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
/
On The Relationship Between Anxiety And Aggression In Nine-Year-Old Boys
(USC Thesis Other)
On The Relationship Between Anxiety And Aggression In Nine-Year-Old Boys
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANXIETY AND AGGRESSION IN NINE-YEAR OLD BOYS *>y Ann Ross A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Psychology) August, 1963 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA GRADUATE SC H O O L UNIVERSITY PARK LOS A N G E L E S 7, C A LIFO R N IA This dissertation, written by ............... A djx..Rqss................. tinder the direction of hex....Dissertation C om 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 O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean D f l f t r . . . . A u g u st,...! 9.6.3. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE „ „ v Chairman ... rko, U i n. v )i- ' ) \ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To Dr. C. Leland Winder, who on short notice and acquaintance gently guided and wisely directed the com pletion of this study, my deepest respect and gratitude. I am also deeply grateful to my former Chairman, Professor and friend, Dr. David B. Klein and my committee members, Dr. J. Paul Guilford, Dr. William H. Werkmeister, Dr. Mortimer M. Meyer and Dr. William B. Micheal for making this step possible. I wish to thank Dr. Winafred B. Lucas for giving of her very limited time to assist with the ratings. To my friends Mrs. Courtenay Raymond and Mrs. Virginia Dobias who gave so generously of their homes and time and the children of their acquaintances to help com plete the pilot studies, my sincere appreciation and thanks• The study would not have been possible without the assistance of the mothers and children who willingly participated. I am sincerely grateful to them. I also acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Mr. Byron Burgess, Assistant Superintendent of the Manhattan School District, his Principals and teachers, Mr. James Gladhill, Assistant Superintendent of the Redondo School District, Mr. Howard M. Huizing, Principal of the Washington School, Mr. James W. Cleminger, Principal of the Tulita School, Mr. Harold Barker, Principal of the Madison School and their teachers. To Mrs. Ruth Cohen, School Psychologist, Redondo School District, for her kind assistance in paving the way to the subjects for the study, my thanks and deep appreciation. I also wish to express my thanks to my friend, Miss Rue Wise who was always ready and available to assist in innumerable ways, particularly with the typing of the bibliography and tables of the preliminary manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................... Page ii LIST OF TABLES..................................... vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION............................... 1 II. RELEVANT THEORY AND RESEARCH..............' . 10 Theory and Basic Concepts The Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) Doll Diagnosis (DD) The Aggressive Act Parental Punishment and Aggression Retaliation to Parents for Punishment Parent Questionnaire III. EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES....................... 33 IV. METHODOLOGY....................................40 Measures Peer Nomination Inventory Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale Doll Diagnosis Parent Questionnaire Procedure Subjects Administration V. RESULTS........................................47 Subject Variables Experimental Hypotheses Rating Scales Summary of Findings VI. DISCUSSION.................................. 77 iii Chapter Page The Relationship between Anxiety and Aggression Fantasy versus Overt Aggression The Aggressive Act and Related Feelings Parental Punishment and Related Feelings Retaliation for Punishment and Related Feelings Implications of the Findings for the Theoretical Framework presented. Limitations of the Study Implications for Future Research VII. SUMMARY .................................. APPENDIXES Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Appendix D. Appendix E. Appendix F. Appendix G. Appendix H. Appendix I. Appendix J. Appendix K. Appendix L. Appendix M. Appendix N. Appendix P. Appendix Q. Appendix R. Modified Peer Nomination Inventory Teachers' Ratings for Aggression PNI Data Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale Doll Diagnosis - Administration Modified Doll Diagnosis Rating Scale for Doll Diagnosis and Parent Questionnaire Parents' Questionnaire Coloring Task Analysis of Variance Data CMAS A-Scale Pre-test Analysis of Variance Data CMAS L-Scale Pre-test Analysis of Variance Data CMAS A-Scale Discrepancy Scores Pre-Post Anxiety Analysis of Variance Data CMAS L-Scale Pre-Post Shift in Tendency to Falsify A-Scale Responses Chi Square Tables Aggressive Act6 (DD) Aggressive Acts (PQ; Experimental Groups Aggressive Acts (PQ; Control Groups CMAS Data Pre and Post-test Control Groups iv 103 108 Chapter Page Appendix S. CMAS Data Pre and Post-test Experimental Groups BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................. 162 v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of Children's Ages............ 48 2. Distribution of Children's IQ.............. 49 3. Distribution of Children in the Participating. Schools................ 49 4. Distribution of Children according to Grade. . 50 5. Distribution of Parents' Education......... 50 6. Distribution of Mothers' Working........... 50 7. Distribution of Parents' Ages.............. 51 8. Distribution of Parents' Religion.......... 52 9. Distribution of fathers' Occupations ......... 53 10. Summary of F-Values on Pre-test Anxiety (CMAS) A-Scale....................... 54 11. Summary of F-Values on Pre-test CMAS L-Scale . 56 12. Means and Standard Deviations for the CMAS L-Scale Pre-test Scores..................... 56 13* "tn-tests for Comparisons of Pre-test Scores on the CMAS L-Scale......................... 56 14. Summary of F-Values Pre-Post Anxiety (CMAS) A-Scale Discrepancy Scores ................. 57 15. Means and Standard Deviations for the CMAS A-Scale Pre and Post Test............. 58 16. Summary of F-Values on Pre-Post CMAS Discrepancy Scores on the L-Scale.......... 59 17. Means and Standard Deviations for the CMAS L-Scale Pre and Post Test................... 60 18. Pearson Product-moment Correlation Coefficients Inter-rater Agreement for DD and PQ Rating Scales...................................... 61 19. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Children's Fantasy Aggression (DD) and Parents' Descrip tion of Overt Aggression (PQ)............... 62 20. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Children's Fantasy of Parents' Punishment (DD) 63 21. Distribution of Parents' who see Child as a Problem................................... 64 22. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Mothers' Description of Punishment (PQ)............ 65 23. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Fathers' Description of Punishment (PQ)............ 66 vi Table Page 24-. "t" Values for Comparisons of Differences between Description of Mothers' and Fathers' Punishment (PQ)......................67 25. Chi Square Values of Comparisons of Ratings on DD of Children's Behavioral Reaction to Punishment from Mother and Father ......... 67 26. Chi Square Values for Comparisons of Ratings on PQ of Children's Behavioral Reaction to Punishment from Mothers ................... 68 27. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Ratings on PQ of Children's Behavioral Reaction to Punishment from Fathers................... 69 28. "t" Values for Comparisons of Differences of Children's Behavioral Reaction to Punish ment from Mothers and Fathers (PQ)...........70 29. Pearson Product-moment Correlation Coeffi cients for Comparisons of Pooled Ratings on DD and P Q . . ............................. 71 30. Chi Square Values for Comparison of Ratings of Intensity of Child's Feelings............. 72 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Perhaps the most difficult time in a child's life is during the socialization process. It is at this time that he must learn to differentiate and integrate his inner feelings with the expectancies of the environment. He must learn to tolerate the anxieties which are huilt up and superimposed upon one another from his changing phys ical, mental, emotional and social awarenesses. He must learn to handle the tendency toward combativeness or aggressiveness when the anxiety becomes intolerable. If he learns, he adapts readily and finds himself acceptable in the society in which he lives. If he does not learn, either through a lack in himself or in the socializing agents (usually the parents), there is no integration of the motivating force of anxiety toward constructive be havior, nor is there an ability to control or utilize aggressiveness toward the enhancing potential of assert iveness. The voluminous literature in both the areas of anxiety and aggression attestB to the importance of con tinued search and research toward an understanding of 1 these factors in human development. (The literature will be reviewed in Chapter II.) The purpose of the present study is to arrive at a better understanding of the relationship between anxiety and aggression in a very select population, nine-year-old boys. An understanding of these two variables in children must of necessity include an understanding of the methods applied by the parents in the molding and manipulation of the anxious and aggressive behavior in the children. Therefore, the study includes a parent interview. There have been many studies along these lines, par ticularly recently. Most of them have been concerned with pre-school children (1,4,8,9*62,95*96,97)• Studies with older children related to aggression have used adolescents (7) or delinquents (5*11*15)• Studies of anxiety have been in relation to sex differences (16,51)* intelligence and learning (26,84), social class (79)* racial differences (85), school achievement and test-taking (78,92). Studies interested in both variables were concerned with the drive aspects of anxiety in terms of attenuation of aggression (110), or the inhibiting aspects of aggression-anxiety (42), ad infinitum. However, to the best of this writer's know ledge, there are no studies which first differentiate aggressive children on the basis of teachers' ratings, then determine whether there are differences in anxiety level, and postulate shifts in anxiety after commission of 3 an aggressive act in a structured doll play situation. Sarason, et al. (92) in vestigating the effects of test anxiety found support for their hypothesis that the child who is test anxious is one who also experiences anx iety in a variety of situations. This group of researchers was primarily interested in the "interfering or facilitat ing effects of anxiety." Castenada, et al. (17) base their work on the "drive aspects" of anxiety in designing the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale used in this study. This writer is willing to accept the fact that anx iety is motivating in varying degrees but the concern is rather with the direction in terms of aggression that anxiety may take as a motivating factor in a highly struc tured situation. The basic assumption is that all nine-year-old boys are anxious. In making this assumption, the writer believes that this anxiety has its genesis primarily in the fact of birth on a biological basis as explained by Freud (33) and on a psychological basis as later ex pounded by Rank (88), which becomes part of a "basic anxiety" in all people. While as Freud stated, the infant has no conceptual memory of the experience, the physiological reaction becomes "the prototype" for all later anxiety. According to Sullivan (101), it is in the early relationship with the mother or "significant other" that awareness develops. Later the socialization 4- process with its concomitant direction and discipline from parents (52,55) heightens both the anxiety and the aware ness leading to ways of coping with anxiety-provoking situations both on a psychological (30) and a physiological basis (98). Before the child has fully integrated or assimilated the teachings of the primary group, he finds himself in the position of trying to cope with a secondary group, namely school and society (14-). While by age nine, the child has adapted somewhat outwardly, the inner tur moil may remain unexpressed until it becomes intolerable and finally bursts forth as what appears to be aggression. The preadolescent, pre-pubescent nine-year-old then, contrary to the "latency" or quiescence suggested by Freud (31,52,35) may be "self-depreciative, lack confidence, /be7 t*1© original, the word 'be' is omitted^.7 anxious and apprehensive, sensitive to the point of neuroticism, uncertain and find it difficult to make choices or decisions" (37,58). According to Sullivan, . .in pre- adoleseence we come to the final component of the really intimidating experience of loneliness . . . an experience which has been so terrible that it practically baffles clear recall, . . . a phenomenon ordinarily encountered only in preadolescence and afterward" (101). In other areas such as judgment and reasoning, Piaget (86) main tains that it is not until about the age of eleven or twelve years that a child is able to adopt another's point of view, to 5 reason correctly from another's beliefs or to carry on formal thought or arrive at pure deductions, and likewise it is not until about this age the ability to give a logical explanation of causal relationships has complete ly evolved. Zazzo (102), generalizing from work done in different countries in the field of education points out a marked subdivision at nine years, when the mechanisms of fluent reading and writing have already been acquired. At this age, it is no longer the hand which is respons ible but the eye that guides the hand. The child is found capable of dissociating himself from motor conditions and dominating them. There is an organization of the per ceptive field, a sort of perceptive Gestalt, whose gene sis we have already seen; there were first neuromotor determinations, then towards nine years demands of a sensory nature which dominated motivity. It is at this age a child's drawings attain conformity in appearance. It is also at this age that he attempts to read and write fluently. I think the convergence of these facts is highly significant. It is interesting to note that all comparisons that have been made on children of different cultures show the same evolution up to ten years. (Prudhommeau, 1951)* Thus while on some planes the child may be ready to differentiate and integrate for'more flexible adaptations toward autonomy and independence, on other planes he still has several years to go before judgment and reasoning are sufficiently developed for painless communication with the environment. If we superimpose these discrepancies on the "loneliness" described by Sullivan, the early birth trauma, separation anxiety and the traumatizing effects of the socialization process through discipline and punishment by the parents and teachers, we can see where Gesell's descrip tion of the anxiety and sensitivity of the nine-year-old is indeed an understatement. Further support for this idea is found in a study hy Thompson and Wytrel (63) where college students recalled the greatest number of unpleasant experiences during the six to twelve year period of their lives. In terms of realization of the fact of death, another source of anxiety for the child, Nagy (90) found that it is at nine years that the child first perceives death as a process, the result of which is the dissolution of bodily life. It is not until then that the child knows death is inevitable and is fairly realistic in his views. Thus my thesis is that all nine-year-old boys are anxious and for the reasons mentioned above. That anxiety is tension-producing is a concept inherent in most theories of personality and behavior (46,49). There can be no quarrel with the statement that for the nine-year-old boy in his transitional state of development, the means of tension-reduction are rather limited. In other words, high anxiety at this age is rather to be expected than otherwise. The aggressive behavior that we may witness at this age may be merely a way of reducing tension. Perhaps it is in the handling of this kind of behavior that the socializing agents err. Freud recognized this early in his theorizing (32). He states, "Neurosis in children is very common, far more common than is usually supposed. It is even overlooked, regarded as a manifestation of bad 7 behavior or naughtiness, and often subdued by authorities in the nursery; but in retrospect it is always easily recognizable." Horney (53,54-,55) built her theory of neuroses on this idea and postulated a "basic anxiety" grounded in the "basic conflict" in the child between dependency and re bellion during the socialization process. It is her move ment away from the libidinal or instinctual aspects around anxiety and aggression toward the interpersonal and cultur al interaction experienced by the child that has made her theory particularly attractive for this study. Her views will be reviewed in greater detail where relevant. Blau and Hulse (12) more recently, carried this idea further when they stated that "unbearable anxiety is successfully denied in behavior disorders when the anxiety is unrelieved and the acting out behavior becomes part of the deviant character make-up." There is little doubt that childhood misbehavior is a frequent antecedent in the history of behavior disorders (15,52). Therefore pertinent research questions to be asked may be formulated from the following: 1. Are children who are termed "aggressive" by virtue of overt behavior more or less anxious than children who do not display aggressive behavior? Is aggressive behavior truly tension-reducing? Or does aggressive behavior generate more anxiety? Can feelings of anxiety 8 be differentiated from feelings of guilt? 2. Do children who are termed aggressive by virtue of overt behavior tend to be more aggressive in their play in a structured doll play situation than children termed non-aggressive? If there were a continuum of aggression, is there some way of determining at which point on the continuum the aggressive behavior during the developmental or transitional stages in a child's life may be imprinted beyond reversibility? 3. If a child is aggressive at school, is he also aggressive at home? Or does aggressive behavior in one area of his life reduce sufficient tension so that he does not display aggressive behavior in another? If he is aggressive at all times, would this not be a symptom of extreme anxiety? Would not punishment or discipline tend to heighten this anxiety, spiralling aggressive behavior? h. In a structured doll play situation would the child's aggressive act be similar to the parents' descrip tion of his overt aggressive behavior? Would there be differences among groups termed aggressives and non- aggressives? 5. Are parents aware of anxiety in the child? Is there any agreement between the children's expression of anxiety in the structured doll play and the parents' awareness? 6. Are there differences in real and fantasied punishment as reported "by parents and acted out by child ren in the doll play? Are there differences in actual and fantasied retaliation to punishment as reported by parents and acted out by children in the doll play? 7. Are there differences in mothers' and fathers' reports? Do these differ from the children’s fantasy as acted out in the doll play? Do parents really understand and communicate with their children in terms of discipline and punishment? Are there differences among parents of groups of children of varying degrees of aggressiveness? An attempt has been made to answer as many of these questions as possible with the available data. The formal experimental hypotheses are stated in Chapter III. CHAPTER II RELEVANT THEORY AND RESEARCH In an attempt to understand anxiety and aggressive acts by youngsters, the professional literature was con sulted. A search of the literature on human behavior quickly reveals that much of the work is related to the intervening variable of anxiety as a releasor for every variety of constructive or destructive behavior (7*9*12,25, 33*34,42,57,64,77*92,100). Aggressive behavior as a de pendent variable has been of much interest also, was recog nized early, and the research in this area too has grown to large proportions (1,4,5,6,7*15*26,27,94,95)• Child rearing practices, particularly methods of discipline and punishment, have been assigned an important role in the development of both anxiety and aggression and some investigators have designated these practices "ante cedent conditions" (8,48,56,66,69,70,87,97,99,104,108,112). Many studies on anxiety and aggression have been done with very young children using some type of doll play technique (71). These studies led to the recognition that the parent-child relationships during the socialization process may in part be a causative factor in the later character 10 11 disorders and Juvenile delinquency, producing works in related areas with adolescents (7,11). Although there are isolated studies with children of the age being investigated here, this preadolescent stage has been rather neglected. Based on clinical observation both in a child guidance clinic and a Juvenile hall, it is the contention of the writer that it is at this so-called "latent, f period postulated by Freud (32) that the aggress ive child must be discovered and handled properly. It is held that the "latent" period may in fact be a time when the inner turmoil is so devastating that a child who aggresses may do so only to relieve inner anxiety. This writer feels, again based on clinical observation, that this age is somewhere between 8 and 10 years for boys. Other workers evidently seem to agree that this may indeed be an important age for boys, since the recent literature shows a coneentration on new methodology (17,92,105,106, 107*108) and theory (85*88,90,102) particularly related to this age range. The vastness and diversity of the literature pertain ing to the two variables being studied here have been arduously and carefully reviewed in relation to anxiety (71*91*92) and aggression (7*62,94-)* and it would serve little purpose to present a new review in the present paper. The present study is essentially exploratory in nature due to the use of four comparatively new instruments. 12 It was not grounded in any particular theoretical framework, but Horney's theoretical formulations are closest to the writer's thinking (52,53»54-»55) • Theory and Basic Concepts There are three aspects of Horney's theory that are particularly relevant here. They pertain to her idea of "basic conflict", "basic" and "manifest" anxiety, and the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between anxiety and hostility as it manifests itself in "moving against" the external environment (53)* She points out that the "core of neurosis" is in human relations and is brought about by cultural conditions. To quote: . . . through a variety of adverse influences, a child may not be permitted to grow according to his individual needs and possibilities. . . . people in the environment are too wrapped up in their own neuroses to be able to love the child, or even to conceive of him as the partic ular individual he is; their attittides toward him are determined by their own neurotic needs and responses. In simple words, they may be dominating, overprotective, intimidating, irritable, overexacting, overindulgent, erratic, partial to other siblings, hypocritical, indiff erent, etc. It is never a matter of a single factor, but always a whole constellation that exerts the untoward influence on a child's growth. As a result, the child does not develop a feeling of belonging, of "we", but instead a profound insecurity and vague apprehensiveness, for which I use the term basic anxiety. It is his feeling of being isolated and help less in a world conceived as potentially hostile. The cramping pressure of his basic anxiety prevents the child from relating himself to others with the spontaneity of his real feelings, and forces him to find ways to cope with them. He must unconsciously deal with them in ways which do not arouse, or increase ot allay /italics mine7 ; his basic anxiety. These particular attitudes resulting 13 from such unconscious strategical necessities are deter mined both by the child's given temperament and by the contingencies of the environment. Briefly, he may try to cling to the most powerful person around him: he may try to rebel and fight; and he may try to shut others out of his inner life and withdraw emotionally from them. In principle, this means that he can move toward, against or away from others. (53i P« 18) Thus, "basic anxiety" is defined by Horney as the "feeling which develops in a child in place of a basic confidence in the self and others through environmental factors which hampered his psychic growth. It is a feel ing of being isolated and helpless toward a world potenti- ially hostile" (53» p« 366). For her, "basic anxiety" is "the helplessness largely provoked by repressed hostility, and what is felt as the source of dangers is primarily the anticipated hostility of others" (5^» p. 203). In order to make this idea more amenable to the present author's thinking, it is feeling which develops in all children in relation to the parents and becomes part of a universal anxiety, the Urangst which Horney differ entiates from "basic anxiety" as "the expression of exist ing human helplessness in the face of existing danger— illness, destitution, death, powers of nature, enemies • . ." (5^» p. 203). The "basic conflict" which results in "basic anxiety" is laid in childhood and results largely from a conflict between existing dependency on the parents and rebellion against them. Hostility towards them has to be repressed because of the dependency. This writer would add that as 14- the child grows older there may be more conscious factors related to hostile feelings so that he would tend to sup press them. The term "manifest anxiety" has been used by Horney to differentiate feelings of anxiety as a response to manifest danger, from "basic anxiety" which is a response to a potential danger "The greatest part of manifest anxiety is being caught in a dilemma both sides of which are imper ative" (54-, p. 204-). In her context, the term does not necessarily mean "conscious." She feels that, every type of anxiety whether potential or manifest may be repressed for various reasons; the anxiety may mani fest itself only in dreams, in concomitant physical symp toms, in a general restlessness without being felt con sciously. (54-, p. 202) For purposes of this study, "basic anxiety" is the anxiety that has been generated by the parent-child rela tionship and is an invariant or enduring core (Horney says "core of neuroses" (55, P» 4-7)) which all human beings learn to handle though in various ways (27), but which may be aroused or become 'foanifest" in stressful situations. In a child, these manifestations of anxiety may take the forms suggested by Horney, such as moving toward or against or away from people or objects in the environment. This study is concerned with the direction "against" people or objects and may be termed "aggression." Thus there are two kinds of anxiety being measured, an invariant "basic anxiety" and a "transitory anxiety." Horney (54-,55), counter to Freud (29,31)» rejected both death and aggressive instincts. The roots of hostil ity and aggression are firmly grounded in rejection, lead ing to a view that the world is essentially hostile. The individual who moves against people is an aggressive person ality who reacts by fighting. In the neurotic, there is the feeling that one must strike first for self-protection. Beyond this, he is also motivated by revenge, which is closely related to sadism. The roots of sadism are ground ed in hopelessness and futility. In the child, these two types of aggressive responses to the environment seems evident. In the first instance, he may aggress without intent to harm, merely to allay his anxiety, yet in the second instance he may retaliate for being aggressed. Thus, in this study we will be concerned with "anxiety- aggression" and "retaliation-aggression" and these terms will be related to behavioral acts. The research related to feelings and emotions is vast (3,36,89,93)• The methods utilized have included electric al means (3,93), chemical means (36) and projective tests. Rarely have direct questions been asked of subjects, since early in the history of psychology it was discovered that the verbal report may be colored by conscious and uncon scious efforts to avoid exposure or to conform to some cultural norm (23,24,61). The pitfalls in assessing an individual's report on how he feels are many (91)• This is 16 particularly true when working with adults (67)* However, with a child who may he considered as more naive in terms of fear of exposure, would not the direct question he a useful way to get at his feelings? Particularly, if the question refers to a doll respresenting the self rather than the actual self. This is the method employed in this study. Now, along with method, theories relating to the fine discriminations between "anxiety and fear" (39*4-0), "anxiety and guilt" (80), "anxiety and anger" (22), "anxiety and hostility" (53) have heen ahle to point out that these feelings are different from each other. Yet studies have not been ahle to show conclusively or even significantly not only how they differ hut how one can determine from a given act what "feeling" was associated with the act (3*7*9*10,93)* There is no attempt to answer these important questions in this study, but only to try to understand what happens if such questions are asked of subjects. Since the study includes chi-ldren selected for non aggressiveness, low-aggressiveness and high-aggressiveness, it was expected that feelings around aggression, being aggressed, and retaliation for being aggressed would be different. Since there were no rating scales available to measure these feelings, a thirteen-point rating scale was designed from the protocols of the subjects in the 17 present study. The findings will be discussed from within this framework without attempting to draw all of the fine points mentioned above. However, when discussing feelings of "guilt," Horney's definition will be kept in mind. The feeling of guilt may or may not be a genuine feeling. An important criterion as to the genuineness of guilt feelings is whether they are accompanied hy a serious wish to make amends or to do better. Whether this wish exists depends as a rule not only on the importance at tached to the violated norm but also the benefit derived from the violation. These considerations remain applic able whether the offense be one of action or of feelings, of impulses or fantasies. (5^* P» 237) Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) The PNI is an instrument which consists of five be havioral variables, but in this study only the 12 item "Aggression" scale is used. Positive findings have been reported with respect to concurrent validity (103,106) and construct validity (107) of the PNI scales, particular ly the Aggression and Dependency scales. Wiggins and Winder (105) review the literature leading to their rationale for the empirical development of the inventory, necessitating no repetition here. Recalling the two types of aggression mentioned earlier, i.e. "anxiety-aggression" which is seen as tension- reducing where there is no intent to harm and "retaliation- aggression" which is intended, the assumption in this study is that "anxiety-aggression" is what is measured by the PNI as rated by the teachers. "Retaliation-aggression" 18 will be discussed later in the chapter. The point being made about "intent to harm" is an important one in this study and has been made by others (15,62). This controversy has been raided because of the wide use by Dollard, et al. (19,20) of the definition of aggression as "an act whose goal response is injury to an organism (or its surrogate)" where intent to harm is inher ent. Horney, too feels this is an issue which must be clarified. She states, Hostility toward others may also be merely reactive . . • We could say that although the kinds of action we refer to here are aggressive and siren hostile, they are not perpetrated in a mean spirit. There is no conscious or unconscious satisfaction derived from the fact of hurt ing. (55* p. 195) Thus, the PNI was used in this study in an effort to differentiate children of three levels of aggressiveness, where the 'hggressivenesd' is thought of as with "no intent to harm," being a manifestation of underlying anxiety. While there is work in progress with this comparative ly new inventory, the one published study which is most relevant to the present investigation attempts to under stand the relationships between "parent attitudes and social deviance in preadolescent boys" (108). The subjects were divided into high, middle, and low groups on the dif ferent variables. Correlations between parent attitudes as measured by the Stanford Parent Attitude Questionnaire and the PNI for the groups were all highly significant. 19 Winder and Rau conclude that "deviant social behavior in boys of this age develops in a setting of punitiveness, restrictiveness and ambivalence on the part of both par ents." The authors caution about generalizing their find ings to a more deviant population. Their sample was sim ilar to the comparatively normal children from elementary schools used in the present study. They also point out the importance of the role of the father in the development of deviant behavior in general, and to aggression in particular. "Fathers of more aggress ive boys reported more affection and manipulation of re wards and more stereotyped sex role expectations." The interesting point that they make is in regard to the relationship between lowered self-esteem of the mothers and all four deviancy variables. In essence, they state that rather than this being a causative factor, it may actually be a product of the children's behavior. In terms of the fathers, high punitiveness and physical punishment are highly correlated with the four variables of social deviance. Thus we can see that with ambivalence on the part of both parents, the child may become confused in terms of knowing how to respond, arousing "basic anxiety which may manifest itself in "anxietyraggression." On the other hand, the punitiveness and aggressiveness of the father may provoke "retaliative-aggression." 20 Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) Sarason (91) recently reviewed and discussed "empir ical findings and theoretical problems in the use of anxiety scales," pointing out the necessity to clarify some of the discrepant findings with regard to this vari able* The evolution of the CMAS from items on the MMPI (47) to the TMAS (103) to its present form (17*60,83)* in part fulfills a long-time need for a measure of anxiety in children. The designers of the CMAS have demonstrated that test-retest reliability is high and that one may not ex pect significant shifts. Their work has been done primar ily within one week intervals (17). Other workers have found geographical location to make a difference in means and standard deviations (72). No one has attempted to measure shifts in anxiety in a test-retest situation interposing a psychologically meaningful experience. On close examination of the items, while most seem to be related to "basic anxiety," there are a large number (1,2,3,4,8,9,14,22,24,25,26,29,33*38,4-8,51) stated in the present tense which could shift as a result of a transi tory state of "manifest anxiety." ThUSt the CMAS in a sense really measures "basic anxiety" which may become "manifest" in a stressful situation. For example, a child answering "yes" to item 18, "I worry about what my parents will say to me," may not be aware of early repressed material related to the feeling, but only that the question 21 invokes the feeling within him when it is asked. Examples of items which may be expected to shift are, item 22, "My hands feel sweaty," or item 26, "I have trouble swallow ing." An added feature of the CMAS is the built-in eleven- item Lie Scale which will be discussed more fully in Chap ter V, the results section. Since there are no studies which have utilized the CMAS in the specific way in which the present study does, most of the work is not relevant here. One study, which while it may be slightly tangential has relevance in terms of trying to understand whether the kind of anxiety being measured by the CMAS is similar to anxiety as seen in the clinical situation. Wirt, et al. (109) using 4-th, 5th and 6th grade children were concerned with this relationship. They expected that clinic children would score higher than the controls. This hypothesis was not supported. Rather they concluded that the common factor underlying the rela tionship to be one of "willingness to say deviant things about the self," or test-taking attitude, which they felt is "not necessarily related to anxiety." Their conclusion tends to deny all the work that has been done calling this same underlying factor, one of defensiveness (92, pp. 96- 108). This may very readily be related to anxiety (53)* The next two studies are most relevant to the present study and will be discussed more fully. Iscoe and Cochran 22 (57) were interested in discovering a relationship between anxiety as measured by the CMAS and "maladjustment in school." They posited a "relationship between general body activity and judgments of adjustment commeasurate with the concept of Manifest Anxiety as a measure of drive level." They also expected a significant relationship between high drive level and adjustment and willingness to admit certain subjectively experienced discomforts and apprehensions." Their subjects were 118 boys and 96 girls whose average age was 10.A years. The HA (high anxiety) mean was 25.4 and the LA (low anxiety) mean was 3*4. Sixty subjects partici pated in the final study, ^he teachers used a five-point rating scale of adjustment and the children were given the California Test of Personality. Teachers tended to equate maladjustment with "restlessness," "lack of attention," "inability or unwillingness to settle down." The CMAS correlated -.48 with the CTP, -.49 with "Personal Adjust ment" and -.59 with "Freedom from Nervous Symptoms," all significant at the .01 level. From these findings they concluded that the CMAS has good potential as a measure of drive level in children. This inverse relationship between "anxiety" and maladjustment is in keeping with other find ings that relate high aggression to low anxiety and vice versa (62,68,110). Thus, in the present study the same relationship is postulated. It is interesting that the kind of "maladjustment" rated by the teachers is similar 23 to the unintentional or "anxietyi-aggression" formulated by the present writer. This lends support to the assumption that the PNI used by the teachers in rating the children in the present study may be indeed be an indication of similar kinds of behavior, and that the PNI may measure "anxiety- aggression." On the other hand, a similar study was executed by L'Abate (64) with boys and girls between the ages of 9 and 13 years using the CMAS as a measure of anxiety and the Rogers Test of Personality Adjustment and Rogers1 Rating Scale of Adjustment to see if there were sex differences in the way that anxiety was handled. He was also inter ested in the nature of such differences as could be dis covered by correlating the CMAS with the RTPA and RRSA. He felt that girls would handle anxiety through auto plastic defenses while boys would handle anxiety through allo-plastic defenses. He predicted that although boys and girls may report the same amount of anxiety on a paper said pencil test like the CMAS, the relationships between their scores on such a test and various measures of adjust ment may vary considerably. He found that, there were no differences between means of boys and girls on anxiety level and on the lie scale of the CMAS or on personal inferiority, social maladjustment and total personality maladjustment as measured by Rogers' Test. Tfie mean score for family maladjustment was slightly higher in boys than in girls, while girls were slightly higher than boys on daydreaming, (p. 344) According to their ratings, teachers viewed boys as ■being consistently more maladjusted than girls on all as pects of the Rogers' scale. Correlations "between anxiety and all other scores and ratings for hoys were low, stat istically nonsignificant and consistently negative. He concludes that although mean anxiety scores may be the same for boys and girls yet each sex seems to cope with anxiety differently. He suggests separate anxiety scales for boys and girls. The present writer feels this is a good point, but that the age range used may be a confound ing factor in this study. For, if as this writer supposes, the ages between 8 and 10 make a difference for boys and 11 and 13 make a difference for girls in their emotional and behavioral development, combining ages may tend to cancel out the relationships between the variables studied. Doll Diagnosis (DP) Levin and Wardwell (71) recently reviewed the litera ture on research with Doll Play technique covering the period 1933-1960. They covered studies in five different areas: aggression, stereotypy, doll preference, effect of separation from parents, and prejudice. They note that "far more than any other behavior, aggression has been in vestigated by doll play technique." Yet in spite of the number of years and studies, the only really conclusive findings based on Doll Play as a research technique have been that "young boys are more aggressive than young girls" and that "children are more aggressive in the second 25 session than in the first doll play session." This is a rather sad state of affairs, it would seem, and their sug gestion that the problem lies in the fact that the "con ceptual difficulty underlying the studies has been a lack of distinction between wish-fulfilling and replicated fantasies" (71, p. 5*0 is well taken. They point out the need for a doll play setting which calls forth the specific behaviors upon which the study focuses. Buss (15) in reviewing the literature on aggression in children, has discovered several doll play kits (21,44), but these are designed to elicit a variety of behaviors from children, in relatively unstructured situations. Lynn (76) has developed a structured Doll Play test for children in which the child is presented with 10 situations in a given order, each with a prescribed arrangement of dolls and furniture. The child completes the story which in some situations involves a clear-cut choice* e.g., between bottle and cup, crib and bed, mother and father— thus facilitating objective scoring. The Iowa group under the direction of Sears (4,95,111) developed a doll play situation which comes closest to focussing on aggression. However, while the variable stud ied is aggression, and the measures are the kind, direction and intensity of the child's doll play, the approach is for the experimenter to introduce the child to the materials and help initiate play activity. No plot or content is 26 suggested. The recording of aggression varies from com plete running accounts of the child's behavior to system atic time sampling of discrete responses. Thus, to date, there has been no Doll Play test which focusses only on aggression, in a specific setting with a specific plot. Another point that has been made by Levin and Wardwell (71) is that in their extensive search while most of the work has been done with pre-school children, there have been some studies with children up to the age of 13» where adaptations had to be made for the age of the child. Thus if one wanted to discover developmental differences in j * terms of age, using the same instrument, the adaptations would have to be taken into consideration. The "Doll Diagnosis Test" as originally designed by Lucas (75) was used primarily with younger children, in a clinical setting, but it is a test which is readily adapt able to older children. The wording and structure have been slightly modified (see Appendixes D and E) so that it may be used in the same form for children of varying ages up to possibly 12 or 13 years. It is a test in which the doll play is designed to elicit an aggressive act in a home setting, with the concomitant action, reaction and interaction of the self-doll with dolls representing the family constellation, particularly the parents. It also attempts to get at the feelings around aggression, being aggressed, and retaliation or reaction to being aggressed. 27 It is a specific act in a specific situation with specific persons. Thus, an attempt is made to find a solution to one of the problems pointed out by the recent reviewers of the Doll Play technique (71)• Thus far there are no published studies utilizing the DD, but those studies with Doll Play related to the specif ic areas being investigated in this paper will be reviewed and discussed. The approach will be to follow the struc ture of the DD (Appendix E)• The Aggressive Act Recalling the two kinds of aggression posited by the writer, "anxiety-aggression" and "retaliation-aggression," the former defined as •'aggression with no intent to harm" and the latter as "aggression with intent to harm," (see section on theory), it will be assumed here when the child is asked to have the self-doll "do something bad" that the act carries with it "the intent to harm," and can be con sidered "retaliation-aggression." This can be seen in his choice of person or object to be aggressed. For example, when the child says, "The boy hits his brother," this aggressive act may be retaliatory for repressed hostility around the parents related to sibling rivalry, or even for remembered aggression from the brother directed toward him. Levy's (73) classic study on sibling rivalry with younger children suggests this possibility. 28 Kagan (59) points out that the results of research exploring the relationship between overt and fantasy aggression have been varied and sometimes contradictory. Korner (62) studying pre-school children, found no rela tionship between frequency of overt aggressive acts and occurrence of fantasy aggressive themes during doll play sessions. However, separate studies by Bach (4) and Sears (95) indicate that children rated at both extremes on dis play of overt aggression, i.e. very aggressive or very non- aggressive, produced more doll play themes of aggression than children who were rated as only moderately aggressive. The lack of agreement, Kagan feels, may be due to a failure to consider two aspects of the fantasy material, one is the ambiguity of the stimulus and the other is the anxiety which may be associated with the commission of an aggressive act. The structure of the DD avoids both of these problems to a large extent. The first consideration is handled by the specific request "to do something bad." While it is true that the intensity of the act may be somewhat inhibited due to the anxiety around aggression, the experience of both Dr. Lucas and the writer has been to the contrary. However, this aspect has not as yet been explored with the DD and will have to await future study. Parental Punishment and Aggression Buss (15) has reviewed studies of parental punishment in terms of what he calls "methods of control." Others have used such terms as "discipline," "training," the "socialization process" ad infinitum. Yet one wonders how the child sees these efforts at molding him into an adult who will "adjust" or "adapt" to his particular environment al setting. Horney (53) as well as others (12,15,81,101) who have treated children with emotional disturbance or behavior disorders have noted that it is this "process" which so traumatizes the child that he cannot make the required adjustment. Perhaps the child sees this parental punishment as attack or aggression (15), so that he has feelings of being aggressed. This section of the DD attempts to understand how the child sees punishment and how he feels about it. Goodenough (41) has come up with 22 methods used by parents in controlling aggression. She found that as the child grew older parents tended to decrease the use of physical punishment, coaxing, ignoring and shifted to scolding, threatening and isolation. Boys were spanked, threatened, bribed and isolated more than girls who were ignored more. The differences in effectiveness of these methods of control were overshadowed by the manner in which they were used. It seems that any method is effective when applied by some parents, but other parents were unsuccess ful no matter which method they applied. A point made by Buss (15» P« 286) which expresses this 30 writer's feeling that a possible interpretation of Hollen- berg and Sperry's (50) contradictory findings on the rela tionship between punishment and doll play aggression may be that "while punishment inhibits the immediate response, it elicits more aggression in other contexts because punish ment is in itself an attack and therefore an antecedent of aggression." Hollenberg and Sperry demonstrated that the effects of verbal punishment on doll play decreased aggress ion for their punished group and increased doll play aggression for their permissive group. The mothers of children were interviewed and rated for severity of punish ment meted out to their children. Severe punishment was associated with more doll play aggression than was mild punishment but not significantly so. Sears, et al. (97) found that there may be a gradient of aggression depending on the victim. It appears that mothers tolerate little aggression directed toward them selves but are more permissive of attacks against siblings euad playmates. Thus along with learning that parents as authority figures will not tolerate aggressive behavior, the child learns to limit his aggression to peers and those weaker than himself. This kind of displacement of aggress ion has implications for later anti-social as well as neurotic behavior. A child can just as readily get into difficulties being aggressive with his peers. Levin (69) in a study with five-year-old children 31 investigated the effects of parental punishment on overt and fantasy aggression. He hypothesized that "the express ion of overt and fantasy aggression is a function of the strength of aggressive drive and the severity of inhibi tions (punishment) and the similarity of the situations in which aggression was instigated and inhibited." He found that those children who were less severely punished were less overtly aggressive. In other words, there was a positive relationship between punishment and aggression. In those children who were highly punished, there was an increase in aggression from the first to the second doll play session. Retaliation to Parents for Punishment This third section of the DD is an area which has not been explored with children of this age in quite this man ner with doll play. Thus there are no relevant studies. Here the child is asked, "What does he do (the self-doll) to the mother (father) after he has been punished?" Here we would expect either "retaliation-aggression" or some form of restitution, depending on whether the child was selected as nonaggressive or aggressive by the teachers ratings on the FNI. The Parent Questionnaire (PQ) Although there are many useful parent questionnaires available ( 8,99*108,112), it was decided to design the PQ 32 not only to get at background, factors, but to focus on areas being studied on the DD. This would permit correla tion of the parents' views on the PQ with the children's views on the DD. This is the first time this instrument is being used. Goodenough (41), as well as others (58, 65), has made the important point that parents do not tend to report the children's behavior or their specific reactions to the behavior when interviewed post hoc. She found sig nificant differences when she compared the interview with a daily log kept by the parent. The present writer is aware that this may be a factor in the present investiga tion. Every effort was made to elicit the desired informa tion during the parent interview which was incorporated into the PQ. CHAPTER III EXPERIMENTAL HYPOTHESES In the studies presented in the previous chapter, the importance of the relationship between anxiety and aggress ion has been emphasized by many workers in the field of human behavior (1,4,6,7,9,12,15,25,27,33,34,42,57,64-,74,77, 92,94,95,100). This is particularly true with regard to children (8,28,48,56,66,69,70,71,87,97,103,104,108,112). There are many who investigated the specific areas consid ered in this study. However, there are no studies to the best of this writer's knowledge which have attempted to measure differences in shift in manifest anxiety for aggressive and nonaggressive children. The possible ante cedent conditions, i.e., parental discipline including punishment will be posited in later hypotheses. The major thesis here is that aggressive behavior in nine-year-old boys is anxiety reducing and furthermore it is more so for children who are overtly aggressive than for those who are usually not overtly aggressive. This is based on the idea that continued aggression is tension- releasing and reinforcing, so that anxiety is diminished. In order to test this idea the following hypothesis is presented: 33 34- Hypothesis 1. There will he a difference between the experimental and control groups in shift in "manifest anxiety" as measured by the discrepancy between pre and post test scores on the CMAS A-scale. Further, for the experimental groups, the direction of shift will be a rise for the Non-Aggressives (NA), a drop for the Low-Aggress- ives (LA), and a significantly greater drop for the High- Aggressives (HA). The experimental groups are given the DD test between pre and post administration of the CMAS, while the control groups are given a drawing task. The next group of hypotheses are based on the experi mental condition (the structured doll play (DD)) and the parent interview (PQ). While there is some disagreement about the similarity between fantasied and overt aggression (4-2,43), the major consensus is that aggressive behavior exhibited in doll play bears a significant resemblance to the overt behavior as reported by teachers and parents (62). However, with regard to possible differences, some researchers have found that if a child is aggressive in one area of his life, for example at school, he may inhibit such behavior at home (49). On the other hand, there are reports which indicate that the behavior is generalized to all areas of a child's life (92). The next two hypotheses are directed toward an understanding of these contradictory bits of evidence. Hypothesis 2. There will be differences among the 35 groups in terms of degree of aggressive behavior projected to the self-doll on the DD. The direction of difference will be HAT'LA-7 NA. Hypothesis 2a. There will be differences among groups in parents’ description of overt aggressive behavior. The direction of difference will be HAt 'LA^NA. Numerous studies have indicated there is a significant relationship between aggressive behavior and the severity of punishment (7*8,16,52); also, that fathers tend to be more severe than mothers (69*99)• To test this in the present study and to understand whether the severity of punishment is related to the intensity of aggression, the following hypotheses are presentedt Hypothesis 3* There will be differences in the sever ity of punishment projected to the mother dolls on the DD. The direction of difference will be HAt ’ LAt 'NA. Hypothesis 3a. There will be differences in severity of punishment projected to the father dolls on the DD. The direction of difference will be HAt LA^NA. Hypothesis 3b. Punishment will be fantasied as more severe for the fathers than the mothers. Hypothesis 3c. There will be differences in severity of punishment reported by mother of the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HATLAt NA. Hypothesis 3d. There will be differences in severity of punishment reported by fathers of the NA, LA and HA on 36 the PQ. The direction of difference will he HAVLA'T'NA. To this writer's knowledge, there are no studies that attempt to measure a child's retaliation to a parent for punishment when the direct question is asked, "What does the boy do (or want to do) to the father or mother?" However, there are a number of studies that describe the violent, aggressive fantasies of children's doll play with parent dolls (4,5*62,66). The possibility that there might be differences among aggressive and nonaggressive children suggests the following: Hypothesis 4. There will be differences among the experimental groups in children's fantasied reaction to punishment from the mother. The direction of difference will be HA-^LA-T'NA. Hypothesis 4a. There will be differences among the experimental groups in children's fantasied reaction to punishment from the father. The direction of difference will be HA^LA-^NA. Hypothesis 4b. There will be differences in the mothers' reports of overt reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HA^LA-<NA0 Hypothesis 4c. There will be differences in the fathers' reports of overt reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and the HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HACLACNA. 37 While some studies have shown that there is agreement between fantasy and overt behavior (1,2), others have found that while children may be relatively uninhibited in fan tasy, there is no relationship between this kind of ag gressive behavior and overt aggressive behavior (82). In terms of parents' reports, some researchers suggest that there is some reluctance among parents to report undesir able behavior either on the part of the children or them selves (4-1,58,65). In which case, if we get a child who is freely aggressive in his fantasy play and a parent who is reluctant to report undesiable behavior, we may find differences if we attempt to compare the behavior expressed by the child and reported by the parent about the child. The next hypothesis is formulated to understand any dis crepancies in either the parents' perception of the child's behavior or vice versa. Hypothesis 5. There will be a lack of agreement in ratings on the DD and PQ for the five categories: aggress ive acts, punishment from mothers, punishment from fathers, retaliation or reaction to punishment from mothers, retali ation or reaction to punishment from fathers. One of the most difficult questions to answer both from the experimenter's point of view and the subject's is related to affect or feelings. It is difficult to measure because of the complexity of even the most easily expressed feeling (89). If a child says, "I feel bad" or 38 "sorry" or "guilty," what does he really mean? And how can we assess the intensity of these feelings? Yet, if we are to understand any kind of behavior, we must somehow find a way to understand the affect associated with the behavior. Most of the theories relating to aggression in child ren agree that for those children who have learned through parental discipline to inhibit aggression, the commission of an aggressive act carries with it feelings of remorse, guilt, anxiety and parental disapproval (53,101). Further, parental disapproval brings with it a withdrawal of love, restriction, deprivation and feelings of helplessness and insecurity (5/*-,55)» If we suppose that in the fantasied situation the projection of an aggressive act to the self doll is not dissociated from feelings about the act, then if the question is asked, "How does the boy feel?", the child may respond from within the framework of his past experience, and we may get some measure of his feeling about aggression. With this in mind, the next hypothesis is formulated: Hypothesis 6. There will be differences in the in tensity of feelings after commission of an aggressive act on the DD among the experimental groups. The direction of difference will be HA-^LACNA. Another question that has not been asked of the child is, "How do you feel when you are punished by your mother or father?" While the child may be reluctant to answer if 39 the question is put directly, in the fantasy situation, when the question is asked, "How does the hoy feel after he is punished by mother or father?" he may be able to project his own remembered anger, hostility, fear, sorrow or efforts at restitution. The next group of hypotheses at tempt to get at feelings related to punishment as well as retaliation or reaction to punishment. Hypothesis 6a. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to punishment from the mother on the DD. The direction of difference will be HA<LA*£NA. Hypothesis 6b. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to punishment from the father on the DD. The direction of difference will be HA-^-LA^NA. Hypothesis 6c. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups around retalia tion for punishment from the mother on the DD. The direc tion of difference will be HA ^LA^NA. Hypothesis 6d. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups around retalia tion for punishment from the father on the DD. The direc tion of difference will be HA-<-LA<iNA. CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY Measures The Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) The PNI is a scale which was designed to yield a score on each of five variables: Aggression, Dependency, Withdrawal, Depression and Likeability. Originally admin istered to 4th, 5th and 6th grade children and teachers, it is an attempt to develop a criterion measure of social ad justment for groups of preadolescent boys. For purposes of this study, only the 12 Aggression items were used. These items purport to measure two types of aggression: (1) Pure Aggression which reflects hostile, belligerent and bullying attitudes; and (2) Disruptive Aggression related to a kind of "acting up" in class which is not easily distinguished from dependent attention-seeking behavior (105). In order to minimize the feeling of possible threat and to establish the proper test-taking attitude, the 12 Aggression items were randomly interspersed among thirteen positive items. The modified form was then used as a screening device for the selection of aggressive children based on ratings by teachers. The score for each S is the number of aggressive 40 41 items, zero to twelve, circled by the teacher (see Appen dixes A and B). Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS) The CMAS is a scale consisting of 42 anxiety items (A-Scale) and 11 falsification items (L-Scale). An adapta tion of the adult form originally designed by Taylor (103)* it has been used primarily on 4th, 5th and 6th grade child ren. The index to determine the level of anxiety is de rived by summing the number of items answered "yes" on the A-Scale. The subject's tendency to falsify his responses to the anxiety items is measured by an index derived from those items on the L-Scale answered "yes” with the excep tion of items 10 and 49 which if answered "no" contribute to the L-Scale in the same manner (17) (see Appendix C). The Doll Diagnosis (DD) The DD is a structured doll play test which is de signed to elicit a story about an aggressive act performed by a self-doll as well as the feelings around the aggress ive act. It also attempts to arrive at an understanding of how the subject perceives parental discipline and possible retaliation or displacement of feelings around disciplinary measures. Originally designed for much younger and sicker children (75)* the present test is a slight modification considered more suitable for the age range and setting under investigation in this study. The materials include 42 a set of flexible plastic dolls representing the family constellation and furnishings for the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and living room plus a box of guns and knives (see Appendixes D and E)• Scoring of the aggressive act, punishment, retaliation and feelings around the behavior is accomplished by the application of nine thirteen-interval rating scales. The present scales are modifications of the original form (see Appendix F). The Parent Questionnaire (PQ.) The PQ is a form devised for the present study in order to control background variables such as age, occupa tion, education and religion. It is an interview procedure which also attempts to answer questions related to the parents' views of anxiety and aggression in the child, their characteristic means of punishment and their percep tion of the child's reaction to punishment (see Appendix G}* Procedure Subjects The subjects in this study consist of 80 Caucasion, nine-year-old boys divided into six groups: Group I, Non- Aggressive controls (NAc), 20 subjects; Group II, Low- Aggressive controls (LAc), 10 subjects; Group III, High- Aggressive controls (HAc), 10 subjects; Group IV, Non- Aggressive experimental (NAe), 20 subjects; Group V, Low- 4-3 Aggressive experimental (LAe), 10 subjects; Group VI, High- Aggressive experimental (HAe), 10 subjects. A large pool of potential subjects was drawn from twenty-three classes in six public schools in the South Bay Area of greater Los Angeles. Subjects were selected on the basis of age and IQ scores on the California Test for Mental Maturity (CTMM) (see Tables 1 and 2). All subjects used were from homes with the biological parents in resi dence. Of the 14-5 children who survived this screening pro cedure, all were rated by their teachers for aggression on the modified form of the PNI. Of this group, 14 parents would not permit testing. Seven of these 14 children were rated as High-Aggressives and 7 were rated as Non-Aggress ive. Forty-seven of the remaining children were rated aggressive, that is, one or more aggressive items were circled by the teacher. Twenty-four children with only one aggression item marked were place in the Low-Aggressive category. They were randomly assigned to the experimental or control groups. The number of subjects in each group was reduced to 20 by the fact that two of the children had moved so that the parents could not be contacted. In spite of the earlier screening, three were from broken homes and two others appeared emotionally disturbed during testing. The Non-Aggressive Ss were then matched to the Aggressive Ss on the basis of school location and, where possible, on 44 teacher and grade. Of the total of 84 potential control (Non-Aggressive) children, the 40 who most nearly matched the Aggressives were included in the study. Administration Each child was tested individually by the writer. In those schools where testing was permitted on the premises, this was done in a room where the examiner could be alone with the child. In other instances, testing was done in the home, usually at the kitchen table where the examiner could be alone with the child. Each child was told he was going to be tested. The examiner said, "You are going to be tested. This is not the kind of test like you get in school. It is a test to help me understand nine-year-old boys. Just do the best you can and try to answer as truth fully and thoughtfully as you know how." All groups were given the CMAS pre and post test in the same manner. Each child was asked to read the in structions aloud so that the examiner could determine whether the child could actually read and comprehend the instructions. He was told if there were any words he could not understand the examiner would help him. The word most frequently asked about was "blush." The child was told that it meant "to get red in the face when you get embar rassed." When the pretest CMAS was completed, the examiner 4-5 carefully checked to see if any items were omitted, saying, "It's easy to miss some of these." The experimental groups (IV,V,VI) were administered the structured doll play (DD) (see Appendix D). This task consumed approximately twenty minutes. The CMAS was admin istered immediately afterward with the same instructions as in the pretest. The control groups (I,II,III) were given a cartoon to color (see Appendix H) and the same number of crayons. During the coloring task, the examiner interacted with the child by asking the following questions, spaced to cover the full coloring time: 1. How many children are there in your family? Are they boys or girls? How old are they? 2. Do you like school? How do you do in school? 3. Do you have any hobbies? What are they? 4-. What is your favorite subject in school? Why? 5. Do you like to color? Do you color often? 6. What do you want to be when you grow up? The answers to the questions were recorded. The child was told, "I'm going to talk to you while you are coloring. You Just keep right on working as we talk." In most in stances, the child was able to follow instructions. In others, they became very interested in conversing and had to be reminded to continue coloring. The coloring task consumed approximately twenty minutes. The CMAS was 46 administered, immediately afterward in the same manner as the pretest* The parent interview was conducted in the home. In those cases where the child was tested in the school, the parents were contacted by telephone and an appointment was set up. Where the child was tested in the home, the par ents were given the form to fill in while the child was being tested. They were interviewed immediately after testing. The interviews lasted approximately a half hour. In some cases the parents became so interested in the study, the interviews lasted much longer. In the majority of cases the mothers answered for both parents. In five cases, the fathers answered for both and in seventeen cases, both parents answered the questionnaire. Since most of the parents did not feel the child was a problem, yet admitted he was punished, the parents were asked by the examiner, ’ 'What is the worst thing he has ever done that you had to punish him for ?" This was done in an attempt to get at data to compare the child's fantasy aggressive act with the parents' description of his overt aggression. CHAPTER V RESULTS Subject Variables For the remainder of the paper in referring to the experimental sub-groups, the following notations will be used t Group I -NAc -Non-Aggressive control Group II -LAc -Low-Aggressive control Group III -HAc -High-Aggressive control Group IV -NAe -Non-Aggressive experimental Group V -LAe -Low-Aggressive experimental Group VI -HAe -High-Aggressive experimental When groups are combined the following notations will be used: NA -Non-Aggressive (experimental and control) LA -Low-Aggressive (experimental and control) HA -High-Aggressive (experimental and control) The matching variables for NA, LA and HA were sex, age, IQ, school grade and parental background, and the distribu tions are presented in Tables 1 through 9« Means and <r ’s for children's age and IQ are presented in Tables 1 and 2. since the means of the children’s IQ scores appeared diver- 48 gent, "t"-tests for differences "between means were ap plied. They were not significant (I-IV, "t"=.07. II-V, "t"=.15, III-VI, "t"=.12) indicating that matching was successful. Inspection of Tables 3 through 9 indicated no need for statistical tests. TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN'S AGES IN YEARS AND MONTHS Age Gr. I Gr. IV Gr. II Gr. V Gr. Ill Gr. VI NAc NAe LAc LAe HAc HAe 9-8 3 2 1 1 9-7 2 1 2 9-6 1 2 1 9-5 1 2 1 1 9-4 1 2 3 9-3 2 1 9-2 1 1 2 1 9-1 3 1 1 2 1 1 9-0 2 1 1 1 8-11 2 3 1 1 8-10 3 3 2 4 8-9 2 1 1 2 2 8-8 1 1 1 1 Mean A^ce (mos. ) 111 111 111 111 110 111 (yrs.. ) 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-1 9-0 9-1 <r 4.13 3.08 4.14 4.18 3.25 4.40 N 20 20 10 10 10 10 49 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN'S IQ (CTMM) IQ Gr.I Gr.IV Gr.II Gr.V Gr.III Gr.VI NAc NAe LAc LAe HAc HAe 90-99 2 2 3 4 3 2 100-109 9 8 3 4 5 4 110-119 6 5 3 1 120-129 2 3 1 1 1 4 130-139 1 1 1 140-149 130-159 1 Mean 110.5 112.1 106.5 104.1 105.7 109.6 O’ 11.95 17.80 12.85 15.0C 10.70 20.00 N 20 20 10 10 10 10 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN IN THE PARTICIPATING SCHOOLS School Gr. I NAc Gr. Ii NAe Gr. II LAc Gr. V LAe Gr. Ill HAc Gr. VI HAe I 5 4 3 2 1 1 II 3 1 1 1 2 III 3 4 2 2 2 2 IV 3 4 2 1 2 4 V 3 3 2 3 1 VI 3 4 1 2 3 N 20 20 10 10 10 10 50 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF CHILDREN ACCORDING TO GRADE Grade Gr. I NAc Gr. IV NAe Gr. II LAc Gr. V LAe Gr. Ill HAc Gr.VI HAe 3rd 14 15 8 7 7 5 4th 6 5 2 3 3 5 N 20 20 10 10 10 10 TABLE 5 DISTRIBUTION OF PARENTS' EDUCATION Level Gr. I Gr. IV Gr. II Gr. V Gr. III Gr. VI NAc NAe LAc LAe HAc HAe M F M F M F M F M F M F M.A. 1 2 1 Grad. Work 1 1 B, A. 4 8 4 2 2 2 1 2 3 Some Coll. 8 6 10 6 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 H.S. 6 3 10 4 6 2 7 3 6 4 4 2 Grade Sch. 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF MOTHERS WORKING Gr. I Gr. IV Gr. II Gr. V Gr. Ill Gr. VI Yes 6 5 2 3 3 1 No 14 15 8 7 7 9 TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OR PARENTS' AGES Range Group I NAc Group IV NAe Group II LAc Group V LAe Group III HAc Group VI HAe M F M F M F M F M F M F 20-29 3 5 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 30-39 15 15 12 12 9 8 8 8 9 7 5 5 40-49 4 5 5 6 2 2 2 1 2 50-59 1 1 1 Mean 34 56.5 34.4 36.2 5^.5 56.5 35 57 54 35 34.5 57.5 0" 6.55 10.70 12.15 8.0 7.75 10.45 6.5 8.35 7.80 7.50 6.45 10.00 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 TABLE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF PARENTS' RELIGION Denomination Group I NAc Group IV NAe Group II LAc Group V LAe Group HAc III Group VI HAe M F M F M F M F M F M F Catholic 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 Protestant 12 12 8 10 1 1 4 4 5 4 5 2 Presbyterian 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roman Catholic 1 1 1 1 1 1 Baptist 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Unitarian 1 1 Methodist 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Latter Day Saints 1 1 1 1 1 Four Square 1 1 Lutheran 1 2 2 1 1 Episcopalian 1 1 1 1 Church of Christ 1 1 None 3 3 1 1 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 V j l ro TABLE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF FATHERS' OCCUPATIONS 55 Occupa tion Gr. I NAc Gr. IV NAe Gr. II LAc Gr. V LAe Gr. Ill HAc Gr. VI HAe Profess ional 7 7 5 3 3 3 Super visory 6 6 1 3 1 1 Skilled 7 4 4 2 6 4 Unskilled 5 2 2 N 20 20 10 10 10 10 Before testing the hypotheses of this project, certain preliminary analyses of the data were appropriate. Recall ing the basic assumption that all nine-year-old boys are anxious, it was decided to explore the data for possible differences among Groups. An analysis of variance in a two-way classification (2 x 3)» treatments by groups de sign was considered the most appropriate statistical method because of its power, economy, and analysis of interaction effects (4-5). The distribution of the CMAS A-Scale scores (see Appendix I) seemed to fit the criteria required for the use of this parametric statistical analy sis. The F values are summarized in Table 10. As can be seen, there are no significant differences among the groups, as expected. 54 TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF F VALUES ON PRE-TEST ANXIETY (CMAS) A-SCALE Source F Value Significance Level Treatments: "E" x "C" 0.0 p x^.05 (n» s.) Groups: NA x LA x HA 2.0307 p-7-05 (n. s.) Interaction .3599 p-7.05 (n. s.) The relationship between anxiety as measured by the CMAS and aggression as measured by the PNI was explored. The PNI scores yielded a distribution which was markedly skewed, making the Pearson correlation coefficient inap propriate. The biserial r was employed instead. Accord ing to Guilford, "the biserial r is especially designed for the situation in which both of the variables correlated are continuously measureable, but one of the two is for some reason reduced to two categories" (4-5). With regard to the PNI scores, groups HA and LA were combined and NA was the other category used in calculating the biserial r. The resulting value for the biserial correlation coeffi cient was .224- with a standard error of .134-. This is significant beyond the .05 level suggesting a positive relationship between aggression and anxiety. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (45)i a statistic which is useful in discovering relation ships between two measures on a single population was com- 55 puted for HA only. NA and LA groups were not treated in this manner because of homogeneity of aggression scores. The Pearson r for the HA yielded a negligible negative correlation coefficient of -.17. This is not significant, since for 19 degrees of freedom, .433 is necessary for significance at .05 level. Perhaps it can be inferred from these findings that the general relationship between anxiety and aggression is positive but that there is no relationship or a negative relationship when aggression is high. Another important subject variable relates to the tendency to falsify on a test. This tendency is sometimes seen as a measure of defensiveness (92). The 11 item CMAS L-Scale purports to measure this tendency. Edwards (23) has suggested a "social desirability variable" as a factor influencing falsification. Other workers (109) suggest that a lack of this tendency may indicate "a willingness to say derogatory things about the self." For the present study, the question to be answered was, "Are there differ ences in these suggested tendencies among the sub-groups?" Table 11 summarizes the F values for a two-way classifica tion of analysis of variance of scores on the CMAS L-Scale (see Appendix J). The F-ratio for groups is significant beyond the .05 level. Perhaps one may say that variations in aggression are associated with variations in the tend ency to falsify. Since there were no significant differ 56 ences between the experimental and control groups, the scores were pooled. Means and <r ' s are shown in Table 12. TABLE 11 SUMMARY OF F VALUES PRE-TEST CMAS L-SCALE Source F Value Significance Level Treatments: "EM x "C" .04 p-^.05 (n. s.) Groups: NA x LA x HA 4.59 P -£.05 Interaction .69 P^.05 (n. s.) TABLE 12 MEANS AND FOR THE CMAS STANDARD DEVIATIONS L-SCALE PRE-TEST SCORES Group Me am c NA (N=40) 4.90 2.27 LA (N-20) 4.85 5.32 HA (N=20) 5.15 1.65 TABLE 15 "t"-TESTS FOR COMPARISONS SCORES ON THE CMAS L OF PRE-TEST -SCALE Source Diff. M "t" Value Significance Level NA-LA .05 .08 P7*’.05 (n. s.) NA-HA 1.75 2.79 p-sd.Ol HA-LA 1.70 2.54 P <d.05 57 Results of "t"-tests are shown in Table 1J. As can be seen there is no significant difference in falsifying tendency between the NA and the LA. However, the NA and LA are both significantly higher than the HA (the .01 and .05 levels respectively). Perhaps it may be said the greater the aggression, the lower the tendency to falsify, the lower the defensiveness and the less need to appear "socially desirable •" Experimental Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 predicted that there would be a differ ence between experimental and control groups in change in manifest anxiety as measured by the discrepancy scores pre test CMAS A-Scale and post-test CMAS A-Scale. Further, TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF F VALUES PRE-POST ANXIETY (CMAS) A-SCALE DISCREPANCY SCORES Source F Value Significance Level Treatments: "E" x "C" .1625 p -^.05 (n. s.) Groups: NA x LA x HA .9096 p -^.05 (n. s.) Interaction 1.9942 p ^.05 (n. s.) that for the experimental groups, the direction of shift would be an increase for NA, and a greater decrease for HA than for LA. The F values for a two-way classification analysis of variance as summarized in Table 14 (see Append- I TABLE 15 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CMAS A-SCALE PRE AND POST TEST Group I NAc Group IV NAe Group II LAc Group V LAe Group III HAc Group VI HAe M <r M cr M cr M cr M cr M cr Pre 17.20 7.54 16.10 4.80 19.40 8.29 21.50 8.43 17.70 6.3* 17.80 4.19 Post 15.85 9.43 15.55 6.40 17.80 9.51 • 20.80 9.06 15.90 8.38 16.00 6.39 Diff. 1.35 2.09 .55 1.60 1.60 1.02 .70 .63 1.80 2.04 1.80 2.20 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 vn CD 59 ix K), reveal no significant effects for treatments, groups or interaction. Table 15 presents pre and post de scriptive statistics for all groups. No hypothesis was advanced for shifts of groups on the L-Scale. However, in order to determine whether the initial response was characteristic falsification tendency for these children, a two-way classification analysis of variance was applied and is summarized in Table 16 (see Appendix L). The findings are not statistically signifi cant. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 17. TABLE 16 SUMMARY OF F VALUES ON PRE-POST CMAS DISCREPANCY SCORES ON THE L-SCALE Source F Value Significance Level Treatments: "E" x "C" 1.7568 p>” '.05 (n. s.) Groups: NA x LA x HA .9225 p-^.05 (n. s.) Interaction .4611 P t^.05 (n. s.) Rating Scales The rating scales as devised by Lucas (75) and mod ified for the present study are listed in Appendix F. The adaptations were made by both Dr. Lucas and the writer to accomodate both the Doll Diagnosis Test and the Parent Questionnaire. Pearson product-moment correlation coeff- TABLE 17 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE CMAS L-SCALE PRE AND POST TEST Group I NAc Group IV NAe Group LAc II Group V LAe Group III HAc Group VI HAe M cr M cr M cr M cr M <r M cr Pre 4.60 2.41 5.20 2.06 4.90 2.20 4.80 1.99 3.50 1.99 2.80 1.63 Post 3.85 2.55 4.85 2.35 5.80 3.53 4.40 2.45 2.80 1.51 2.50 2.01 Diff. .75 .14 .35 .19 1.10 1.33 .40 .46 .70 .48 .30 .38 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 c r » o 61 icients were computed for inter-rater agreement, and as can be seen from Table 18, the correlation is very bigh, beyond the .01 level for all categories. The ratings were TABLE 18 PEARSON PR0DUCT-M0MENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS INTER-RATER AGREEMENT FOR DD AND PQ, RATING SCALES Rater Categories Agreement Pearson-r Doll Diagnosis (experimental groups) 1. Aggressive act .99 lb. Child's feelings after aggressive act 1.00 2. Mother's reaction to (1) .99 2b. Child's feelings after punishment (mother) 1.00 2c. Retaliation to mother 1.00 2e. Child's feelings after retaliation to mother 1.00 3. Father's reaction to (1) .99 3b. Child's feelings after punishment (father) 1.00 3c. Retaliation to father 1.00 3e. Child's feelings after retaliation to father ,99 Parent Questionnaire (experimental and control groups) 1. Aggressive act .68 2. Punishment from mother .99 2c. Reaction to punishment from mother .98 3. Punishment from father 1.00 3c. Reaction to punishment from father .99 made independently by Dr. Lucas and the writer. In subse quent analyses, the score for each subject was the mean of the two ratings. Due to the nature of the data from the rating scales, Chi square tests for significance were considered the most 62 appropriate method for analysis of the data (4-5). TABLE 19 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF CHILDREN'S FANTASY AGGRESSION (DD) AND PARENTS' DESCRIPTION OF OVERT AGGRESSION (PQ) Source x2 df 2 x for P=.05 Significance Level *1) NAe-LAe-HAe (DD) .076 2 5-99 p • 7.05 (n. s.) 2) NA -LA -HA (PQ) 1.017 2 5.99 P 7’.05 (n. s.) 5) NAc-LAc-HAc (PQ) .870 2 5.99 p-7.05 (n. s.) 4) NAe-LAe-HAe (PQ) 2.400 2 5.99 p - 7.05 (n. s. ) ■"This and analogous numbers refer to Chi square anal yses listed in Appendix M. Table 19 summarizes Chi square tests for hypotheses relating to aggressive acts on both the DD and PQ. Hypo thesis 2 predicted that there would be differences among the groups in terms of aggressive behavior projected to the self-doll on the DD. The predicted direction was HA^LA^NA. As we can see from Table 19-1, the Chi square value is not significant, the results lending no support to Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2a expected that parents would describe more overt aggressive behavior for HA children than for LA or NA, and more for LA than NA. Table 19-2 shows the Chi square value for differences among groups combining exper imental and control subjects. It is not statistically 63 significant. Thus Hypothesis 2a is not confirmed. Neither is there any support for this hypothesis when Chi square tests are computed using just experimentals or con trols, as can he seen in Table- 19-3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that there would he differ ences in the severity of punishment projected to the mother doll on the DD in the direction of HAx'LATT’ NA. This hypothesis was not supported as can be seen in Table 20-5. Hypothesis 3a which made the same prediction for TABLE 20 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF CHILDREN'S FANTASY OF PARENTS' PUNISHMENT (DD) EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS ONLY Source x2 df x2 for p=.05 Significance Level 5) Mothers' Punishment NAe-LAe-HAe 1.980 2 5.99 p-^.05 (n. s.) 6) Fathers' Punishment NAe-LAe-HAe 2.570 2 5.99 P -^.05 (n. s.) 7) Mothers-Fathers (groups combined) 6.970 1 3.84 P^.01 for fantasied punishment from the father also is not sup ported as is seen by the non-significant Chi square value in Table 20-6. However, Hypothesis 31> which predicted that punishment would be fantasied as more severe for the fa thers than the mothers is confirmed as shown in Table 20-7. The fantasied punishment for the fathers is significantly more severe than for the mothers (beyond the .01 level) when groups are combined. Hypothesis 3c predicted that there would be differ ences in the severity of punishment reported by mothers of the NA* LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of this differ ence would be HA^LA^NA. This is based on the idea that since the majority of the parents do not see their children as a problem at home (see Table 21), perhaps there is a relationship between the severity of punishment and ag gressive behavior outside the home, i.e. as observed by TABLE 21 DISTRIBUTION OF PARENTS WHO SEE CHILD AS A PROBLEM Gr. I Gr. IV Gr. II Gr. V Gr. III Gr. VI NAc NAe LAc LAe HAc HAe M F M F M F M F M F M F Yes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 3 No 19 19 19 19 9 9 8 8 7 8 7 7 N 20 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 teachers. The Chi square values as summarized in Table 22-8 show differences among the combined groups signifi cant beyond the .01 level, in support of Hypothesis 3c. The direction of difference is also upheld in that mothers 65 of HA see themselves as more punishing than mothers of LA or NA. When Chi square tests are made on the experimental TABLE 22 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF MOTHERS' DESCRIPTION OF PUNISHMENT (PQ) Source 2 X df 2 x for P=.05 Significance Level 8) NA-LA-HA 10.32 2 5.99 p < .01 9) NAe-LAe-HAe 4.40 2 5.99 P t «05 (n. s.) 10) NAc-LAc-HAc 13.42 2 5.99 pc.Ol and control groups separately, a surprising finding is ev ident. As shown in Table 22-9, there are no significant differences among mothers of the experimental groups, but there is a highly significant difference, beyond the .01 level for mothers of control groups (Table 22-10). This suggests that possibly the sampling randomization in terms of mothers may be at fault. Hypothesis predicted that there would be differ ences in the severity of punishment by fathers of the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of this difference would, be HAT LA"7NA. As can be seen in Table 23-11 * 12 and 13» there are no significant differences among groups for de scription of fathers' punishment when Chi squares are com puted for either experimental and control groups or for 66 groups combined. TABLE 23 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF FATHERS’ DESCRIPTION OF PUNISHMENT (PQ) Source X2 df x2 for P=.05 Significance Level 11) NA-LA-HA 1.27 2 5.99 p^.05 (n. s. ) 12) NAe-LAe-HAe .18 2 5.99 P tt.05 (n. s. ) 13) NAc-LAc-HAc 3.97 2 5.99 P:r.05 (n. s. ) It will be recalled that with the exception of 22 cases, the mothers reported on the PQ for both themselves and their husbands, suggesting a correlation between mothers' and fathers' data. Therefore, it was decided that the most appropriate statistical method to apply would be McNemar's formula for discovering differences between correlated proportions (45), excluding the 22 cases which were independently reported. Table 24 shows the "t" values for comparison of differ ences between description of mothers' and fathers' punish ment when sut>-groups are combined. There are no signifi cant differences as can be seen in Table 24-14, 15 and 16. Hypothesis 4 predicted there would be differences among the experimental groups in the children's fantasied reaction to punishment from the mother, and that the direc tion of difference would be HAT'LA'/^NA. There are no 67 TABLE 24 "t" VALUES FOR COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DESCRIPTION OF MOTHERS' AND FATHERS' PUNISHMENT (PQ) FOR POOLED RATINGS EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS COMBINED Source "t" "t" for P=.05 Significance Level 14) Mothers-Fathers (NA) 1.09 1.96 P^.05 (n. s.) 15) Mothers-Fathers (LA) .90 1.96 p ^.05 (n. s.) 16) Mothers-Fathers (HA) 1.63 1.96 p -^.05 (n. s.) TABLE 25 CHI SQUARE VALUES OF COMPARISONS ON DD OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL TO PUNISHMENT FROM MOTHER AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS OF RATINGS REACTION i FATHER Source x2 df x2 for P=.05 Significance Level 17) Reaction to Punishment from Mother NAe-LAe-HAe 2.90 2 5.99 p-7.05 (n. s.) 18) Reaction to Punishment From Father 3.80 2 5.99 Pt^.05 (n. s.) 19) Mother-Father (NAe) .84 1 3.84 p-7.05 (n. s.) 20) Mother-Father (LAe) .22 1 3.84 p-7.05 (n» s.) 21) Mother-Father (HAe) .00 1 3.84 p-7.05 (n. s.) 68 significant differences as shown in Table 25-17, giving no support to this hypothesis. Hypothesis 4a made the same prediction for fantasied reaction to punishment from the father. This too is not supported as seen in Table 25-18. When comparisons of differences are made for child ren’s fantasied reaction to punishment between fathers and mothers, there are no significant differences for any of the groups as can be seen in Table 25-19, 20 and 21. Hypothesis 4b predicted that there would be differ ences in the mothers' reports of the children's behavioral reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of this difference would be HA^LA^NA. As TABLE 26 CHI SQUARE VALUES POR COMPARISONS OP RATINGS ON PQ OP CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL REACTION TO PUNISHMENT PROM MOTHERS Source x2 df 2 x for p=.05 Significance Level 22) NA-LA-HA .17 2 5.99 pp^.05 (n. s.) 23) NAe-LAe-HAe .00 2 5.99 p-7.05 (n. s.) 24) NAc-LAc-HAc .53 2 5.99 p^.05 (n. s.) can be seen in Table 26-22, this hypothesis is not sup ported. There are no significant differences either when groups are combined or when Chi squares are computed for the experimental (Table 26-23) or control groups (Table 69 26-24) individually. Hypothesis 4c predicted that there would be differ ences in the fathers' reports of the children's behavioral reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. Tne direction of this difference would be HA<-LA<i.NA. This hypothesis too receives no statistical support as can be seen in Table 27-25, 26 and 27. TABLE 27 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF RATINGS ON PQ OF CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL REACTION TO PUNISHMENT FROM FATHERS Source 2 X df x^ for P=.05 Significance Level 25) NA-LA-HA 3.57 2 5.99 P ~7 .05 (n. s.) 26) NAe-LAe-HAe 2.54 2 5.99 p -7.05 (n. s.) 27) NAc-LAc-HAc 2.25 2 5.99 P *05 (n. s.) Again using McNemar's formula for correlated propor tions (45), the sub-groups were combined for comparisons between mothers' and fathers' reports of the children's behaviorial reaction to punishment. As can be seen in Table 28-28, there is a highly significant difference for the NA beyond the .01 level, and nearly significant differ ences for both the LA (Table 28-29) and the HA (Table 28-50). All groups tend to apologize and make restitution. However, this is true for the NA and HA more with respect 70 TABLE 28 1 1 1" VALUES FOR COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENCES OF CHILDREN’S BEHAVIORAL REACTION TO PUNISHMENT FROM MOTHERS AND FATHERS (PQ) FOR POOLED RATINGS EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS COMBINED Source "t" "t" for P=.05 Significance Level 28) Mothers-Fathers (NA) -3.09 1.96 p-c .01 29) Mothers-Fathers (LA) -1.63 1.96 P^.05 (n. s.) 50) Mothers-Fathers (HA) -1.63 1.96 p 7.05 (n. s. ) to the fathers than the mothers. The LA tend to react in the same way more toward the mothers than the fathers. Since there were no significant differences among the experimental groups for punishment by parents on the DD (Table 20-5 and 6), behavioral reaction to punishment by parents on the DD (Table 25-17 and 18), and PQ ratings (Table 22-9, Table 23-12, Table 26-23, Table 27-26), the three groups were combined to see whether there were dif ferences in children's fantasy as compared With parents' reports. Hypothesis 5 predicted that there would be a lack of agreement between ratings on the DD and PQ. Table 29 summarizes the Pearson Product-moment correlation coeffi cients for the five different categories. As can be seen, only reaction to punishment from mother is highly positive ly correlated (p-c.01). There is no significant correlation 71 TABLE 29 PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPARISONS OF POOLED RATINGS ON DOLL DIAGNOSIS (DD) AND PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE (PQ) EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Source r df r for p=.05 Significance Level Aggressive Act .046 38 .320 P -7.05 (n. s.) Mothers' Punishment .043 38 .3 20 p-7.05 (n. s.) Fathers1 Punishment .019 38 .320 p-7.05 (n. s.) Reaction to Punishment from Mother .490 38 .320 p «d.01 Reaction to Punishment from Father .083 38 .320 p -7.05 (n. s.) between the DD and the PQ on the other four categories. The hypothesis is supported in part. Hypothesis 6 predicted that there would he differ- ences in intensity of feelings after commission of an aggressive act on the DD among the experimental groups. The direction of differences would he HA<^LA<NA. As can he seen in Tahle 30-31* there are no significant differ ences among the groups. Thus the hypothesis is not sup ported. Hypothesis 6a predicted there would he differences in intensity of feelings among the groups in response to 72 punishment from the mother. The direction of differences would be HA^LA-^NA. Table 30-32 indicates there is no support for this hypothesis. TABLE 30 CHI SQUARE VALUES FOR COMPARISON OF RATINGS OF INTENSITY OF CHILD'S FEELINGS AROUND AGGRESSION, PUNISHMENT AND RETALIATION TO PARENTS (DD) EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Source X2 df x2 for Significance P=.05 Level 31) Aggressive Act NAe-LAe-HAe .18 2 5.99 p^.03 (n. s.) 32) Punishment from Mother NAe-LAe-HAe .61 2 5.99 p 7^.05 (n. s.) 33) Punishment from Father NAe-LAe-HAe 5.36 2 5.99 p-r.05 (n. s.) 34) Punishment Mother-Father (groups combined) .20 1 3*84 p-7.05 (n. s.) 35) Retaliation to Mother NAe-LAe-HAe .32 2 5*99 p-^.05 (n. s.) 36) Retaliation to Father NAe-LAe-HAe .75 2 5.99 P - 7.05 (n. s.) 37) Retaliation Mother-Father (groups combined) .23 1 3*84 p-^.05 (n. s.) Hypothesis 6b predicted there would be differences in intensity of feelings among the groups in response to punishment from the father. The direction of differences 73 would "be HA^LA^NA. Table JO-33 indicates a nearly sig nificant difference at the .05 level for this hypothesis. The direction of difference tends to be as expected. The tendency is for NA to express more intense feelings around punishment from the father than either the LA or HA. The tendency is more to be frightened, worried or angry than to apologize or make restitution. When groups are combined and feelings around punish ment from the father (Table 30-34-) are compared with feel ings around punishment from the mother, there are no sig nificant differences. Hypothesis 6c predicted that there would be differ ences in intensity of feelings around retaliation for pun ishment from the mother among groups. The direction of difference would be H/KLA-^NA. As can be seen in Table 30-35* this hypothesis is not supported. Hypothesis 6d predicted there would be differences in intensity of feelings around retaliation for punishment from the father among groups. The direction of difference would be HA<-LA<-NA. This hypothesis is not supported as seen in Table 30-36. When groups are pooled to compare differences in children's feelings around retaliation to punishment from mother and father, there are no significant differences as seen in Table 30-37# 74- Summary of Findings In summarizing the experimental findings in relation to the experimental hypotheses, the following points emerge Hypothesis 1 is not supported. There is no signifi cant difference in shift in anxiety from pre to post test as measured by the CMAS A-Scale for the experimental groups. Hypothesis 2 is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in fantasy aggression among the experi mental groups. Hypothesis 2a is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in overt aggression as reported by parents of the experimental groups. Hypothesis 3 is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in the severity of fantasied punishment from mothers among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 3a is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in the severity of fantasied punishment from fathers among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 3b is supported. Punishment is fantasied as significantly more severe for fathers than mothers for the combined experimental groups. Hypothesis 3c is supported. Mothers of HA see them selves as significantly more punishing than mothers of LA or NA. Hypothesis 3d is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences among groups for fathers' description of 75 punishment. Hypothesis 4 is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in children's fantasied retaliation for punishment from the mother among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 4a is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in children's fantasied retaliation for punishment from the father among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 4b is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in mothers' reports of overt reaction to punishment. Hypothesis 4c is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in the fathers' reports of overt reaction to punishment. Hypothesis 5 is supported in part. There is no signi ficant correlation between ratings on the DD and PQ in four categories: aggressive acts, punishment from mothers, punishment from fathers, and reaction to punishment from fathers. Only the reaction to punishment from mothers was significantly correlated. Hypothesis 6 is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in intensity of feelings after commission of an aggressive act among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 6a is not supported. There are no signifi- differences in intensity of feelings in response to pun ishment from the mother among the experimental groups. Hypothesis 6b is not supported, but there is a nearly 76 significant difference in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to punishment from the father. The tendency is for NA to express more intense feelings around punishment than either the LA or HA. The tendency is to be more worried, frightened or angry than to apologize or make restitution. Hypothesis 6c is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in intensity of feelings around retalia tion for punishment from the mother among the experimental groups• Hypothesis 6d is not supported. There are no signifi cant differences in intensity of feelings around retalia tion for punishment from the father among the experimental groups. CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION The Relationship between Anxiety And Aggression As seen from the quantitative analysis of the data in the previous chapter, the major hypothesis was not sup ported in that there is no significant difference between aggressive and nonaggressive children in the shift in level of anxiety as measured by the CMAS A-Scale. The prediction of such a finding was based on the sex, age and stage of development of the children. The expectancy that after commission of an aggressive act there would be a rise in anxiety for nonaggressive children was based on evidence from research and theory that for those children who had learned social controls, the commission of an aggressive act would result in feelings of wrong-doing generating guilt and anxiety. It was expected that this anxiety could be measured. Reasons were also presented to support the prediction that for those children who tend to "act out' or for whom acting out aggressively is a usual occurrence, there would be a drop in anxiety level with little or no guilt around the aggressive act. 77 Although the findings for the major hypothesis are not statistically significant, an examination of the de scriptive statistics in Table 15 suggests some interesting possibilities. First, it is noted that the means for LA are higher than NA or HA, and the HA means are slightly higher than the NA. The question arises as to whether the selection device truly differentiated the three groups in terms of aggression. Wiggins and Winder (105) have pointed out that some of the items were heavily loaded on a kind of dependency or disruptive, "attention-seeking" aggression. Sixteen of the 20 children in the LA group were selected on the basis of aggression items which were also loaded on dependency, suggesting that the higher anxiety score in these children may be more related to dependency than aggressiveness. However, when the selection device more clearly differentiates the groups as seen in the HA, these children score higher on the anxiety scale than the NA. Thus when aggressive groups are combined and contrasted with the nonaggressives, the biserial r reaches signifi cance beyond the .05 level suggesting a positive relation ship between aggression and anxiety. However, a Pearson r for the HA on the two measures of anxiety and aggression is negative and non-significant. One interpretation of these findings is that the general relationship between anxiety and aggression is positive but that there is no relationship or a negative relationship when aggression is 79 high. Another interpretation, based on the dependency- aggression items which differentiated the LA might be that the "anxiety-aggression" postulated by the writer includes a dependency factor which manifests itself as "aggression." This would be in line with the theoretical considerations postulated by Horney and agreed upon by this writer that what is termed "aggression" or "hostility" does not always carry with it "the- intent to harm" but may merely be a manifestation of overwhelming anxiety, possibly related to dependency needs. Early in her theorizing, Horney felt that this dependency in conflict with rebellion against the parental figures was inherent in the "basic conflict" as seen in adult neuroses, generating a "basic anxiety." The importance of such an interpretation is seen in an early understanding of children who later become problems in terms of society. If parents and teachers can under stand that the so-called aggression is indeed a "cry for help," perhaps much of the "habituated" aggression seen in delinquents may be avoided. The idea of habituation is well supported by learning theorists-. Aggressive behavior originally motivated by strong feelings may be tension-reducing and reinforced, so that the behavior may continue long after the affect ceases to be the driving force. It is the contention of this writer that this occurs in some children, and one wonders if this separation of affect from behavior may not be considered a disorder of 80 affect rather than a disorder of behavior and may not be treated as such. The reasons for the choice of boys aged nine were given in Chapter I and the importance of recognizing the anxiety behind the aggression at this age lies in the fact that it is still available and not dissociated from the behavior. As Horney has stated, the child is still in the process of integrating his inner needs with the demands of the environment, and may be seen as a growth process and as a constructive move toward assertiveness rather than aggressiveness with its connotation of destructiveness. It is only in later life, if the child has not been prop erly handled or directed that the anxiety may be manifest ed as a neurotic process. It is at this point in his de velopment that the different aspects of his person seem to be at odds, in that while in one area he may be ready to assume certain responsibilities, in others he is small and immature. Perhaps the negation of the prediction of shift in anxiety among the groups could be accounted for on the basis of the fact that the CMAS may be measuring a more enduring or "basic" kind of anxiety that is not signifi cantly dissipated by any kind of behavior, aggressive of otherwise, suggesting the possibility that for these children, this may be the "enduring core" which may have implications for later kinds of behavior. 81 The interesting trend, though not clearly significant quantitatively, is that there is a drop in the mean number of items for all groups (Table 15) • A suggested interpre tation may be that the initial anxiety was high because of the uncertainty of the testing situation. The children may have become more relaxed after the drawing and doll play. Although such an interpretation would have to be explored more fully, the probability that by chance all six means would drop is one in sixty-four. Thus, while a caus al relationship cannot be assumed, the fact that this event is unusual justifies further analysis and study. Reference to Table 15 reveals that there was less of a drop for the LAe and the NAe than their control groups, although not significantly so. A possible interpretation here is that the doll play with its aggressive act and parental interaction may have been more anxiety-inducing than the drawing for the children. However, for the HA, where the drop in anxiety is highest, there is no differ ence between experimental and control groups, suggesting that for HA any kind of behavior may be anxiety-reducing. If we further note the drop for the three experimental groups, the direction appears to be an increasing function of aggression. This is also true for the control groups. This suggests that the intervening tasks, i.e., DD and drawing may have had differential effects for the LA and NA but not for the HA. Also, while there was no rise in 82 anxiety for the NAe, the fact that there was less of a drop than for the other two groups, may lend some support to the idea that the commission of a fantasied aggressive act may he more anxiety-arousing for children who do not usually display aggressive behavior than for those who do. Specifically, the argument can be made that the CMAS is primarily a measure of enduring anxiety and the results of this study lend support to the purported stability of the test. Of course the question to be answered is, "Why do the scores for all groups drop on re-test?" The need is for a test which measures transient anxiety around aggression within a context of anxiety of a more enduring kind, such as the "basic anxiety" posited by Horney. Perhaps the work of Sarason, et al. (92) comes closest to this idea in that they use two separate tests, one for general anxiety and one for "test anxiety." They find that children who are anxious in the test situation are generally anxious. Findings in an investigation such as this where self- reports are used, are often confounded by a tendency to falsify. Thus the L-Scale is an added feature. (Correla tion with the A-Scale in this study is -.04.) Although some workers feel that a high L-Scale score invalidates the other scales (92,17), others feel that while this may be so, it can be interpreted as a measure of defensiveness (24). In the present study, the concern was with the pos 83 sibility of differences among the groups in terms of falsi fication tendency. The findings were statistically signi ficant. The HA had the lowest L-Scale scores suggesting the greater the aggression the lower the falsification tendency. As discussed in an earlier chapter, falsifying tendency has been considered a measure of defensiveness which leads to marking the more socially desirable items as descriptive of the self. If we consider the relation ship between anxiety and aggression and the falsifying tendency, we find a consistency between these results. First, it was found that in general there was a pos itive correlation between anxiety and aggression, but when aggression was high there was a low, non-significant neg ative correlation. Here again, for the LA and NA, falsi fication tendency or defensiveness was higher, signifi cantly so, than the HA. Perhaps one may infer that in general, the higher the anxiety, the higher the aggression and the greater the defensiveness. But when aggression is especially high, defensiveness is low. Another interpretation, which has not been posited previously to this writer's knowledge, is related to the "social desirability" factor. When one considers this from a child's point of view, could it not be that when a child reads such a statement as, "I tell the truth every single time," while he may consider it socially desirable to do so, he may consider it more "soeially desirable" in m this instance to "tell the truth about telling the truth." One worker has considered this "a willingness to say devi ant things about the self" (109). If this is so, then we, as evaluators of behavior, are indeed in a state of confu sion. In the first place, the cultural mores transmitted from adults to children lay emphasis on truth-telling. Truth-telling is based on a concept of what is "real" to the adult. Piaget's work has indicated that it is not until the child is older that his concept of reality is equated with that of the adult. A child quickly learns that his lack of coordination and inability to communicate to adults leads to accidents and misunderstandings for which he is punished. He also learns that parental re sponse to lying is less traumatic than telling the truth about an undesirable act. However, when he is confronted he usually tells the truth. This is impressed upon him as being socially desirable. If in the testing situation, we consider lying in the socially desirable direction a measure of defensiveness and we equate a "willingness to say deviant things about the self" with a lack of defens iveness, what does this mean? Is the defensiveness in the service of the ego or an indication of the "idealized self?" And is the "willingness to say deviant things about the self" a sign of a weak or deflated ego? If this is so, how can we reconcile these ideas with the cultural emphasis on truth-telling, particularly since in this instance it 85 happens to be associated with the aggressive child? The writer puts forth the suggestion that in the child, truth-telling may be an indicator of two things; one, that he has learned that it is socially desirable and may lie about telling the truth, and two, that in the ag gressive child, it may have been learned with trauma. He may have been confronted more often than the nonaggressive child, so that when the direct question is asked, as in the test situation, he may tell the truth about "telling the truth," and for him this will be more socially desir able. In which case, this kind of truth-telling need not be interpreted as a "willingness to say deviant things a- bout the self," but rather as a bid for love and attention. He may be saying, "Look, I'm telling the truth, love me." That these may be characteristic ways of responding for these children is seen in the stability of the scores for all groups on retest (Table 17). Fantasy versus Overt Aggression Unfortunately, most of the findings based on the experimental condition were not supported by statistical significance. It is felt that to an important extent these negative findings are due to the untried instruments and rating scales. Qualitatively, there is a richness of material which could be presented and discussed, and this will be done where it is felt that it will add to the exposition of the discussion. 86 The Aggressive Act and Related Feelings Neither fantasy aggression as elicited by the struc tured doll play or overt aggression as described by the parents differentiated the experimental groups. The Aggressive Acts (see Appendixes N, P and Q) fantasied by the children were for the most part at the low end of the scale. While in rare instances a child permitted himself a violent fantasy, the general tendency was rather stereo typed. For example, at the high end: NAe-20: In the kitchen, he put poison the shelf with the spices. He opens his bedroom door and walks through the dining room into the kitchen and put poison on the shelf — 90% poison— like burning alcohol. When asked how the boy felt, He feels bad. Like he's doing something wrong-bad. Here we see an example of "retaliation-aggression." He knows what he is doing, but does it anyway. This is a child in the Non-Aggressive group. Perhaps this lends some support to those studies which find evidence for fantasy aggression to be greater for children who do not usually express aggression overtly. However, let's see what the parents say about this child. In the first grade. He squeezed glue onto a mirror- small pranks. This child is not a problem either in school or at home. At the low end of the scale: NAe-14-: The boy stands on the furniture. How does feel? Bad. He knows he's not supposed to be doing it. The parents describe the worst thing the child ever did. He put a nail in our car tire— marked with crayola on the fireplace bricks. Thus, in another child who does not usually display ag gressive behavior we have a reverse situation in that the overt behavior described by the parents tends to have been more destructive than the fantasy. This child, too, is not seen as a problem by either the school or the parents. The following are examples of aggressive acts in children in the LA group at the high and low ends of the scale: LAe-2: He kicks his mother. How does he feel? Not very good. The parents feel this child is a problem and his worst behavior: He lacks responsibility and the main problem is with homework• Here we see an example of "retaliation-aggression" toward the mother, possibly related to unfulfilled dependency needs, as suggested by the selection device in which the dependency factor plays a large part. In the school situ ation, this is manifested as "anxiety-aggression." The 88 parents see the dependency as "a lack of responsibility" with little awareness of the child's real need. At the low end, LAe-7: He pulls up all the turnips. He just picks up the green parts and jerks them up. How does the boy feel? Bad. The parents do not feel the child is a problem, but report as the worst thing he ever did: Stole candy at the store about a year ago. The oral-dependent needs are sharply pointed out here. The following are examples of aggressive acts in children in the HA group at the high and low ends of the scale: HAe-6: He hits his sister, the 5 year-old. He's hitting her on the arm and knocking her over. How does the boy feel? Worried— because his father might get onto him. The parents do not see this child as a problem and their answer indicates the area where the aggression manifests itself. The worst thing he ever did: Fighting at school. He jumped on some little kid and squeezed him. He didn't mean to hurt him. He was playing. He was brought home by the Principal for sass- the Vice-Principal. The Bishop was here. He talked to him and straightened him out. At the low end of the scale: HAe-3: 89 He squirts a hose in the window of his own home and in the kitchen. He turns on the faucet and he was trying to squirt his friends and accidently shot in the window in his own home. How does the hoy feel? Feels like he's gonna get a spanking. Feels bad. The parents feel this child is a problem on occasion and the worst thing he does: He teases his younger brother. Argues a lot. Doesn't mind. When he's angry he likes to say things to embarass us in front of people. He also makes fun of other children. It is interesting that for the HAe, the children anti cipated punishment with their feelings of anxiety or guilt. While no generalizations may be made from these isolated cases, they suggest that there may be some connection between overt aggression and fear of punishment. Parental Punishment and Related Feelings Here too, the rating scales did not differentiate the groups for punishment fantasied by the children. However, when groups are combined to determine differences in fan tasied punishment from fathers and mothers, the children tend to see the fathers as more severely punishing. It is difficult to make inferences from such a finding, since it is not possible to say what this relates to in terms of the study. That boys seem to see the father as more pun ishing than the mother is in accord with the usual evidence ( 7, 108) . In terms of the parent interview, while here too the findings were meager, there was one clear and interesting bit of evidence. Mothers of HA report themselves as sig nificantly more punishing than mothers of LA or NA. There are several implications here. One, is in terms of truth fulness of report, a fact which has been questioned by other workers and is discussed in Chapter II. The writer's experience in this study has been that parents were inter ested and tended to answer honestly. In some instances, they were slow about remembering the children's aggressive acts, but finally came up with a response. There were only three sets of parents who "couldn't think of anything bad" that the child had done. The interesting point here is that the mothers of HA follow the same pattern of response as their children on the L-Scale of the CMAS. The question arises, "Are both mothers and children more "willing to admit deviant things about themselves?" Or are they simply telling the truth? While earlier, in relation to the children, an interpreta tion was given on the basis of trauma and confrontation for the child, another approach might be in terms of Horney's theory. If we think in terms of the first ques tion, this may be a manifestation of the "self-contempt" or "self-hate" postulated by Horney as inherent in neuroses. She states, "The most significant interrelation is that between the search for unlimited perfection and powers of 91 self-hate" (53* P» 375)• If the aggressiveness of children can he considered a "search for unlimited perfection" as an effort to maintain the "idealized self" which Horney says is really at the base of the core conflict, i.e., trying to live up to the "idealized self" and hating the "real self," they may tell the truth. "The idealized self" may be associated with telling the truth about "the real self" which may be seen as unworthy. If we think in these terms, we may see where this early behavior may lead to neurotic patterns. On the other hand, we can accept the fact that the mothers and children are simply telling the truth about themselves and it is the content of that truth that makes the difference. If the mothers of HA are more punishing and they do not see their children as a problem at home, their aggressive behavior in school may be related to the punishment which inhibits such behavior at home. This is further born out by the fact that the majority of the mothers admitted that punishment occurred earlier in the child's life and that the more physical methods such as "spanking with a belt or paddle" were no longer necessary. Another point to be made here is that while mothers' reports of punishment differentiates the groups, fathers' reports do not. Most of the evidence reported in Chapter II, stresses the relationship between punishment from the father and aggressiveness in boys, positing an "identifi- 92 cation with the aggressor." In this study, it appears that the identification is with the mother as the "aggressor." Or that the aggression may he in retaliation for the moth ers' punishment. Or perhaps we are seeing another indica tion of the confounding of dependency and aggression due to the selection device. To recapitulate, the findings indicate that while punishment from parents is fantasied similarly for all groups, they tend to see the fathers as more severely punishing. On the other hand, while fathers tend to use similar methods of punishment for the experimental groups, mothers of HA see themselves as more punishing than mothers of LA or NA. With regard to feelings around punishment, all the children seem to feel similarly about punishment from either parent. None of the projected hypotheses was supported. However, there was a nearly significant difference in intensity of feelings around fantasied punishment from the father. The tendency was for NA to express more in tense feelings than either the LA or HA. The tendency was more to be worried, frightened or angry than to apologize or make restitution. Is there a possible relationship between these feelings and the tendency to falsify in the socially desirable direction of the L-Scale? Horney's point that these may not be "real guilt feelings" but are bound up with hostility toward the pun ishing agent since no attempt at restitution is made, is relevant here. Retaliation for Punishment and Related feelings" While it was expected that there would be differences in fantasied retaliation to punishment for the groups, these hypotheses received no statistical support. The children all seem to retaliate similarly. There also was no support for differences in mothers' or fathers' reports of reaction to punishment by the dif ferent groups. Thus, all parents seem to see the child ren's reactions as similar. However, when experimental and control groups are combined, there is a significant difference between parents' reports for the NA and nearly significant differences for the HA and LA. While it seems that all the children tend to apologize and make restitu tion, this is more true for the NA and HA than the LA, more with respect to the fathers than the mothers. Accord ing to the parents, then, it would seem that the children react differently to each parent. It is interesting that in this population the NA and HA are more similar in their reactions to punishment than the NA and LA, in that while the NA and HA tend to display guilt feelings around ag gression toward the father, the LA is more apt to feel guilty around aggression toward the mother. This seems to 9k to add further support to the dependency factor involved in the selection of the LA. Another point to be made is related to Horney's defin ition of "real guilt feelings" which carry with them the desire to make restitution. This is seen in all the children, the HA as well as the others. When we consider that these children have been selected on the basis of ag gressive or acting-out behavior in school and that most theories related to such behavior posit little guilt around aggression, this finding can be rather provocative. The question is raised, "Why do we see guilt feelings under these circumstances and little or none at a juvenile hall where a child has been brought in after having committed some deviant act?" The writer feels there may be two reasons for this; one, in the case of the child whose deviant behavior brings him into contact with the law, the aggressive act has been committed at a much earlier time, so that by the time the authorities see him, the feelings may be more fear of what is going to happen to him, than guilt or anxiety around the aggressive act. Two, by the time the child is in difficulties and is studied, he usually is much older, and the actual guilt or anxiety may have become dissociated from the behavior. In children of the age being studied, as this finding indicates, the affect is still available and the aggression if properly understood and channeled can be redirected 95 toward constructive behavior. In the final analysis, credence for any findings based on fantasy must have their counterpart in fact. The controversies and contradictory evidence were discussed in Chapter II. In this study, agreement between the child ren's fantasy and parents' reports is found is only one area, reaction to punishment from mother. It was postu lated that parents and children would not agree. Thus, while the hypothesis was supported in the main, with disa greement in four categories: aggressive act6, punishment from mother, punishment from father and reaction to pun ishment from father, what are the implications of such findings? Are the instruments measuring different things? This is highly possible. These are untried instruments and must be sharpened for further work. Since none of the categories delineated the sub-groups, no inference can be made about the relationship of aggression to fantasy or overt behavior from these tests. However, the evidence seems to indicate that fantasy and overt behavior are different, except where reaction to punishment from mother is concerned. In recalling Wardwell and Levin's critical comment about drawing the line between replicative and wish-ful filling fantasies, perhaps here we see a sample of both. The reaction to punishment from mother appears to be re- licative, whereas the other categories may be seen as 96 wish-fulfilling. Perhaps the DD may be useful in separ ating these two aspects of doll play. Implications of the Findings for the Theoretical framework Presented Although an attempt has been made to relate the find- I ings to relevant concepts of Horney s theory of neuroses in the previous sections, this section will try to bring them together more clearly. First, Horney has postulated that neurosis has as its core, "basic anxiety" generated by a "basic conflict" related to early dependency and rebellion in response to parental discipline during the socialization process. Thus, a reciprocal relationship is set up between "anxiety and hostility." If this "basic conflict" is not resolved, the child sees the world as hostile and may in his efforts to retain his feelings of security move toward, against or away from people or objects in the environment. Since this study was primarily concerned with children who move "against" the environment aggressively, the two other kinds of behavior were not discussed. The finding important here is the positive relation ship between anxiety and aggression in general, supporting the idea of reciprocity between feelings of hostility and anxiety. Later in her theorizing, she posited that it was the conflict between "the idealized self" and the "real self" 97 that was inherent in the core of neuroses. So that "neuro ses became a disturbance in one's relation to the self and others" (53)* While the children in this study are not considered neurotic, they have been selected on the basis of disturb ance in relation to others. The disturbance in relation to the self perhaps may be seen in the differences among the groups in the falsification tendency. Of course further study would have to be undertaken to determine the validity of such a suggestion. Another finding relevant to Horney's theory is in re lation to guilt feelings. She feels that an important cri terion of the genuineness of guilt feelings is "whether they are accompanied by a serious wish to make amends or do better" (53)- At this age, all parents report the child ren's reaction to discipline as still within the criterion of genuine guilt feelings. The HA as well as the LA and NA attempt to make amends in their overt behavior, but in fantasy the NA feel freer to express their hostile feelings. Limitations of the Study Findings from this study should not be generalized for the following reasons: 1. The selection device (PNI) as it was used did not differentiate a group of extremely aggressive children. Perhaps it would be better to use a sample of children who 9B have come in contact with the law because of their really destructive, aggressive behavior. 2. The CMAS is not amenable to shifts in anxiety and a more transient measure is needed. 5- While it is felt that the "Doll Diagnosis" test can be a useful instrument in eliciting an aggressive act, the rating scales must be refined so as to be more sensi tive to the fine differences in behavior. 4. The above is also true of the Parent Questionnaire. Perhaps it would be better to employ a bi-polar rating de vice rather than the questionnaire in its present form. This would make for more objectivity in scoring. Implications for Future Research The questions raised in Chapter I have not been an swered, leaving the field open for future studies in the areas of anxiety and aggression. The most urgent need seems to be methodology and techniques to measure the interaction of these two variables. The importance of understanding "transient anxiety" in a context of "basic anxiety" calls for instruments or an instrument which may indicate how transient stress which is manifested as aggressive behavior may shift, so that we may be able to tease out the transitory from the more enduring aspects of anxiety. This is particularly essential for understanding children in a transitional 99 stage of development. With, the proper instruments and the present design, a study with delinquents would be a contribution to the understanding of the relationship between anxiety and the aggressive behavior of the delinquent. Studies at different ages might spread light on the changing picture in the relationship between these two variables and how behavior is affected. More work should be done with the Lie Scales as re lated to children. Perhaps the usual interpretations made for adults does not hold. The two kinds of aggression conceptualized by the writer might be investigated further, i.e., "anxiety- aggression" and "retaliation-aggression." The "Doll Diagnosis" seems to elicit a richness of material which in the present setting is inadequately measured. With proper rating scales, this should prove to be a valuable technique for eliciting a specific universe of behavior, namely, aggression. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY The present study was concerned with the relationship between anxiety and aggression in nine-year-old boys. Based on existing theory and research, the following ex perimental hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 1. There will be a difference between the experimental and control groups in shift in "manifest anxiety" as measured by the discrepancy between pre and post test scores on the CMAS A-Scale. Further, for the experimental groups, the direction of shift will be a rise for the NA, a drop for LA, and a significantly greater drop for HA. Hypothesis 2. There will be differences among groups in terms of aggressive behavior projected to the self-doll on the DD. The direction of difference will be HA'T'LAt'NA. Hypothesis 2a. There will be differences among the groups in parents description of overt aggressive behavior. The direction of difference will be HA^LA^NA. Hypothesis There will be differences among the groups in severity of punishment projected to the mother dolls on the DD. The direction of difference will be 100 101 HA^ LA-7 NA. Hypothesis 3a. There will he differences in severity of punishment projected to the father dolls on the DD among groups. The direction of difference will be HA'?rLAt?NA. Hypothesis 3b. Punishment will be fantasied as more severe for the fathers than the mothers. Hypothesis 3c. There will be differences in the severity of punishment reported by mothers of NA, LA and HA on the P^. The direction of this difference will be H A L AT" NA. Hypothesis 3d. There will be differences in the severity of punishment reported by fathers of the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HA-7LA-7 NA. Hypothesis 4. There will be differences among exper imental groups in children's fantasied reaction to punish ment from the mother. The direction of difference will be HAT- LA-7 NA. Hypothesis 4a. There will be differences among the experimental groups in children's fantasied reaction to punishment from the father. The direction of difference will be HA“ 7 LA-7 NA. Hypothesis 4b. There will be differences in the mothers' reports of overt reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HA^-LA^NA. 102 Hypothesis 4c. There will be differences in the fathers' reports of overt reaction to punishment among the NA, LA and HA on the PQ. The direction of difference will be HA«£-LA^NA. Hypothesis There will be a lack of agreement be tween the DD and PQ on the five categories: aggressive acts, punishment from mothers, punishment from fathers, retaliation or reaction to punishment from mothers, re taliation or reaction to punishment from fathers. Hypothesis 6. There will be a difference in the intensity of feelings after commission of an aggressive act on the DD among the experimental groups. The direction of difference will be HA*<-LA<d.NA. Hypothesis 6a. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to punishment from the mother on the DD. The direction of difference will be HA *£-LA<£-NA. Hypothesis 6b. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to punishment from the father on the DD. The direction of difference will be HA^LA-dNA. Hypothesis 6c. There will be differences in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups around retalia tion for punishment from the mother on the DD. The direc tion of difference will be HA<LA<NA. Hypothesis 6d. There will be differences in intensity 105 of feelings among the experimental groups around retalia tion for punishment from the father on the DD. The direc tion of difference' will he HA-^LA<.NA. Subjects in this study were 80 Caucasion nine-year-old boys who were matched on the basis of age, IQ, school and parental background. They were divided into six groups, three experimental and three control on the basis of aggressiveness as rated by teachers on the selection de vice, The Peer Nomination Inventory. The experimental groups, consisting of 20 nonaggressive children (NAe), 10 low-aggressive children (LAe) and 10 high-aggresive child ren (HAe), were given the "Doll Diagnosis" test after an administration of the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale (CMAS), while the controls who were matched with the ex perimental groups were given a coloring task after the CMAS. All children were retested with the CMAS after the intervening condition. Parents were interviewed and filled in a Parent Ques tionnaire (PQ) which was designed to elicit information similar to that elicited by the "Doll Diagnosis" test. Results indicated that Hypotheses 1,2, 2a, 3» 3a were not supported. Hypothesis 3b is supported. Punish ment is fantasied as significantly more severe for fathers than mothers when groups are combined. Hypothesis 3c is supported. Mothers of HA see themselves as more punishing than mothers of LA or NA. Hypotheses 3d, 4, 4a, 4b, 4c 104- are not supported. Hypothesis 5 is supported in part. There is no significant correlation between ratings on the DD and PQ in four different categories: aggressive acts, punishment from mothers, punishment from fathers, and re action to punishment from fathers. Only the reaction to mothers' punishment is significantly correlated for the two measures. Hypothesis 6, 6a are not supported. Hypothesis 6b is supported tentatively. There is a nearly significant dif ference in intensity of feelings among the experimental groups in response to fantasied punishment from the father. The tendency is for NA to express more intense feelings around punishment than either the LA or HA. Hypotheses 6c and 6d are not supported. Results were discussed relative to Horney's theoreti cal framework and implications of the findings for her theory were presented. Limitations of the study and sug gestions for future research were presented and discussed. A P P E N D I X E S APPENDIX A MODIFIED PEER NOMINATION INVENTORY 107 APPENDIX A MODIFIED PEER NOMINATION INVENTORY NAME OF CHILD PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS VERY CAREFULLY AND IF IT APPLIES TO THE ABOVE NAMED CHILD, CIRCLE THE NUMBER OF THE STATEMENT. 1. He Is usually on time. 2. The other children play with him. 3. He tries to get other people in trouble. 4 . His speech is not clear. 5. He is good in spelling. 6. He is always acting up. 7. He is good in arithmetic. 8. He has more freckles than you can count. 9. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder. 10. He is a good runner. n . He always messes around and gets in trouble. 12. He makes fun of people. 13. He enunciates clearly. 14. He's just plain mean. 15. He writes well. 16. If someone gets in his way, he shoves them out of the way. 17. He says he can beat everybody up. 18. He's really wild. 19. He raises his hand often. 20. He can sit quietly. 21. He doesn't pay attention to the teacher. 22. He draws well. 23. He likes to pick <3n little kids. 24. When he doesn't get his way, he gets real mad. 25. His spelling is average. APPENDIX b TEACHERS' RATINGS FOR AGGRESSION PNI DATA APPENDIX B TEACHERS' RATINGS FOR AGGRESSION PNI DATA CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS s Group II (LAc) Group III (HAc) Group V (LAe) Group VI (HAe) 1 1 4 1 5 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 4 1 3 4 1 6 1 2 5 1 3 1 5 6 1 2 1 5 7 1 2 1 7 8 1 2 1 5 9 1 6 1 3 10 1 4 1 2 N 10 35 10 35 Mean 1 3.5 1 3.5 6 \0 APPENDIX C CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE Ill APPENDIX C CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY. PUT A CIRCLE AROUND THE WORD "YES" IF YOU THINK IT IS TRUE ABOUT YOU. PUT A CIRCLE AROUNirTHE WORD "NO" IF YOU THINK IT IS NOT TRUE ABOUT YOU. 1. It is hard for me to keep my mind on anything..YES NO 2. I get nervous when someone watches me work YES NO 3. I feel I have to be best in everything YES NO 4. I blush easily...................................YES NO 3* I like everyone I know YES NO 6. I notice my heart beats very fast sometimes....YES NO 7. At times I feel like shouting...................YES NO 8. I wish I could be very far from here.......... .YES NO 9. Others seem to do things easier than I can YES NO 10. I would rather win than lose in a game.........YES NO 11. I am secretly afraid of a lot of things........YES NO 12. I feel that others do not like the way I do things......................................... YES NO 13* I feel alone even when there are people around me..............................................YES NO 14. I have trouble making up my mind............... YES NO 15• I get nervous when things do not go right for me..............................................YES NO 16. I worry most of the time........................YES NO 17 • I am always kind.................................YES NO 18. I worry about what my parents will say to me...YES NO 19* Often I have trouble getting my breath.........YES NO 20. I get angry easily.............................. YES NO 21. I always have good manners......................YES NO 22. My hands feel sweaty............................ YES NO 23* I have to go to the toilet more than most people......................................... YES NO 24. Other children are happier than I YES NO 25. I worry about what other people will think of me............................................. YES NO 26. I have trouble swallowing YES NO 27. I have worried about things that really did not make any difference later.....................YES NO 28. My feelings get hurt easily.....................YES NO 29. I worry about doing the right things...........YES NO 112 APPENDIX C— Continued 30. I am always good YES NO 31. I worry about what is going to happen.......... YES NO 32. It is hard for me to go to sleep at night......YES NO 33. I worry about how well I am doing at school....YES NO 34-. I am always nice to everyone.................... YES NO 35• My feelings get hurt easily when I am scolded..YES NO 36. I tell the truth every single time............. YES NO 37« I often get lonesome when I am with people.....YES NO 38. I feel someone will tell me I do things the wrong way....................................... YES NO 39* I am afraid of the dark..........................YES NO 40. It is hard for me to keep my mind on my school work.............................................YES NO 41. I never get angry. YES NO 42. Often I feel sick to my stomach.................YES NO 43. I worry when I go to bed at night .YES NO 44. I often do things that I wish I had never done.YES NO 43* I get headaches.................................. YES NO 46. I often worry about what could happen to my parents........................................... YES NO 47. I never say things I shouldn't..................YES NO 48. I get tired easily...............................YES NO 49. It is good to get high grades in school........ YES NO 30. I have bad dreams YES NO 31. I am nervous YES NO 32. I never lie YES NO 53• I often worry about something bad happening to me........................................... YES NO APPENDIX D DOLL DIAGNOSIS ADMINISTRATION 114 APPENDIX D DOLL DIAGNOSIS Admini s trati on The subject is asked the age, sex and number of sib lings in his family before the test material is presented. He is then told, "We're going to make up a television play. You're going to make up a story and I'm going to write it down. Here is some furniture to set up the house." The examiner presents the toy furniture which consists of kitchen appliances (stove, refrigerator and sink with cabinets), a bathroom set, (toilet-bowl, bathtub and sink), a bed, living room chair, couch, and television set. Also included are a toy dog, a policeman doll and a small cov ered box containing guns and knives which are simply placed on the table without comment. After the house is set up the examiner brings out the Mother doll and says, "Let's pretend that this is the mother of the family. Where is she and what is she doing?" After the subject places the mother and the examiner records the child's verbalization, the youngest of the sibs is brought out with a similar statement. "Let's pre tend this is a — year-old boy. What's his name, where is he and what is he doing?" If the child gives the doll the name of his actual sibling, he is reminded that this is a play and is encourage to give another name. This proce dure is repeated for all sibs in order of age starting with the youngest. Finally the self-doll is brought out. The examiner says, "This is a nine-year-old boy. What is his name, where is he and what is he doing?" The father doll is not presented until later. It is assumed he is at work. The examiner then says, "Now that the house and family are set up, let's begin our play. Let's pretend that this nine-year-old boy does something very bad. What does he do?" (See Appendix E.) List of Materials for Doll Diagnosis Kitchen Stove Refrigerator Sink with cabinets Bathroom Sink Toilet-bowl Bathtub 115 APPENDIX D— Continued Bedroom Bed Bedspread Living Room Sofa Club chair Television set Box of guns and knives Dolls Father Mother Three sizes of girl dolls Three sizes of boy dolls, including one cowboy Baby Grandmother Grandfather Policeman Dog Cat APPENDIX E MODIFIED DOLL DIAGNOSIS APPENDIX E 117 MODIFIED DOLL DIAGNOSIS After setting up family constellation and furnishings, the subject is asked: 1. This boy does something very bad. What does he do? la. Have him do it. (Take down actual play descrip tion.) lb. How does the boy feel? 2. Mother comes in and she sees the boy was bad. What does she say to the boy? What does she do? 2a. Have her do it. 2b. How does the boy feel? 2c. What does he say to mother? What does he do? (if reluctant to answer) What would he like to say or do? 2d. Have him do it. 2e. How does the boy feel? 3* Father comes home from work and mother tells him the boy was bad. What does he say to the boy? What does he do? Ja. Have him do it. 3b. How does the boy feel? 3c. What does he say to the father? What does he do? (if reluctant to answer) What would he like to say or do? 3d. Have him do it. 3e. How does the boy feel? APPENDIX F RATING SCALE FOR DOLL DIAGNOSIS AND PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX F 119 RATING SCALE FOR DOLL DIAGNOSIS AND PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Aggressive Act (DD) (PQ) 6.0 Destructive or bizarre acts, including shooting and poisoning, starting fires that continue to get out of control. 5*5 Shooting of parents. 5.0 Strong physical aggression toward parents. 4-.5 Mildly physical aggression toward parents. 4.0 Direct verbal aggression toward parents as talking back, rebellion. 5*5 Displaced aggression. Strong physical aggression toward sibling or pet or friend. 3.0 Displaced aggression. Verbal or mildly physical aggression toward sibling or pet or friend, (as teasing) 2.5 Indirect aggression. (strong) Turning on water, stealing, lying, breaking furniture, starting a fire (not reported as out of control). 2.0 Indirect aggression. (mild) Inoccuous act, slightly provocative, as changing TV station, not listening or minding. 1.5 Innocuous act, unprovocative, as stealing a cooky. 1.0 Aggressive act undone, as when it turns out to be an accident. 0.5 Aggressive act undone, as when restitution must be made. 0.0 No aggressive act. 2. Mother's Reaction (DD) 3. Father's Reaction (DD) Punishment (PQ) Punishment (PQ) 6.0 Reactions increase in brutality and intensity and get out of control. 5.5 Some increase in brutality and intensity of re action. 5*0 Strongly destructive reaction verbally and physi cally. 4.5 Scolds, brutal element to spanking, as with a belt. 4.0 Scolds, spanks, and deprives (or warns of depriva tion), or sends to room, or otherwise punishes. 3.5 Scolds in a very derogatory way and/or spanks. 3.0 Scolds and spanks or spanks and reasons, or spanks and restricts to room. 120 2c. 2b. APPRNDIX F ~ Continued 2.5 Scolds and deprives, as TV or allowance or play time. 2.0 Scolds and sends to room or demands restitution. 1.5 Scolds and/or reasons as to appropriateness and/ or restricts. 1.0 Reasons as to appropriateness. 0.5 Questions appropriateness. 0.0 Does not perceive anything bad or does not punish. Child's Retaliation to 3«. Child's Retaliation to Mother (St)) Father (Df)) Reaction to Punishment Reaction to Punishment r r o ----------------------- ------------------------ 6.0 Shoots parents and other family members and con tinues aggression uncontrolled. 5.5 Kills parents and other family members. 5.0 Kills siblings 4.5 Kills parents (gun or sword) but undoes this by having them come back to life. 4.0 Destructive acts to parents or sibs other than killing. 3.5 Performs several retaliatory acts to parents in cluding spanking. Takes anger out on sibs, gives dirty looks to parents. Temper tantrums. 3.0 Spanks parents back (no noticeable guilt). 2.5 Spanks parents back (noticeable guilt). 2.0 Runs away and makes parents sorry. Verbalizes hostility, anger at unjustified punishment. 1.5 Runs away, withdraws in anger, retaliation not verbalized. Tears and will argue. Verbalized hostility— act undone. Screams at parents. 1.0 Withdraws (as to room), sulks or pouts and/or cries, and apologizes. Self-recrimination. Feels abused. 0.5 Apologizes with resolve never to do it again, or makes restitution or tries hard to please. 0.0 No retaliation. Apologizes. , 2e., 3^*» 3e« Intensity of Child's Feelings. 6.0 Worse, still feels mad, continued aggression. 5.5 Worse, still feels punishment was unjust. 5.0 Worried, kind of angry and/or sorry. 4.5 Feels guilty but can't say anything. 4.0 Feels bad but knows he shouldn't have done it. 3*5 Feels bad, asks for punishment. 3.0 Feels frightened, worried and/or sorry. 121 APPENDIX F— Continued 2.5 Feels kind of sad, unhappy sorry— cries. 2.0 Not so good, goes and lies on his bed. 1.5 Feels O.K., no reason given, not as worried as before, or feels better because he apologized. 1.0 Feels better because he apologized. 0.5 Feels better because he apologized and made res titution. 0.0 Feels better because he apologized, made restitu tion and parent has forgiven him. APPENDIX G PARENTS' QUESTIONNAIRE 125 APPENDIX G PARENTS' QUESTIONNAIRE Mother: Age_________ Religion________________ Occupation_____________________________ Education Father t Age Religion________________ Occupation_____________________________ Education_______ In your opinion is your child a problem to you? Mother__________________ Father____________________ If he is, can you give a specific instance of his most aggressive behavior in terms of destructive or injurious acts? If he isn't, what is the worst thing he has ever done for which you have punished him? Does he seem to get anxious when he does something you disapprove of? Mother_________________ Father___________________ How do you punish him? Mother______________________________________________ _____ Father____________________________________________________ What does he do when you punish him? Mother____________________________________________________ Father APPENDIX H COLORING TASK This drawing has been reproduced from the Hanna-Barbera edition, The Flintstones Coloring Book. Gismos and Gadgets. Racine, Wisconsin: Whitman Publishing Company, APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA CMAS A-SCALE PRE-TEST APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA Two-Way Analysis of Variance of CMAS Pre-Test Anxiety Scores A-Scale Source Sum of Squares df Estimate of Variance Treatments: "E" x "C" 0.00 1 0.00 Groups: NA x LA x NA 192.95 2 96.48 Interaction 34.20 2 17.10 Within sets 3515.60 74 47.51 Total 3742.75 79 F for Treatments F for Groups F for Interaction p=.05 OaQP =0.00 4?. 51 ■ 3.96 Not Significant at .05 96.48 = 2.03 47.51 3.H Not Significant at .05 17.10 = .36 47.51 3.11 Not Significant at .05 f o APPENDIX J ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA CMAS L-SCALE PRE-TEST APPENDIX J ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA Two-Way Analysis of Variance of CMAS L-Scale Pre-Test Tendency to Falsify A-Scale Responses Source Sum of Squares df Estimate of Variance Treatments "E" x 1 1 C" Groups: NA x LA x HA Interaction Within Sets .20 45.10 6.90 365.60 1 2 2 74 .20 22.55 3.45 4.94 Total 417.80 79 F for Treatments .20 4.<54 a p=.05 * .04 3.96 Not Significant at .05 F for Groups 22.55 _ 4.94 ‘ = 4.59 3.11 Significant beyond .05 F for Interaction ~ *^9 3*11 Not Significant at .05 & sa APPENDIX K ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA CMAS A-SCALE DISCREPANCY SCORES PRE-POST ANXIETY APPENDIX K ANALYSIS OF VAEIANCE DATA Two-Way Analysis of Variance of CMAS A-Scale Discrepancy Scores Pre-Post Anxiety Source Sum of Squares df Estimate of Variance Treatments: "E" x "C" 1.55 1 1.55 Groups: NA x LA x HA 17.15 2 8.58 Interaction 37.60 2 18.80 Within Sets 697.75 74 9.43 Total 753.95 79 p=.05 F for Treatments H i - -16 3.96 Not Significant at .05 F for Groups 3.11 Not Significant at .05 F for Interaction 18.80 = 1.99 9.4-3 3.11 Not Significant at .05 APPENDIX L ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DATA CMAS L-SCALE PRE-POST SHIFT IN TENDENCY TO FALSIFY A-SCALE RESPONSES APPENDIX L ANALYSIS OP VAEIANCE DATA Two-Way Analysis of Variance of CMAS L-Scale Pre-Post Shift in Tendency to Falsify A-Scale Eesponses Source Sum of Squares df Estimate of Variance Treatments: , 1 E" x "C" 5.00 1 5.00 Groups: NA x LA x E .53 2 .26 Interaction 2.63 2 1.31 Within Sets 210.65 74 2.85 Total 218.80 79 F for Treatments F for Groups F for Interaction >.00 .26 1.31 05 1.76 .09 .4-6 P=.05 3.96 3.H 3.H Not Significant at .05 Not Significant at .05 Not Significant at .05 H V>1 APPENDIX M CHI SQUARE TABLES APPENDIX M CHI SQUARE TABLES LISTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER STARTING WITH TABLE 19 (TEXT, CHAPTER V) 1) NAe (DD) LAe HAe 2) NA (PQ) LA HA 3) NAc (PQ) LAc HAc H 8 3 4 15 H 26 13 15 54 H 12 8 7 26 L 12 7 6 25 L 14 7 5 26 L 8 2 3 14 20 10 10 40 20 20 20 10 10 4) NAe (PQ) LAe HAe 5) NAe (DP) LAe HAe 6) NAe (DD) LAe HAe H 5 1 4 10 H 8 4 2 14 H 7 6 6 19 L 15 9 6 30 L 12 6 8 26 L 13 4 4 21 20 10 10 20 10 10 20 10 10 APPENDIX M~Continued 7) (dd: M 1 F 8) NA (PQ) LA HA 9) NAe (PQ) LAe HAe H 27 36 63 H 13 13 16 42 H 8 7 7 20 L 13 4 17 L 27 7 4 38 L 12 3 3 20 40 40 40 20 20 20 10 10 )) NAc (PQ) LAc HAc 11) NA (PQ) LA HA 12) NAe (PQ) LAe HAe H 5 8 9 22 H 19 12 14 45 H 11 5 6 22 L 15 2 1 18 L 21 8 6 35 L 9 5 4 18 20 10 10 40 20 20 20 10 10 5) NAc (PQ) LAc HAc 14) (PQ) NA M F 15) (PQ) LA M F H 8 7 8 23 H 13 21 34 H 11 9 20 L 12 3 2 17 L 16 8 24 L 5 7 12 20 10 10 29 29 16 (4-cell contingency tables) 16 APPENDIX M— Continued 16) (PQ) 17) (DD) 18) (DD) HA M F NAe LAe HAe NAe LAe HAe H 10 9 19 H 7 7 5 19 H 7 7 6 20 L 3 4 7 L 13 3 5 21 L 13 3 4 20 13 13 20 10 10 20 10 10 (4—cell contingency table) 19) (DD) 20) (DD) 21) (DD) NAe LAe HAe M F M F M F H 5 7 12 H 5 6 11 H 3 5 10 L 15 13 28 L 5 4 9 L 5 5 10 20 20 10 10 10 10 22) NA (PQ) LA HA 23) NAe (PQ) LAe HAe 24) NAc (PQ) LAc HAc H 10 4 5 19 H 6 3 3 12 H 4 1 2 7 L 30 16 15 61 L 14 7 7 28 L 16 9 8 33 4-0 20 20 20 10 10 20 10 10 i - * VH >a APPENDIX M~Continued 5) NA (PQ) LA HA 26) NAe (PQ) LAe HAe 27) NAc (PQ) LAc HAc H 4 6 3 13 H 2 3 1 6 H 2 3 2 7 L 36 14 17 67 L 18 7 9 34 L 18 7 8 33 40 20 20 20 10 10 20 10 10 3) (PQ) NA M F 29) (PQ) LA M F 30) (PQ) HA M F 31) NAe (DD) LAe HAe H 8 3 11 H 4 6 10 H 4 3 7 H 11 6 5 22 L 21 26 47 L 12 10 22 L 9 10 19 L 9 4 5 18 29 29 (4-cell c 16 16 ontingency tables) 13 13 20 10 10 3) NAe (DD) LAe HAe 33) NAe (DD) LAe HAe 34) (DD) M F H 11 4 5 20 H 13 4 2 19 H 24 22 46 L 9 6 5 20 L 7 6 8 21 L 16 18 34 20 10 10 20 10 10 40 40 \» oo APPENDIX M— Continued 5) NAe (DD) LAe HAe 36) NAe (2D) LAe HAe 37) (DD) M F H 9 5 5 19 H 8 4 6 18 H 21 18 39 L 11 5 5 21 L 11 6 4 21 L 19 21 40 20 10 10 19 10 10 40 39 v £ > APPENDIX N AGGRESSIVE ACTS (DD) 141; APPENDIX N AGGRESSIVE ACTS (DD) S NAe 1. He slugs his brother with his fist and jumps on him several times. 2. He was playing around with the TV and he broke it. He turns the channels around and everything— getting it all goofed up. 3. He lets the air out of his Dad's tires. 4-. He flings his dog around. He's throwing his dog up in the air. 5* Let's see— something I did bad. Oh! I ripped my brother's shirt. So he rips his brother's shirt. They had a fight and John ripped his brother's shirt, 6. He breaks the TV. He goes— wham! He pushes it over and it breaks. 7. John gets in a fight with his brother. He says, "Get off the bed." Steve says, "No." So he pushes him off and they start fighting. John socks Steve in the nose and they keep on fighting. John pushes Steve off and broke his arm. 8. Steve starts turing on the TV set and he breaks it. His big brother comes in and he tries to turn the set on. He asks Steve what happened. Steve says he doesn't know. The whold family comes in and Jim tells mother. Steve says, "Now I remember. The dog did it." 9. He turns on the water in the bathtub and the house starts to flood. 10. He's real bad. He breaks the TV. He slips and his head falls on the TV and it breaks. 11. He accidently loaded his gun with these play bullets and shot and he broke a window. He takes the gun 142 APPENDIX N— Continued but be got so scared he dropped it. Still he broke a window. 12. He threw a rock at a window at Sherry's house, a lady who lives across the way. 13* He hits the baby. The baby kicked him with her feet. 14. Let's see. He's standing on the furniture. 13. His family goes to the airport and he runs on to a plane. It takes off. The parents didn't notice him. He was going in a different direction. He looked back and he saw his parents. He decided he wanted to run and hide from them. He gets in the plane. He didn't know it was going to take off. 16. The dog comes in the house with a bone and the bone is under the couch and then the dog tries to get it. Tom takes the couch and dumps it on the dog. 17. He takes the grass and throws it in the neighbor's yard. 18. He goes outside and picks up a rock— a big one— and throws it at the window. He breaks his next door neighbor's window. 19. He hits someone in the mouth and he cut his mouth. It's a friend. They got in a fight because he thinks he was cheating in a game. 20. In the kitchen he put the poison the shelf with the spices. He opens his bedroom door and walks through the dining room into the kitchen and put the poison on the shelf— 90% poison— like burning alcohol. S LAe 1. He tells a lie. He broke a window and he said his friend did it. Let's say the next door neighbor's house. He throws a rock and breaks a window. 2. He kicks his mother. 3. He walks over to his sister, takes her toy away and APPENDIX N~Continued 143 hits her on the head with the knife. 4. He puts all the stuff under his hed and has to clean it back out. 5. He hits his 11 year-old sister. He goes in the bath room— hits her— knocks her down. 6. He'll be turning on the stove, puts some paper in the fire and starts a fire in the kitchen. 7. He pulls up the turnips. He just picks up the green parts and jerks them up. 8. Gets up and kicks the chair over. 9. He breaks the TV. He gets an ax and he chops it up. 10. He says a bad word. Says it to his friend, (can't think of one) He steals money from his mother. Sometimes she lays her purse on the frigidaire. He takes 150 and goes to the store and buys a ball. s HAe 1. Billy, his dog, climbs on the floor and kills and got so mad he just up on him. threw his lap. He throws him Well he picked him up him as hard as he could. 2. He goes outside and he's playing around and he pulls the dog's tail. 3. He squirts a hose in the window of his own house in the kitchen. He turns on the faucet and he was try ing to squirt a friend and he accidently shot the window in his own house. 4. He puts a paper in the stove and he sets a fire. 5. His brother is climbing up a ladder on the slide and Jimmy goes over to the slide and grabs his pants and pulls him down. He falls and hits his head on an anvil. 6. He hits his sister, the 5 year-old. He's hitting her 144- APPENDIX N— Continued on the arm and knocking her over# 7. He is walking outside and picks up a baseball bat and deliberately hits at his next door neighbor's window and breaks it. 8. He breaks a window and when the man comes out he runs. He's outside the house. He throws a rock at the win dow. 9# He goes into someone else's back yard, steps on their plants and tips over the cans. 10. He plays with matches and then he gets ome leaves and grass and makes a fire in the field. He's on his knees making like a Boy Scout, and then he goes away while the fire is still going. APFENDIX P AGGRESSIVE ACTS (PQ) EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS 146 APPENDIX P AGGRESSIVE ACTS (PQ) EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS S NAe 1. Once lied. He was over at a neighbor’s playing. The child's father sent him home and this broke his heart. Told me the'child's father hit him. But when I told him I was going over, he said it was not so. 2. Has to be told over and over again to do things. Recently told mother to shut up. Came up so quick he didn't realize it. 3. He was stubborn and didn't want to go to a show. Wanted his own way, said, "I’m not going." That's when he got a spanking from father. 4. I suppose telling lies. Fairly recently he's started denying everything. Writing on wall and. then denying. 5. He is sometimes stubborn. He has shown anger by try ing to break something belonging to the person he was angry with. He was mad at his brother and tried to ruin one of his records by scratching it. 6. He seems to have a poor disposition. That's the only complaint. Impatient. He lied once. Unimportant. 7. Gets in fights with others. But not overly— like the other boys. 8. Can't think of anything. 9. Makes up stories and tells people— like "I played with a lion." 10. Only teasing with brothers. 11. Not returning things to their place. Not answering. 12. Quite a rock thrower. He's broken three windows. Fairly recent. My husband was the same way. He broke 13 windows out at a church. He Just can't keep 147- APPENDIX P— Continued from aiming at church., 13. He and some kids were writing on the dusty car. He lied and said they didn't do it. Throwing rocks and dirt at houses. But he learned his lesson— doesn't do it anymore, 14. Put a nail in our car tire at age four. Marked cray- ola on the fireplace bricks. 15. Can't think of anything recently. In the past gave us a scare with building a fire in the back yard. Hap pened only once to my knowledge. Last year. 16. Not minding. Daddy asks him to do something— he does not do it. Awfully shy boy— reason I don't have too much trouble with him. 17• No destructive acts. So good— I was called to school. Worse problem is bossing others— wants everything to be done right. Keeps telling others what to do. Never broken anything. Mostly verbal. 18. Taking money out of mother's purse about a year ago. Put money in his bank. 19. Usually when playing games. He's a poor loser— like ping-pong— he'll pout. Actually a good boy— no prob lem— Just completely interested in sports. 20. First grade— squeezed glue onto a mirror— small pranks. S LAe 1. Accidently broke a window. Very upset. 2. Not in terms of destructive or injurious acts. He lacks responsibility and the main problem is home work. 3. Playing with fire when younger. Set a fire in a lady's trash basket— but has learned his lesson. Stealing stuff he has no use for— about a year ago. 148 APPENDIX P — Continued 4. Thrown rocks. We let him go to the park with some other boys and they didn't get home till dark. One other time he disobeyed about going to a friend's house. 5. Been a long time since we've had trouble with him. Doesn't do things when you tell him. He has a temper. 6. Not being home .when he should. Hasn't done anything very serious. 7. Stole candy from the store about a year ago. 8. He's our most difficult child. His feelings are very volatile. Not coming home from school. Fire-setting at about age five. Seeks revenge with other children in the family— rather self-destructive. 9. Stealing from home and his friends about a year ago— but not anymore. He's lazy— but I figure most boys are at his age. 10. One time his uncle got him a tool set when he was four— sawed down the neighbor's fence. I paddled him and had to tell his father. By the time he got home it was amusing. S HAe 1. Not minding. May spank for talking back. 2. Stole money from my purse about one and a half years ago— or may have picked up toys from others. 3. He teases his younger brother. Argues a lot and doesn't mind. When he's angry he likes to say things to embarrass us in front of people. He also makes fun of other children. 4. His main problem is being inconsiderate of others— not respecting other children's opinion mostly— teasing when he is right and they are wrong. 5. Has tendency to play with older children. About a year ago took a bottle of airplane paint from the 1A9 APPENDIX P— Continued store. The manager caught him. My husband talked to him and it never happened again. Would not implicate anyone. The manager thought the other boys put him up to it. 6. Fighting at school. He jumped on some little kid and squeezed him. He didn't mean to hurt him. He was playing. He was brought home by the principal for sassing the vice-principal. This day the Bishop was here. He talked to him and straightened him out. 7. Getting into fights outside the home. Never broken a thing— feels bad if someone else does. 8. Changed his report card. He and another boy set a fire last year. 9. Difficult to reach him. He's played with matches— started fires last year. Nothing destroyed. 10. Hard time making up his mind. This is his father's opinion. APPENDIX Q AGGRESSIVE ACTS (PQ) CONTROL GROUPS 151 APPENDIX Q AGGRESSIVE ACTS (PQ) CONTROL GROUPS NAc 1. Breaking a church window, although this is not as aggressive as it sounds. He was with another child who initiated the window breaking by driving his fist through the window. My child took a bottle and broke out some of the pieces remaining in the frame. 2. To tell the truth he is not really a bad boy. It's just when he's told to look for something he can't find it. 3. Just doesn't listen— but doesn't do anything really. 4. When brother was 3 months old he had an operation. Jay had a coloring book with a picture of a baby. He colored it black— really was very revealing. Can't think of anything large— small things— mostly teasing or hitting brother. 5. When he was punished for raising his voice to his mother— he destroyed a toy belonging to his brother and broke his sister's beads. 6. Takes out tools— leaves them outside. Stayed after dark when he shouldn't have. Just hasn't done any thing really. Teases his sister. 7. Doesn't do anything really— 8. He wanted to join the chorus at school this year. He had cub scouts and football practice. He lied about going to choir practice and got caught in the lie. Another thing— sin incident at school— he had said a naughty word on the play-ground— the teacher washed his mouth out with soap. 9. He and a little boy up the street got into sister's bedroom. They put sand and pine-needles in her per fumes and powders— meanest thing. I didn't spank him. He felt so bad. 153 APPENDIX Q— Continued 10. A couple of years ago, found some money at a market and the owner said that if no one claimed it, he could have it. He stole from us and took the money to the store and said he found it. We discovered this and made him go hack to the store and get the money hack. 11. Heally kind of brought himself up— hasn't had a chance to do anything wrong. 12. Took something at a store once. Some day-dreaming at school. 15. Started a fire in the service porch at age seven. He knew he shouldn't do it. We had quite a session with pyromania. 14. Went away one day and didn't come hack. Gets punished more for talking hack. 15. At age five he cut a hole in the curtains. We were shocked. It was so unlike him. 16. Nothing, except once jumped off the patio with other hoys. We would have punished him if he hadn't hurt himself so hadly. 17* Shown resentment of his younger sister. When he was four there were two younger children. He was overcome with jealousy of his new hahy sister. He flipped her off his hack after he let her crawl up. 18. Started a fire in the canyon at age five, with a little girl next door. The fire department came and lectured him— he was terrified. 19. Can't think of anything really bad— a good child— I guess hitting his younger sister— it's usually pro voked. Teases. 20. Can't think of anything especially. S LAc 1. Teases his sister and may fight with his brother hut not to any great extent. 155 APPENDIX Q,— Continued 2. Mainly you have to tell him three or four times to do something. Gets sassy. Then will he punished— noth ing really— but may throw rocks or something like that. 3. Kind of a funny thing--but to me would be the worst thing. He got inoo my make-up at 18 months— put it on himself. Got lipstick in the carpeting, all over him— scalp— no really destructive acts. 4. He might strike his younger brothers. 5* Really he's a pretty good kid. He's not an angel by any means. Does fight with his brother a lot. Really in the past few months only. Once when a little kid about two and a half, he bit a friend— but I bit him back and he's never done it since. Was in a fight a couple of weeks ago at school. Was kinda glad he finally put up his dukes. 6. He and his brother took money out of Dad's billfold. He was about four. He didn't get very far with it. Eire-setting at about 3-4. Struck matches but no fire— not destructive. 7. Can't think of anything. Only thing if he gets mad. If I tell him to do things a dozen times. Doesn't listen. Teases his brother sometimes. In the house he'll argue more. He doesn't seem to get along with most children— gets along better with adults. 8. A lot of anxiety in third grade— problem with teacher. Some rebellion— for independence. 9. He's good. He is a boy and loves baseball. Not in jurious. At one time pushing— but not now. He still hits, but I feel this is normal. 10. Mainly mischievious. Taking a double deck of cards with nudes on the back and passed them out to the children. I was so upset at the time. I asked him but he denied it— then he admitted it. APPENDIX Q— Continued 15* S HAc 1. The thing that disturbed me most, he and another boy went down in back of the school and lighted matches. Lighting them and blowing them out. He broke a win dow accidently with a ball. 2. To me the worst thing about three years ago he got in the bathroom with some matches and caught the towel on fire. 3. Got a phone call from the dime store that he stole a few things about a month ago. He was spanked, stayed in his room a half a day and was not allowed to spend or have loose money. 4-. Can't think of any— only his eating habits and care lessness about himself. 5. Put India ink on our spreads at three. Stayed out late until about 3 at age four. 6. He stole in the home. 7. This sounds severe. But I'll tell him to do something and if he doesn't do it, I'll spank. Has lied a couple of times. Fights with his brothers and sister. Can't think of any real terrible thing that the kid has done. 8. Disobedience. He knows he is not supposed to ride his bike on the highway— will punish him for this. Is impulsive— judgment may not be too sound. He's so like my husband— his nature is foreign to me. 9. Was accident-prone. Always destructive— has calmed down— not deliberate. Played with matches until about seven or eight. 10. He might strike his brothers. APPENDIX R CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE DATA PRE AND POST-TEST CONTROL GROUPS APPENDIX R CHILDREN'S MANIFEST aNXIETY SCALE DATA A-SCALE AND L-SCALE SCORES PRE AND POST-TEST CONTROL GROUPS Group I Group II Group III A-Scale L-Scale A-Scale L-Scale A-Scale L-Scale s Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 1 24 29 3 2 13 5 6 5 24 24 7 4 2 22 16 7 5 14 11 7 6 16 10 7 5 3 34 37 4 4 12 11 5 6 15 15 3 3 4 9 7 2 1 18 18 6 9 6 7 4 1 5 15 13 6 6 11 10 3 2 22 21 2 3 6 16 12 6 4 30 28 5 4 13 6 2 1 7 3 4 3 3 25 27 0 0 11 6 3 2 8 21 18 2 1 28 30 3 1 20 14 4 5 9 20 15 6 9 10 11 8 9 22 27 2 3 10 26 26 3 2 33 27 6 2 28 29 1 1 11 7 6 7 6 12 20 20 7 5 13 20 25 5 3 14 21 22 9 8 15 7 5 6 6 16 8 7 6 4 17 19 20 1 0 18 21 20 0 0 19 14 14 6 5 20 17 11 3 3 T 344 317 92 77 194 178 49 38 177 159 35 28 M 17.2 15.83 4.6 3.85 19.4 17.8 4.9 3.8 17.7 15.9 3.5 2.6 156 APPENDIX S CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE DATA PRE AND POST-TEST EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS APPENDIX S CHILDREN'S MANIFEST ANXIETY SCALE DATA A-SCALE AND L-SCALE SCORES PRE AND POST-TEST EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Group IV Group V Group VI A-Scale L-Scale A-Scale L-Scale A-Scale L-Scale s Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 1 16 13 7 7 13 13 6 6 10 10 7 8 2 18 19 6 5 17 16 2 1 24 20 1 1 3 19 21 6 7 24 24 7 6 13 12 5 3 4 24 26 5 2 11 4 6 5 18 21 4 3 5 13 14 2 3 35 34 1 1 17 17 3 2 6 14 14 8 8 30 25 6 8 20 11 3 3 7 18 23 3 2 26 25 7 8 15 10 1 1 8 24 24 6 5 23 28 3 1 24 27 1 1 9 15 15 3 2 8 10 5 5 18 20 2 2 10 21 19 2 2 28 29 5 1 19 12 1 1 11 16 15 5 4 12 9 8 7 7 13 15 15 7 6 14 13 14 8 6 15 10 12 1 0 16 25 27 3 3 17 19 13 6 7 18 14 7 6 7 19 11 7 7 8 20 8 5 6 6 T 322 311 104 97 215 208 48 44 178 160 28 25 ¥ M 16.1 15.55 5.2 4.85 21.5 20.8 4.8 4.4 17.8 16.0 2.8 2.5 % ■ B IB L I O G R A P H Y BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Ammons, C. H., and Ammons, R. B. Aggression in doll- play: interviews of two-to-six year old white males. J. genet. Psychol.. 1953* 82, 205-213. 2. Ammons, C. H., and Ammons, R. B. Research and clini cal applications of the doll-play interview. J. Pers.. 1952, 21, 85-90. 3* Ax, A.P. The physiological differentiations between fear and anger in humans. Psychosom. Med., 1953, 1£, 433-44-2. 4. Bach, G. R. Young children's play fantasies. Psych ol. Monogr.« 1945, No. 2. 5* Bach, G. R., and Bremer, Gloria. Projective father fantasies of preadolescent, delinquent children. J. Psychol.. 1947, 24, 3-17* 6. Bandura, A. Social learning through imitation. Nebraska Symposium of Motivation. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1962. 7. Bandura, A, and Walters, R. H. Adolescent aggression. New York: Ronald, 1959. 8. Becker, W. C., Peterson, D. R., Hellmer, L. A., Shoe maker, D. J., and Quay, H. C. Factors in parental behavior and personality as related to problem be havior in children. J. donsult. Psychol., 1959. 2j>, 107-108. 9. Bender, Lauretta. Aggression, hostility and anxiety in children. Springfield. Illinois: Charles THomas, T 952. 10. Bender, Lauretta, Diester, S., and Schilder, P. Studies in aggressiveness. Genet. Psychol Monogr.. 1936, 18, 410-535, 546, 564. 11. Bennett, Ivy* Delinquent and neurotic children. New York: Basic liooks, I960. 160 161 12. Blau, A., and Hulse, W. C. Anxiety ("actual") neu roses as a cause of behavior disorders in children. Amer. J. of Orthopsych.. Jan., 1956, 108-118. 13. Blau, A. Childhood behavior disorders and delinquen cy. Ment. Hyg.. 194-3» 21, 261. 14. Bossard, J. H. S., and Boll, E. 8. The sociology of child development. 3rd ed., New York: Harper and Brothers, 19&0. 15. Buss, A. Psychology of Aggression. New York: Wiley, 19En 16. Caron, A. J., and Gerwitz, J. L. An investigation of the effects of the sex category of the interact ing adult, chronological age (6, 8, and 10), and sex of child on aggressive (hostile) behavior in doll play. Amer. Psycholgist. 1951* 6, 307. (Abstract.) 17. Castenada, A., McCandless, B. R., and Palermo, D. S. The children's form of the manifest anxiety scale. Child Developm.. 1956, ££, 317-326. 18. Davitz, J. R. Contributions of research with child ren to a theory of maladjustment. Child Developm.. 1958, £2, 3-7. 19. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, 0. H., and Sears, R. R. Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1939. 20. Dollard, J., and Miller, N. Personality and psycho therapy. New York: McGraw-Hiii fiook Company inc., 1956. 21. Driscoll, G. P. The Driscoll Play Kit. New York Psychological Corp. 22. Dunbar, H. F. Emotions and bodily changes. Rev. ed., New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1958. 23. Edwards, A. L. The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: BrySon,' "T&T.--- ---------------- 24. Ellis, A. The validity of personality questionnaires. Psychol. Bull.. 1946, 4£, 385-44-0. 25. Erikson, E. H. Childhood and society. New York: W. W. Norton, 1950. 162 26. Eron, L. D., Laulicht, J. H., Walder, L. 0., Farber, J. E., and Spiegel, J. P. Application of role and learning theories to the study of the development of aggression in children. Psychol. Rep.. 1961, 9, 291-334 (Monogr. Suppl. 2V-9). 27. Rexford, Evoleen, N. Some meanings of aggressive behavior in children. The Annual of Amer. Acad. of Pol, and Soc. Sci.. 1939. 322. 16-16. 28. Freud, Anna. Aggression in relation to emotional development: normal and pathological. In The psychoanalytic study of the child. New York: Internat. Univ. Press, 1948. 111-IV, 37-43. 29. Freud, Anna. Notes on aggression. Bull. Menninger Clinic, 1949, 12, 143-151. 30. Freud, Anna. The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York: Internat. Univ. Press, 195*7. 31. Freud, S. An outline of psychoanalysis. New York: Norton, 1949. 32. Freud, S. A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York: Perma Books, 1933* 33* Freud, S. Problem of anxiety. New York: Norton, 1936. 34. Freud, S. Inhibitions, symptoms and anxiety. London Hogarth Press, 1936. 35* Freud, S. The passing of the oedipus complex. In Collected papers. London: Hogarth Press, 1924. II, 259-282.--- 36. Funkenstein, D. H. Physiology of fear and anger. Scientific American, 1955, 192:74. 37. Gesell, A., and Ilg, F. L. Infant and child in the culture of today. New York! Harper, 1943* 38. Gesell, A,, and Ilg, F. L. (In collaboration with L. P. Ames and G. Bullis.) The child from five to ten. New York: Harper, 1946• 39. Goldstein, K. Human natin?e in the light of ps.ycho- . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 165 40. Goldstein, K. The organism: a holistic approach, to biology. New York: American fiook Co., 1939* 41. Goodenough, Florence. Anger in .young children. Minnesota: Univ. of Minn. Press, 1931. 42. Goodstein, L. D. Interrelationships among several measures of anxiety and hostility. J. consult. Psychol.. 1954, 18, 35-39. 45. Gordon, J. E., and Cohen, F. Fantasy arousal and aggression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1965* 66, 4, 301-507. 44. Graham, E. E., and Whitmore, L. E. The use of drama tic play for diagnosis and therapy. Denver: Whit- more Drama Kits, 1^54. 45. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. 3rd ed. New York: Mc&raw-Hill Book Co, Inc., I960. 46. Hall, C. S., and Lindzey, G. Theories of Personality. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1957* 47. Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: Univ. d#"H33nT"Seiat ""tg5r:----- 48. Heinicke, C. M. Some effects of separating 2 year- old children from their parents. A comparative study. Hum. Relat.. 1956, 2, 105-116. 49. Hilgard, E. R. Theories of learning. New York: Appleton-Century-droYts inc., 1956. 50. Hollenberg, Eleanor, and Sperry, Margaret. Some antecedents of aggression and effects of frustration in doll play. Personality. 1951* 1» 32-43. 51. Honzik, M. P. Sex differences in the occurrence of material in the play cdnstruction of preadolescents. Child. Develpm.. 1951, 22, 15-35. 52. Horney, Karen. The neurotic personality of our time. In Collected works. New York: Norton, 1937. Vol. I. 53* Horney, Karen. Neuroses and human growth. In Collected works. New York: Norton, 1937. 164 54-. Horney, K&ren. New ways in psychoanalysis. In Col lected works. New York: Norton, 1937* Vol. I. 55• Horney, Karen. Our inner conflicts. In Collected works. New York: Norton, 1937* Vol. I. 56. Isch, M. J. Fantasied mother-child interaction in doll play. J. genet. Psycho.. 1955* 81, 233-258. 57- Iscoe, I., and Cochran, I. Some correlates of mani fest anxiety in children. J. consult. Psychol., I960, 24, 97. 58. Jersild, A. T. Child psychology. New York: Prentiss-Hall Inc., 1940. 59. Kagan, J. The measurement of overt aggression from fantasy. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1956, £2, 390- 593. 60. Keller, D. E., and Rowley, V. E. Junior high school and additional elementary school normative data for the children's manifest anxiety scale. Child Develpm.. 1962, 22, 675-681. 61. Kelly, E. L., Miles, C. C., and Terman, L. M. Ability to influence one's scores on a typical pencil and paper test of personality. J. Pers., 1956, 4, 206-215. 62. Korner, A. F. Some aspects of hostility in young children. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1949* 63. Kuhlen, R. G., and Thompson, G. G. Psychological studies of human development. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts Inc., l9?2. Pp. 504-511. 64. L'Abate, L, Personality correlates of manifest anxiety in children. J. consult. Psychol.. I960, 24, 4, 342-348. 65. Landreth, C. Psychology of early childhood. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1958. 66. Lesser, G. S. The relationship between overt and fantasy aggression as a function of maternal response to aggression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957» 55. 218-221. 67. Lesser, G. S. Population differences in construct validity. J. consult. Psychol.. 1959, 23, 1, 60-65* 165 68. Lesser, G. S. Conflict analysis of fantasy aggression. J. Pers.. 1958. 1, 29-41 69* Levin, H. Effects of parental punishment on young children's overt and fantasy aggression. Amer. Psychologist. 1957, 56, 2, 504-308. 70. Levin, H., and Sears, R. R. Identification with. parents as a determinant of doll play aggression. Child Develpm.. 1956, 2£, 135-153. 71. Levin, H., and Wardwell, Elinor. The research uses of doll play. Psychol. Bull.. 1962, £2, 1* 27-56. 72. Levitt, E. E. Ecological difference in performance on the children's manifest anxiety scale. Psychol. Rep.. 1957, I, 281-286. 73* Levy, D. M. Hostility patterns in sibling rivalry experiments. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.. 1936, 6, 183-257. 74. Lewin, K., Lippit, R., and White, R. K. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. J. soc. Psychol.. 1939, 10, 271-299. 75. Lucas, Winafred, B. Doll Diagnosis. Unpublished manuscript, n.d. 76. Lynn, D. B, Development and validation of a struc tured doll play test for children. Quart. Bull.. Ind. U. Med. Cent.. 1955. 77. May, R. The meaning of anxiety. New York: The Ronald Press, 1950. 78. McCandless, B. R., Castenada, A*. Anxiety in children, school achievement and intelligence. Child Develpm.. 1956, 27, 379-382. 79* McCandless, B. R., Castenada, A., and Palermo, D. D. Anxiety in children and social status. Child Develpm.. 1956, 2£, 4, 385-391. 80. Mowrer, 0. H. Learning theory and the symbolic processes. New York: Wiley, I960. 81. Munroe, Ruth. Schools of psychoanalytic thought. New York: The Drydon Press, Inc., 1955* 166 82. Mussen, P. H., and Naylor, H. K. The relationships between overt and fantasy aggression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1954, 235-240. 83. Palermo, D. S. Racial comparisons and additional normative data on the children's manifest anxiety scale. Child. Develpm.. 1959* 2Q, 53-57* 84. Palermo, D. S., Castenada, A., and McCandless, B. R. The relationship of anxiety in children to perform ance in a complex learning task. Child Develpm.. 1956, £Z, 333-337* 85. Piaget, J. The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 19^2. 86. Piaget, J. Judgment and, reasoning in the child. New York: The Humanities Press, 1952. 87* Radke, M. J. The relation of parental authority to children's behavior and attitudes. Inst. Child. w'elf. Monogr. Serv.. 1946, 22. 88. Rank, 0. The trauma of birth. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., Inc, 1929. 89* Reymert, M. L. (Ed.) Feelings and emotions. The Moosehart Symposium. New xork: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. 90. Russell, D. Children's thinking. Boston: Ginn and 1956. p. 15T. 91. Sarason, S. B, Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the use of anxiety scales. Psychol. Bull., I960, 2Z, 5, 403-415. 92. Sarason, S. B., Davidson, K. S., Lighthall, F. F., Waite, R. R., and Ruebrush, B. K. Anxiety in elemen- tary school children: a report of research. New Tort: Wiley, I960.----------------------- 93* Schacter, J. Pain, fear and anger in hypertensives and normotensives: a psychophysiological study. Psychosom. Med.. 1957» 2£, 17-29. 94. Scott, J. P. Aggression. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1958. 95* Sears, Pauline, S. Doll play aggression in normal young children: influence of sex, age, sibling 167 status, and father's absence. Psychol. Monogr.. 1951, 6£, No. 6. 96. Sears, R. R. Relation of fantasy aggression to in terpersonal aggression. Child Develpm.. 1950, 21. 5-6. 97. Sears, R. R., Macoby, E. E., and Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanstan, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1' 957. ------ 98. Selye, H. Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1^$6. 99* Shoben, E. J., Jr. The assessment of parental atti tudes in relation to child adjustment. Genet. psychol.. Monogr.. 1949, 101-148. 100. Stein, M., Vidich, A. J., White, D. M., (Eds.). Identity and anxiety. Illinois: Glencoe Pree Press, I960. 101. Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psych iatry. New York! Norton, 1955* 102. Tanner, J. M., Inhelder, B., (Eds.) 2 Vols. Discus sions on Child Development. New York: Internat. Univ. tress, 1953* I, 1€>I-181 • 103* Taylor, Janet, A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955» 48, 285- 290. 104. Whiting, J. W. M., and Child, I. L. Child Training and personality: a cross-cultural study. New Haven: Yale Unfv.'“tress’I y T W & l -------------- 105* Wiggins, J. S., and Winder, C. L. The Peer Nomination Inventory: an empirically derived sociometric meas ure of adjustment in preadolescent boys. Psychol. Rep.. 1961, £, V9. 106. Wiggins, J. S., and Winder, C. L. The Peer Nomina tion Inventory: Technical supplement. Monogr. Suppl.. !?-V9. (Document No. 6898, Amer. Doc. Inst.) 107. Winder, C. L., and Wiggins, J. S. Social reputation and social behavior: a further validation of the Peer Nomination Inventory. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.« in press. 168 108. Winder, C. L., and Rau, Lucy. Parental attitudes associated with social deviance in preadolescent boys. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1962, 64, 6, 418-424. 109* Wirt, R. D., and Broen, W. E., Jr. The relation of the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale to the con cept of anxiety as used in the clinic. J. consult. Psychol.. 1956, 20, 482. 110. Wurtz, K. R. Some theory and data concerning atten uation of aggression. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., I960, 60, 1. 111. Yarrow, L. J. The effect of antecedent frustration on projective play. PsycholMonogr.« 1948, 62. No. 6, Whole No. 293. 112. Zuckerman, M., Barret, B. H., and Bragiel, R. N. The parental attitudes of parents in child guidance cases: I. Comparisons with normals, investigation of socioeconomic and family constellation factors, and relations to parents' reactions to the clinics. Child Develnm.. I960, ^l, 401-417.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Prediction Of Overt Behaviors In Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients
PDF
Intellect After Lobotomy In Schizophrenia: A Factor-Analytic Study
PDF
An Application Of Adaptation Level Theory To The Response Bias Of Falsification
PDF
A Study Of The Relationship Of Temperament Variables To The Ability To Make Certain Judgments Of Emotional Behavior
PDF
The Relationship Of Dependency To Verbal Learning Without Awareness
PDF
Methodological Problems In The Identification Of Suicidal Behavior By Means Of Two Personality Inventories
PDF
An Investigation Of The Response To Stress Of Patients Hospitalized For Anxiety State And Peptic Ulcer Patients
PDF
Empathy And Social Perception
PDF
A Study Of The Relationships Between Factors Found In Cattell'S Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire And Factors Found In The Guilford Personality Inventories
PDF
The Philosophies Of Ralph Tyler Flewelling And Edgar Sheffield Brightman: A Comparison And A Critique
PDF
Psychological Test Changes In Schizophrenic Patients Under Brief Stimuluselectroconvulsive Therapy
PDF
The Effects Of Making Social Desirability Judgments On Personality Inventory Scores Of Schizophrenics
PDF
The Effect Of Subject Sophistication On Ratio And Discrimination Scales
PDF
Figural And Symbolic Divergent-Production Abilities In Adults And Adolescents
PDF
Human Performance As A Function Of The Joint Effects Of Drive And Incentive Motivation
PDF
Creativity In Children: A Study Of The Relationship Between Temperament Factors And Aptitude Factors Involved In The Creative Ability Of Seventh Grade Children With Suggestions For A Theory Of C...
PDF
The Effects Of Prior Part-Experiences On Visual Form Perception In The Albino Rat
PDF
Tension And Anxiety In Deconditioning
PDF
A Rotational Approach To Psychological Invariance
PDF
Effects Of Different Treatment Procedures On Reading Ability And Anxiety Level In Children With Learning Difficulties
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ross, Ann
(author)
Core Title
On The Relationship Between Anxiety And Aggression In Nine-Year-Old Boys
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
Winder, Clarence L. (
committee chair
), Guilford, Joy P. (
committee member
), Meyer, Mortimer M. (
committee member
), Werkmeister, William H. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-322703
Unique identifier
UC11358975
Identifier
6406244.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-322703 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6406244.pdf
Dmrecord
322703
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ross, Ann
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