122 .213 Child -.479 -.139 -.513* -.205 T otal -.456 -.118 -.342 -.043 P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Adult .301 -.314 .309 -. I l l Child .046 -.231 -.076 -.189 T otal .141 -.326 .176 -.195 Denial Adult .012 .295 .324 .052 Child .274 .5 69** .153 .161 T otal .175 .525* . 315 . 135 Turning Against the S e lf Adult - .109 -.219 .000 .521 Child -.372 .136 -.5 5 8* .076 T otal -.336 -.055 -.302 .331 Reversal of A ffect Adult .100 -.354 -.082 .019 Child -.200 -.387 -.244 -.044 Total -.215 -.408 -.160 -.013 * .05 le v e l = .444, 2 - ta il e d t e s t ** .01 le v e l = .561, 2 - t a i l e d t e s t defense scores derived from each c h i l d 's re p o rt of what he thought the c h ild might say in response to the C h ild re n 's F igu re 1 Histogram of mean defense scores f o r boys and g i r l s - - C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e s t, "C hild," "Mother," "Father" i n s t r u c t i o n s ; lin e graph above in d ic a te s mean "Total" score fo r a l l in s tr u c tio n s combined. M ean S c ores - Ckifdr-eo’ s Situation Te^t" G irls Total____ BoijS t o t a l _____ n lu ? f 3 s . 3 ;i or a ' U J 1 siM 3 r v > or U i Z £ L - -< U - GIRLS BOVS * _________ ° Externa !<zaL°r> o9 Blame GIRLS k stfiil c£ ct > 1 X 6 f £ < V i U . B O V S Denied o £ GIRLS GiRLS B O Y S 60YS Reversal of A ffect H ( - ■ to J 114 S itu a tio n T est were c o r r e la te d w ith th e defense scores derived from h is p a re n ts ' responses t o the "Adult" and "Child" su b scales of the Parent Q uestionnaire and the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. Also c o r r e la te d was the T otal of th ese sco res fo r each defense v a ria b le on both t e s t s . Here we fin d t h a t th e c o r r e la tio n s c l u s t e r around zero , with only 60 per cent in the p o s itiv e d ir e c tio n . Only 4 per cent of the c o rre la tio n s are s i g n i f i c a n t in e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n . T esting th e Second Hypothesis The second hypothesis d e a lt w ith the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n might be a re le v a n t f a c to r in the in d iv i d u a l's choice of defense modes. I t was f i r s t p re d ic te d th a t (1) both boys and g i r l s , th r e e to fiv e years of age would id e n tif y w ith t h e i r mothers more than with t h e i r f a t h e r s , and th a t (2) g i r l s would id e n tif y more w ith t h e i r mothers than would boys. I d e n tif ic a ti o n is defined in th is study as the sum of scores derived from the N urturance, Punishment, and Power subscales of the Parent P erception T est. The d a ta in Table 9 in d ic a te s the amount by which the mother was described as the more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful of th e p ic tu re d p a r e n t s . The ta b le p rese n ts t t e s t s along two dimensions. The f i r s t two t r a t i o s were derived by comparing the observed mean of the G irls ' and 115 Boys' T o tal "Mother I d e n tif ic a ti o n " score with the h y p o th e tic a l value of 10.5. This value would re p re se n t no in te rp a re n t d if fe re n c e , sin ce th e Parent P erception Test contained 21 item s, each of which can be answered e i t h e r "Mother" or " F a th e r." The negative t values d escrib in g the boys' m aternal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in d ic a te s th a t the T otal "Mother" sco re was lower than the T otal "Father" sc o re . TABLE 9 P arent Perception T est: Total Scores A ttrib u te d to "Mother" Group Mean Std. Dev. t G irls 11.00 5.27 .455 Boys 7.55 C O • C M -3.907 Girls-Boys 2.96** ** .01 point = 2.430, 1-t a i l e d t e s t (d f = 38) The t h i r d t value on Table 9 in d ic a te s the d iffe re n c e between th e mean T o tal "Mother" scores obtained by Boys and G i r l s . The d a ta here p resen ted in d ic a te d t h a t , contrary to P re d ic tio n 1, th e boys and g i r l s of th i s sample did not id e n tif y w ith a m aternal more than with a p a te rn a l f ig u re , as measured by t h i s in stru m en t. However, th e d a ta supports P re d ic tio n 2, th a t g i r l s would id e n tif y more with a m aternal fig u re than would boys. ( t = 2 .9 6 , p. .01). 116 In sp ec tio n of the means from which th is t is derived in d ic a te s th a t the in fe re n c e of g re a te r m aternal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n fo r g i r l s in r e la tio n to boys is a function of the boys' very low "Mother" T otal sc o re . That i s , boys tend to re p o rt t h e i r fa th e rs as the more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful p a re n t, while g i r l s re p o rt l i t t l e d iffe re n c e between p aren ts along th ese dimensions. Because i t was p re d ic te d th a t both boys and g i r l s would id e n tif y w ith the mother r a th e r than the f a t h e r , a o n e -ta ile d s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t was made of t h i s h y p o th e sis, which i s not su stain e d on the b a sis of t h i s t e s t . Among the boys, the unexpected tren d toward i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith th e f a th e r is la rg e enough to have been s i g n i f i c a n t i f a 2 - ta il e d t e s t had been used. Though s t a t i s t i c a l logic does not permit i n te r p r e t in g th is r e s u l t in support of b o y s' g re a te r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith t h e i r f a t h e r s , th is r e s u l t may nonetheless serve as a hypothesis f o r a fu tu re in v e s tig a tio n , A f u r th e r e x p lo ra tio n of the Parent P erception Test subscales is presented in Table 10. The t values in the f i r s t two columns of the ta b le re p re se n t the d iffe re n c e between the observed mean on each o f the th re e dimensions and the h y p o th e tic a l value of 3.5. The value of 3.5 would re p re se n t no in te r - p a r e n t d iffe re n c e , since the Parent Perception Test contains seven items fo r each dimension. A p o s itiv e t value in d ic a te s th a t th e scores fo r "Mother" TABLE 10 PARENT PERCEPTION TEST: DIFFERENCES BETW EEN BOYS A N D GIRLS IN PERCEPTION OF PARENTS AS RELATIVELY NURTURANT, PUNISHING, A ND POW ERFUL Source G irls Boys D ifference Between Samples Girls-Boys Mother Nurturance Mean Std. t Dev. 4.50 1.39 1.80 Mean Std. t Dev. 3.00 1.79 - .78 t 2.88** Mother Punishment Mean Std. t Dev. 2.60 1.56 -1.50 Mean Std. t Dev. 1.90 1.70 -2.56* t 1.28 Mother Power Mean Std. t Dev. 2.90 1.70 - .961 Mean Std. t Dev. 2 .65 1.39 -1.36 6 .318 * .05 le v e l = 2.093, 2 - ta ile d t e s t (df = 19) ** .01 le v e l = 2.713, 2 - ta ile d t e s t (df = 38) 118 were h ig h e r th an 3.5; a negative t value in d ic a te s t h a t the scores fo r "Father" were h ig h e r than 3.5. The t values in the t h i r d column of Table 10 in d ic a te d iffe re n c e s between g i r l s ' and boys' d e s c rip tio n s of the p a re n ta l fig u re s as r e l a t i v e l y n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful. The data on Table 10 suggest th a t th e re was a non s i g n i f i c a n t tendency fo r g i r l s to perceive the "Mother" as th e le s s punishing parent to a s i g n i f i c a n t degree ( t = -2 .5 6 , p. .05). G irls perceived th e Mother as more n u rtu ra n t th a t did boys ( t = 2.88, p. .0 1 ), even though the g i r l s did not d escrib e the Mother as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more n u rtu ra n t than the f a th e r . The second p a rt of Hypothesis I I d e a lt s p e c if ic a lly w ith a p o ssib le r e la tio n s h ip between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and defense choice. I t was p re d ic te d th a t i f the ch ild re n i d e n t i f i e d more with th e m other, and i f defense choice was r e l a t e d to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , than the defense behavior of boys and g i r l s would be more lik e th a t of t h e i r Mother than t h e i r F ath er. I t was f u r th e r p red ic te d t h a t the defense behavior of g i r l s would more o ften resemble t h a t of th e Mother than would boys' defense behavior. Tables 7 and 8 p re se n t the r e la tio n s h ip s between p a re n ts ' and c h ild re n 's defense behavior in terms of sin g le defense modes. More a p p ro p riate t o the question of whether c h i ld r e n 's defense behavior in general matches t h a t of t h e i r p aren ts is a 119 comparison of t h e i r defense p r o f il e s through th e Cronbach- G leser D s t a t i s t i c (see pp. 94-95). Tables 11 through 14- p rese n t the r e s u l t s of t t e s t s (c o r re la te d means) between p a irs of mean D values pursuant to th i s q u e s tio n . One t a i l e d t e s t s were applied to the d a ta. Means and stan d ard s d ev iatio n s are no t rep o rted because t values were c a l c u l a t ed in the manner described by McNemar (1962, pp. 101-102) in which a d iffe re n c e is determined f o r each s u b je c t, r a t h e r than c a lc u la tin g a mean and standard d e v iatio n fo r each dimension. For the analyses summarized in Tables 11 and 12, each S was randomly assigned a "co n tro l" S from th e lik e -s e x e d group (see p. 92). Table 11 p resen ts defense p r o f il e d ata derived e n t ir e ly from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est. In th is a n a ly s is , the f i r s t d ista n c e (D^) computed was th a t between the defense p r o f i l e derived from the S 's responses t o the "Child" in s t r u c tio n s and h is own p a re n ts ' defense p r o f il e s based on h is responses under "Mother" and "Father" i n s t r u c t i o n s . The second d istan c e ( D 2 ) computed was th a t between the s u b j e c t 's defense p r o f il e based on h is responses to the "Child" in s tr u c tio n s and h is "co n tro l" s u b j e c t 's p a re n ta l defense p r o f il e s based on the c o n tro l c h i l d 's responses under "Mother" and "Father" in s t r u c t i o n s . The ta b le d t values in d ic a te the magnitude of the d iffe re n c e between and D 2 . A o n e - ta ile d t e s t was a p p ro p riate under the hypothesis th a t c h ild re n im ita te 120 TABLE 11 DEFENSE PROFILE ANALYSIS OF CHILDRENf S SITUATION TEST Sample I n s tr u c tio n s Mother F ath er t(D x - D2)# t(D]_ - D2 )# G irls - .584 - .087 Boys -2.820** -1.920* #D, re p re se n ts th e d ista n c e between the p r o f i l e based on the S’s response to the "Child" in s tr u c tio n s and t h a t based on h is response to th e "Mother" or "Father" i n s t r u c t i o n s . Dj re p re s e n ts the d ista n c e between the p r o f i l e based on th e S 's "Child" responses and h is " c o n tro l" S 's responses t o the "Mother" and "Father" i n s t r u c t i o n s . * .05 le v e l = -1 .7 2 9 , 1 - ta il e d t e s t (d f = 19). ** .01 le v e l = -2 .5 3 9 , 1 - ta il e d t e s t (d f = 19). p a re n ta l defense beh av io r. In t h i s , as in the ta b le s to fo llo w , a p o s itiv e t in d ic a te s th a t the d istan ce between th e defense p r o f il e s rep rese n ted by D^ i s g r e a te r than th e d ista n c e between th e defense p r o f ile s rep rese n ted by D 2 . Conversely, a n eg ativ e t in d ic a te s th a t the p r o f il e d ista n c e of Dj is g r e a te r than th a t of D^. From th is a n a l y s i s , i t may be in f e r r e d th a t boys rep o rted the p ic tu re d c h i l d ’s defense behavior as being more s im ila r to h is own view of th a t of th e p ic tu re d mother than to the "co n tro l" c h i l d 's view of th e p ic tu re d mother ( t = - 2 .8 2 , p. .0 1 ), and c lo s e r to the p ic tu re d f a th e r than t o the 121 "co n tro l" c h i l d 's view of the p ic tu re d mother ( t = -1 .9 2 0 , p. .0 5 ). This d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n did not hold fo r g i r l s . Table 12 p resen ts defense p r o f i l e comparisons in which TABLE 12 DEFENSE PROFILE ANALYSIS COMPARING CHILD REPORTED DATA AND PARENT REPORTED DATA Mother Father Subjects t*(D 1 - D2)# t(D ! - D2># G irls .036 • l — 1 Boys -.1U0 1 « O -J re p re se n ts the d ista n c e between the p r o f il e based on th e S 's response to th e "Mother" o r "F ather" in s t r u c tio n s of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and his m other's or f a t h e r 's T otal responses to th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. D 2 re p re se n ts the d ista n c e between the p ro file based on th e S 's response to the "Mother or "Father" in stru c tio n s of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and h is "c o n tro l" S 's p a re n ts ' responses to the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T e s t. t* of 1.729 req u ired fo r s ig n ific a n c e a t .05 le v e l, 1 - t a i l e d t e s t (df = 1 9 ) c h ild -re p o rte d "parent" defense d ata was compared with p a re n t-re p o rte d defense d ata. For th e se a n a ly se s, the f i r s t d ista n c e (D]_) computed was th a t between th e s u b j e c t 's view of h is p a re n ts ' re s p e c tiv e defense p r o f il e s based on h is responses to the "Mother" o r "Father" in s tr u c tio n s on th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and the s u b j e c t 's p a re n ts' defense p r o f il e s derived from t h e i r re p o rts of t h e i r own 122 defense behavior (Total sco re) on the P a re n ts ' S itu a tio n T est, The second d ista n c e (D2 ) computed was th a t between the s u b j e c t 's responses to th e "Mother1 1 or "Father" in s tr u c tio n s on th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est and th e "c o n tro l" s u b j e c t 's p a re n ts ' defense p r o f il e s derived from t h e i r T otal score on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. Here we fin d th a t th e c h ild r e n 's re p o rts of p a re n ta l defense behavior is not more lik e th a t re p o rte d by t h e i r own parents than lik e th a t rep o rte d by th e co n tro l c h ild r e n 's p a re n ts. G irls seemed b est able to re p o rt p a te rn a l behavior as more lik e t h e i r f a th e rs re p o rte d i t on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test than lik e t h e i r c o n t r o l- c h i ld 's f a th e r rep o rted h is behavior. However, the le v e l of s ig n ific a n c e was only between p. = .20 and .15. Table 13 re p o rts p r o f i l e d iffe re n c e s between the c h i l d 's view of th e p a r e n ta l defense behavior based on the c h i l d 's responses under "Mother" and "Father" in s t r u c tio n s on th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est, and p a r e n ta l re p o rt based on the Parent S itu a tio n T est. Dj re p re se n ts th e d ista n c e between th e c h i l d 's re p o r t of m aternal defense behavior as in f e r re d from "Mother" i n s t r u c tio n s of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and the m other's own re p o rt of h e r defense behavior as derived from th e T o tal score on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. D2 re p re se n ts th e d istan ce between the c h i l d 's re p o rt of p a te rn a l defense behavior as in f e r re d from the "Father" in s t r u c tio n s of the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n 123 T est and the f a t h e r ’s own re p o rt of h is defense behavior as derived from h is T otal score on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T e st. On the c o n tra ry , we fin d th a t c h i ld r e n 's re p o rts of m aternal defense behavior a re not more lik e the m others' re p o rts of m aternal defense behavior than i s t h e i r re p o rt of t h e i r f a t h e r s ' defense behavior lik e t h e i r own r e p o r ts . In sp e c tin g the t values on Table 13, th e re i s a suggestion t h a t g i r l s ' defense p r o f il e s tend to be more lik e t h e i r f a t h e r s ' than lik e t h e i r m o th ers'. No s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n if ic a n c e can be a t t r i b u t e d t o the fin d in g , a o n e -ta ile d t e s t having been a p p ro p ria te to the d ata. TABLE 13 DEFENSE PROFILE ANALYSIS: DISTANCE BETW EEN CHILD'S REPORT OF "MOTHER1 1 AND MOTHER'S REPORT AS COM PARED WITH CHILD'S REPORT OF "FATHER" A ND FATHER'S REPORT Sample t*(D1 - D2 )# G irls 3.40 Boys .14 #D re p re se n ts th e d ista n c e between the c h i l d 's re p o rt of m aternal behavior (based on h is responses to th e "Mother" in s t r u c tio n s of the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test) and th e M other's re p o rt of h er own defense behavior (based on h e r T otal sco res on th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T e s t). A nalogously, D re p re se n ts the d istan ce between th e c h i l d 's re p o rt of p a te rn a l defense behavior and the f a t h e r 's re p o rt of h is own defense behavior. *A t of -1.729 req u ired f o r s ig n ific a n c e a t th e .05 p o in t, 1 - t a i l e d t e s t (df = 19). 124 P r o f ile analyses rep o rte d in Table 14 were e f f o r t s to answer the q u estio n : Are g i r l s ' defense p r o f i l e s more lik e TABLE 14 DEFENSE PROFILE ANALYSIS: DISTANCE BETW EEN GIRLS' DEFENSE PROFILES AND GIRLS’ PARENTS' DEFENSE PROFILES AS COM PARED TO DISTANCE BETW EEN BOYS' DEFENSE t(D^ - D 2 ,# Parent t(D^ - D 2 »# P arents Parents Q u e stio n n a ire ) S itu a tio n T est) Mothers -1.29 - .405 F athers -2.65* - .317 re p re se n ts the d ista n c e between th e g i r l s ' defense p r o f i l e (based on the "Child" in s tr u c tio n s in the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test) and h e r p a r e n t 's defense p r o f ile (based on the p a r e n t's T o tal scores on th e parent defense t e s t s ) . Analogously, D 2 re p re se n ts the d ista n c e between the boy's defense p r o f il e and th a t of h is p a ren t. *.05 le v e l = 2.093, 2 - t a i l e d t e s t (df = 38). NOTE: A o n e - ta ile d t e s t could be ap p lied to the "mother" d a ta , re q u irin g a t value of -1.729 f o r s i g n i f i c a n t .05 l e v e l ; i t was p re d ic te d th a t g i r l s would be more s im ila r to the mother than boys. The tw o -ta ile d t e s t must be ap p lied to the "fa th e r" d a ta , since no p re d ic tio n s were made reg ard in g sex d iffe re n c e s in s i m ila r it y to the f a th e r . those of t h e i r p a re n ts ' p r o f ile s than boys' defense p r o f il e s are lik e t h e i r p a r e n t s '. The f i r s t D's computed were between the g i r l ' s own defense p r o f i l e as in f e r re d from th e "Child" in s tr u c tio n s of the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and each of h er p a re n ts ' defense p r o f il e s as derived from th e T o tal scores of th e Parent Q uestionnaire and the 125 P a re n ts ' S itu a tio n Test re s p e c tiv e ly . The second D’s computed were between th e boy's own defense p r o f il e as in f e r r e d from th e "Child" in s t r u c tio n s of the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and h is p a re n ts ' defense p r o f ile s as derived from the T otal scores of the Parent Q uestionnaire and the P a re n ts ' S itu a tio n T est. I t was found th a t th e re was less d ista n c e between boys' defense p r o f il e s and t h e i r f a th e r s ' defense p r o f il e derived from th e Parent Q uestionnaire Total score th an between g i r l s ' defense p r o f il e s and t h e i r f a t h e r s ' defense p r o f ile s s im ila rly derived. No o th e r d iffe re n c e s were found between c h ild re n 's defense p r o f ile s based on the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est and parent defense p r o f ile s based on parent defense t e s t s . The r e s u lt s re p o rte d above do not support the p re d ic tio n th a t c h i ld r e n 's primary defense mode w ill more often resemble th a t of the mother than th a t of the f a th e r . The p re d ic tio n th a t g i r l s ' primary defense mode would more often resemble th a t of the mother than would boys' primary defense mode was a lso unsupported by the d a ta . T estin g th e Third Hypothesis The th ir d hypothesis s ta te d th a t new defense behavior may be acquired through im ita tio n of the primary id e n tif ic a n d . To t e s t t h i s h y p o th e sis, the Defense Learning Test was adm inistered to the c h ild re n , and i t s r e s u l t s analyzed in terms of d iffe re n c e s between boys and 126 g i r l s in t h e i r im ita tio n of th e new defense p a tte rn s assigned by the experim enter to "Mother" and "F ath e r," These r e s u lt s were then c o r re la te d with Parent P erception Test r e s u l t s . I t may be r e c a lle d th a t in ad m in isterin g th e Defense Learning T e st, the experim enter presented the ch ild re n with new p a re n ta l defense p a tte rn s in response to the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T e st, which c o n siste d of nine f r u s t r a t i n g s t o r i e s . For the Defense Learning T e s t, the th re e new f r u s t r a t i n g s it u a ti o n s presented follow ing the 3rd, 6 th , and 9th C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test s t o r i e s were designated "le arn in g t r i a l s . " At these tim e s, r a th e r than being to ld the new defense by the experim enter, the c h ild was asked what the "Mother" and "Father" might say. In a l l twelve s i t u a t i o n s , follow ing th e statem ent of th e new p aren t defense e i t h e r by experim enter or by c h i ld , the c h ild was asked how he would respond. A p o in t was given f o r each aspect of the new behavior p a tte rn c o r re c tly assigned to each p a re n t. A designated "new p a r e n ta l response" assigned t o the wrong parent was c a lle d an e r r o r . A defense response th a t was d if f e r e n t from any a sp e c t of the experim entally designated new defense behavior of e i t h e r p aren t was scored as an "Own" response. Table 15 compares c o rre c t responses made in the f i r s t and t h i r d le a rn in g t r i a l s ; both g i r l s and boys made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o rre c t responses the th i r d time they 12 7 were asked what each parent would say than they did the f i r s t time they were asked. These r e s u lt s in d ic a te th a t learn in g did occur. TABLE 15 DEFENSE LEARNING TEST: DIFFERENCE IN NUM BER OF CORRECT RESPONSES— 1 st TO 3rd LEARNING TRIALS Group 1st T ria l 3rd T ria l t Means SD Means SD Gi r l s Mother 1.85 .96 2.90 .30 5.0 0** Father 2.00 .77 2. 85 .36 4.72** Boys Mother 1.95 1.07 2.70 .71 7.50** Father 2.25 . 83 2.60 .73 2.70** **.01 point = 2.539 , 1 - ta ile d t e s t (df = 19). Some support fo r the hypothesized r e la tio n s h ip between p a r e n t- id e n tif ic a tio n and the le a rn in g of new defense behavior i s rep o rted in Table 16, Here, c o rre la tio n s between data from th e Parent Perception Test and the Defense Learning Test are summarized. These r e s u lts in d ic a te t h a t , among g i r l s , the le a rn in g of the "Mother's" experim entally assigned new defense behavior was r e la te d to high Total "Mother Id e n tif ic a tio n " scores on the Parent 128 Perception T est ( r = .4-71, p. .0 5 ). Of t h i s t e s t ' s th ree s u b sc a le s, only Mother-Nurturance c o r re la te d with the le a rn in g o f new m aternal defense p a tte rn s ( r = .386, p. .05). C o rre la tio n s between the boys' tendency to im ita te a new p a re n ta l defense mode were clo se to zero. TABLE 16 CORRELATIONS BETW EEN PARENT PERCEPTION TEST VARIABLES AND DEFENSE LEARNING TEST Parent P erception Test V ariables Learned Mothers New Defense G irls i Boys Nurturance .386* .029 Punishment . 151 .008 Power .330 -.085 T otal ( I d e n tif ic a tio n ) .471* .190 *.05 p o in t = .378, 1 - t a i l e d t e s t . Pursuant to the p re d ic tio n th a t a c h ild would a l t e r h is defense mode in accordance w ith changes in the expressed choice of defense by the parent with whom he most c lo se ly i d e n t i f i e s , a comparison was made of the number of times each c h ild responded w ith an aspect of the exp erim en tally assigned new defense behavior when asked "What the c h ild would say" in response to th e twelve f r u s t r a t i n g s itu a tio n s of th e Defense Learning T e st. Each 129 ' time he made a response lik e th a t assigned t o the "M other,” he obtained a p oint fo r "Mother defense le a rn in g ." Each time he made a response lik e th a t assigned t o the " F a th e r," he obtained a p o in t fo r "F ath er defense le a rn in g ." Responses which d if fe re d from those experim entally assigned to the "P arents" were c a lle d "Own" responses. Table 17 compares th e performance of boys and g i r l s on TABLE 17 DEFENSE LEARNING TEST: M EA N DIFFERENCES BETW EEN BOYS’ AND GIRLS' IMITATION OF "MOTHER" AND "FATHER" Source G irls Boys t Learned M other's Defense Mean Std. Dev. 2 0 . 1 0 5.99 Mean Std. Dev. 15 .55 6.48 2.25* Learned F a th e r's Defense Mean Std. Dev. 16.30 3.70 Mean S td. Dev. 20.65 6 . 30 - 2 . 0 0 1.45 t ■ 1.75 *.0 5 point = 1.6 85, 1 - ta il e d t e s t (df = 3 8 ) **A t of 1.729 is re q u ire d f o r s ig n if ic a n c e a t the .05 le v e l fo r a 1 - ta il e d t - t e s t of c o r re la te d means, d f = 19. the Defense Learning Test along two dimensions. The t t e s t s on th e bottom row compare the le a rn in g of new m aternal defense behavior w ith the le a rn in g of new p a te rn a l defense behavior. The d ata upon which th ese comparisons are made rep re se n t a l l of th e "Mother" and "Father" responses from th e f i r s t to th e l a s t s i t u a t i o n . A 130 s u f f i c i e n t l y la rg e number of i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c responses were made by the s u b je c ts th a t did not f a l l in to the "c o rre c t" c a te g o rie s th a t th e d ata are not re p re s e n ta tiv e of th a t obtained in a purely ip s a tiv e t e s t . A t e s t of d iffe re n c e between observed c o r re la te d means thus seemed more ap p ro p ria te than a t e s t of the d iffe re n c e between observed and h y p o th e tic a l means. The t t e s t of d iffe re n c e between the means of "Mother" and "Father" responses do not support the p re d ic tio n th a t c h ild re n aged th re e t o fiv e are more lik e ly to le a rn new m aternal defense behavior than new p a te rn a l defense behavior. The t values in the rig h t-h an d column of Table 17 compare the performance of boys and g i r l s on the Defense Learning T est. These r e s u lt s support the p re d ic tio n t h a t g i r l s are more lik e ly than boys to le arn the new defense behavior of a m aternal model. A dditional Findings Analyses of Variance: Defense Tests The data from the th re e defense t e s t s were su b je c te d to an a ly sis of v ariance in order t o explore p o ssib le in te r a c tio n s among c h ild se x , p aren t sex , and defense v a r ia b le s . The analyses were described on pp. 92-93. The C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test and P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test being 131 ip s a tiv e in n a tu re , the betw een-subjects e f f e c t s are w ithout meaning f o r th e defense process under in v e s tig a t i o n . Since the data are based on e s s e n ti a ll y ip s a tiv e m easures, th e sum of each S 's scores would be th e same i f a l l Ss followed the t e s t in s tr u c tio n s e x a c tly . A few Ss did not do so ; th e sc o rin g procedures in such in sta n c e s did not preserve th e ip s a tiv e n atu re of the sc o re s. Thus some betw een-subjects v a r ia tio n does occur, and is i s o l a t e d by th e a n a ly s is . I t i s only the w ith in -s u b je c ts e f f e c t s , however, which are of i n t e r e s t . The P arent Q uestionnaire is not an ip s a tiv e measure, so the betw een-subjects e f f e c t s are r e le v a n t. Table 18 summarizes the an a ly sis of v arian ce performed on th e data from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est. I t may be seen t h a t some defenses are used more fre q u e n tly than oth ers ( defense main e f f e c t s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e . 0 1 l e v e l) . No s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e was found between th e d e f e n s e -p ro f ile e le v a tio n of boys and g i r l s when a l l the v a ria b le s were combined, nor were they found in in te r a c tio n s between Child Sex and I n s tr u c tio n s or Child Sex and Defense. I n s tr u c tio n s (response t o t e s t s i t u a t i o n s in terms of what C hild, Mother, and F ather might say) also were n o n -s ig n ific a n t in a l l an aly ses. Analyses of variance fo r th e Parent Q uestionnaire and the P are n ts' S itu a tio n Test are summarized in Tables 19 and 20, r e s p e c tiv e ly . In both ca se s, only th e t o t a l scores TABLE 18 SUM M ARY O F THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE* OF THE "T0TAL"a SCORES: CHILDREN’S SITUATION TEST Source of V ariation Sum of Squares df Mean Square E rro r Term F S ig n if i cance Between Subjects Child Sex(CS) .05 1 .05 Ss .625 NS S u b je c ts (S s )(e rro r b) 3.43 38 .08 T otal Between 3.48 39 Within Subjects I n s tr u c tio n s ( I n ) . 1 2 2 .06 InxSs .014 NS Defense(D) 146.53 3 48.84 DxSs 8.26 . 0 1 InxD 9.43 6 1.57 InxDxSs 1 . 80 NS InxCs . 0 2 2 . 0 1 InxSs . 0 0 2 NS DxCS 18,66 3 9.33 DxSs 1.58 NS InxDxCS 7.06 6 1.18 InxDxSs 1.38 NS In x S s(e rro r wq) 336.85 76 4.43 DxSs(error W 2 ) 673.27 114 5 .91 InxDxSs(error W 3 ) 195.48 228 . 8 6 T otal Within 1387,45 440 T otal 1390,93 479 * L in q u ist (1953) Type VI D esign aThe sum o f "Adult" and "Child" S cores 132 TABLE 19 SUM M A R Y OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE* OF THE "TOTAL"3 SCORES: PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE Source of V ariation Sum of Squares df Mean Square E rror Term F S ig n if i cance Between Subjects Child Sex(CS) 168.20 1 16 8 . 2 0 Ss 1,54 NS S u b je c ts (S s )(e rro r b) 4118.00 38 108.20 T otal Between 4286 .20 39 Within Subjects Parent Sex(PS) 80.00 1 80.00 PSxSs 3.77 NS Defense(D) 2922.43 3 974.14 DxSs 42.79 . 0 1 PSxD 1.07 3 34.36 PSxDxSs 1.62 NS PSxCS 14.47 1 14.47 PSxSs . 6 8 NS DxCS 199.97 3 6 6 . 6 6 DxSs 2.81 .05 PSxDxCS 702.00 3 234.00 PSxDxSs .13 NS PSxSs( e rr o r w -, ) 805.70 38 DxSs(error W 2 ) 2311.77 114 PSxDxSs(error W 3 ) 144164.33 114 Total Within 151201.74 280 T otal 155487.94 319 * L in q u ist (19 53) Type VI D esign aThe sum o f "Adult" and "Child" Scores 133 TABLE 20 SUM M A R Y OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE* OF THE "TOTAL"a SCORES: PARENTS' SITUATION TEST Source of V ariation Sum of Squares df Mean Square E rror Term F S ig n if i cance Between Subjects Child Sex(CS) 39.20 1 39.20 Ss 1.65 N S S u b jects(S s) (e rro r b) 902 ,4-2 38 23.75 Total Between 941.62 39 Within Subjects Parent Sex(PS) . 2 1 1 . 2 1 PSxSs . 0 0 NS Defense(D) 5663.40 3 1887.80 DxSs 17. 8 8 P .01 PSxD 51.38 3 17.13 PSxDxSs 1.23 NS PSxCS 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 PSxSs 0 . 0 0 NS DxCS 908.67 3 302.89 DxSs 2 ,87 P .05 PSxDxCS 43.33 3 14.44 PSxDxSs .65 NS PSxSs(error wq) 827.11 38 21.77 DxSs(error W 2 ) 12039.67 114 105.61 PSxDxSs(error W 3 ) 2548.10 114 22.35 T otal Within 22081.87 2 80 Total 23023.49 319 * L in q u ist (195 3) Type VI D esign aThe sum o f "Adult" and "Child" Scores ("Adult" plus "Child" su b sc ales) were used, these being more r e l i a b l e than the s h o r te r subscales (see Tables 5 and 6 ) . The r e s u l t s w i l l be re p o rte d to g e th e r , because the areas of s ig n ific a n c e were the same in both cases. That i s , in both t e s t s F r a t i o s beyond the .01 le v e l were found f o r th e Defense main e f f e c t , and beyond the .05 le v e l fo r the in te r a c ti o n between Defense and Child Sex. Thus, lik e t h e i r c h ild re n , parents re p o rt s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s in p o p u la rity among the four defenses. Though between the p aren ts o f boys and the p aren ts of g i r l s the t o t a l e le v a tio n of defense p r o f ile s did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , the shape of the p r o f il e s d if f e r e d . That i s , parents rep o rted d if f e r e n t defense behavior in re la tio n s h ip s with boys than in re la tio n s h ip s with g i r l s . P ro file d iffe re n c e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t between mothers and f a t h e r s , whether viewed independently of th e o th e r v a ria b le s or in in te r a c tio n s with Defense or Child Sex. I t may be noted t h a t , while the Parent P erception Test placed no mechanical lim ita tio n on the p o s s i b i l i t y of exposing betw een-subjects e f f e c t s , these did not occur to a s ig n i f ic a n t degree. The mean defense scores from the C h ild ren ’s S itu a tio n Test are g ra p h ic a lly presented in Figure 1. The bars re p re se n t the mean scores fo r boys and g i r l s under th e th re e i n s t r u c t i o n s — "C hild," "Mother," and "F a th e r." The T otal score i s presented in the lin e graph above the histogram . I t should be n o ticed th a t th e sc a le s fo r the 136 two fig u re s are d if f e r e n t. They are presented to g e th e r only to in d ic a te r e l a t i v e d iffe re n ce s in the frequency with which the four defenses were rep o rted by the ch ild ren when a l l in s tru c tio n v a ria b les were combined. Figure 2 g rap h ically summarizes the mean d iffe re n ce s among the Parent-Sex, Defense, and In s tr u c tio n v a ria b les f o r mothers and fa th e rs of g i r l s . Figure 3 presents the eq u iv alen t data fo r parents of boys. The histograms present th e data fo r the "Adult" and "Child" subscales of the Parent Q uestionnaire and Parent S itu a tio n T est. The lin e graphs above the histograms p resen t the T otal means fo r the four defense v a r ia b le s —the scores used f o r the analyses of variance of the parent defense t e s t s . The dotted lin e s re p re se n t the mean scores derived from the "Child" in s tru c tio n s on the C h ild ren 's S itu a tio n T est. I t i s important to remember th a t a l l th re e defense t e s t s were scored on d if f e r e n t s c a le s . The mean scores of th e Parent Q uestionnaire and the P aren ts' S itu a tio n Tests were s u f f i c ie n tly s im ila r th a t they were placed on the same sc a le on the o rd in ate to the l e f t . The mean values of the C hildren’s S itu a tio n Test were much lower, and were placed on the ordinate t o the rig h t of the fig u re . The data is placed on the same fig u re s only fo r ease in comparing the r e l a t i v e mean d iffe re n ce s between defense modes as rep o rted on the various instrum ents where d iffe re n ce s in sco rin g prevent s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons. S C A L E OF fAETAN V A L U E S - PQ O - n d . P S T 4 5 - 46 - 3 5 - 3o- 25" 2 0 - 15- L » o t o t a l s PAR.ET4T s i t u a t i o n TE"ST ( p s t ) M o t h e r - g i r l s ------------ FATHER-6'BLS _ 0 _ P A R E N T Q U E S T I O N N A I R E M O T H E R - G I R L S ______ F A T H E R -G IR L S __ * ____ Gi r l s m e a n ' c h il o h s c o r e s f r o m t h e c h i l d r e n s s i t u a t i o n t e s t 3 - a i «r v ^ a = f t Q a a : < j M O T H E R F A T H E R RQ. M OTHift pATPFR P.S.T. 6 A T E R N M L I 7 A T I O N O F B L A M E MOTHCfl FATHIP MOTHER FATHER MOTHER FATRE-R. m o t h e r fa.t h e k M O T H E R F A T H E R P.S.T P S . T M O T H E R F A T H E R D E N IA L T u r n i n g a g a in s t t h f s e l f REVERSAL CiF A FFE C T h - > 00 'J S C A L E OF M E A N V A L U E S - C H I L D R E N S S I T U A T I O N T E S T Udid'-j d o ■ l v '- i-i l 3 A : j y d T 3 S J l O - - l s r u v ^ V g N I f f a t l l - i M i N a a 3 W V I 'S do N O l x V t n w l J y 3 3 X 3 73 £> 7 3 in rt 73 tf) H X? £ > 3 S a d u l t — J *> C H I L D g — 3 ADULT] | j C H I L D SCALE o E MEAW V A U U .E S - p q < xnd P S T 6 f ft V ft I T T - r A d u l t C H I L D ADULT EV? J W c m i l d 6 ® A D U L T c h i l d m r C H I L D A D U L T C H I L D a d u l t I A D U L T " « C U I L D ^ C H IL D 2 A D U L T S C H IL D E s A d u l t j^ ' T " ' « CHILD p I T ADULT 3 CHILD if a r A D U L T 3 5 CHILD £ ADULT ■o 2 * n CHILD t f l 7 > -1 n > adw.lt si CHILD w & w /jik frrf T-C.'>-nK7i £ * 1 1 1 0>?fiO giss?’ i« n fi HH ll " 1 3 i;| I J _ 881 IH J L O l J .S .- W . n O I X V T U I S 5 N 3 W Q T I H D ' 5 3 m W N V 3 H I dO 3 7 V 9 S 139 Comparing c h ild and parent defense c u rv e s , the boys' curve d i f f e r s from those of t h e i r parents more than the g i r l s ' curve d i f f e r s from t h e i r p a re n ts. The boys' tendency not to use Denial c o n tra s ts markedly with t h e i r p a r e n ts ' tendency to re p o rt Denial on the P a ren ts' S itu a tio n T est. Boys' p reference fo r E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame i s a ls o in marked c o n tra s t to t h e i r p a re n ts ' defense p re fe re n c e s . D ifferences among Defense V ariables In order to id e n tif y th e s p e c if ic d iffe re n c e s which co n trib u te to a s ig n i f ic a n t F in an a n a ly sis of v arian ce, G uilford (195 6) recommends the use of t t e s t s between in d iv id u a l p a irs of means. The a n a ly sis of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test produced a s i g n i f i c a n t F f o r the defense v a r ia b le , over a l l in s t r u c tio n s . The t t e s t an a ly sis of the mean d iffe re n c e s among th ese defense v a ria b le s is p resen ted in Table 21. From t h i s d a ta , i t may be seen th a t g i r l s tend to re p o rt the use of E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial s i g n i f i c a n t l y le ss than Turning Against th e S e lf ( t = -2.744, p. .05; t = -3 .2 3 8 , p. .01 r e s p e c tiv e ly ) , and D enial le ss than Reversal of A ffect ( t = -2 ,3 5 6 , p. .05). Boys, on the o th e r hand, re p o rt the use of E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame more than Denial ( t = 2.82 8, p. .0 5 ). As with g i r l s , boys re p o rt the use of Denial less than Turning A gainst the S e lf ( t = -4 .4 5 9 , p. .01) and le ss than 140 R eversal of A ffect ( t = -2 .6 6 0 , p. .0 5 ). While the ip s a tiv e nature of th e C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test may produce some sp u rio u sly high mean d if f e r e n c e s , the p a tte rn s of which defenses are high and which are low i s of some i n t e r e s t . These p a tte r n s have meaning in terms of Swanson's (1961) defense-fam ily h y p o th e sis, as w ell as f o r the study of p a r e n t-c h ild r e la tio n s h ip s . TABLE 21 M EA N DIFFERENCES AM ON G DEFENSE VARIABLES : BOYS AND GIRLS "CHILD" SCORES O N CHILDREN'S SITUATION TEST Defense Modes G irls Boys E-D .401 2.82 8* S-R .800 .965 E-S -2.744* 1.104 E-R 1.967 .071 D-S -3 .2 3 8** -4.459** D-R -2.356* -2.660* df = 19 *.05 le v e l = 2.093, 2- t a i l e d t e s t * *.01 le v e l = 2.861, 2- t a i l e d t e s t aSee Appendix E, Table 28, fo r Means and Standard d e v ia tio n s . ^Defenses are ab b rev iated as follow s: E = E x te rn a li z a tio n of Blame; D = D enial; S = Turning Against the S e lf ; R = Reversal of A ffe c t. 141 Analysis of th e Parent Q uestionnaire and P aren ts' S itu a tio n Test (Tables 19 and 20) in d ic a te d the ex isten c e of s i g n i f ic a n t d iffe re n c e s among d e fen ses, as w ell as a s i g n i f i c a n t in te r a c ti o n between Defense and Child-Sex. According t o the analyses of v a ria n c e , p a re n ts ' m ,an defense scores did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o th e r. T herefore, in the follow ing t t e s t s , d ata from mothers and fa th e rs w i l l be combined. Table 2 2 p re se n ts t t e s t a n a ly sis of mean d iffe re n c e s TABLE 2 2 M EA N DIFFERENCESa A M ON G DEFENSE VARIABLES5 : DEFENSE SCORES0 OF M OTHERS AND FATHERS COMBINED Parent Q uestionnaire Parent S itu a tio n Test Defense Parents of Parents of P arents of Parents of G irls Boys G irls Boys E D .915 -1.945 -1.925 -4.459** S R - .955 .550 2.345* 5.02 8** E S -6.42 3** -8.551** -5 .0 83** -9.144** E R -2,02 7** -6.447** -2 .706 -1.009 D S -5.751** -5 .929** -5 .0 94** 2 .2 82* D R -6,134** -5.09 5** -1.805 3.7 8 7** aSee Appendix E fo r a p p ro p riate means and stan d ard d e v ia tio n s . ^Defenses are abbreviated as fo llo w s: E = E x te rn a li z a tio n of Blame; D = D enial; S = Turning Against the S e lf ; R = R eversal of A ffe c t. cData derived from t o t a l ("Adult" and "C hild") scores* *.05 le v e l = 2.025. **.01 le v e l = 2.713. among defense v a ria b le s f o r parents of boys and g i r l s . The T otal scores from the Parent Q uestionnaire and from the P a r e n ts ’ S itu a tio n Test provided the data f o r the ta b le . Too many of th e t ' s are s ig n i f ic a n t to note each one. T h erefo re, only some broad tre n d s w i l l be brought t o the r e a d e r 's a t t e n t i o n . I t is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t , d e s p ite the s t r u c t u r a l d iffe re n c e between the two t e s t s , the p a tte rn s of defense preference obtained from each one a re s im ila r , e s p e c ia lly fo r the p aren ts of g i r l s . The d iffe re n c e between boys' p a re n ts ' re p o rte d use of D enial as opposed to E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame is s i g n i f i c a n t on th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est ( t = -4 .4 5 9 , p. .0 5 ), but not on the Parent Q u estio n n aire. So, to o , th e preference f o r Turning A gainst the S e lf as opposed to Reversal of A ffect ( t = 5.0 2 3, p. .05) i s g re a te r on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est than on the Parent Q uestionnaire. The preference f o r Reversal of A ffect as opposed to Turning A gainst the S e lf i s s i g n i f i c a n t on the Parent Q uestionnaire ( t = -6 .4 4 7 , p. .0 1 ) , but th e d iffe re n c e i s n o n - s ig n ific a n t on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. The preference of g i r l s ' p aren ts f o r Turning A gainst the S e lf as opposed to Reversal of A ffect appears g r e a te r on th e P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est ( t = 2.345, p. .05) than on the Parent Q uestionnaire d ata. One would expect the d iffe re n c e s among the defense 143 v a ria b le s to appear g r e a te r on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test than on the Parent Q uestionnaire because of th e ip s a tiv e n a tu re of the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. The an a ly sis of variance of the p a r e n ts ' defense t e s t s (Tables 19 and 20) in d ic a te d t h a t the parents of boys and g i r l s d if f e re d from each o th e r in defense p re fe re n c e s. F u rth e r analyzing t h i s data with t t e s t s (Table 23) we find t h a t according t o the r e s u lt s of the Parent Q u estio n n aire, parents of g i r l s are more lik e ly to use E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame than are p aren ts of boys ( t = 3 .0 7 . p. .01). From th e r e s u l t s of the P a r e n ts ’ S itu a tio n T est, we find t h a t p aren ts of boys are more lik e ly than parents of g i r l s to use Denial (t = 3.23, p. .0 1 ), and le s s lik e ly to use R eversal of A ffect ( t = 4.67, p. .01). P a re n ta l Consistency The a n a ly sis of variance f o r the two p a re n t defense t e s t s (Tables 19 and 20) suggested th a t the mean sco res of mothers and fa th e rs did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . The q u estio n then a r i s e s : To what ex te n t do the responses of p aren ts c o r r e la te with each other? Pursuant t o th is q u e s tio n , the r e la tio n s h ip between th e scores of mothers and f a th e rs were analyzed by Pearson r . The r e s u lt s are summarized in Table 2 4. R esults are s ta te d f o r "Adult" and "Child" in s t r u c tio n v a r ia b le s , and fo r the T o tal sum of TABLE 2 3 M EA N DIFFERENCES BETW EEN DEFENSE VARIABLES REPORTED B Y PARENTS OF GIRLS AND PARENTS OF BOYSa Defense Variables Mothers and of G irls Fathers Mothers and of Boys Fathers t Parent Q uestionnaire E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Mean Std. Dev. 50 . 85 7.97 Mean Std. Dev. 45.75 6.51 3.0 7** Denial Mean Std. Dev. 49.25 9. 82 Mean Std. Dev. 50.10 7.24 .435 Turning Against th e S elf Mean Std. Dev. 62.40 8.50 Mean Std. Dev. 58. 85 8.00 1.96 Reversal of A ffect Mean Std. Dev. 63.70 10.42 Mean Std. Dev. 59.50 10.11 1. 81 P aren ts' S itu a tio n Test E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Mean Std. Dev. 61.50 7.72 Mean Std. Dev. 58. 30 9.70 1.62 Denial Mean Std. Dev. 67. 80 7.39 Mean Std. Dev. 74.55 10.12 3.23** 144 TABLE 2 3— Continued Defense V ariables Mothers and of G irls Fathers Mothers and of Boys Fathers t Turning Against the S elf Mean 82.00 Mean 83. 55 - .646 Std. Dev. 8.83 Std. Dev. 12 .10 Reversal of A ffect Mean 73.95 Mean 62.60 4.6 7** Std. Dev. 10.2 7 Std. Dev. 11.19 aData rep resen ts the sum of both p a re n ts' T otal Scores on each Parent Defense T e s t. **.01 le v e l = 2.713, 2 -ta ile d t e s t (df = 3 8). StiT TABLE 24 CORRELATIONS BETW EEN RESPONSES OF M OTHERS AND FATHERS: PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE A ND PARENT SITUATION TEST Parent Q uestionnaire Mothers and F a th e rs--G irls Mothers and F athers— Boys Defense Adult In s tru c . Child In s tru c . Total In s tr u c . Adult In s tru c . Child In stru c . Total In s tru c . E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame .196 . 314 .192 .564** -.134 .130 Denial .486* .672** .6 42** .148 .62 8** . 350 Turning Against the S elf .169 .150 .354 .031 .227 .334 Reversal of Affect .337 .565** .440 .429 . 46 8* .350 Parent S itu a tio n Test E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame .035 .425 .164 .098 -.072 -.1 1 2 9+iT TABLE 2 4 -— Continued Defense Mothers and F athers—G irls Mothers and f a th e rs — Boys Adult In s tru c . Child In s tru c . Total In s tru c . Adult In s tru c . Child In s tru c . Total In s tru c . Denial .141 -.410 -.289 .077 -.049 -.026 Turning Against the S elf .141 .047 .109 -.138 . .016 .028 Reversal of Affect -.060 -.126 -.087 .226 .170 .202 *.05 le v e l = .43 3 **.01 le v e l = .549 147 148 th e se two. I t may be noted th a t only 7 out of 48 c o r r e la tio n s between p aren ts were s i g n i f i c a n t . With the fin d in g of a q u estio n ab le c o r r e la tio n between p a re n ts , and the f a i l u r e to fin d s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s between th e se p a re n ts ' defense p r o f i l e s , the q u estio n a r is e s as t o the co nsistency of the p a re n t in terms o f his own a t t i t u d e s and behavior. Table 25 p rese n ts th i s d a ta in terms of s i m i l a r i t i e s (Pearson r) and d iffe re n c e s ( t values fo r d iffe re n c e s between c o r r e la te d means) between what the parents are lik e ly to say to themselves ("Adult" I n s tr u c tio n s ) and what th e p aren ts are lik e ly to say to t h e i r c h ild re n ("Child" I n s t r u c t i o n s ) . Among th e 32 c o r r e la tio n s p rese n ted , only 14 are s i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05 le v e l , th ese 14 being equally divided between the two t e s t s . S ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s between what parents say to themselves and t o the c h ild occurred in a l l p a r e n t-c h ild c a te g o rie s of the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test fo r the defenses of Denial and R eversal of A ffe c t. F athers of boys seemed a ls o to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in th e "Adult" and "Child" dimensions of Turning Against the S e lf on the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. No s i g n i f ic a n t d iffe re n c e s between "Adult" and "Child" v a ria b le s appeared in the P aren t Q uestionnaire d a ta . Summarizing th e Parent Consistency d a ta , i t would seem th a t we cannot place any confidence in the n o tio n t h a t th e re i s e i t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t agreement or disagreem ent TABLE 2 5 INTRA-PARENT CONSISTENCY: CORRELATIONS AND M EA N DIFFERENCES BETW EEN "ADULT" AND "CHILD" INSTRUCTIONS O N THE PARENT DEFENSE TESTSa Mothers Fathers Defense G irls Boys G irls Boys Parent Q uestionnaire E x te rn a liza tio n of Blame t 1.026 1,118 .751 1,173 r .62 6** .561** . 351 .140 Denial t - .827 1.906 .072 1.061 z* .400 .257 .551* .5 30* Turning Against the S elf t - .711 1.421 .413 1.644 r - .289 . 313 .550* .313 Reversal of Affect t . 734 . 214 .619 ,406 r .765** .654 .408 .536* Parent S itu a tio n Test E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame t .711 1.006 .040 .075 r .336 . 450* . 419 .062 6 +?I TABLE 2 5— Continued Mothers Fathers Defense G irls Boys G irls Boys Denial t 4.166** 3.318** 2.244* 2.094* r .452* .367 .200 .283 Turning Against the S elf t .037 .386 2 .217* 2.155* r . .00 8 . 537* .50 7* .570** Reversal of A ffect t 3.579** 7.3 3 3** 3.961** 4.608** r .046 .592** .618** .456* aSee Appendix E fo r appropriate means and Standard D eviations. '^Significant a t .05 le v e l. **Significant a t .01 le v e l. 150 151 between th e re p o rts of p aren ts in t h i s sample concerning defense d a ta , whether measured by a g en eralized a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n n a ire , o r by a s p e c i f i c s it u a ti o n s t e s t designed to obtain d ata about behavior. C o rre la tio n s among Defense V ariables Swanson’s theory of Defense Fam ilies leads to th e p re d ic tio n th a t s i g n i f i c a n t p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n s between E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and D enial, and between Turning A gainst the S e lf and R eversal of A ffect w ill be found, while E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Reversal of A ffe c t, Denial and Reversal of A ffect w ill be c o r re la te d a t low p o s itiv e or n egative v alu es. I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the in te r c o r r e l a t i o n s among th e s i t u a t i o n - t e s t scores must take in to account the ip s a tiv e n a tu re of these measures. I f th e re were no c o n s is te n t r e la tio n s h ip among th e defense v a r ia b le s , one would expect low negative i n te r c o r r e l a ti o n s among the sc o re s. Since th e re are 4 measures in each in stru m e n t, however, th e mechanics of the instrum ent do not prevent the p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n s expected under the defense-fam ily h y pothesis (E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame with D enial, and Turning A gainst the S e lf with Reversal of A ffe c t). I f th e se p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n s were to o b ta in , the mechanics of the t e s t would favor n egative values fo r a l l o th e r in te r c o r r e l a t i o n s among th e sc o re s. Table 26 p re se n ts th e c o r r e la tio n s between defense 152 TABLE 26 CORRELATIONS BETW EEN DEFENSE MODES3 : CHILDREN'S SITUATION TEST Subjects and Defense Modes In s tr u c tio n s Child Mother F ather T otal G irls E-D -.401 -.646 -.384 -.602 S-R -.385 -.540 -.1 1 0 -.4 4 4 E-.S -.425* -.087 -.257 -.203 E-R -.279 -.0 1 0 -.334 -.184 D-S -.064 -.1 9 8 -.249 -.188 D-R -.542** -.427 -.518* -.289 Boys E-D -.366 -.5 1 4 .090 -.267 S-R -.288 -.6 4 1 -.207 -.417 E-S -.327 -.289 -.155 -.363 E-R -.325 -.046 - .6 79** -.349 D-S -.324 -.057 -.3 6 4 -.162 D-R -.291 -.336 -.462* -.372 *.0 5 point = .378, 1- t a i l e d t e s t **.01 po in t = .516, 1 -t a i l e d t e s t aDefenses are abb rev iated as follow s: E = E x te r n a li za tio n of Blame; D = D enial; S = Turning Against th e S e lf ; R = Reversal of A ffe c t. 153 modes f o r the C h ild ren ’s S itu a tio n T est. A o n e - ta ile d t e s t was ap p ro p ria te fo r t h i s d a ta , the d ir e c tio n of r e l a t i o n sh ip among th e defense v a ria b le s having been p re d ic te d by the th eo ry . I t may be seen t h a t none of the expected p o s itiv e c o rr e la tio n s were found. R ather, th e re were a larg e number of f a i r l y high n eg ativ e c o r r e la tio n s between E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and D enial, and between Turning Against the S e lf and R eversal of A ffe c t. A s im ila r p a tte r n of negative c o r r e la tio n s i s found among the o th e r defense v a r ia b le s , as would be p re d ic te d by th e th e o ry . However, th e se are not c ru c ia l r e la tio n s h ip s f o r the th e o ry , and may be consequences of th e mechanics of th e t e s t . Table 2 7 p re se n ts th e c o r r e la tio n s between defense modes f o r the Parent Q uestionnaire and P a re n ts ’ S itu a tio n T e st. Only th e T otal ("A dult” plus "C hild") scores were recorded in th e t a b l e , and th e scores of mothers and f a th e rs were combined. While Parent Q uestionnaire responses fo r E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial a re p o s itiv e ly c o r r e la te d a t s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s , low n egative r e la tio n s are found among th e s e scores on th e P aren ts' S itu a tio n T est. Looking at the remaining c o r r e l a t i o n s , we fin d t h a t a l l o f the defense v a ria b le s are p o s itiv e ly c o r r e la te d on th e Parent Q u estio n n aire. A ll but two of th e se c o rre la tio n s are la rg e enough t h a t they would have been s i g n i f i c a n t had a tw o -ta ile d t e s t been ap p lied . However, since a o n e -ta ile d t e s t was a p p ro p ria te f o r the 15*+ TABLE 2 7 CORRELATIONS BETW EEN DEFENSE3 NODES: PARENTS' DEFENSE TESTb Defense Parent Q uestionnaire Parent S itu a tio n Test Parents of G irls Parents of Boys Parents of G irls Parents of Boys E-D .651** .785** -.029 -.285 S-R .82 2** ,614** -.223 -.217 E-S .5 49** .593** -.413** .40 7** E-R .55 4** .42 7** -.622** -.5 83** D-S .416** .646** -.117 -.191 D-R .48 7** .5 93** -.400* .168 *-,0 5 point = .369, 1 - ta ile d t e s t . **-,01 point = .503, 1 - ta ile d t e s t . aDefenses are ab b rev iated as follow s: E = E x te r n a li z a tio n of Blame; D = D enial; S = Turning A gainst the S e lf; R = R eversal of A ffe c t. ^Mothers and Fathers T otal scores combined. 155 purposes of t e s t i n g th e defense-fam ily h y p o th e sis, any a d d itio n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e se c o rr e la tio n s must be regarded as ex p lo rato ry and in need of fu tu re confirm ation. The s ig n ific a n c e le v e ls of the negative c o rre la tio n s found among th ese defense v a ria b le s in the data derived from the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n Test may be re p o rte d , having been p re d ic te d by both the theory and the mechanics of the t e s t . However, the p a tte r n p re d ic te d by Swanson's (1961) defense- fam ily hypothesis did not occur, nor did any o th e r c o n s is te n t p a tte r n of re la tio n s h ip s appear among the various defenses. T h erefo re, we do not know to what e x te n t the negative c o r r e la tio n s r e f l e c t the mechanics of the t e s t , chance f a c t o r s , o r tru e in te r r e l a ti o n s h ip s among the dimensions re p re se n ted by the sc o re s. CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION P rin c ip a l Questions and Hypotheses I t w i l l be re c a lle d th a t c e n tr a l to the p resen t in v e s tig a tio n was th e question of the p o s s i b i l i t y th a t defense p referen ces are e s ta b lis h e d through an orderly process of s o c ia l le a rn in g . The a l te r n a ti v e p o s s i b i l i t y , suggested by t r a d i t i o n a l p sychoanalytic th e o ry , i s th a t each in d iv id u a l e s ta b lis h e s his defense p references as a r e s u l t o f vax’ious in tra p s y c h ic p ro cesses. These in tr a p s y chic processes would in c lu d e , fo r example, the r e l a t i v e stre n g th of i d , ego, and superego, the p h y sio lo g ic a l s t a t e of th e organism , em otional m a tu rity , and re s o lu tio n of the oedipal c o n f l i c t . E x tern al forces would be of importance only in s o f a r as they had been in te r n a liz e d by the in d iv id u a l. That th e in d iv i d u a l's preferen ce fo r a p a r t i c u l a r defense was p a r t i a l l y a fun ctio n of socio-economic statu s., as w ell as of p a re n ta l behavior p a tte r n s was e s ta b lis h e d by th e stu d ie s rep o rted by H i l l e r and Swanson (1960). Swanson (1961) suggested th a t a clo se fu n c tio n a l r e la tio n s h ip 156 15 7 e x is te d between c h ild -p a re n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a tte rn s and defense p re fe re n c e , though he was somewhat vague in h is sp e c u la tio n s concerning th e nature of the r e la tio n s h i p . He suggested t h a t s e x -ro le fa c to rs play a p a rt in in flu e n c in g the le a rn in g o f defense p a t te r n s . Also, he f e l t th a t th e n atu re of the c h i l d 's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith h is p aren ts would in flu en ce h is defense choice. That i s , i f the c h ild i d e n t i f i e d w ith a p aren t who was seen as n u r tu r a n t, the c h ild would be lik e ly t o develop such "self-m o d ify in g " defenses as tu rn in g a g a in s t the s e l f and r e v e r s a l of a f f e c t . I f th e c h ild i d e n t i f i e d with a p aren t who was perceived as p u n itiv e , th e c h ild would be lik e ly to develop such defenses as e x te r n a liz a tio n o f blame and d e n ia l— defenses in which the in d iv id u a l modifies h is p erce p tio n of h im s e lf. Swanson's model, th e n , is not one th a t p re d ic ts the d ir e c t le a rn in g of a p a r e n t 's s p e c if ic defense b eh av io r. R ather, i t deals with the development of defense mechanisms as a r e a c tiv e p ro cess. Swanson's emphasis d i f f e r s from the p sychoanalytic in th a t he is more concerned w ith the s o c ia l f a c to rs involved in defense ch o ice, while the p sychoanalytic o r ie n ta tio n s tr e s s e s in tr a - p s y c h ic f a c to r s . S o cial le a rn in g t h e o r i s t s have not d e a lt s p e c i f i c a l l y with th e p o s s i b i l i t y th a t c h ild re n le a rn the s p e c if ic defense behavior of t h e i r p a r e n ts , j u s t as they le a rn o th e r types of behavior. The research reviewed in the p re se n t 158 paper (pp. 49-62) in d ic a te s th a t c h ild re n are capable of le a rn in g ag g ressiv e behavior as w ell as responses to t h e i r own d ev iatio n from the accepted s o c ia l sta n d ard by im ita tin g the behavior of an a d u lt model. Reinforcement of th e su b je c t while he i s observing th e m odel's behavior f a c i l i t a t e s t h i s le a rn in g , but i s not a necessary f a c t o r . Reinforcem ent, in terms of th e p a r e n t 's power t o n u rtu re and punish h is c h ild , has been found t o be re le v a n t to the c h i l d 's s e le c tio n of a primary i d e n t i f i c a t i o n model. S ex-role f a c to rs have been found to be s i g n i f i c a n t in th e im ita tio n of p r o -s o c ia l and a n t i - s o c i a l ag g ressiv e behavior. Bandura's stu d ie s (see p. 55) suggest t h a t the p r o -s o c ia l and v erb al aggression of a female model i s more lik e ly t o be im ita te d than th a t of a male model, while the a n t i - s o c i a l or p h y sic a l aggression of the male is more lik e ly t o be im ita te d than t h a t of a female model. The p resen t study sought to extend the body of knowledge concerning d efenses. The hypotheses were o rie n te d toward s o c ia l le a rn in g as opposed t o psychoanalyt i c p r in c ip le s . That i s , the p re d ic tio n s were based upon th e assumption th a t c e rta in defense behaviors are more lik e ly t o be e l i c i t e d than o th e r defense behaviors as a fu n ctio n of p a re n ta l reinforcem ent. I t i s f u r th e r assumed t h a t th e most meaningful reinforcem ent fo r p re-sch o o l c h ild re n w i l l be th e approval of th e p aren t perceived by th e c h ild as th e more powerful c o n t r o l l e r o f n u rtu ra n t 15 9 re so u rc e s. I t i s supposed th a t ch ild re n w ill seek to gain the approval of t h i s parent by im ita tin g h is behavior. The p o ssib le in flu en c e of se x -ro le fa c to rs have been considered in th e p re d ic tiv e sta tem en ts. D iscussion of Hypothesis I The f i r s t hypothesis s ta te d t h a t the p referen ce fo r one type o f defense over another would be a fu n ctio n of an o rd e rly system of s o c ia l le a rn in g . S p e c i f ic a ll y , i t was p re d ic te d th a t a p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n would be found between th e defense choice of ch ild re n and t h e i r p a re n ts , re g a rd le ss of sex d iffe re n c e s . The r e s u lt s of th is p re se n t study in d ic a te d th a t ch ild re n tend to perceive c h ild and parent defense behavior as s im ila r (Table 7). However, when comparing th e c h i l d 's re p o rt of the p ic tu re d c h i l d 's behavior with h is p a re n ts ' independent re p o rt of t h e i r own defense behavior (Table 8 ), no s i g n i f ic a n t r e la tio n s h ip was found. There were only fo u r s i g n i f i c a n t values among 96 c o r r e l a t i o n s , and th e s e 96 c o rre la tio n s were divided almost eq u ally between p o s itiv e and negative d ir e c tio n s . This outcome corresponds very clo sely to what would be expected by chance under th e hypothesis o f no re la tio n s h ip s among th e se v a r ia b le s . The f a i l u r e to fin d evidence Of im ita tio n of p a re n ta l defense behavior does not c o n tra d ic t the v a l i d i t y of the concept t h a t an o rd erly process of s o c ia l le a rn in g i s 160 involved in the development of defense behavior. Other orderly s o c ia l learn in g processes are p o ssib le in ad d itio n to the im ita tio n of p a re n ta l defense modes. Thus, f o r example, M ille r and Swanson (1960) c le a rly demonstrate the e f f e c t of socio-economic s ta tu s and defense choice. Discussion of Hypothesis I I The second hypothesis focused on Swanson's (1961) sp e cu la tio n th a t a fu n c tio n a l re la tio n s h ip e x is ts between a c h i ld 's id e n t i f i c a t i o n and h is defense p referen ce. The theory and research reviewed (pp. 20-24, 39-49) has led the present in v e s tig a to r to p re d ic t th a t pre-school boys and g ir ls would id e n tif y more with the mother than with the f a th e r , and t h a t g i r l s would more stro n g ly id e n tify with the mother than would boys. Based upon the premise th a t these p red ic tio n s would be supported, two fu rth e r p re d ic tio n s were made. Thus, i t was p red ic ted t h a t , i f a fu n c tio n a l r e la tio n s h ip e x is ts between i d e n tif ic a tio n and defense, then the c h ild re n 's defense preference should be more lik e t h e i r m other's than lik e t h e i r f a t h e r 's . In a d d itio n , th e re should be more s im ila r it y between the g i r l s ' and t h e i r mothers' defense preferences than between th e boys' and t h e i r mothers' defense p referen ces. In d iscu ssin g the r e s u lts obtained pursuant to the second h y p o th esis, data re le v a n t to i d e n tif ic a tio n w ill be considered f i r s t . 161 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; The Parent P erception T e s t. On the b a s is of Mowrer's (1950) th e o ry , and previous research re le v a n t t o s e x -ro le and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (pp. 39-43), the Parent P erception Test was devised from which to i n f e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . I t was assumed th a t the c h ild would most id e n tif y with th a t parent who, in r e la tio n t o the o th er p a re n t, i s perceived by the c h ild as more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful ( i . e . , th e c h ild would be most lik e ly t o im ita te the behavior of th e p aren t who is experienced as most rew arding, with the power to withdraw t h i s reward as punishm ent). The data derived from t h i s t e s t do not support P re d ic tio n 1, which s t a t e d th a t both g i r l s and boys would id e n tif y more with the mother than with the f a th e r . Among the g i r l s s tu d ie d , the p ic tu re d mother was as often perceived as the more n u r tu r a n t, p u nishing, and powerful fig u re as was the p ic tu re d f a th e r . On th e o th e r hand, very few boys perceived the p ic tu re d mother as the more n u r tu r a n t, punishing, and powerful p aren t. The r e s u l t s noted above support P re d ic tio n 2— th a t g i r l s would id e n tif y with t h e i r mothers more than would boys. However, i t is im portant to note th a t th e conclusion reached does not mean most g i r l s are highly i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r mothers. On the c o n tra ry , the data suggest t h a t , i f the c o n stru c t " id e n tif ic a tio n " i s defined in the terms adopted by the p rese n t stu d y , g i r l s are almost as lik e ly to 16 2 " id e n tif y " with t h e i r mothers as with t h e i r f a t h e r s , while boys are more lik e ly t o " id e n tif y " w ith t h e i r f a th e r s . Examining the r e la tio n s h ip s among the N u rtu ra n ce, Punishment, and Power v a ria b le s (Table 10), th e follow ing r e s u l t s were found: 1. A s i g n i f i c a n t l y g re a te r number of g i r l s than boys p erceived th e mother as the more n u rtu ra n t p a re n t. This d iffe re n c e does n o t r e f l e c t a s i g n i f i c a n t l y high Mother- Nurturance score among g i r l s . The Mother-Nurturance score f o r g i r l s was n o n -s ig n ific a n t in the p o s itiv e d ir e c tio n ; the Mother-Nurturance score f o r boys was n o n -s ig n if ic a n t in th e n eg ativ e d ir e c tio n (boys tended to see th e f a th e r as th e more n u rtu ra n t p a re n t). 2. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e between g ir ls and boys in t h e i r perception of the mother as the le ss punishing p a re n t, though there were a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r number of boys who had low Mother-Punishment ( i . e . , high Father-Punishm ent) scores than high Mother-Punishment sc o re s. 3. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e between g ir ls and boys in t h e i r p ercep tio n of p a re n ta l power r e l a t i o n sh ip s . There was a n o n - s ig n if ic a n t tendency among both boys and g i r l s to p erceive the mother as the le ss powerful p aren t. When we compare th e se r e s u l t s with those of s tu d ie s in which s im ila r instrum ents were used, we fin d th a t th e 16 3 r e s u l t s derived from t h i s sample d i f f e r from others in some ways. Kagan and Lemkin (I9 6 0 ), using the measuring device from which the P aren t P ercep tio n Test was adapted, examined a group of boys and g i r l s aged 3 to 8. They found th a t both boys and g i r l s described th e mother as th e more n u rtu ra n t and th e f a th e r as the more punishing p a re n t. In th is sample, g i r l s , in comparison with boys, la b e lle d th e f a th e r as more a f f e c t io n a te and punishing. Kagan, Hosken, and Watson (1961) found t h a t both boys’ and g i r l s ' symbolic view of p a re n ta l fig u re s conformed to th e s o c i a l ste re o ty p e of n u rtu ra n t mother and punishing f a th e r . These i n v e s t i gato rs f e l t th a t the c h ild r e n ’s view o f the f a th e r fig u re was p a r t i c u l a r l y a ffe c te d by th e ste re o ty p e . Becker (1963), from h is review of p a re n t-c h ild behavior s tu d i e s , concluded th a t mothers are g en erally found t o be the more n u rtu ra n t and fa th e rs th e more punishing fig u re s . Kawin (1962), found th a t the f a th e rs of boys were more p u n itiv e than mothers of b o y s, and more p u n itiv e than mothers and f a th e rs of g i r l s . Comparing th e above mentioned r e s u l t s w ith those of the p re se n t stu d y , we fin d th a t both g i r l s and boys of t h i s sample tended to perceive the f a th e r fig u re as r e l a t i v e l y more n u rtu ra n t than did c h ild re n drawn from o th e r samples. In a d d itio n , g i r l s do not re p o rt as much punishing b ehavior fo r th e p a te rn a l fig u re as would be p re d ic te d from th e findings of o th e r s tu d i e s . 164 The fin d in g t h a t the boys in th is sample tended to " id e n tif y " w ith the f a th e r f ig u r e , but did not see the f a t h e r as the more n u rtu ra n t parent i s a t some variance w ith th e fin d in g s o f o th e r s tu d ie s in which "high" and "low" f a th e r i d e n t i f i e d boys were compared. Mussen and D i s t l e r (1956), and Payne and Mussen (1956) rep o rted th a t boys who were hig h ly i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r f a th e rs tended a ls o to perceive them as th e more n u rtu ra n t or rewarding p a re n t. Mussen and R utherford (1963) found high-m asculine i d e n t i f i e d boys to perceive t h e i r fa th e rs as both highly n u rtu ra n t and punishing. The boys in th e p re se n t study were almost equally divided among th o se who saw the f a th e r as th e more n u rtu ra n t p a re n t, though most of the boys' F ath e r-T o tal " I d e n tif ic a tio n " score was h ig h e r than t h e i r M other-Total " I d e n tif ic a tio n " sc o re . The m ajority of them d id , on the o th e r hand, perceive the f a th e r as the more punishing p a re n t. The d is p a r ity between th e expected and the obtained r e s u l t s concerning th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n p a tte rn s of th ese c h ild re n leads us to sp e cu late upon (1) the v a l i d i t y of the in stru m e n t, and (2) th e experim ental sample. No formal independent measure of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n was o b tain ed , so we cannot determine whether t h i s sample d if f e r s from others in i t s i d e n t i t y , or i f the t e s t measured some o th e r c o n s tru c t. Thus, f o r example, the r e s u l t s obtained are e n t i r e l y c o n s is te n t with those of o th e r t e s t s p u rp o rtin g t o measure 165 s e x -ro le id e n tif ic a tio n * Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963), Brown (1957), F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964), and Lynn (195 9) found t h a t , while boys were sure of t h e i r s e x - r o le , g i r l s v aried considerably in t h e i r choice of fem inine- ap p ro p ria te games and i n t e r e s t s . The c o n s tru c tio n of the Parent P erception Test is conducive t o the re p o rtin g of s o c ia ll y defined ste re o ty p e d behavior. That i s , th e t e s t deals with s p e c i f i c p a re n ta l a t t r i b u t e s which have p o s itiv e and n eg a tiv e valence in terms of t h e i r s e x -a p p ro p ria te n e s s , In a d d itio n , the c h ild re n were asked to choose between m aternal and p a te rn a l models. The choice could have been based upon se x -ro le p reference or response s e t toward a p a r t i c u l a r p a r e n t , r a th e r than upon the e x te n t to which the p aren t was experienced as d escrib ed by the t e s t item . The d iffe re n c e between the r e s u l t s obtained in t h i s study and those of o th e r in v e s tig a to r s might be a t t r i b u t a b l e in p a r t t o d i s s i m i l a r i t i e s in th e su b je c t populations sampled. Though the samples stu d ie d by o th e r in v e s tig a to r s were not c le a r ly enough described to perm it comparison with the p rese n t sample, i t is p o ssib le to sp e c u la te upon the p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample th a t might have produced the obtained r e s u l t s . W e fin d th a t t h i s group d if f e r s from the gen eral po p u latio n in two re s p e c ts . F i r s t , and perhaps l e a s t im p o rta n t, th e su b je c ts were p rim a rily of th e Jewish f a i t h . According to the 166 n u rsery-school d i r e c t o r 's r e p o r t, the p aren ts i d e n t i f i e d themselves w ith Jewish c u l t u r a l v alu es, but did not make the p ra c tic e of th e r e lig io n a major focus of t h e i r liv e s . W e cannot determine what e f f e c t th i s v a ria b le has on the r e s u lt s of the Parent Perception T est. The second f a c to r th a t d is tin g u is h e s th is group of p aren ts from o th ers is t h e i r membership in a cooperative nursery school. In conversations with th e nursery school d i r e c t o r , and w ith some of the c h i ld r e n 's p a re n ts , fa m ilie s could g en erally be described as c h ild -c e n te re d . The parents went out of t h e i r way to nurture t h e i r c h i l dren. Many f a th e rs concerned themselves with nursery school a d m in istra tio n , and a number of them tra n sp o rte d t h e i r ch ild re n to and from th e school. Some a lso spent time a t the school helping the te a c h e rs . The f a th e r s ' p u n itiv e behavior could no t be e s ta b lis h e d independently of the c h ild re n 's re p o rt. Kawin (1962) used a s im ila r cooperative n u rsery -sch o o l sample in h er stu d y , in which i t was found t h a t fa th e rs of boys were more p u n itiv e than mothers of boys, or mothers and fa th e rs of g i r l s . Mothers observed a t the school used withdrawal of p r iv ile g e s as t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c method of c o n tro l, as did the te a c h e r s . Some knowledge of the power p o s itio n of the fa th e rs in these fam ilies could be in fe rre d from the p a r e n ts ' response t o the request fo r t h e i r cooperation in the study. In most 167 c a s e s , wives d eferred to t h e i r husband’s d ec isio n . Where husbands o b je c te d , the wives showed c o n s id e ra tio n f o r t h e i r f e e lin g s . In a few c a se s , wives t a c t f u l l y pressured r e lu c ta n t husbands to p a r t i c i p a t e . Mothers did no t speak d isp a ra g in g ly of t h e i r husbands, e i t h e r in conversations with each o th e r a t th e school, w ith th e te a c h e rs , t o the experim enter, or t o the c h ild re n . I t appeared, from the ex p erim en te r's co n tac t w ith the p a re n ts , t h a t they had t a c i t l y agreed t h a t the f a th e r should m aintain the dominant p o s itio n in the home, and th a t the wives were content with t h e i r outwardly apparent subordinate p o s itio n . The dominance of the f a th e r was, with one ex c e p tio n , not of an a u th o r ita r ia n n a tu re . The observed r o le - r e la t io n s h ip s of p aren ts in the p rese n t sample match th e s o c ia l ste re o ty p e d escrib ed by Johnson (1963). B ell summarizes h e r fin d in g s as follow s: The m other's ro le involves o b ta in in g a p le a su rab le response by giving p leasu re (ex p ressiv e ro le ) while ea sin g te n sio n s w ith in the fam ily. Her e f f o r t s are r e l a t i v e l y n o n -d iff e r e n tia te d so f a r as the sexes are concerned. She c o n trib u te s t o the f a t h e r 's ro le by d e fin in g him t o th e ch ild re n as a worthy person. The f a t h e r 's r e la tio n s h i p with the c h ild re n must be based on a ff e c tio n t o be e f f e c tiv e with e i t h e r sex ; however, he rewards and shapes th e boy’s p e r s o n a lity by being demanding, by usin g more aggression i n s t i g a t i n g d i s c i p l i n e , and by using techniques which promote i n i t i a t i v e and independence, q u a l i t i e s which are im portant in th e m ale's in stru m e n ta l ro le outside th e home. (1965, p. 23) No s tu d ie s were found in which the v a ria b le s of n u rtu ra n c e , punishment, and power were examined in r e la tio n 16 8 t o an independent measure of s e x -ro le s tre n g th or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . However, F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964) re p o rt t h a t , though g i r l s may be highly v a ria b le in th e s e x -ro le preference as measured by a game-choice, they were "secu rely id e n tif ie d " with t h e i r mothers as defined by Semantic D i f f e r e n t i a l sc o re s. These in v e s tig a to r s , lik e Hartup (1962), found th a t g i r l s tended to id e n tif y with the mother as an in d iv id u a l, im ita tin g h er s p e c if ic behavior, while boys perceived the f a th e r in terms of h is s e x -r o le . Boys im ita te d the f a th e r as a ste re o ty p e of the r o l e , r a th e r than le a rn in g his s p e c i f i c behavior. W e may conclude th a t some caution should be e x e rc ised in i n t e r p r e t i n g the sum of the scores derived from the Parent Perception T est as a measure of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . There i s no way to determ ine the e x te n t to which the c h i ld r e n 's re p o rt of p a re n ta l a t t r i b u t e s has been in flu en c ed by t h e i r own s e x -ro le p re fe re n c e s. N eith er is i t p o ssib le to determine whether the c h ild re n were re p o rtin g p a re n ta l a t t r i b u t e s in accordance with s o c ia lly defined sex-typed b eh av io r, or whether the p a re n ts , them selves, conform t o the s e x -ro le p a tte r n s "approved" by m id d le-class so c ie ty and th e c h ild ren experience and re p o rt t h a t b eh av io r a c c u ra te ly . Observation of the p a re n ts ' behavior with the experim enter, re p o rts from nursery school 169 p e rso n n e l, and r e l i a b i l i t y data derived from th e t e s t scores suggest th a t th e subscales are v a lid and moderately r e l i a b l e e stim ates of the a t t r i b u t e s in q u estio n . Defense P r o f ile A n aly sis. In analyzing the defense p r o f i l e s obtained in the p rese n t s tu d y , some confirm ation was found fo r th e concept th a t boys and g i r l s may d i f f e r in th e manner in which they p e rc e iv e , or re p o r t t h e i r p erce p tio n of p a r e n ta l models. I t was found (Table 11) t h a t boys rep o rted the p ic tu re d c h i l d 's defense behavior as being more s im ila r t o h is own view of th a t of th e p ic tu re d p a re n ts ' defense behavior than t o a randomly s e le c te d boy's view of th e p ic tu re d m other's defense behavior. W e may i n t e r p r e t th is to mean th a t boys p erceive t h e i r defense behavior as more lik e t h a t of t h e i r own p aren ts than lik e t h a t of o th e r parents of boys in t h e i r peer group. G irls do not see t h e i r defense behavior as any more lik e t h a t of e i t h e r of t h e i r own p aren ts than lik e th a t of o th e r parents o f c h ild re n in t h e i r peer group. This must not be i n t e r p re te d to mean th a t th e defense p r o f il e of boys is a c tu a lly more lik e th a t of e i t h e r of t h e i r own p a re n ts— only th a t th e boy p erceiv es i t so. Nor does i t mean th a t th e defense p r o f il e s of g i r l s are u n lik e those of t h e i r p a re n ts. The d a ta only suggests th a t a g i r l sees h e r own behavior as n e i th e r more nor le s s lik e th a t of h e r own p aren ts than lik e t h a t of h e r p e e rs ' p a re n ts. F urther an a ly sis of defense p ro file s (Table 12) led to th e fin d in g th a t th e re was no d iffe re n c e in the d istance between a c h i l d ’s view of p a re n ta l defense behavior and h is p a re n ts ' s e lf - r e p o r te d defense behavior as compared with randomly se le c te d p a re n ts ' s e lf- r e p o r te d defense behavior. Comparing c h ild re n 's rep o rts of the p a re n ts ' probable defense behavior with t h e i r p a re n ts' own r e p o r ts , th e re was some in d ic a tio n t h a t g i r l s were b e t t e r able to p re d ic t what the f a th e r might say than what mother might say in f r u s t r a t i n g s itu a tio n s (Table 13), and th a t g i r l s ' defense p r o file s more clo sely resemble the generalized defense p r o file (Parent Q uestionnaire) of the f a th e r than did boys' defense p r o file s and t h e i r fa th e rs . The p red icted s im ila r ity between c h ild re n and m aternal defense behavior did not appear anywhere in the an aly sis of th e data. The p re d ic tio n of p a re n t-c h ild s i m i l a r i t i e s in defense behavior was most a p p ro p riate ly te s te d by s t a t i s t i c a l procedures which d ir e c tly compared c h ild re n 's with p a re n ts ' defense sc o re s. Analyses of variance (Tables 18, 19, and 20) in d ic a te d th a t the p a tte rn of mean defense scores of boys and g i r l s did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y , though the mean defense p r o f ile s of the mothers and fa th e rs of g ir ls d iffe re d from those of th e parents of boys. Visual in sp e ctio n of Figures 2 and 3 in d ic a te s th a t the g i r l s ' defense curve f i t s those obtained fo r parents of g i r l s b e t t e r than the boys' defense curve f i t s those of boys' 171 p a r e n t s . Though d iffe re n c e s in the instrum ents involved make a s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t of th i s im pression im possible, th is d ata lends some support to the notion th a t the s i m i l a r i t y perceived by boys between c h ild and p a re n ta l behavior is a d i s t o r t i o n of the tru e r e la tio n s h i p . The r e s u lt s of the p re se n t study do not support P re d ic tio n 3, th a t c h ild r e n 's defense behavior would be more lik e th a t o f th e mother than lik e t h a t of the f a th e r . N eith er do the r e s u l t s support P re d ic tio n 4, th a t g i r l s ' defense behavior would be more lik e th a t of mothers than would boys. These p re d ic tio n s were based upon the assumption th a t P re d ic tio n s 1 and 2 would be confirmed. That i s , i t was assumed th a t the mother, in c o n tra s t to the f a t h e r , would be perceived as the more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful p aren t by boys and g i r l s 3 to 5 years of age, and more so by g i r l s than by boys. S ocial le a rn in g theory would then suggest th a t th e defense behavior of the parent so perceived ( i . e . , the mother) would be im ita te d most r e a d i l y , in th a t she would provide the necessary reward and punishment to f a c i l i t a t e le a rn in g . P a re n ta l C onsistency. While the r e s u l t s of the p rese n t study do not in d ic a te th a t boys and g i r l s see the mother as the more n u rtu ra n t, punishing, and powerful p a re n t, th e re i s some in d ic a tio n th a t they do p erceiv e one p aren t as possessing more of th e se a t t r i b u t e s than another 172 (Tables 9 and 10). The le a rn in g theory hypothesis would then p r e d ic t th a t some c o r r e la tio n should be found between the defense behavior of ch ild ren and one p a re n t. The f a i l u r e to fin d such r e la tio n s h ip s (Tables 7 and 8, 11 to 14) leads to an e x p lo ra tio n of th e q u a lity of the stim ulus presented to th e c h ild re n in terms of the defense behavior of th e p a re n ta l m odels. The r e s u l t s p resen ted under th e heading "Parent Consistency" led to th e conclusion th a t p aren ts are q u ite v a ria b le in t h e i r defense behavior. While a few p aren ts showed a decided p refe re n c e for one of the defense modes over the o th e rs , the group as a whole was c h a ra c te riz e d by f l e x i b i l i t y and perhaps in c o n siste n c y . This same v a r i a b i l i t y was t o be observed in th e c h ild r e n 's re p o rtin g of defense choice (see r e l i a b i l i t y r e s u l t s , Tables 4, 5, and 6). Through the analyses of v ariance of the Parent Q uestionnaire and P a re n ts ' S itu a tio n T e st, we found t h a t though the p a tte rn of mean defense scores of parents of g i r l s d if fe re d from parents of boys, mean defense scores of mothers and f a th e rs did not d i f f e r from each o th e r. The next q uestion th a t comes t o mind i s : how s im ila r are each c h i l d 's mother and f a th e r in t h e i r defense behavior. C o rre la tin g m others' and f a th e r s ' responses (Table 24), some agreement was found in t h e i r general defense a t t i t u d e s , as measured by the q u e s tio n n a ire , though the 173 r e la tio n s h ip was not stro n g . No s i g n i f ic a n t p o s itiv e r e la tio n s h i p s , and a large number of low negative r e l a t i o n ships appeared among defense v a ria b le scores from the P a re n ts ’ S itu a tio n T est. This is th e s o r t of p a tte rn one would expect to fin d on a fo u r-v a ria b le ip s a tiv e t e s t where th e re was l i t t l e more than a chance r e la tio n s h ip among the v a ria b le s . W e may conclude, then, th a t mothers and fa th e rs do not s ig n if ic a n tly agree with each other in t h e i r re p o rtin g of defense behavior. When comparing what th e parents sa id to themselves and what they sa id to t h e i r ch ild ren in response to problems and s itu a tio n s (Table 25), we found few p o s itiv e r e l a t i o n sh ip s . S ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s were found among parents of both boys and g ir ls between "Adult'1 and "Child" responses to the P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est. Both mothers and fath e rs used Denial more in t h e i r p riv a te responses (what they would say t o themselves) th an in t h e i r responses t o t h e i r c h ild re n . They used R eversal of A ffect more in helping t h e i r c h ild re n defend a g a in st t h e i r re a c tio n s to f r u s t r a tio n than they would use in defending a g a in st t h e i r own rea c tio n s to f r u s t r a tio n s . In a d d itio n , f a th e r s , but no t m others, used Turning Against the S e lf in "Adult" more than in "Child" responses to a s ig n i f ic a n t degree. Throughout the re p o rtin g of the r e s u lts of th e two parent defense t e s t s , we have noted d iffe re n ce s between them. I t i s d i f f i c u l t to judge whether th ese d iffe re n c e s 174 are a fu n ctio n o f th e in stru m e n ts, or whether p a re n ts ' v e rb a lly expressed defense a t t i t u d e s are not the same as t h e i r defense behavior. One might expect sp u rio u sly high and low mean scores on an ip s a tiv e device lik e th e P aren ts' S itu a tio n T est. However, v is u a l in s p e c tio n of Figure 2 in d ic a te s t h a t the r e l a t i v e p o s itio n s of the defense v a ria b le s may be q u ite s im ila r on ip s a tiv e (the P a r e n ts ' S itu a tio n Test) and n o n -ip s a tiv e (th e P arent Q uestionnaire) measures. Comparing Figures 2 and 3, we fin d t h a t the means of p arent scores on the two t e s t s vary considerably fo r parents of boys (Figure 3 ), but not f o r parents of g i r l s (Figure 2). W e may s p e c u la te , th e n , th a t p a re n ts ' defense behavior is a t l e a s t in p a r t s p e c i f i c to th e s i t u a t i o n th a t e l i c i t s the response. Included in th e " s itu a tio n " are such i n t e r personal v a ria b le s as the sex of th e in t e r a c t i n g people, and whether th e defense response made by the p arent is "public" ("Child" item s) or "p riv a te" ("Adult" ite m s). The t e s t instrum ents may a lso have e l i c i t e d d i f f e r e n t response d ata. That i s , a g en e ra liz ed a t t i t u d e survey lik e the Parent Q uestionnaire may r e f l e c t the s u b j e c t 's i n t e l l e c t u a l acceptance of th e value system espoused by the school and i t s ' p a r t i c i p a n t s . Responses to s p e c if ic f r u s t r a t i n g s it u a ti o n s may re p re s e n t a le s s guarded, more r e a l i s t i c sample of behavior. Were t h i s sp e c u la tio n t r u e , we might f u r th e r sp e c u la te th a t p aren ts of boys are le ss c o n s is te n t 175 than are parents of g i r l s in re p o rtin g defense a t titu d e s and behavior (Figures 2 and 3). The question was ra is e d e a r l i e r as to whether the apparent in c o n siste n cy in p a re n t-re p o rte d defense data rep re se n te d confusion or f l e x i b i l i t y . I t is q u ite probable th a t th ese a d u lts from a normal population may be e x h ib itin g a healthy f l e x i b i l i t y in t h e i r use of defense mechanisms th a t perm its ap p ro p ria te response to a v a rie ty of f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . This sp ecu la tio n is in keeping with Lois Murphy's (1960) and Anna Freud's (1946) fin d in g s th a t w e ll-a d ju s te d c h ild re n and a d u lts make use of se v e ra l defense mechanisms, even though one may be used more than th e o th e rs . Schafer (1954) describes in some d e t a i l the adaptive value of employing various defense mechanisms to m aintain "in n e r and s o c ia l in te g ra tio n " (p. 47). D efenses, he n o t e s , become m aladaptive when used r ig id ly without reg ard t o th e s i t u a t i o n a l need, or when d is to r tio n s are extrem e. W e may conclude, th e n , th a t the c h ild re n in th is sample would have a d i f f i c u l t d isc rim in a tio n problem to solve should they want to learn the behavior of a p a r t i c u l a r p aren t. They were p resen ted with p a re n ta l models who were n e ith e r very d i f f e r e n t , nor very lik e each * o th e r in t h e i r defense p re fe re n c e s. In a d d itio n , the behavior of each of the models i s v a ria b le from time to 176 tim e. W e fin d few s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e la tio n s , and few s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e s when examining each p a r e n t’s responses to varying s it u a ti o n s . I t may be remembered t h a t , in d isc u ssin g th e r e s u lt s of the p re se n t stu d y , d ata was c ite d which suggested t h a t boys and g i r l s d i f f e r in the way in which they p erceiv e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d iffe re n c e s between t h e i r own and t h e i r p a r e n ts ’ defense behavior. That i s , boys p ro je c t a homogeneity of defense behavior between themselves and t h e i r p aren ts where g i r l s do not. From th e d ata reviewed above, we found t h a t the parents of these boys were more lik e ly to use d en ia l in d ea lin g with t h e i r c h i ld r e n ’s f r u s t r a t i o n s than were the p aren ts of th e se g i r l s , and th a t t h i s was more tru e of th e boys’ fa th e rs than of t h e i r m others. As was prev io u sly no ted , Kawin (1962), Carlson (19 63), and Becker (196 3), a lso found th a t parents tended to employ d en ial in t h e i r r e la tio n s h ip s w ith t h e i r sons. Thus , the boys in t h i s study were p resen ted w ith an even more d i f f i c u l t le a rn in g problem than were the g i r l s , and would be le s s lik e ly than g i r l s to d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e i r p a re n ts ' defense behavior from o th er p a r e n ts , o r t o p r e d ic t a c c u ra te ly what t h e i r p aren ts would be lik e ly t o do in a given s i t u a t i o n . A study by G ollin (195 8) compared th e a b i l i t y of g i r l s and boys t o r a te the a t t r i b u t e s of people when p resen ted w ith seemingly in c o n s is te n t inform ation about th e persons 177 to be d e scrib e d . I t was found th a t g i r l s were b e t t e r able than boys to form in te g ra te d im pressions from d isc re p a n t in fo rm atio n . Middle c la ss as opposed to lo w er-cla ss s ta tu s and high in te llig e n c e f a c i l i t a t e d in te g r a tio n of in c o n s is te n t inform ation. Summary, I n te r p r e ta t io n of the r e s u l t s re le v a n t to the second hypothesis was made d i f f i c u l t by many f a c to rs . Comparisons were made among d if f e r e n t t e s t instrum ents adm inistered under varying conditions to su b je c ts d if f e r i n g widely in age. I t was p re d ic te d th a t c h ild re n would have learned defense modes from t h e i r p a re n ts. While i t was recognized th a t c o n tig u ity may be a s u f f i c i e n t condition f o r le a rn in g (Bandura, 1962), i t was f u r th e r assumed t h a t a s u ita b le balance of s o c ia l reward and punishment would f a c i l i t a t e th e le a rn in g of p a re n t-p re fe rre d defense modes. C loser exam ination of the d ata revealed such le a rn in g to be a highly complex ta s k , w ith p a re n ta l models p re se n tin g a wide v a rie ty of in c o n s is te n t cues from which to dis c rim in a te . The instrum ents used in th e p rese n t study t o measure i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and defense have provided no evidence to support the hypothesis t h a t c h ild re n le arn t h e i r defense p referen ces p rim a rily from t h a t p aren t who is experienced as the more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful of the two. D ifferences between p aren ts of boys and g i r l s suggest th a t 178 s e x -ro le f a c to r s may in flu e n c e defense preference in s it u a ti o n s in volving in te rp e rs o n a l r e la tio n s h i p s . D iscussion of Hypothesis I I I The purpose of t h i s s e c tio n of th e p re se n t study was to t e s t th e r e la tio n s h i p between i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the le a rn in g of new defense behavior experim entally assigned to p a re n ta l models (see d e s c rip tio n of Defense Learning T est, pp. 84-87). A ll of the c h ild re n learn ed th e new defense behaviors of both p aren ts and re lin q u ish e d t h e i r h a b itu a l modes of response in fa v o r of those now modeled by th e "p aren ts" (Table 15). I t was f i r s t p re d ic te d t h a t c h ild re n would acquire the defense of the parent regarded as the more n u r tu r a n t, punishing, and powerful of th e two, on the assumption th a t t h i s was th e parent w ith whom he " i d e n t i f i e d ." C o rrela tio n s between th e Defense Learning T est and th e P arent P erception Test (Table 16) in d ic a te d t h a t , among g i r l s , th e le a rn in g of new defense behavior from an experim ental p a re n ta l model, whether male or fem ale, was r e l a t e d to high Nurturance and high T otal " I d e n tif ic a tio n " scores on the P arent P erception Test fo r th a t p a re n t. Boys' le a rn in g of new defense behavior was not r e la te d t o any of the Parent Perception T est v a r ia b le s , nor to the T otal " I d e n t i f i c a tio n " sco re. Based on the premise the p re-sch o o l c h ild re n of both 179 sexes would id e n tif y more w ith the mother than with the f a t h e r , P re d ic tio n 2 s ta te d th a t both boys and g i r l s would im ita te the m aternal more than the p a te rn a l model’s new defense behavior. This p re d ic tio n was not supported by the data (Table 17). Only a n o n -s ig n ific a n t tendency f o r ch ild re n to im ita te the lik e -s e x e d p aren t model was observed. In support of P re d ic tio n 3, i t was found th a t g i r l s did im ita te the new m aternal behavior more than did boys. The r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment are much lik e those re p o rte d by F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (1964) and by Hartup (1962). That i s , they suggest th a t the sex d iffe re n c e s observed in d e fe n s e -le a rn in g by both boys and g i r l s may be dynamically r e la te d to s e x -ro le f a c to r s . W e fin d h e re , as did th e se o th e r in v e s tig a to r s , t h a t g i r l s are im ita tin g a p a re n ta l model on the b asis of t h e i r p ercep tio n of a p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e in th a t model. In th e p re se n t ca se, th a t a t t r i b u t e i s n u rtu ran ce. Hartup, c o rr e la tin g c h i ld r e n 's im ita tio n of p a re n ta l models with p a re n ta l s e l f - re p o rt d a ta , found th a t g i r l s ' im ita tio n of th e m aternal model was r e l a t e d to t h e i r mothers* s e lf - r e p o r te d a u th o r ita r ia n behavior. The d iffe re n c e in r e l a t i v e a t t r i b u t e may be a fu n ctio n of experim ental design. The s i m i l a r i t y between th e two samples' response modes seems to support the sp e c u la tio n t h a t , among g i r l s , th e re is a fu n c tio n a l r e la tio n s h i p between some a t t r i b u t e 180 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of th e in d iv id u a l p are n t and the c h i l d 's im ita tio n and/or le a rn in g of some asp ect of th a t p a r e n t's behavior. Contrary to p r e d ic tio n , the boys in the p resen t sample perceived th e f a th e r as the more n u r tu ra n t, punishing, and powerful p a re n t. I f t h i s p ercep tio n r e f le c te d a tru e p ic tu re of p a te rn a l behavior, s o c ia l le arn in g theory would p re d ic t t h a t (1) boys would im ita te th e new p a te rn a l behavior s i g n i f i c a n t l y more than the new m aternal behavior, and (2) th is im ita tio n would be c o r re la te d w ith a t le a s t one of the " id e n tif ic a tio n " v a r ia b le s . The boys in th is sample did tend to im ita te p a te rn a l more than m aternal behavior (The use of a o n e -ta ile d t e s t prevents s t a t i s t i c a l in feren c es being made from n egative r e s u l t s . However, in sp e c tio n of th e means on Table 17 in d ic a te s t h a t , had a tw o -ta ile d t e s t been a p p r o p r ia te , the p a te rn a l preferen ce score would not reach the .05 l e v e l . ) . Contrary t o s o c ia l le a rn in g th e o r y , the boys' im ita tio n of th e new p a te rn a l defense behavior was u n re la te d to h is p ercep tio n of any s p e c if ic a t t r i b u t e in the model im ita te d . Again, t h i s fin d in g i s congruent with H artu p 's (1962) and F itz g e r a ld 's and R o b ert's (196 4) suggestion th a t boys are more prone to learn s o c ia lly ste re o ty p e d behavior p a tte rn s than the s p e c if ic behavior of a p are n t. Summary. The sex d iffe re n c e s observed in th e 181 c h i ld r e n ’s responses to th is new le a rn in g s i t u a t i o n are s im ila r to o th e r stu d ie s (pp. 40-43) in which s e x -ro le d iffe re n c e s have been found ( e . g . , F itz g e ra ld and R oberts, 1964; H artup, 1962), That i s , g i r l s are equally lik e ly to acquire behavior th a t i s s o c ia ll y defined as masculine and fem inine; boys are somewhat more lik e ly to acquire behavior th a t i s defined as masculine than th a t defined as fem inine. Among g i r l s , t h i s le a rn in g seems t o be r e la te d to h er perception of a s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e in th e p a r e n ta l model. Boys, on the o th e r hand, le arn on th e b asis of the s o c ia l d e f in itio n of a p p ro p ria te sex behavior w ithout reg ard f o r the s p e c if ic a t t r i b u t e s e x h ib ite d by t h e i r f a th e r s . The fin d in g th a t g i r l s ' defense le a rn in g c o rre la te d with p erce p tio n of the p a re n ta l model as a n u rtu ra n t fig u re concurs with fin d in g s of Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963), and o th e rs (pp. 43-49), which suggest th a t n u rtu ra n c e , or p o s itiv e rein fo rcem en t, i s more e f f e c tiv e in f a c i l i t a t i n g s o c ia l le a rn in g than is punishment. A d d itio n a l Findings Defense-Family Hypothesis In the h i s t o r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l se c tio n s of th is paper, i t was noted t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l l y , defenses have been thought of as dynamically s e p a ra te from each o th e r. They might occur contiguously in th e behavior r e p e r to ir e of an in d iv id u a l because they i n t e r a c t to h elp him deal with h is 182 impulses and/or th e demands of h is environment (as in te r n a liz e d by him in terms of the su p e re g o ). N eurotic and psychotic diagnosis has taken in to account the ob serv atio n t h a t c e rta in defense modes seem t o c l u s t e r to g e th e r and c e rta in c lu s te r s seem t o be more c h a ra c te r i s t i c of one d iso rd e r than of another. M ille r and Swanson (1960) sp e cu lated upon the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t defense modes could be ca teg o rized in to th re e "fa m ilie s" according to t h e i r dynamic p r o p e r tie s . T h eir book, In n er C o n flic t and Defense (1960), was based upon s tu d ie s conducted under t h e i r d ir e c tio n , most of which accepted the assumption of a dynamic r e la tio n s h ip w ithout t e s t i n g i t . Thus, even though the same sample of boys was stu d ie d by Kovacs (1958), who focused on D enial, and by Greening (1958), who focused on Turning Against th e S e lf and Reversal of A ff e c t, l i t t l e attem pt was made t o examine the r e la tio n s h ip among these defen ses. In th e se s tu d i e s , s o c ia l cla ss and parent a t t i t u d e s were the major experim ental v a r ia b le s . L a te r r e f l e c t i o n upon the r e s u l t s of th e se s tu d ie s led Swanson (1961) to re -c a te g o riz e the d efen ses, but s t i l l on the b a sis o f the assumption t h a t these v a ria b le s were dynamically r e la te d to each o th e r. In t h i s case th e r e la tio n s h ip was thought to be the type of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n the c h ild had developed w ith h is p a re n ts ; i . e . , whether he conformed to avoid punishment (Defense Family ( ) , or to gain p o s itiv e reward (Defense Family I I ) . S o cia l c la ss 183 fa c to rs were minimized in h is t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s tru c t. This new theory has not been su b je cted t o v e r i f i c a t i o n by re se a rc h . In th e p resen t re s e a rc h , four defense modes were chosen from th e f i r s t two f a m ilie s — E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial from Defense Family I ; Turning A gainst the S e lf and Reversal of A ffect from Defense Family I I . M ille r and Swanson (1960) and t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r i s t s have g en e ra lly assumed these to be "p rim itiv e " d efen ses, and thus expected to be found e a s ily in the response r e p e r to ir e of nursery school age c h ild re n , as w ell as among t h e i r p a re n ts. The assumption th a t th e se defenses are dynamically r e la te d to each o th e r and can be se p a ra te d in t o two fam ilie s as p o stu la te d by Swanson (1961) i s not supported by th e r e s u l t s of the p re se n t study. I f Swanson’s system of defense fa m ilie s were t o be su p p o rted , we would expect p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n s between E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and D enial, and between Turning A gainst the S e lf and R eversal. W e would a ls o expect n egative c o r r e la tio n s between E x te r n a liz a tio n of Blame and Turning Against the S e lf , E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and R eversal of A ffe c t, Denial and Turning A gainst the S e lf , and Denial and R eversal of A ffec t. This p a tte r n of c o rr e la tio n s e x i s ts nowhere in the d ata obtained from the th re e t e s t s employed in the p re se n t study (Tables 26 and 27) . 184 From th e r e s u lt s of t h i s p rese n t stu d y , we can conclude th a t the n a tu re of the r e la tio n s h ip among these fo u r defense modes is not as supposed by Swanson (1961), bu t we cannot determ ine from th e se r e s u lt s j u s t what i t i s . Subjects of a l l sexes and ages re p o rt using Turning Against th e S e lf more often than the th re e o th e r defenses. Also, as a general r u l e , E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame is used le a s t f r e q u e n tly . M iscellaneous S peculations D en ia l. The assumption has been made th a t d en ial is "th e most p rim itiv e defense" (Kovacs, 1958). Fenichel (19 45) s t a t e s th a t i t i s a p re -sta g e of defense and used le s s as th e ego grows in s tr e n g th . Fries (19 47) a s s e r ts i t develops under the impact of p e r s i s t e n t and severe f r u s t r a t i o n in infancy and e a rly childhood. These statem en ts may be s e rio u s ly questioned on the b a sis of th e r e s u l t s o f th e p rese n t study. Here we fin d th a t c h ild re n use d en ial le ss than t h e i r parents in r e la tio n to the o th e r defense modes stu d ie d . W e a lso fin d th a t p aren ts of boys use d e n ia l more than p aren ts of g i r l s . I t would seem lo g ic a l t o conclude from these findings th a t the use of d e n ia l is not n e c e s s a rily r e la te d to developmental phenomena. That socio-economic conditions and a tra u m a tic e a rly childhood are not necessary p re -c o n d itio n s t o the use of t h i s defense i s a ls o suggested by th e f a c t th a t the 185 s u b je c ts in th i s study were from th e same socio-economic le v e l , y e t th e re was a d iffe re n c e in th e use of t h i s defense between parents of boys and g i r l s . Comparing the p rese n t fin d in g s about d e n ia l w ith those rep o rted by o th e r in v e s t i g a t o r s , we fin d some s i m i l a r i t i e s in the r e s u l t s . Beards lee (196 0) found t h a t , in a middle c la ss sample of boys, high c h ild in t e l l i g e n c e plus p a r e n ta l use of reasoning as a means of c o n tro l was r e la te d t o the c h i l d 's in fre q u en t use of d e n ia l. Both the ex p erim en te r's o bservation and th e nursery school d i r e c t o r 's rep o rt suggest t h a t the p resen t sample of su b je c ts f i t s t h i s d e s c r ip tio n , and d e n ial was the l e a s t used defense. A ggression. Studies in which s e x -ro le fa c to rs were found to be re le v a n t to d iffe re n c e s in the aggressive behavior of boys and g i r l s were reviewed on pages 49 to 56. Very b r i e f l y summarizing th e fin d in g s n o ted , th e follow ing d iffe re n c e s have been dem onstrated: (1) boys are more ag g ressiv e than g i r l s ; g i r l s evidence more anxiety in r e la tio n to the expression of ag g ressiv e behavior. (2) The same p a re n ta l c h ild -r e a rin g p ra c tic e s produce d i f f e r e n t ag g ressiv e behavior p a tte rn s in boys as compared to g i r l s . (3) G irls tend t o use p r o -s o c ia l aggression more than a n t i s o c ia l ag g ressio n ; boys are in c lin e d to use a n t i - s o c i a l ag g ressio n . This d iffe re n c e seems to be a fu n ctio n of se x -ty p in g . (4) G irls are more lik e ly than boys to im ita te 186 the p r o -s o c ia l and v erb al aggression of a female model. (5) Both boys and g i r l s , and boys more than g i r l s , are lik e ly to im ita te an aggressive male model in p referen ce to an ag g ressiv e female model. (6) Girls* observation of a non-aggressive model was more lik e ly to be a s so c ia te d with h e r in h ib i tio n of aggression than was boys* observation of such a model. One might s p e c u la te , from these fin d in g s , th a t female su b je c ts would be more defensive than males. The C h ild ren ’s and Parents* S itu a tio n T e s ts , being ip s a tiv e , did n o t allow f o r v a r ia tio n in le v e l of d efensiveness. The r e s u lt s of th e Parent Q u estio n n aire, which would have perm itted such a fin d in g , in d ic a te d th a t mothers and fa th e rs did not d i f f e r in t h e i r le v e l of d efen siv en ess. One might a ls o sp e c u la te on the p o ssib le r e la tio n s h ip between p r o -s o c ia l and v erb al aggression and defense modes which help the in d iv id u a l i n h i b i t p h y sic al aggression. Given the findings th a t the female ro le demands the g re a te r i n h ib itio n of a g g re ssio n , one might conclude th a t she would develop more s k i l l in defending a g a in st ag g ressio n . One might a ls o conclude th a t g i r l s would be e s p e c ia lly a l e r t to the m other's methods of coping with a g g re ssio n , in th a t she must le a rn such coping methods in o rd er t o behave in sex- ap p ro p ria te ways. The r e s u l t s of the p rese n t study would not support such s p e c u la tio n s , in th a t g i r l s did no t le a rn the defense 187 behavior of mothers any more than did boys. The d i f f i c u l t y of le a rn in g t h i s behavior in the family s e t t i n g was already d iscu ssed . However, even in the experim ental s i t u a ti o n where th e le a rn in g conditions were s tra ig h tfo rw a rd , g i r l s did not le a rn th e m aternal model's defense behavior more than th e p a te rn a l m odel's. I t may b e, th e n , th a t the r e la tio n s h ip between aggressive behavior and the mechanisms chosen to c o n tro l t h a t b ehavior is not c lo se . I t may be a lso th a t defense behavior is n o t se x -ty p e d , as is ag g ressio n , and thus one cannot so e a s ily g en e ra liz e from s tu d ie s of aggression to s tu d ie s of defense. Bandura (196 2) has c o n s is te n tly dem onstrated th a t the le a rn in g of sex-typed behavior is hig h ly in flu en c ed by the sex o f the model. G u ilt. In t r a d i t i o n a l p sy c h o a n a ly tic a lly o rien te d th in k in g , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , conscience development, and g u ilt have been seen as fu n c tio n a lly in te rd e p en d e n t. Conscience development and g u ilt have been assessed by th e s u b j e c t 's w illin g n e ss to confess or behave in some s e l f d e s tru c tiv e manner by Burton, Maccoby, and A llinsm ith (1961), Grinder (1962), Heinicke (1953), S e a rs, Maccoby, and Levin (1957), who have concluded th a t g i r l s evidenced more g u i l t than boys because of a more s t a b l e , highly developed m aternal i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Other in v e s tig a to r s (Aronfreed, 1961, 1963, 1964; A llin sm ith , 1960; B eardslee, 188 1960; Becker, 1963; Bandura and McDonald, 196 3) have found th a t g u i l t responses could be le a rn e d , were in flu en c ed by p a tte rn s of s o c ia l rein fo rcem en t, socio-economic s t a t u s , and s e x -ro le fa c to rs o p eratin g between parents and c h ild re n . These last-m en tio n ed in v e s tig a to r s a lso found t h a t g u i l t responses take many form s, and th a t the observed p reference f o r Turning Against the S e lf in our c u ltu re may be a s o c ia l phenomenon. The f a i l u r e to fin d sex d iffe re n c e s between boys and g i r l s in th e use of Turning A gainst th e S e lf , as w ell as th e o th e r d e fe n s e s , d is tin g u is h e s th i s sample of ch ild ren from o th e rs . Three s tu d ie s in which a se x -d iffe re n c e in "conscience development" was not observed were those of Boehm (1962), Boehm and Nass (1962), and L u ria , Goldwasser, and Goldwasser (1963). In the f i r s t two of these s tu d i e s , upper-middle c lass s ta tu s and high in te lli g e n c e r a th e r than c h ild -s e x were found to be s i g n i f ic a n t fa c to rs in the development of "moral judgments" in s to ry completion t e s t s . L u ria, e t a l (1963) f a i l e d to fin d sex d iffe re n c e s in responses t o tra n s g re s s io n among Jewish c h ild re n in I s r a e l and the United S ta te s , These authors proposed th a t th e b lu r rin g of s e x -ro le d if f e r e n t i a t i o n s might be r e la te d to v e rb a l f a c i l i t y in th e Jewish fa m ilie s s tu d ie d . The p re se n t sample o f c h ild re n is lik e th ese o th er samples in which boys and g i r l s did not d i f f e r in moral re sp o n se s, in th a t they are members of fam ilies belonging » ■ 189 to th e middle and upper-middle c l a s s e s , with th e m ajority of th e p aren ts having completed co lle g e and holding p ro fe ssio n a l p o s itio n s (Table 2). While not t e s t e d , the behavior and v erb al a b i l i t y of the child-sam ple in nursery school and in th e t e s t s i t u a t i o n was in d ic a tiv e of an in te llig e n c e le v e l w ell above average. The m ajority of the ch ild re n were Jewish. T h e o re tic a l Im p licatio n s The r e s u l t s of th e p re se n t study have t h e o r e t i c a l im p lic a tio n s in fo u r meain a re a s : (1) d efense, (2) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , (3) parent p e rc e p tio n , and (4) th e a p p lic a tio n o f experim ental fin d in g s to complex family s i t u a t i o n s . Defense One of the b a s ic purposes of the p resen t study was to determine whether defense modes are learn ed from p a re n ta l models , or whether they are developed by each in d iv id u a l more in accordance with h is own p a r t i c u l a r in tra p s y c h ic s tr u c t u r e than with h is in te rp e rs o n a l r e la tio n s h i p s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study in d ic a te th a t ch ild re n could le a rn such behavior from p a re n ta l models i f they were presented with a c le a rly defined stim u lu s. However, in th e normal home s i t u a t i o n , th r e e - to f iv e -y e a r-o ld c h ild re n apparently do not le a rn t h e i r defense behavior d i r e c t l y from t h e i r p a re n ts. The p o s s i b i l i t y was d iscu ssed (pp. 171-177) th a t 19 0 the f a i l u r e to le arn t h i s behavior may be a fu n ctio n of the complex, u n d if f e r e n tia te d stim ulus p resen ted to the children* The d ata obtained does not in d ic a te w hether, given a c le a r ly defined defense p a tte rn to l e a r n , the c h ild re n might s t i l l respond p rim a rily to t h e i r own needs in developing methods of coping w ith t h e i r c o n f l i c t s , as w ell as with behavior of t h e i r p aren ts and the la rg e r world. To t e s t th is h y p o th e sis, i t would be necessary to compare fa m ilie s from a population which evidences defense- f l e x i b i l i t y with those from a population which evidences d e f e n s e - r i g i d i t y , The p re se n t study p resen ted evidence which stro n g ly suggested th a t defense behavior may be highly s i t u a t i o n - s p e c if ic . Thus, f o r example, we fin d th a t p aren ts respond d i f f e r e n t l y depending upon whether they are d e a lin g with t h e i r own f r u s t r a t i o n s , or w ith those of t h e i r c h ild re n . In a d d itio n , while males and females do not d i f f e r in t h e i r defense b eh a v io r, parents of boys d i f f e r from parents of g i r l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in re p o rtin g t h e i r responses to s p e c if ic f r u s t r a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . These findings suggest th a t s e x -ro le fa c to rs are in stru m e n ta l in shaping verbal defense b eh av io r, though i t seems lik e ly t h a t the r e s u l t s obtained r e f l e c t s u p e r f i c i a l v erb a l b eh av io r, not b asic p e rs o n a lity c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This sp e c u la tio n is based on th e observation th a t no o th e r s e x -ro le d iffe re n c e s were found in defense behavior. 191 The f a i l u r e to fin d sex d iffe re n c e s in defense choice suggests th e p o s s i b i l i t y th a t defense behavior is no t sex- typed. D ifferences between boys and g i r l s are c o n s is te n tly found in both le v e l and type of aggressive and g u i l t behavior. W e may sp e c u la te th a t le v e l of d e fe n s iv e n e ss, but not the form of defense, may be r e la te d to the in d iv i d u a l's c o n tro l of h is unacceptable behavior. The f a i l u r e t o fin d support f o r the defense-fam ily hypothesis as proposed by Swanson (1961) leaves unanswered the q u estio n : Is th e re any fu n c tio n a l r e la tio n s h ip among th e various defenses? Might a r e la tio n s h ip among defense modes be found in a p a tie n t p o p u latio n , where s te re o ty p in g of defense behavior is o ften c l i n i c a l l y observed? I t is u n lik e ly t h a t defense choice i s a random process. M iller and Swanson's (1960) stu d ie s in d ic a te d th a t broad s o c ia l v a r ia b le s , such as s o c ia l c l a s s , did shape defense behavior. They a lso in d ic a te d th a t some re la tio n s h ip s e x is te d between c h ild -r e a r in g p ra c tic e s and defense behavior. The f a ilu r e t o fin d evidence of the d ir e c t le a rn in g o f defense behavior in the sample observed suggests t h a t the study of defense would be more f r u i t f u l l y followed along the lin e s o r ig in a lly se t fo rth by th ese au th o rs. In a d d itio n , however, i t would seem t h a t the in d iv i d u a l's c o n trib u tio n to the development of h is defense s tr u c tu re might be more c a re fu lly in v e s tig a te d . 192 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n C l a r if i c a t io n of th e term . In an e a r l i e r s e c tio n of th e p rese n t paper, an attem pt was made to c l a r i f y the term " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " I t was found th a t d e f in itio n s ranged from im ita tio n of behavior (Bandura, 1962) to "some d iffu s e g e n e ra liz e d , dynamic attachm ent" (Parsons, 1955). O perational d e f in itio n s of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n range from "conscience development" (S e ars, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957) to response s i m i l a r i t y on the MM PI (Payne and Mussen, 1956). I t would appear, th en , t h a t in v e s tig a to r s could be w ell advised to make e x p l i c i t the t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions th a t underly t h e i r use of th is im portant psychological c o n s tr u c t. P sychoanalytic theory (F en ich el, 1945) assumes t h a t both boys and g i r l s id e n tif y f i r s t with the mother, while boys s h i f t to p a te rn a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith the r e s o lu tio n of th e o ed ip al c o n f lic t some time between th e ages of 3 and .5. This type of th in k in g re p re se n ts an extrem ely high o rd er of a b s tr a c tio n . The concern here i s with an i n t r a psychic c o n f l i c t , th e r e s o lu tio n of which i s r e la te d to an in d i v i d u a l 's s e l f concept, but not n e c e s s a r ily h is behavior. Those experim ental stu d ie s which have been designed in t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l context (S e a rs, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957j S e a rs, W hiting, Nowlis, and S e a rs, 1953) have defined i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o p e ra tio n a lly in such terms as 193 conscience development, or d o ll play in te r a c tio n s assumed to re p re se n t c h ild -p a re n t r e la tio n s h i p s . These s tu d ie s have p resen ted evidence t o suggest t h a t p re-sch o o l g i r l s are highly i d e n t i f i e d with the mother, and t h a t boys are s t i l l s h i f t i n g t h e i r i d e n t i t i e s a t the age of 5. A somewhat lower order of a b s tra c tio n is rep resen ted by Lazowick's (195 5) th e o ry . He defined i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in terms of th e s i m i l a r i t y of meaning rep rese n ted by the terms boy, g i r l , mother, and f a th e r . This c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n is based le s s on s p e c if ic p a tte rn s of p a r e n t-c h ild in te r a c ti o n than on th e m ediation hypothesis (Osgood, S u c i, and Tannenbaum, 1957) which concerns i t s e l f with "meanings" t h a t may in te rv e n e between stim ulus and response to shape a t t i t u d e s and behavior. F itz g e ra ld and Roberts (196 4) employed the Semantic D if f e r e n tia l to measure the s i m i l a r i t y in meanings between c h ild re n and p a re n ts. Again, th e conclusion was drawn th a t 5-y e a r-o ld g i r l s were firm ly i d e n t i f i e d with t h e i r m others, while boys were confused in t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Bandura (1962) defines i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in more concrete terms as im ita tio n of an observed or symbolized p a re n ta l model. T estin g se v e ra l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n th e o rie s with liv e p a re n ta l models behaving in various ways, and observing the c h i ld r e n 's im ita tiv e responses (Bandura, Ross, and Ross, 19 63) concluded t h a t ch ild re n im ita te the more rewarding p a re n t, who a ls o has th e power t o punish by withdrawing 19 4 th a t reward. A bstractions here involve the perception of the p are n t, and the reinforcem ent contingencies of th a t p a r e n t's behavior p a tte rn fo r the ch ild . The Parent Perception Test tr a n s la te d th is co n c ep tu a liz atio n of i d e n tif ic a tio n in to even more concrete term s, by asking the children to d esig n ate, in a two-choice d iscrim in a tio n problem, the manner in which they perceive c e rta in s p e c if ic actio n s and a ttitu d e s of p a re n ta l models. The r e s u lts of th is study seem to be more in lin e with stu d ie s designed to in v e s tig a te a d if fe re n t c o n stru c t—th a t of sex ro le preference. Sex-role concepts deal with the preference f o r , or a c q u isitio n of p a r tic u la r behavior which is s o c ia lly defined as appropriate to a p a r tic u la r gender. Sex-role behavior is adopted in order to gain c u ltu ra l approval. The p a r e n t's approval is gained as he is a re p re s e n ta tiv e o f the c u ltu re . The " id e n tif ic a tio n " is with broad s o c ia l v alu es, not with q u a l itie s of a p a r t i c u l a r in d iv id u a l. Studies of se x -ro le behavior fin d r e s u lts exactly the obverse of those found in stu d ie s of id e n t i f i c a t i o n . That i s , boys are firm ly e s ta b lish e d in t h e i r se x -ro le p a tte rn s while g i r l s are v a ria b le . The above d iscu ssio n leads to the suggestion th a t the essence of the co n stru c t " Id e n tific a tio n " may be found in i t s complex a b s tra c t q u a lity . As s ta te d e a r l i e r in th is study, id e n t i f i c a t i o n re p re se n ts: 195 a b ro ad er, more g e n e ra liz e d , complex le v e l of behavior in which meaning, as w ell as sex , r o l e , s o c ia l e x p e c ta tio n s , and dynamic in tra p s y c h ic forces are re le v a n t f a c t o r s , (p. 21) An o p e ra tio n a l d e f in itio n of t h i s c o n s tru c t which i s behavior o rie n te d , and which re q u ire s the c h ild t o choose between a m aternal and p a te rn a l model probably tap s inform ation which i s more re le v a n t to the c o n s tru c ts a s s o c ia te d with s e x -ro le p re fere n c e s. P arent Perception Throughout the p rese n t stu d y , the d ata has tended to in d ic a te th a t boys and g i r l s d i f f e r in t h e i r re p o rts of p a re n ta l behavior. I t seems lik e ly th a t boys are more prone t o d i s t o r t th e p a re n t-c h iId r e la tio n s h ip more than a re g i r l s . Thus, though a l l the d ata in th e p rese n t study suggested th a t th e re was no measurable s i m i l a r i t y between the defense behavior of c h ild re n and t h e i r p a r e n t s , a n a ly sis of th e responses t o the C h ild re n ’s S itu a tio n Test in d ic a te d th a t boys perceived such a s i m i l a r i t y , while g i r l s did n o t. The c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h i s p o ssib le se x -d iffe re n c e might provide some in s ig h t in to the se x -d iffe re n c e s observed in so many stu d ie s in which i t i s found t h a t boys and g i r l s respond d if f e r e n tly to s im ila r p a re n ta l behavior. P r a c tic a l A pplications f o r Experim ental Findings An ev alu atio n of th e r e s u lt s of the p re se n t study 196 suggest th a t much caution should be ex ercised in g e n e ra liz in g from the simple le arn in g experiment to a complex family s i t u a t i o n . Bandura (1962) has e f f e c t iv e ly dem onstrated c o n tig u ity le arn in g of a model’s behavior in a la b o ra to ry s e t t i n g . Such le a rn in g was a ls o demonstrated in the experim ental s e c tio n of th e present study (Hypothesis I I I ) . However, data obtained from these same su b je c ts re le v a n t to t h e i r le a rn in g such behavior in a family s e t t i n g which p rese n ts d i f f i c u l t d isc rim in a tio n problems and unknown reinforcem ent schedules suggests th a t such g e n e ra liz a tio n i s a questio n ab le procedure. Defining v a ria b le s in terms of ad u lt conceptions of what c o n s titu te s reward and punishment may not coincide w ith th e c h ild r e n ’s experiencing of such v a r ia b le s . In a d d itio n , to d escrib e in te rp e rs o n a l r e la tio n s h ip s w ithout understanding th e r o le - r e la t io n s h ip s and s o c ia l percep tio n v a ria b le s involved leaves many i n f l u e n t i a l v a ria b le s u n c o n tro lled , Berkowitz (19 62) notes th a t i t i s im portant to study man as a th in k in g animal whose perception and understanding of h is environment could a f f e c t h is re a c tio n s to i t . Taking the in te rv e n in g cognitions in to account, he s t a t e s , s i g n i f i c a n t l y improves p re d ic tio n s , p rim arily when the stim ulus s i t u a t i o n is so complex and/or ambiguous t h a t a g reat v a rie ty of in te r p r e t a ti o n s are p o ssib le~ -as in most s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n s . CHAPTER VIII SU M M A RY The present study was concerned with the ex p lo ra tio n of re la tio n s h ip s between parent and c h ild defense p references. I t s main th e o r e tic a l o r ie n ta tio n was t h a t of s o c ia l learn in g theory as opposed to psychoanalytic th e o ry . P red ictio n s were based on Swanson’s speculations regarding defense choice, and on the Power Theory of I d e n tif ic a ti o n — th a t the c o n tr o lle r of n u rtu ra n t resources w ill be the primary object of im ita tio n . The four defense modes stu d ied were s e le c te d on the basis of Swanson's schema: E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial represented Defense Family I ; Turning Against the S e lf and Reversal of A ffect represented Defense Family I I . Three t e s t s were designed to measure the re la tio n s h ip s among the defense modes. Children rep o rted t h e i r own and t h e i r perception of t h e i r p a r e n ts 1 defense behavior on the C hildren’s S itu a tio n T est. Parents responded to a version of th is t e s t - - t h e P a re n ts ’ S itu a tio n T est—in terms of what they might say t o themselves and to the c h ild in f r u s t r a t ing c h ild -re a rin g s it u a ti o n s . Parents a lso reported more 197 198 g e n e ra liz e d defense a t t i t u d e s on the Parent Q uestionnaire. Again, items were phrased in terms of " a d u lt” and "ch ild " centered problems. P a r e n t- id e n t if i c a tio n was defined in r e l a t i v e terms as the frequency with which one p aren t was denoted as more lik e ly than the o th e r t o e x h ib it n u r t u r a n t , p u nishing, or powerful behavior. This t e s t was c a lle d th e Parent P erception T est. These four t e s t s were found t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l i a b l e f o r rese arch purposes. A Defense Learning T est was designed to in d ic a te the frequency with which c h ild re n im ita te the new defense behavior assigned p a re n ta l models. The s u b je c ts were 40 c h ild re n and t h e i r parents a tte n d in g a Jewish community c e n te r cooperative nursery school. Fam ilies were of middle and upper-middle so c io economic s ta tu s and had m aintained i n t a c t homes during the c h i l d 's lif e t im e . The 20 boys and 20 g i r l s ranged in age from 3 y e a r s , 3 months to 5 y e a r s , 1 month. Mean age of both sexes was 4 y e a rs , 3 months. The h ypothesis th a t defense preferen ces are e s ta b lis h e d through an orderly process of s o c ia l le a rn in g was not supported. No r e la tio n s h ip was found between c h ild and p aren t defense p re fe re n c e s. The hypothesis th a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a re le v a n t f a c to r in th e in d iv i d u a l's choice of primary defense mode was not supported by c h ild re n 's and p a r e n ts ' re p o rts of c u rre n t defense behavior. Parent Perception Test r e s u lt s 199 f a i l e d t o support the prelim inary p re d ic tio n s th a t (1) both boys and g i r l s would id e n tif y more w ith the mother than the f a t h e r , and t h a t (2) g i r l s would so id e n tif y more than would boys. On th e c o n tra ry , i t was found t h a t g i r l s were as lik e ly to perceive th e m aternal as th e p a te rn a l fig u re as hig h ly n u r tu r a n t, p unishing, and pow erful. Boys tended to p erceive the f a th e r as the more n u r tu r a n t, p u n ish in g , and powerful p aren t. These r e s u l t s are more c o n s is te n t w ith those of previous research designed to assess s e x -ro le p refe ren c e , r a t h e r th an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . F a ilu re t o fin d th e expected i d e n t i f i c a t i o n r e la tio n s h ip s did not make any le ss reasonable the p o s s i b i l i t y th a t c h ild r e n 's defense p referen ces might be more lik e th a t of the p arent seen as the more powerful c o n t r o ll e r of the n u rtu ra n t re so u rc e s. D istances were compared among defense p r o f il e s obtained from the C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n T est. Again, i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence was found to support th e hypothesis th a t defense p referen ces of c h ild re n matched those of e i t h e r p aren t. E xploratory an a ly sis of th e se s u b je c ts ' re p o rts of c u rre n t defense behavior led to the follow ing conclusions: 1. These parents were n e ith e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t from each o th e r nor s i g n i f i c a n t l y lik e each o th e r in t h e i r defense behavior. 2. P a re n ta l defense behavior v arie d w ith the in te rp e rs o n a l s i t u a t i o n . Responses t o the general a t t i t u d e 200 t e s t d if fe re d from those of the s i t u a ti o n s t e s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y among p aren ts of boys. 3. Comparing the re la tio n s h ip s among mean sc o re s, i t was found th a t p aren ts of boys d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from p aren ts of g i r l s in t h e i r defense p re fe re n c e s. Parents of boys are more lik e ly to employ Denial than are p aren ts of g i r l s . Comparing mean s c o re s , i t was found th a t boys and g i r l s do not d i f f e r s i g n i f ic a n t ly from each o th e r in t h e i r defense p refe re n ce s. 5. Comparing C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test data rep o rted by experim ental c h ild su b je c ts w ith th a t re p o rted by c o n tro l su b je c ts chosen at random from the lik e -se x e d experim ental group, sex d iffe re n c e s were found in the percep tio n of defense behavior. Boys, but not g i r l s , saw t h e i r defense behavior more lik e th a t of t h e i r own parents than lik e th a t of randomly s e le c te d p a re n ts. D iscussion of th e above fin d in g s cen tered on the d i f f i c u l t y of le a rn in g p a re n ta l behavior where cues are not c le a r ly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , and where behavior v a rie s w ith the s i t u a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n t i a l between boys and g i r l s in percep tio n of parent behavior was discussed in terms of th e boys' p a re n ts ' g r e a te r use of d e n ia l. In a d d itio n , these r e s u l t s are consonant w ith research fin d in g s t h a t g ir ls tend to le a rn the s p e c if ic behavior of p a re n t models, while boys tend to le a rn g en e ra liz ed s e x -ro le behavior. 201 The p re d ic tio n t h a t ch ild re n would le a rn the newly assigned defense behavior of the primary id e n tif ic a n d was not c le a r ly supported by the r e s u l t s of th e Defense Learning T est. G irls did not im ita te new m aternal more than new p a te rn a l defense behavior; boys did tend to im ita te new p a te rn a l more than new m aternal defense behavior. However, among these g i r l s im ita tio n of a p a re n ta l model was a s so c ia te d with p ercep tio n of t h a t model as the more n u rtu ra n t p a re n t, and w ith " id e n tif ic a tio n " w ith th a t model. No r e la tio n s h i p was found among boys between im ita tio n of the p a re n ta l model's new defense and any of the Parent P erception Test v a r ia b le s . The fin d in g s suggest t h a t s e x -ro le fa c to rs may be re le v a n t fa c to rs in the measuring of defense-preference le a rn in g . A dditional a n a ly sis of the data focused on Swanson's theory th a t defenses may be ca teg o riz ed in to dynamically r e la te d f a m i l i e s , with E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame and Denial in one fam ily, and Turning Against the S e lf and R eversal of A ffe c t in a d if f e r e n t fam ily. The defense family hypothesis was not supported. The notio n th a t d e n ia l might be thought of as a p rim itiv e defense was c o n tra -in d ic a te d by th e fin d in g th a t t h i s behavior was rep o rted l e a s t by c h ild re n and most by p a re n ts of boys. F a ilu re to fin d se x -d iffe re n c e s in the c h ild r e n 's use of Turning Against th e S e lf was seen as an in d ic a tio n th a t s e x -d iffe re n c e s found in most s tu d ie s of 202 g u i l t may be a function of s o c ia l fo rc e s , r a th e r than sex- d iffe re n c e s in i d e n t i f i c a t i o n or d i f f e r e n t i a l r a te s of conscience development. Some t h e o r e t i c a l im p lica tio n s concerning defense i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were d iscu ssed . The r e s u lt s of th is study suggest caution should be ex ercized in g e n e ra liz in g fin d in g s derived from c o n tro lle d s o c ia l le arn in g experiments to le a rn in g under complex conditions in the home. The need fo r co n sid e ratio n of d i f f e r e n t i a l p are n t- perception fa c to rs in fu tu re p a r e n t-c h ild research was suggested. APPENDIX A PARENT PERCEPTION TEST Parent P ercep tio n Test Family P ic tu re s APPENDIX A 204 PARENT PERCEPTION TEST I n s tr u c tio n s : "This is a p ic tu re of th e family we are going to w rite s t o r i e s about. This is th e f a t h e r , t h i s i s the mother, and t h i s is th e l i t t l e b o y /g ir l. Next time we are going t o w rite the s t o r i e s about t h i s fam ily , but f i r s t we a re going to fin d out what th e family i s l i k e —how they f e e l about each o th e r and what they th in k ." power 1 . (po) Who i s the s tr o n g e s t one? nurturance 2 . (n) Who gives the c h ild the most presents? punishment 3. (pu) Who spanks the most? 4. (po) Who i s the boss a t home? 5. (n) Who does the c h ild lik e b est? 6 . (pu) Who gets mad a t the ch ild ? 7. (po) Who i s the sm artest? 8. (pu) I f th e c h ild did something bad, and both mother and f a th e r were home, who would punish him? Her? 9. (n) Who i s n ic e r t o th e g irl/b o y ? 10 . (pu) Who i s the c h ild more scared of? 1 1 . (po) Who t e l l s the c h ild what t o do a l l the time? 1 2 . (n) Who does the c h ild lik e to play b a l l with? 13. (po) The ju s t does c h ild wants to get a toy th a t a l i t t l e to o high to reach, th e c h ild ask fo r help? is u Who 14. (pu) The w ill c h ild did something naughty. . punish th e ch ild ? Who 15. (n) Who lik e s to play w ith the child? 16. (pu) Who y e l l s a t th e c h ild the most? 17. 18. 19 . 20 . 2 1 . 205 (n) Who lik e s to please the c h ild the most? (po) I f the c h ild were frig h te n e d by a dog, and both parents were t h e r e , who wouid the c h ild run to? (n) Whose hand does the c h ild lik e to hold the best? (pu) Who does the c h ild get mad a t most? (po) When mother, f a t h e r , and c h ild are cro ssin g a busy s t r e e t , which one does the c h ild hold on to the t i g h t e s t ? 17. 18. 19. 2 0 . 2 1 . 205 (n) Who lik e s to please th e c h ild the most? (po) I f the c h ild were frig h te n e d by a dog, and both parents were th e r e , who would the c h ild run to? (n) Whose hand does the c h ild lik e to hold th e best? (pu) Who does the c h ild get mad a t most? (po) When mother, f a th e r , and c h ild are c ro ssin g a busy s t r e e t , which one does the c h ild hold on to th e tig h t e s t ? 207 APPENDIX B CHILDRENS' SITUATION TEST Test S to ries Test P ictu res Visual R epresentation of Defenses 209 APPENDIX B In s tr u c tio n s : "You remember th e l a s t time we were to g e th e r, you sa id you would help me w rite some s t o r i e s fo r c h ild re n . W e 'met' the family the s t o r i e s would be about. This tim e, we are going to read some s t o r i e s about the fam ily , but they are not fin is h e d y e t. I would lik e you to help me decide how you th in k the c h ild and the mother and the f a t h e r w i l l f e e l about the th in g s th a t happen, and what they might say. OK? Now, here is a sto ry about a g irl/b o y who f a l l s o f f the b ic y c le ." 1. This c h ild is r id in g the b icy cle down the s t r e e t , having a wonderful tim e. Suddenly th e b icy cle f a l l s over. The f i r s t th in g the c h ild fe e ls lik e saying is ? E. There must have been something wrong with the b ic y c le , or D. I t was n o th in g --I d o n 't f e e l bad. Might the c h ild say: S. I should be more c a r e f u l , or R. I t ' s b e t t e r t o smile than to cry about i t . The f i r s t th in g the f a th e r says i s : S. You must be more c a r e f u l , or E. There must have been something wrong with the b i c y c l e . Might th e f a th e r say: R. Sm ile, d o n 't c ry , or D. Never m in d --it was nothing. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : E. There must have been something wrong with the b ic y c le , or R. Sm ile, d o n 't cry. Might th e mother say: D. Never m in d --it was n o th in g , or S. You must be more c a re fu l. □ □ L J 211 2. This ch ild has spent a l l afternoon p a in tin g a b e a u tif u l p ic tu r e , which the fam ily agrees is good enough to be hung in th e dining area . The c h ild lays i t on a c h a ir to dry and s t a r t s to play with something e l s e . A f rie n d of the c h ild comes over and s i t s on the c h a ir with the p ic tu re on i t . The p ic tu re is mussed and the whole family f e e ls badly about i t . The f i r s t th in g the c h ild fe e ls lik e saying i s : E. M y frie n d s a t th e re on purpose, or D. T h a t's OK; now I can make a b e t t e r one. Might th e c h ild say: D. I d o n 't see anything wrong w ith i t , or S. I should have put i t in a s a f e r place. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : D. I d o n 't see anything wrong w ith i t , or R. T h a t's OK; now you can make a b e t t e r one. Might the mother say: E. C ouldn't your frie n d see i t on the chair? or S. You should have put i t in a s a f e r p la c e . The f i r s t th in g th e f a th e r says i s ; E. C ouldn't your frie n d see i t on the chair? or D. I d o n 't see anything wrong with i t . Might th e f a th e r say: S. You should have put i t in a s a f e r p la c e , or R. T h a t's OK; now you can make a b e t t e r one. 212 213 3. One n ig h t the family had grown-up company f o r d in n e r. These o th er people always ta lk e d about how good t h e i r ch ild was. This c h i l d 's (p o in t to c h ild ) mother and f a th e r want him (her) t o be very good, now, to show the company how good he (she) can be. The c h ild s t a r t s fu s s in g , and suddenly th e milk s p i l l s . The f i r s t th in g th e c h ild f e e ls lik e saying i s : E. Those g lasses t i p over e a s i l y , or S. I f e e l bad— I s p i l l e d i t . Might the c h ild say: D. No one n o tic e d , or R. I'm glad only milk s p i l l e d . The f i r s t th in g f a t h e r says i s : E. Those g lasses t i p over e a s i l y , or R. I'm glad only milk s p i l l e d . Might f a th e r say: D, No one n o tic e d , or S. Please stop fu s s in g . The f i r s t th in g mother says i s : E. Those g lasses t i p over e a s i l y , or D. No one n o tic ed . Might mother say: S. Please stop fu s s in g , or R. I'm glad only milk s p i l l e d . 214 215 4. For a long tim e, the c h ild has wanted t o have a dog. F in a lly , the parents decide they w ill get one, and they a l l go to th e pound. The dog the ch ild lik e s b e s t i s a very big one who romps around a l o t . M ommy and Daddy say "No, you cannot have i t . " Then the ch ild looks very sad and begs the p aren ts t o get i t . A fter a l l , they promised a dog, and d id n 't say what kind. The f i r s t th in g th e c h ild f e e ls lik e saying i s : D. One dog is as good as an o th er, or R. I'm glad I can have any dog. Might the c h ild say: E. The dog w ouldn't lik e to be cooped up, or S. They know what is b e s t. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : R. Be happy you can have any dog, or S. W e know b e t t e r than you what is b e s t. Might the mother say: E. The dog w on't lik e to be cooped up, or D. One dog i s as good as another. The f i r s t th in g the f a th e r says i s : D. One dog i s as good as an o th er, or S. W e know b e t t e r than you what is b e s t. Might the f a th e r say: E. The dog won't lik e to be cooped up, or R. Be happy you can have any dog. 216 217 5. One n ig h t the p aren ts had some very im portant company fo r d in n e r. They f e l t i t would be b e t t e r i f the c h ild went to bed a l i t t l e e a rly . However, th e c h ild did no t want to go to bed e a r ly , and wanted to be w ith the grown-ups. The f i r s t th in g the c h ild f e e ls lik e saying i s : D. I'm not r e a l ly in te r e s te d i n ' grown-up t a l k , or S. I must have been bad today. Might th e c h ild say: E. The company w ill want i t q u i e t , or R. I ' l l be h ap p ie r in bed with my to y s. The f i r s t th in g th e f a th e r says i s : D. You w ouldn't be i n t e r e s t e d in our grown-up t a l k , or R. You w i l l be h a p p ier in bed with your to y s. Might th e f a th e r say: E. The company w ill want i t q u i e t , or S. You are too young t o stay up. 0- The f i r s t th in g mother says i s : D. You w ouldn't be in te r e s te d in our grown-up t a l k , or E. The company w ill want i t q u ie t. Might th e mother say: D. You w i l l be h a p p ier in bed with your to y s , or S. You are too young t o sta y up. 218 219 6 . The c h i l d 's mother was d riv in g in the new ca r f o r the f i r s t tim e, and the c h ild is w aiting f o r h er to come home. Then, suddenly the new car .comes around the corner. I t is to o close to another c a r, and they h i t each o th e r. You run out and see th a t no one is h u rt. The f i r s t th in g the c h ild says i s : R. Be happy, i t could be worse, or S. I should have stopped h e r. Might the c h ild say: E. The o th e r car drove too c lo s e , or D. Don't worry, i t d o e s n 't m atter. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : R. Be happy, i t could be worse, or E. The o th e r car drove to o c lo se . Might the mother say: S. I was not used to the new c a r y e t , or D. Don't worry, i t doesn’t m atter. The f i r s t th in g the f a th e r says i s : E. The o th er car drove too c lo s e , or S. I should have stopped h er. Might the f a th e r have sa id : D. Don't worry, i t d o e s n 't m a tte r, or R. Be happy, i t could be worse. c> 221 7. F ather has spent a l l day fix in g a broken c h a ir. He is very proud of the job he has done. He wants to show the family how good i t i s , so he s i t s down in th e c h a ir — then— i t f a l l s . The f i r s t th in g the c h ild says i s : D. Daddy must have fix ed i t , or E, That c h a ir is bad. Might the c h ild say: R, T h a t's a laugh, or S. I should have stopped him. The f i r s t th in g th e f a th e r says i s : R. This is funny, or E. That c h a ir is bad. Might the f a th e r say: S. I never could mend th in g s w e ll, or D. I know I fix ed i t . The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : S. I should have stopped him, or E. That c h a ir i s bad. Might the mother say: R. This i s funny, or D. Daddy must have fixed i t . 222 223 8 . I t is the c h i l d 's birthday and the parents have bought a b e a u tifu l cake. They have been very c a re fu l not to show i t to the c h ild , because they wanted i t to be a big s u rp ris e a t the p arty . The c h ild is very anxious to see the cake. Now the time has come. M ommy is bringing i t to the ta b le . Suddenly--the cake s t a r t s to f a l l o ff the p l a t e . The f i r s t th in g the c h ild thinks i s : R, Might as w ell smile about i t , or E. Maybe mother was mad a t me. Might the ch ild say: S. I should have caught i t , or D. I don’t care. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : E. Something on the flo o r made me s l i p , or D. I t is s t i l l a good cake. Might the mother s a y : . S. I should have been more c a re fu l, or R. Might as w ell smile about i t . The f i r s t th in g th e f a th e r says i s : D. I t is s t i l l a good cake, or E. Something on the flo o r made h er s l i p . Might the fa th e r say: R. Might as w ell smile about i t , or S. I should have caught i t . \ 225 9. The c h i l d 's f a th e r was p a in tin g th e liv in g room w a lls. He walks across th e l iv i n g room rug, ca rry in g a bucket of p a in t. He is s u rp ris e d to fin d p a in t s p i l l e d on the rug. The f i r s t th in g th e c h ild says i s : S. I should have stopped him, or E. The p a in t s p i l l e d i t s e l f . Might th e c h ild say: R. I t is good i t ' s the same c o lo r as th e rug. D. I t w on't show. The f i r s t th in g th e f a th e r says i s : R. I t is good i t ' s th e same c o lo r as th e rug, or S. I should have been more c a re fu l. Might the f a th e r say: E. The p a in t s p i l l e d i t s e l f , or D. I t w on't show. The f i r s t th in g the mother says i s : D. I t won't show, or S. I should have stopped him. Might the mother say: E. The p a in t s p i l l e d i t s e l f , or R. I t is good i t ' s the same c o lo r as the rug. 226 E xtern a! iz&t ton of B lam e Denial T urning A gainst •the oe,l? Reversal of Afreet 'I' ■ < § > • < i < 6 * 0 * L % L C h i l d r e n ’s Situation Test \j\$.tx.a\ Representation erf D efenses 227 APPENDIX C DEFENSE LEARNING TEST 229 APPENDIX C DEFENSE LEARNING TEST C h ild re n ’s S itu a tio n Test S to rie s repeated 1. Child f a l l s from h is b ic y c le . 2. Friend s i t s on c h i l d 's p a in tin g . 3. Child s p i l l s milk during "company d in n e r." Defense Learning Test A--Family drops and breaks the bowl they spent a g reat amount of time on. C h ild re n ’s S itu a tio n T est S to rie s repeated 4. Parents fo rb id c h i l d 's s e le c tio n of a promised dog. 5. Child wants to sta y up with p a re n ts ' im portant company. 6 . Child sees mother get in ac cid e n t with th e new car. Defense Learning Test B— The te le v i s io n breaks and the fam ily cannot watch s p e c ia l program. C h ild re n 's S itu a tio n Test S to rie s repeated 7. F ather breaks the c h a ir he has spent a l l day fix in g . 8 . Mother drops c h i l d ’s birth d ay cake. 9. F a th e r, p a in tin g th e liv in g room, fin d s p a in t on the rug. Defense Learning T est C--The fa m ily 's garden w ilts . Never Mind Dadd Forqet it i M o m m u : J ..earnino Test 230 231 233 APPENDIX D PARENTS' DEFENSE TESTS In tro d u c to ry L e tte r Parent Q uestionnaire P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est APPENDIX D PARENTS' DEFENSE TESTS In tro d u c to ry L e tte r Parent Q uestionnaire P a re n ts' S itu a tio n T est 235 Dear P arents of the Westside Jewish Community Center Nursery School, This is a req u est fo r your cooperation in a research p ro je c t designed t o show c e rta in re la tio n s h ip s between p a r e n ts ' a t titu d e s and beh av io r, and c h ild r e n ’s a t t i t u d e s and beh av io r. Your school was s e le c te d f o r th i s study because i t c o n s is ts of a la rg e number of fam ilies in te r e s te d in the s o c ia l and psychological fa c to rs which in flu en ce t h e i r c h ild r e n 's development. The C e n ter's Nursery School Committee, also in t e r e s t e d in gaining more knowledge, has given t h e i r support to th is v en tu re. I f you agree t o p a r tic ip a t e in the stu d y , th re e members of your fam ily must be in v o lv e d - - ! a th e r , mother, and th e c h ild between 3 and 5 years of age who i s atten d in g nursery school. F ather and mother w i l l each f i l l out the enclosed q u e s tio n n a ire s and re tu rn them in the enclosed envelope as soon as p o s s ib le . They should be f i l l e d out quickly with th e f i r s t answer th a t comes to your mind. I t w ill ta k e about 45 m inutes. THERE ARE NO RIGHT AND W RO N G ANSW ERS to th e se q u e s tio n s. They only re p re se n t d i f f e r e n t , but acce p tab le ways of dealin g with s it u a ti o n s and fe e lin g s . Most people tend to use them a l l at various tim es. W e are i n te r e s te d only in knowing in which way the members of your family most often respond. Upon r e tu r n of the q u e s tio n n a ire , your c h ild , while at sc h o o l, w i l l be asked to respond t o a s im p lifie d p ic tu re version of th e " S itu a tio n s Test" s im ila r t o the one to which you w i l l have already responded. I t is e s s e n t i a l th a t th e parents do not communicate t h e i r answers or a t titu d e s t o the c h i ld , as th i s would bias the r e s u l t s . A summary of th e conclusions reached through the study w ill be se n t t o p a r tic ip a t in g fa m ilie s . W e are g r a te fu l fo r your coo p eratio n . I f you have any questions reg ard in g the stu d y , th e q u e s tio n n a ire , or the work with the c h ild re n , please c a l l Mrs, M arjorie Kawin— CR 4-3708. Thank you. S in c e re ly , M arjorie Kawin U n iv ersity of Southern C a lifo rn ia M K: dm I . FAMILY STATISTICAL DATA Parent com pleting th is form: M OTHER__________ FATHER________ C h ild ’s name: (th e 3. to 5 ye a r old — f i r s t -------------- l a s t ---------a tte n d in g nursery school) Age :________,_________ years months M OTHERS ONLY: Who spends the most time with t h i s ch ild ? Mother Maid__ F ather Other__ I b eliev e th is c h ild ac ts most li k e : Mother F ather____ Has t h i s c h ild ev er known any o th e r parent or p aren t- s u b s t i t u t e aside from you and your p rese n t husband (as might r e s u l t from d ea th , d iv o rce , or long i l l n e s s of a p aren t)? Yes No____ M other's ed u catio n : years high school _____ years co lleg e and/or p ro fe s s io n a l school _____ Type of degree What type of work have you done as an a d u lt?___________ Are you p re se n tly employed?_____ I f so , where?__________ What do you do th e re ? ______________________________________ FATHERS ONLY: I b e lie v e t h i s c h ild acts most l i k e : Mother F ather____ F a th e r's ed u catio n : years high school _____ years co lleg e and/or p ro fe s s io n a l school Type of degree Other advanced schooling (tra d e sc h o o l, business sc h o o l, e t c . ) ________________________________________________ Where do you work now?_____________________________________ 237 What do you do th e re ? ____________________________________ Please send the summary of the r e s u lt s of th is study to: Name:______________________________________________________ A ddress: I I . PARENTS' QUESTIONNAIRE The follow ing statem ents re p re se n t s e v e ra l d i f f e r e n t ways of f e e lin g and th in k in g about o n e s e lf, and ways of handling a v a rie ty of s i t u a t i o n s . The f i r s t p a rt deals with your own a t t i t u d e s in g en e ral; th e second p a rt deals with your a t t i t u d e s in r e la tio n to c h ild re n . On the l e f t margin, you w i l l see the l e t t e r s Y, y , n , N. These stand f o r YES, y es, no, NO. P lease respond as fo llo w s : C ircle Y: I f you STRONGLY AGREE w ith th e sta tem en t. C irc le y I I f you MILDLY AGREE with the sta tem en t. C ircle n : I f you MILDLY DISAGREE w ith the statem en t. C ircle N: I f you STRONGLY DISAGREE w ith th e statem en t. Work quickly and answer a l l item s. I f you ca n ft decide about a sta te m e n t, make the b e s t guess you can. I f you would lik e to respond more f u l l y , be su re to c i r c l e the l e t t e r you f e e l comes c lo s e s t to your a t t i t u d e , and then w rite in how you f e e l . Please do not co n su lt with your spouse before or during the completion of these forms. W e are i n t e r e s t e d in the d iffe re n c e s between you, as w ell as the s i m i l a r i t i e s . Remember—th e re are NO RIGHT AND W RON G ANSWERS— only d i f f e r e n t a t titu d e s are rep resen ted . R 1. Y y n N I can always fin d th in g s t o be ch e e rfu l about, even in a bad s i t u a t i o n . D 2. Y y n N I am not very much bothered by noise and confusion, because I am able to shut them out of my awareness. 238 S 3. Y y n N I could do alm ost anything I wanted to do, i f I would j u s t work hard enough. E 4. Y y n N Somehow, I o ften fin d myself in d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s through no f a u l t of my own. D 5. Y y n N There are some th in g s t h a t go on in th e world today th a t i t i s b est to avoid h e a rin g to o much about. R 6. Y y n N When someone says something to h u rt u s, we should tr y to f e e l sympathy f o r them. S 7. Y y n N When I have a problem, I f i r s t tr y to d isco v er what I did wrong. E 8. Y y n N I t seems th a t the more I do fo r o th er people, th e le ss they ap p re c ia te i t . R 9. Y y n N P u ttin g on a happy face when we f e e l sad makes th in g s b e t t e r . D 10. Y y n N I t d o e s n 't r e a l ly do much good to t e l l people what you th in k of them, E 11. Y y n N Success in l i f e i s u su a lly a m atter of luck. S 12. Y y n N I fin d I o ften accept blame f o r th in g s when, on second th o u g h t, I r e a l i z e I have done nothing wrong, E 13. Y y n N I fre q u en tly fin d I cannot re ly on people to do th in g s properly fo r me. S 14. Y y n N I o ften f e e l uncom fortable about t e l l i n g people when I d isag ree with them. R 15. Y y n N I f e e l th a t a person who is c r i t i c a l of me i s u su ally r e a l ly tr y in g to be f r ie n d ly . D 16. Y y n N Some s o c ia l and p erso n a l problems are so g re at th a t i t is b e s t j u s t to f o rg e t about them. S 17. Y y n N When a person is d i s s a t i s f i e d , the b est th in g he can do i s tr y to see how he might be a t f a u l t . R 18. Y y n N In most c a se s , one should respond to anger w ith a p le a sa n t re p ly . 239 D 19. Y y n N The b e s t way t o deal with pain and discom fort is to fo rg e t about i t and go on with one’s usual ro u tin e . E 20. YynN I b e lie v e th a t many people around me would b e n e fit by having t h e i r f a i l i n g s pointed out t o them. D 21. YynN When th in g s go wrong, often my f i r s t wish i s to get away from i t a l l . S 22. YynN I f e e l inadequate and i n e f f i c i e n t more o ften than I f e e l adequate and e f f i c i e n t . E 23. YynN When someone gives me tr o u b le , I u su ally t e l l them about i t . R 24, YynN I enjoy being with people who are able to laugh o ff problems. E 25. YynN When I must h elp s e t t l e an argument between my c h ild and h is f r ie n d s , I u su ally f i r s t ask what the o th e r ch ild re n had t o do with i t . S 26. YynN I t e l l my c h ild not t o c r i t i c i z e o th e rs , because he does the same th in g s . R 27. YynN When my c h ild h u rts h im s e lf, I o ften tr y to help him laugh h is te a r s away. D 28. YynN When ch ild re n are frig h te n e d or w orried, i t is a good id e a to t e l l them to fo rg e t i t and th in k about something e ls e . R 29. YynN Children should be tau g h t t o be e s p e c ia lly nice to ch ild re n who have not y e t learned to be th o u g h tfu l of o th e rs . E 30, YynN Most of my c h i l d 's problems are caused by circum stances over which I have l i t t l e or no c o n tro l. S 31. YynN Making ch ild re n apologize fo r fig h tin g w ith frie n d s helps them to get along w ell with people. D 32, YynN M y c h ild is seldom aware of changes in my moods. 240 S 33. YynN I t seems to me t h a t my c h ild i s no t as th o u g h tfu l as he should be. R 34. YynN When my c h ild envies someone, I t e l l him not t o f e e l b ad ly , but t o be glad fo r th e o th e r 's good fo rtu n e . D 35, YynN I o ften would lik e to pretend not to n o tic e when my c h ild breaks a r u le . E 36. YynN When my c h i l d 's frie n d s act b ad ly , I o ften ex p lain to him th a t i t is only because h is frie n d is " a t t h a t age." R 37. YynN I tr y to teach my c h ild to overcome f e a r by fin d in g p le a su re in th e th in g of which he i s a f r a id . S 38. YynN When my c h ild has tro u b le p lay in g with f r ie n d s , th e b e st th in g t o do i s to help him understand what he did wrong. E 39. YynN The sooner ch ild re n le a rn t h a t l i f e w i l l not always be kind to them, the b e t t e r o ff they w ill be. D 40. YynN Children are b e t t e r o ff when they are not aware of t h e i r p a re n ts ' problems. E 41. YynN Other c h ild re n o ften seem to pick on my c h ild . R 42. YynN I t r y to teach my c h ild to fin d nice th in g s t o say to o t h e r s , even though he i s angry a t th e moment. D 43. YynN I t e l l my c h ild t h a t problems have a way of so lv in g themselves i f you j u s t fo rg e t about them. S 44. YynN Children should learn a t an e a rly age how t h e i r behavior can h u rt o th e r people. D 45. YynN C h ild re n 's fe a rs often get worse when p aren ts pay a lo t of a tte n tio n to them. E 46. YynN M y c h ild picks up most of h is bad h a b its from h is f r i e n d s . 241 R 47. YynN When my c h ild c r i t i c i z e s someone, I t e l l him t o sto p and look f o r th e good q u a l i t i e s in s te a d . S 48. YynN I t i s im portant f o r a c h ild to le a rn to c o rre c t h is f a u lts at an e a rly age. The S itu a tio n s Test Presented below are 12 d is tu rb in g s it u a ti o n s which might occur in any fam ily. You w i l l a ls o fin d t h a t , f o r each s i t u a t i o n , th e re are two s e ts of fo u r responses th a t are suggested. The s e t marked "A" c o n s is ts of four responses th a t you might th in k p r iv a te ly t o y o u r s e lf . The s e t marked "B" c o n s is ts of four responses you might say to your c h ild or fam ily. Please place the numbers 1, 2, and 3 next t o th e ap p ro p riate responses in each s e t , "A" and "B" to in d ic a te : (1) the response s im ila r t o one you would be HOST LIKELY t o make. (2) the response s im ila r to one you would be LESS LIKELY to make. (3) the response s im ila r to one you would be only RARELY LIKELY t o make. ( ) leave blank th e f o u rth .ite m , in d ic a tin g t h a t you would probably no t be lik e ly t o make a response s im ila r to t h i s at a l l . I f you have a customary response t o th e se s i t u a ti o n s th a t you f e e l you must w rite in as a f i r s t choice, piease r a te th e given statem ents f o r second, t h i r d , fo u rth , and the blank f i f t h choice anyway. I f you s t i l l have d i f f i c u l t y , imagine t h a t th e event has j u s t occurred f o r the t h i r d time th a t day, and you are too f r u s t r a t e d to use your u su al approach. A sample s i t u a t i o n fo llo w s : You h ear a c h ild blowing h is w h istle in the next room. A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: ( ) What a n ice w h is tle . (3) That makes him happy. 242 (1) That w h istle is too loud. (2) I have a headache. B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: (1) Please go in to the next room. (2) Please play the w h istle ou tsid e. (3) Please d o n 't play the w h is tle . ( ) I t is nice th a t you are having fun. Work as quickly as you can. Remember, THERE ARE NO RIGHT AND W RO N G ANSWERS. Do not consult w ith your spouse u n t i l you are through, and— p lease—D O NOT COM M UNICATE YOUR FEELINGS OR RESPONSES TO YOUR CHILD! 1, You are very busy working a t home, th in k in g how much you are g e ttin g done, since your c h ild is out with the o th e r c h ild re n . Suddenly, you h ea r a p ie rc in g scream. You run out to fin d your c h ild has f a lle n while rid in g a b ic y c le . You see th a t the c h ild is n o t se rio u s ly h u r t. A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: D ( ) M y c h ild makes a big fuss over nothing! S ( ) This wouldn’t have happened i f I had been t h e r e , E ( ) Something always happens to keep me from g e ttin g my work done. R ( ) I wish my c h ild would learn to laugh a t l i t t l e problems. B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: E ( ) There must have been something wrong with the b ic y c le . R ( ) Smile, d o n 't cry anymore. D ( ) Never mind, i t was nothing. S ( ) You must be more c a re fu l next time. ■ 4? 243 2. Your c h ild has spent a l l afternoon p a in tin g a b e a u ti f u l p i c t u r e , which the family agrees i s good enough to be hung in the din in g a re a . The c h ild lays i t on a c h a ir to dry and s t a r t s to play w ith something e l s e . A frie n d of the c h ild comes over and s i t s on th e c h a ir w ith the p ic tu r e . The p ic tu re is mussed and the whole family fe e ls badly about i t . A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: S ( ) I should have to ld him t o put the p ic tu re in a s a f e r p lace, R ( ) In a way I'm glad; now he can p a in t a b e t t e r one. E ( ) I wonder i f th a t c h ild s a t th e re on purpose. D ( ) That smudging can be fix ed so i t w on't show. 5. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: R ( ) Cheer up, we w ill make another one. S ( ) You should take b e t t e r care of your th in g s . D ( ) I d o n 't see anything wrong with i t . E ( ) C ouldn't your frie n d see i t on the chair? 3. One n ig h t a fam ily came fo r d in n e r. This family was always bragging about how w ell behaved t h e i r c h ild was, and, indeed, he did have wonderful manners and was a d e l ig h tf u l c h ild to t a l k to . You begin to n o tic e th a t your c h ild i s whining and f id g e tin g a l i t t l e . Then you n o tic e th a t milk has been s p i l l e d on the ta b le . A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: D ( ) I t w on't be n o tic e d . R ( ) T h a t's good; now we can re la x . S ( ) I f e e l embarrassed th a t my c h ild s p i l l e d the milk. E C ) That o th e r c h ild i s j u s t to o good. 2 *+ 4 B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: S ( ) Please sto p fu ssin g . D ( ) Forget i t ; no one n o tic e d . E ( ) Those g la sse s t i p over e a s i l y . R ( ) Be glad only milk s p i l l e d . 4. For a long tim e, th e c h ild has wanted to have a dog. F in a lly , the p aren ts decide they w ill get one, and they go to the pound. The dog the c h ild lik e s b est i s a very big one who romps around a l o t . M ommy and Daddy say "No, you cannot have i t . " Then the c h ild looks very sad and begs the p aren ts to get i t . A fter a l l , they promised a dog, and d id n ’t say what kind. A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: D ( ) I wish I had never sa id we could get a dog. S ( ) I should not have l e t the c h ild choose. E ( ) J u s t my lu ck --h e lik e s the b ig g e st one. R ( ) I t i s nice th a t my c h ild i s so p e r s i s t e n t . B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: S ( ) W e know b e t t e r than you what is b e s t. R ( ) D on't be sad ; be happy you can have even a sm all dog. E ( ) Such a big dog w ouldn't lik e to be cooped up in th e c i t y . D ( ) One dog is as good as another. 5. One n ig h t th e parents were having some very im portant a d u lt dinner g u e s ts . They f e l t i t would be b e t t e r i f t h e i r c h i ld went t o bed a l i t t l e e a r l y , so th a t th in g s would s u r e ly go sm oothly a t d in n er. However, the c h ild did not want to go to bed e a r l y , and wanted t o be w ith the a d u l t s . 245 A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: E ( ) These people are too im p o rta n t, and ch ild re n a re u n p re d ic ta b le . S ( ) I w ill be embarrassed i f he d o e s n 't behave w ell. D ( ) I t d o e s n 't r e a lly m atter to me whether he s ta y s up or goes to bed. R ( ) I t w ill be fun to have the c h ild around. B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: D ( ) You r e a l ly w ouldn't be in te r e s te d in our grown-up ta l k . E C ) The company w i l l want i t to be q u ie t. S ( ) You are to o young to sta y up so l a t e . R ( ) You w ill be h ap p ier in bed with your to y s. 6 . You were d riv in g in the new car f o r the f i r s t tim e. You were very ex c ite d and proud. Then, coming around the corner near your home, you see t h a t your car and another are to o close and you. cannot avoid h i t t i n g him, though n e i th e r of you are d riv in g f a s t enough to be h u r t. Your c h ild sees th e a c cid e n t. A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: D ( ) I t ' s only sc ra tc h e d — i t ' s n othing. R C ) I'm glad i t was in su red . E C ) This would have to happen when I was d riv in g . S C ) I f e e l s tu p id . B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: E C ) The o th e r car drove to o clo se . R C ) Be happy t h a t no one was h u rt, s 9 0 I was not used to the new car y e t. D C ) Don't worry—i t d o e s n 't m atte r. 2 46 7. You have spent a l l day fix in g a broken c h a ir . You are proud of th e job you have done, and your fam ily th in k s you are wonderful. Then you s i t down in the c h a ir , and suddenly i t c o lla p s e s . A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: E C ) That no good chair! D ( ) I t c o u ld n 't happen! S C ) What did I do wrong? R C ) T h a t's a laugh! B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: S C ) I never could mend th in g s w e ll. R C ) I'm glad I'm good a t o th e r th in g s . D C ) I know I fix e d i t p ro p erly . E C ) Why did you l e t me s i t on i t so soon? 8. I t i s your c h i l d 's b irth d a y , and you have bought him a b e a u tif u lly decorated cake. You have guarded i t care f u l l y , because you wanted the c h ild to see i t f o r the f i r s t tim e a t the p a rty . Then, not only th e c h ild would be e s p e c ia lly s u rp ris e d and p le ase d , but a ls o you could get a wonderful p ic tu re of h is face when he f i r s t sees the cake. The time has come! Everyone is q u i e t , w aiting f o r th e cake. To add to the suspense, you hold i t up h ig h , and slowly walk to the ta b le . Suddenly, your foot touches something and you f e e l the p la te t i p and th e cake s t a r t s to f a l l o f f the p la te . A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: D C ) I can catch i t b efore i t h i t s th e flo o r. R C ) This i s r e a l l y a funny scene! E C ) Who put th a t in the way? S C ) How could I be so clumsy? 24 7 B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: E ( ) Something on the f lo o r made me s l i p . D ( ) I t i s s t i l l good cake. S ( ) I should have been more c a re fu l. R ( ) No sense crying over s p i l l e d cake. 9. You have been p a in tin g the w alls of the liv in g room to match the rug. Now you are clean in g up the mess and p u ttin g the f u r n it u r e back in p la c e . You move the l a s t c h a ir. Then you see i t — a big sp o t of p a in t in the middle of th e liv in g room rug! A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: S ( ) I should have h ired a p a in te r . D ( ) I t c o u ld n 't have s p i l l e d there! E ( ) Someone e ls e must have been using th e p a in t R ( ) I'm glad i t ' s the same co lo r as the rug. B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: D ( ) I t w i l l be easy to get out. R ( ) Now I have an excuse to buy a new rug. S ( ) I should have been more c a r e f u l. E ( ) Did you use the p a in t when I was away? 10. The mother, th e f a t h e r , and th e c h ild made a huge bowl out of clay . They were very proud of i t , sin ce each one had worked equally hard on i t , and to g e th e r they had made a m asterpiece. A fte r i t was f i r e d , they decided to put i t on the liv in g room ta b l e . They a l l wanted to have a p a rt in p la cin g i t t h e r e , so they worked to g e th e r to move i t . In a moment of confusion, i t slip p e d and f e l l on the f l o o r . A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: R ( ) I ’m glad no one was h u r t. E ( ) You might have been more c a re fu l. 248 S ( ) I should have known b e t t e r . D ( ) I'm a f r a id to look a t i t . B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: D ( ) Forget i t , i t ' s not t h a t im portant. R ( ) Now we can make an even b e t t e r one. S ( ) I c o u ld n 't catch i t . E ( ) The bowl was too b ig and heavy. 11. The family planned to watch a s p e c ia l program on TV th a t everyone wanted to se e . Some frie n d s of the family were going to be on th e show and a l l were very ex cited . They s a t down com fortably in the dining room with cookies and ic e cream. The TV s e t was turned on, and th en — n o th in g ! A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF IS: S ( ) I should have been sure i t was working b efo re. t R ( ) I'm g la d -- I can do o th e r th in g s now. D ( ) E verything w ill be a l l r ig h t. E ( ) Why do th e se th in g s happen a t the l a s t minute? B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: R ( ) W e can s t i l l enjoy th e cookies and ic e cream. E ( ) That TV always breaks a t th e wrong time. D ( ) W e d i d n 't care anyway. S ( ) I am so sorry you have to miss i t , 12. The whole family worked very hard t o make t h e i r garden grow and be b e a u tif u l. They bought the b est p la n ts from th e n u rse ry , and sp en t a l o t of time weeding and w atering. I t was th e b e s t garden in the neighborhood. Then, one day i t seemed t h a t th in g s looked a l i t t l e w ilte d . 2 49 A. THE FIRST THING YOU THINK TO YOURSELF I S : E ( ) Who sp o ile d th e garden? D ( ) I t must be my im agination, S ( ) I must have done something wrong. R ( ) GoodI Now we can pick them f o r the house. B. THE FIRST THING YOU SAY TO YOUR CHILD IS: S ( ) Maybe I should get a gardener to h elp . E ( ) What happened to our green thumbs? R C ) Now we can have fun planning a new garden. D ( ) I t w i l l look a l l r i g h t when the sun sh in e s. N ote: E, D, S, and R in d ic a te defense c a te g o rie s , and were not on s u b je c t’s q u e s tio n n a ire s. E = E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame D = Denial S = Turning Against the S e lf R = Reversal of A ffect APPENDIX E M EANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Of ALL TEST VARIABLES TABLE 2 8 CHILDREN’S SITUATION TEST: M EANS A ND STANDARD DEVIATIONS GIRLS BOYS SOURCE In s tru c tio n s In stru c tio n s Child Mother Father Total Child Mother Father Total E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Mean SD 4.15 1.77 4.15 1,49 3.80 1.78 12.10 3.94 4. 90 1.58 4.4S 1.32 4.65 1.46 14.00 3.59 Denial Mean SD 3.90 1.67 4.00 2.07 3.55 1.96 11.45 3.97 3.45 1.40 3.65 1.31 3.65 1.35 10.75 2 .66 Turning Against th e S elf Mean SD 5.25 1.51 4.70 1.58 5. 80 1.21 15. 75 3.53 5.00 1.55 5.30 1.27 5 .15 1.31 15.45 3.44 Reversal of Affect Mean SD 4.80 2.06 5.15 1.53 4.70 1.95 14.65 3.39 4. 80 1.50 4.75 1.44 4.55 1.77 14.00 3.91 251 TABLE 2 9 PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE: M EANS A ND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Defense Mode Mothers G irls Boys Adult Child Total Adult Child Total E x te rn a liz a tio n of Mean 12.95 12.30 22.25 11.25 10.60 21. 85 Blame SD 2.46 3,55 5 .44 2.64 2. 76 4. 78 Denial Mean 11.65 12.35 24.00 12.90 11.55 24.45 SD 2.92 3.70 5 .56 2.61 2.52 4.09 Turning Against Mean 15.05 15.65 30. 70 13.95 15.25 29.20 the S elf SD 2. 89 3.26 4.94 2.65 3.92 5.38 Reversal of A ffect Mean 15.5 16.45 32 .00 14.40 14.55 28.95 SD 2.46 3. 80 5.90 2.84 4.03 6.26 Fathers E x te rn a liz a tio n of Mean 13.10 12.50 25.60 12.40 11.50 23.90 Blame SD 3.53 2.33 4.87 2.39 2.69 3.85 Denial Mean 12.60 12.65 25.25 13.15 12.00 25.65 SD 2.33 3.62 5.28 3.02 2.36 4. 71 252 TABLE 29— Continued Defense Mode Fathers G irls Boys Adult Child Total Adult Child T otal Turning Against Mean 15.70 15.00 31.70 14.20 15.45 29.65 th e S elf SD 2.28 3.78 5.39 1.96 3.35 4.38 Peversal of Affeet Mean 15.55 16.15 31.70 15.30 15 .65 30.95 SD 4.34 3.22 6.38 2 .84 4.29 6.30 253 254 TABLE 30 PARENTS' SITUATION TEST: M EANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Mothers Defense G irls Boys Adult Child T otal Adult Child T otal E x te rn a liz a tio n of Blame Mean SD 16.15 4.19 15.30 4. 81 31.45 7.36 14.50 5.55 15 .70 4.06 30.20 8.20 Denial Mean SD 18.75 3.65 14, 90 4.02 33.65 6.54 19.70 4.09 16 .15 4.20 32.85 6.85 Turning Against S elf Mean SD 20.40 4.24 20. 35 3.98 40. 75 5. 79 21.55 4. 85 21.15 4.51 42.70 8.21 Reversal of Affect Mean SD 15.90 3. 71 20. 85 4.92 36.75 6.30 12.20 4.90 18.85 2 .93 31.05 7.08 25 5 TABLE 30— Continued Fathers G irls Boys Adult Child Total Adult Child Total 15 .05 15.00 30.05 14.00 14.10 28.10 5.75 4.19 8.33 4.85 3.49 6.15 18.30 15. 85 34.15 20. 70 18.00 38.70 4.03 3.47 5.82 7.62 4. 89 7.62 21.60 19. 75 41.35 22 .15 19.50 41.65 3.87 3.42 6.33 5.63 5.91 10.23 16.50 20 . 70 37.20 13.40 18.15 31.55 5.88 3 .69 8.66 4.48 4,10 7.33 256 TABLE 31 PARENT PERCEPTION TEST: M EANS A ND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Subjects Source G irls Boys Nurturance Mean 4.50 3.00 Std. Dev. 1.39 1.79 Punishment Mean 2.60 1.90 Std. Dev. 1.56 1.70 Power Mean 2. 90 2.65 Std. Dev. 1.70 1.39 T otal I d e n tif ic a tio n Mean 11.00 7.55 Std. Dev. 5.27 2.49 257 TABLE 32 DEFENSE LEARNING TEST: M EANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Subject Mother Source F ather G irls Mean 20 .10 16 .30 SD 5. 99 3.70 Boys Mean 15.55 20 .65 SD 6.48 6.30 REFERENCES A llin sm ith , W . Moral stan d ard : I I . The le a rn in g of moral sta n d a rd s. In D. R. M ille r 8 G. E. Swanson (E d s ,), In n er c o n f lic t and d efen se. New York: H olt, 1960. A ronfreed, J . The n a tu re , v a r ie ty , and s o c ia l p a tte rn in g , of moral responses t o tra n s g re s s io n . J . abnorm. soc. P sychol. , 1961, 63_, 223-240. A ronfreed, J . The e f f e c t s of experim ental s o c ia liz a tio n paradigms upon two moral responses to tra n s g r e s s io n . J . abnorm. soc. Psychol. , 1963 , 66_, 437-448. A ronfreed, J . The o rig in of s e l f - c r i t i c i s m . Psychol. Rev. , 1964, 71 , 19'3-218. Bandura, A. S ocial le a rn in g through im ita tio n . In M. R. Jones (E d .), Nebraska symposium on m otivation 1962. Lincoln: Univ. Nebr. P re ss, 19 62. Pp. 211-269. Bandura, A. 8 Huston, A. C. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n as a process of in c id e n ta l le a rn in g . J. abnorm. soc. P sy ch o l., 1961, 63, 311-318. Bandura, A. 8 McDonald, F. J. In flu en ce of s o c ia l r e i n forcement and the behavior of models in shaping c h ild r e n ’s moral judgments. J . abnorm, soc. P s y c h o l., 1963 , 6_7 , 274-281. Bandura, A ., Ross, Dorothea 8 Ross, S h eila , Transmission of aggression through im ita tio n of aggressive models. J . abnorm. soc. Psychol. , 1961, £3^, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, Dorothea 8 Ross, S h eila . A comparative t e s t of th e s ta tu s envy, s o c ia l power, and secondary reinforcem ent th e o rie s of i d e n tif ic a to r y le a rn in g . J. abnorm. soc. P sychol. , 1963 , 6J7, 527-535 . “ Bandura, A ., Ross, Dorothea 6 Ross, S h eila . V icarious reinforcem ent and im ita tiv e le a rn in g . J . abnorm. soc. P sychol. , 1963, 67, 601-607. 258 259 B eardslee, B. J . Mechanisms of defense: I I . Denial of f a i l u r e . In D. R. M iller 8 G. E. Swanson ( E d s .), In n e r c o n f lic t and d e fe n s e . New York: H o lt, 1960. Becker, W . C. Consequences of d i f f e r e n t kinds of p a re n ta l d i s c i p l i n e . Unpublished paper, Univer. of I l l i n o i s , 1963. B e ll, R. Q. Developmental psychology. In P. R. Farns worth ( E d .), Annu. Rev. P sychol. , 1965, 16, Pp. 22-26. Berkow itz, L. Aggression: A s o c i a l p sychological a n a l y s i s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 196 2. Boatman, M . J . 6 Szurek, S. A. A c l i n i c a l study of childhood sch izo p h ren ia . In Jackson, D. D, (E d .), The e tio lo g y of sch izo p h ren ia . New York: Basic Books, I960. Boehm, L. The development of conscience: A comparison of American c h ild re n of d i f f e r e n t mental and so c io economic le v e ls . Child Develpm. , 1962, ^3, 575-590, Boehm, L. 8 N ass, M. L. S o cial c la ss d iffe re n c e s in conscience development. Child Develpm., 1962, 33, 565-579. — Brim, 0. G ., J r . Family s tr u c tu r e and sex ro le le a rn in g by c h ild re n . Sociom etry, 1958, 21, 1-16. Brown, D. G. M a scu lin ity -fe m in in ity development in c h ild re n . J . c o n s u lt. Psychol. , 1957, 21, 197-202. Burton, R. V. , Maccoby, E leanor E . , S A llin s m ith , W . Ante cedents of r e s is ta n c e to te m p tatio n in fo u r-y e a r-o ld c h ild re n . Child Develpmt. , 1961, 32_, 6 89-710 . C arlson, R. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and p e rs o n a lity s tr u c t u r e in p re-adolescence. J . abnorm. soc. P sy ch o l., 1963, 67, 566-573. Cronbach, L. J . E s s e n tia ls of psychological t e s t i n g . New York: Harper, 1949 J Cronbach, L. J . 8 G leser, G. C. A ssessing s i m ila r it y between p r o f i l e s . Psychol. B u ll. , 1953 , 5_0, 456-473 . Dember, W . N. The psychology of p e rc e p tio n . New York: Henry Holt 8 Co., i960. 260 D ollard, J . G M ille r, N. P erso n ality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950. Fauls, Lydia B. S Smith, W . D. Sex role le arn in g of fiv e - y e a r-o ld s . J. genet. Psychol. , 1956 , J39, 105-117 . Fenichel, 0. The psychoanalytic theory of n e u ro s is . New York: Norton, 1945 . F itz g e ra ld , D. 6 Roberts, Karlene. Psychosexual i n t e r e s t s and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Unpublished paper read a t Amer, Psychol. A ssn., Los Angeles, S e p t., 1964. Frank, L. K. P ro je c tiv e methods f o r the study of p e rs o n a lity . J. Psychol. , 1959, 389-413, Freud, Anna. The ego and the mechanisms of defence. New York: In te r n a tio n a l U n iv e rsitie s P re ss, 1946. Freud, S. C i v i l i z a t i o n and i t s d is c o n t e n t s . London: Hogarth P r e ss, 1940. Freud, S. The defense neuro-psychoses, C ollected papers. Vol. I. London: Hogarth P ress, 19 49 , Pp. 5 9-75 . Freud, S. F urther remarks on the defense neuro-psychoses. C ollected papers. Vol. I . London: Hogarth P ress, 1949. Freud, S. I n h ib iti o n s , symptoms and a n x ie ty . London: Hogarth P re ss, 19 49. Pp. 15 4-15 8. Freud, S. Repression. Collected p ap ers. Vol. IV. London: Hogarth P ress, 1949, Pp. 31-53. F rie s , M argaret. The c h i l d ’s ego development and the tr a in in g of a d u lts in h is environment. Psychoanal. Stud. C h ild , 1947, 2, 85-112. G o llin , E. S. O rganization c h a r a c te r is tic s of s o c ia l judgment: A developmental in v e s tig a tio n . J. P e r s . , 1958, 26_, 139-154. Greening, T. C. Moral standards and defenses ag a in st aggression. Unpublished d o cto ral d is s e r ta ti o n , Univer of Michigan, 195 8. Grinder, R. E. P a ren ta l ch ild re a rin g p r a c tic e s , conscience, and r e s is ta n c e to tem ptation of 6th-grade c h ild re n . Child Develpmt. , 1962 , 3 _ 3 , 803-820 . 261 G u ilfo rd , J . P. Fundamental s t a t i s t i c s in psychology and e d u c a tio n * New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Hadley, R. G. P sychological changes in i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s i d e n t s . Los A ngeles: V eterans' A am in istratio n C enter, 1963. Pg. 38. Hanfmann, E. 6 G e tz e ls , J . M . S tudies of th e sentence completion t e s t . J . p r o j . Tech. , 1953 , 17_, 280-294. H artup, W. H. Some c o r r e la tio n s of p a re n ta l im ita tio n in young c h ild re n . Child Develpmt. , 1962, 85-96. H einicke, C. Some antecedents and c o r r e la te s of g u i l t and f e a r in young boys. Unpublished d o c to ra l d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n iv e rsity , 19 53. Johnson, M, M . Sex ro le le a rn in g in the n u c le a r fam ily. Child Develpmt. , 1963 , 3J4, 509-512 . Kagan, J . £ Lemkin, J . The c h i l d 's d i f f e r e n t i a l percep tio n of p a re n ta l a t t r i b u t e s . J . abnorm. soc, P sy c h o l., 1960 , 61, 440-447. Kagan, J . , Hosken, B ., £ Watson, S. C h ild 's symbolic c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n of p a re n ts. Child Develpmt., 1961, 32, 625-636. Kagan, J . S Moss, H. A. B irth to m a tu r ity : A study in p sy ch o lo g ical development. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 196 2. Kawin, M arjorie R. A c o r r e l a t i o n a l study of parent behavior and c h ild a n x ie ty . Unpublished m anuscript, Univer. Southern C a lif o rn ia , 1962. Kovacs, A. L. Some antecedents of d e n ia l in fan tasy as a defense a g a in st anger. Unpublished d o c to r's d i s s e r t a t i o n , Univer. of Michigan, 195 8. Lampl-de Groot, Jeanne. On defense and development: Normal and p a th o lo g ic a l. Psychoanal, s tu d . C hild, 1957, 12, 114-126. Lansky, L. M . Mechanisms of defense: V. Sex id e n t i t y and defenses a g a in st ag g ressio n . In D. R. M ille r £ G. E. Swanson (E d s ,), In n er c o n f lic t and defense. New York: H o lt, 1960. Lazowick, L. M . On the n atu re of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . J. abnorm. so c. p sy ch o l. , 1955 , 51, 175-183. 262 L in d q u ist, E. F. Design and an a ly sis of experiments in psychology and education. Boston: H oughton-M ifflin, 1953. L u ria , Z. M., Goldwasser, M . S Goldwasser, A. Response to tra n s g r e s s io n in s t o r i e s by I s r a e l i c h ild re n . Child Develpmt. , 1963 , 271-280 . Lynn, D. B. A note on sex d iffe re n c e s in the development of masculine and feminine i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Psychol. Rev., 1959 , 56_, 126-135 . Haas, J e a n e tte & M ichael, W . B. The r e la tio n s h ip of i n t e r e s t choices of k in d e rg a rten ch ild re n to s o c ia l group membership and to sex d iffe re n c e s . C a lif . J . ed u c. Res. , 1964, 4-0, 24-33. Haccoby, E leanor E. R ole-taking in childhood and i t s consequences fo r s o c i a l le a rn in g . Child Develpmt., 1959, 30, 239-252. Maccoby, Eleanor E. The ta k in g of a d u lt ro le s in middle childhood. J . abnorm. soc. P sy c h o l., 1961, 63, 493- 503 . McNemar, Q. Psychological s t a t i s t i c s . New York: John Wiley S Sons, 1962. Pp. 101-102. H i l l e r , D. R. and Swanson, G. In n er c o n f lic t and d e fe n se . New York: H o lt, 19 60. M ille r , D. R, 6 Swanson, G. The study of c o n f l i c t . In . M . R. Jones (E d .), The Nebraska symposium on m otivation 1956, Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska P re ss, 1956. Pp. 137-173. Moore, S. G. Displaced aggression in young c h ild re n . J. abnorm. soc. p sy c h o l. , 1964, 6jB, 200-204. Mowrer, 0. H. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n : A lin k between le a rn in g theory and psychotherapy. I n , Learning theory and p e rs o n a lity dynamics. New York! Ronald P r e s s , 1950. Pp." 69 - 94 . Murphy, Lois B. Coping devices and defense mechanisms in r e l a t i o n to autonomous ego fu n c tio n . B ull. Menninger C lin ic , 1960 , 24-, 144-153. Mussen, P. & D i s t l e r , L, M asculinity, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and fa th e r-s o n r e la tio n s h i p s . J . abnorm. soc. P sy c h o l., 1956, 54, 358-386. 263 Mussen, P. H. 6 R utherford, E. P a re n t-c h ild r e la tio n s and p a r e n ta l p e rs o n a lity in r e la tio n to young c h i l d r e n 's . s e x -ro le p re fe re n c e s. Child Develpmt., 1963, 34, 5 89- 607 . ' Osgood, C. E , , S u ci, G. J . , £ Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: U n iv ersity of I l l i n o i s P re s s , 195V. Parsons, T. Family s tr u c t u r e and the s o c ia li z a t io n of the c h ild . In T. Parsons S R. F. Bales (E d s .), Fam ily, s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and i n te r a c ti o n process. Glencoe, 1 1 1 .: Free Press , 19 5 5, Pp. 35-131, Payne, D. E. & Mussen, P. H. P a re n t-c h ild r e la tio n s and f a t h e r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among adolescent boys. J. abnorm. so c. Psychol. , 1956 , 5j2 , 358-362. S ch afer, R. P sychoanalytic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n in Rorschach t e s t i n g . New York: Grune 6 S tr a tto n , 195 4. S ears, Pauline S, Doll play aggression in normal young c h ild re n : in flu en ce of se x , age, s ib l i n g s t a t u s , f a t h e r 's absence. Psychol. Monogr,, 1951, 65, No. 6 (Whole No. 323). S e a rs, R. R. R elation of e a rly s o c ia li z a t io n experiences t o aggression in middle childhood. J. abnorm. soc. P sychol. , 1961, 6_3 , 466-492. S ears, R, R ., Maccoby, Eleanor E , , & Levin, H. P a tte rn s of c h ild re a r in g . Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & Co., 1 9 5 7 . ------- S ea rs, R. R ., W hiting, J . W . M., Nowlis, V ., S S e a rs, Pauline S. Some c h ild -r e a rin g antecedents of aggression and dependency in young c h ild re n . Genet. Psychol. Monogr. , 1949 , ,3£» 101-148. Swanson, G. E. Determinants of the in d iv i d u a l's defenses a g a in st in n e r c o n f l i c t : Review and refo rm u latio n . In J. C. G lidewell (E d .), P a re n ta l a t t i t u d e s and c h ild behavior. Charles C. Thomas: S p rin g fie ld , 1 1 1 ., 1961, Pp. 5-41. W hiting, J . W . M . Resource m ediation and le a rn in g by i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . In I . Iscoe & H. W . Stevenson (E d s .), P e rso n a lity development in c h ild re n . A ustin: Univer. Texas Press , I960". Pp. 112-126, 264 W hiting, J . W . M . S orcery, s i n , and the superego: a c r o s s - c u l tu r a l study of some mechanisms of s o c ia l c o n tro l. In M « . R, Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium m o tiv atio n , 1959. .L incoln: Univer. Nebraska Press 1959. Pp. 174-19 5. on 9
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
A Temporal Approach-Avoidance Conflict In An Academic Test Situation
PDF
Intellectual And Cognitive Factors In The Production Of Psychological Stress Reactions
PDF
Anxiety Level And The Repression-Sensitization Dimension In Desensitization Therapies
PDF
Non-Specific Treatment Factors And Deconditioning In Fear Reduction
PDF
Conflict And Generalized Conflict In Verbal And Motor Responses
PDF
The Effects Of Sex, Assigned Therapist Or Peer Role, Topic Intimacy, And Expectations Of Partner Compatibility On Dyadic Communication Patterns
PDF
Transfer Of The Partial Reinforcement Extinction Effect Across Tasks In Normal And Retarded Boys
PDF
The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics
PDF
The Effect Of Conditions Of Risk, Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement, And Sex On Binary Choice Probability Learning
PDF
An Empirical Study On The Differential Influence Of Self- Concept On The Professional Behavior Of Marriage Counselors
PDF
An Application Of A Two-Stage 'Attention' Model To Concept Formation In The Mentally Retarded
PDF
Relationship Of Achievement Motivation To Perception Of Degree Of Task Difficulty And Estimate Of Performance
PDF
Clinical Implications Of Verbal Learning Without Awareness: An Experimental Study
PDF
Acculturation And Value Change
PDF
Stress Response Modification And Autohypnotic Techniques
PDF
Verbal Reports Of Emotional States And Onsets And Offsets Of Conditioned Stimuli
PDF
Tension And Anxiety In Deconditioning
PDF
Experimenter Expectancy Effect Examined As A Function Of Task Ambiguity And Internal Versus External Control Of Reinforcement
PDF
A Factor Analysis Of The Semantic-Evaluation Abilities
PDF
The Use Of Multiple Objective Measures In Survey Research As A Means For Predicting Respondent Future Behavior
Asset Metadata
Creator
Kawin, Marjorie Ruth
(author)
Core Title
Defense Choice And Identification
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Psychology, clinical
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Jacobs, Alfred (
committee chair
), Cliff, Norman (
committee member
), Peterson, James A. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-205045
Unique identifier
UC11359908
Identifier
6607073.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-205045 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6607073.pdf
Dmrecord
205045
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Kawin, Marjorie Ruth
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA