UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationships between marital distress and child behaviour problems, maternal personal adjustment,… Bond, Catherine R. 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A1 B66.pdf [ 7.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095841.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095841-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095841-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095841-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095841-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095841-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095841-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095841-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095841.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MARITAL DISTRESS AND CHILD BEHAVIOUR PROBLEMS, MATERNAL PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT, MATERNAL PERSONALITY, AND MATERNAL PARENTING BEHAVIOUR by CATHERINE R. BOND B.A. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 M.A. University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1978 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA APRIL 1983 © Catherine R. Bond, 1983 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of l ^ ^ 1 ' ^  The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Afr;(  DE-6 (3/81) ii ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s investigation was to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of marital adjustment to maternal personal adjustment, maternal personality, maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment, maternal parenting behaviour and c h i l d behaviour. Two groups of mothers and t h e i r children participated in the study: Mothers in the m a r i t a l l y distressed group (n = 20) rated themselves on a self-report inventory as experiencing s i g n i f i c a n t marital d i s t r e s s ; mothers in the m a r i t a l l y non-distressed group (n = 20) rated themselves on the same inventory as having s a t i s f a c t o r y marital r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Children ranged in age between 3 and 7 years of age. Self-report measures assessing personal adjustment, personality and perception of c h i l d adjustment were completed by the mothers. In addition, maternal parenting behaviour and c h i l d behaviour were assessed by independent observers in home observations. Separate Hotelling's T 2 analyses were conducted on each of the f i v e sets of dependent measures. Results indicated that compared to mothers in the maritally non-distressed group, mothers in the distressed group perceived themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more anxious and depressed and perceived t h e i r children as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems esp e c i a l l y in the area of undercontrol. There" were no differences between the groups with respect to maternal personality. The results for the parent and c h i l d behavioural data were less c l e a r . There was a trend for maritally distressed mothers to give less p o s i t i v e attention "to their children than the non-distressed mothers gave to their children, and for i i i c hildren of maritally distressed mothers to be less compliant than children of non-distressed mothers. A step-wise discriminant function analysis revealed that maternal anxiety and maternal perception of c h i l d aggression made s i g n i f i c a n t non-redundant contributions to the discrimination of maritally distressed and non-distressed marriages. The re s u l t s were discussed in terms of the implications for the assessment and treatment of maritally distressed mothers and their children. i v Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Relationship Between Marital Distress And Personal Adjustment Problems Within The Marital Dyad: Theories 2 Relationship Between Marital Distress And Personal Adjustment Problems Within The Marital Dyad: Empirical Support 3 Relationships Between Marital Distress, Parenting Behaviour And Child Behaviour Problems: Theories .... 9 Relationships Between Marital Distress, Parenting Behaviour And Child Behaviour Problems: Empirical Support 13 Parent Perception Of Child Behaviour 14 Child Behaviour 20 Parenting Behaviour 24 Conclusions 25 METHOD 31 Subjects 31 Observers And Training , 43 Coding System 43 Measures . 45 Marital Adjustment 45 Parental Personal Adjustment 47 Parental Personality 48 Parental Perception Of Child Adjustment 49 Home Observation Data 52 Procedure 53 I n i t i a l Telephone Contact 53 I n i t i a l Interview And Screening Procedure 54 Col l e c t i o n Of Home Observation Data 55 Debriefing Mothers And Therapists 57 RESULTS 59 Mar i t a l l y Distressed And Non-Distressed Group Differences 59 Parent Verbal Report Measures 59 Behavioural Data 65 Predictors Of Marital Adjustment 68 Relationship Between Form Of Maternal Perception Of Child Behaviour Problem, Maternal Personal Adjustment, And Child Behaviour 71 DISCUSSION 73 REFERENCE NOTES 90 REFERENCES 91 APPENDICES 100 V Table of Tables 1. Means And Standard Deviations Of Demographic Characteristics For M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 33 2. Frequency Data Of Demographic Charact e r i s t i c s For Ma r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 34 3. Means And Standard Deviations Of Marital And Personal Adjustment Measures For Ma r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 35 4. Means And Standard Deviations Of Scales Of The Personality Research Form For M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 37 5. Means And Standard Deviations Of The Parent Perception Of Child Measures For M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 38 6. Means And Standard Deviations Of The Two Child And Three Parent Behavioural Measures For The M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers In Therapy And Not In Therapy 39 7. Means And Standard Deviations Of Demographic Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s For M a r i t a l l y Distressed And M a r i t a l l y Non-Distressed Mothers 41 8. Frequency Data Of Demographic Charact e r i s t i c s For Ma r i t a l l y Distressed And M a r i t a l l y Non-Distressed Mothers 42 9. Means And Standard Deviations Of The Marital And Personal Adjustment Measures For M a r i t a l l y Distressed And Non-Distressed Mothers 61 10. Means And Standard Deviations Of Scales Of The Personality Research Form For The M a r i t a l l y Distressed And Non-Distressed Mothers 62 11. Means, Standard Deviations And Results From T-tests Performed On The Parent Perception Of Child Measures For Ma r i t a l l y Distressed And Non-Distressed Mothers 65 12. Means, Standard Deviations And Results From T-tests Performed On The Two Child And Three Parent Behavioural Measures For The M a r i t a l l y Distressed And Non-Distressed Mothers 67 v i L i s t of Appendices A. Newspaper Advertisements 101 B. Dyadic Adjustment Scale 103 C. Beck Depression Inventory 108 D. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 113 E. Personality Research Form 116 F. Parent Attitudes Test 124 G. Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist 133 H. Child Behavior Checklist 137 I. Subject Consent Form 146 J. Subject Consent Form To Have Information Forwarded To Therapist 148 1 INTRODUCTION Marital d i s t r e s s i s a ubiquitous problem that has received increasing attention from c l i n i c i a n s and researchers a l i k e . Surveys indicate that about one couple in five reports d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with their marital relationship (e.g., R o l l i n s & Feldman, 1970). With such a widespread problem, i t i s not surprising that a large proportion of requests for outpatient mental health services emanates from marriage related problems (Overall, Henry & Woodward, 1974). Although some of these requests involve the di r e c t s o l i c i t a t i o n of help for marital problems, frequently the presenting problem centres around an adult's or a c h i l d ' s individual adjustment. Only through further investigation of the family does the marital discord become evident. The associations between marital d i s t r e s s and personal problems within the marital dyad as well as between marital problems and c h i l d adjustment problems have been viewed as more than purely coincidental. Research on maritally distressed couples suggests that their marriages are characterized by a greater number of unresolved problems and c o n f l i c t episodes (Birchler & Webb, 1977) and more reciprocated negative verbal exchanges ( B i l l i n g s , 1979) than non-distressed marriages. Some theorists have suggested that such interactions may not be conducive to psychological adjustment in other members of the family (see below). Moreover, individual adjustment problems in either an adult or a c h i l d in the family could conceivably create stress and disruption in other family areas, including 2 the marital dyad. There has been considerable interest in attempting to understand and empirically validate these relati o n s h i p s . A review of the theories and empirical data r e l a t i n g marital distress to adult and c h i l d adjustment problems w i l l be presented in the following sections. Relationship between Marital Distress and Personal Adjustment  Problems within the Marital Dyad: Theories Theories r e l a t i n g marital d i s t r e s s and personal adjustment problems within the marital dyad d i f f e r with respect to the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of thi s relationship. Some theorists suggest that maladjusted individuals predispose a marital r e l a t i o n s h i p to di s t r e s s , whereas others maintain that c o n f l i c t within the relationship may result in individual adjustment problems. Psychoanalytic theor i s t s (e.g., Huneeus, 1963; Van Emde Boas, 1962) hypothesize that individuals with adjustment problems (e.g., neuroses) tend to marry one another in an attempt to s a t i s f y their own unconscious needs. According to th i s theory, neurotic individuals w i l l project unacceptable parts of their personalities onto their partners, who w i l l then act them out. Co n f l i c t w i l l ensue because the partner's behaviour i s unacceptable, yet i t unconsciously meets the individual's needs. Contagion theorists (e.g, Buck & Ladd, 1965) also suggest that a neurotic individual i s responsible for dis t r e s s in a marital r e l a t i o n s h i p . They maintain that prolonged exposure of one marital partner to the neurotic behaviour of the other produces c o n f l i c t which w i l l ultimately result in neurotic 3 tendencies in both partners. Taking a d i f f e r e n t stance, role theorists (e.g., Crago & Tharp, 1968; Tharp & Otis, 1966) view marital d i s t r e s s as the precursor of individual adjustment problems. They suggest that when marital partners f a i l to meet each other's expectations concerning their marital roles, c o n f l i c t develops, and the partners devalue themselves. This may then result in some form of individual adjustment problem. Although there i s c l e a r l y agreement among theorists that marital d i s t r e s s and personal adjustment problems are related, none of the theorists has speculated as to why marital d i s t r e s s i s more commonly linked to some adjustment problems than to others. Relationship between Marital Distress and Personal Adjustment  Problems within the Marital Dyad: Empirical Support Researchers who have assessed the personal adjustment of individuals in distressed and non-distressed marriages have indeed found that marital d i s t r e s s i s related to psychological maladjustment in one or both partners, although the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of this relationship has not been established (Barrett, 1974; Johnson & Lobitz, 1974; Murstein & Glaudin, 1968; Rogers, Young, Cohen, Dworin & Lipetz, 1970). More s p e c i f i c a l l y , marital d i s t r e s s has been shown to be related to emotional immaturity (Dean, 1966), lowered self-concept and self-esteem (Barnett & N i e t z e l , 1979; Hoffman, 1970; I l f e l d , 1980), depression (e.g., Coleman & M i l l e r , 1975) and anxiety (e.g., Rogers et a l . , 1970). Depression i s one disorder that i s often viewed by 4 c l i n i c i a n s as being cl o s e l y related to marital d i s t r e s s . Indeed, some p s y c h i a t r i s t s view t h i s relationship as being s u f f i c i e n t l y strong as to recommend marital therapy for the treatment of depression (e.g., Heins, 1978). It does seem reasonable to expect that individuals involved in an unsatisfactory marriage characterized by c o n f l i c t , unresolved problems and negative interactions may be more predisposed to depression than individuals involved in a more sat i s f a c t o r y marriage. Conversely, an individual experiencing the common symptoms of depression, including dysphoria, low a c t i v i t y l e v e l , communication d i f f i c u l t i e s and various somatic problems may put str a i n on the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p by his or her i n a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l the expectations of the marital r o l e . Researchers have found that depressed patients' marriages are characterized by a marked avoidance of communication (McLean, Ogston & Grave, 1973) and a reticence to discuss personal feelings and problems with the spouse (Bullock, Siegel, Weissman & Paykel, 1972), compared to non-depressed individuals' marriages. Researchers who have examined sex differences in the relati o n s h i p between personal and marital adjustment have tended to f i n d a stronger rel a t i o n s h i p between marital d i s t r e s s and psychological maladjustment for wives than for husbands (Barnett & Ni e t z e l , 1979; Barrett, 1974; Rogers et a l . , 1970). However, the association between marital d i s t r e s s and depression does not appear to be as consistent for women as for men. When marital d i s t r e s s and depression have been correlated separately for husbands and wives, a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these variables for both sexes was found in one study 5 ( I l f e l d , 1977), whereas in two other studies the relationship held only for husbands (Coleman & M i l l e r , 1975; Weiss & Aved, 1978). Researchers who have studied depressed women or women with children who have been referred to a c l i n i c for behaviour problems have tended to fin d that marital d i s t r e s s and depression in women are related. Rounsaville, Weissman, Prusoff and Hercey-Baron (1978) found that over half of their sample of depressed women reported having marital d i f f i c u l t i e s . Moreover, reported improvement in the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p was found to be related to improvement in the depressive symptoms and ove r a l l s o c i a l functioning at the end of treatment. In a recent study of mothers of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children, Rickard, Forehand, Atkeson and Lopez (1982) found that mothers experiencing marital d i s t r e s s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more depressed than mothers who were either divorced or not experiencing marital problems. Thus, the results of the few studies done with men are generally in agreement, but there are some inconsistencies in the results for women. One area that has received r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e attention in the research l i t e r a t u r e i s the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and anxiety. Aside from a series of case reports in which marital d i s t r e s s was viewed as the source of symptoms and the focus of treatment for phobias and anxiety attacks in four women (Goodstein & Swift, 1977), there have been only two studies in which the relationship between marital adjustment and anxiety has been systematically evaluated. Rogers et a l . (1970) found that anxiety was s i g n i f i c a n t l y negatively related to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n for wives seeking marital counselling but 6 not f o r husbands. When the m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d sample was combined with a sample of couples who were not seeking m a r i t a l c o u n s e l l i n g , a n x i e t y was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r both husbands and wives. Lundgren, Jergens and Gibson (1980) found that although a n x i e t y was not r e l a t e d to the degree of sh a r i n g of household r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s or decision-making power i n a m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , i t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the pe r c e i v e d s o l i d a r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r both husbands and wives. Anx i e t y a l s o was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the husbands' and wives' e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r own p e r s o n a l i t y , t h e i r spouses' e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y and the p e r c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t y by t h e i r spouse. In p r e d i c t i n g a n x i e t y using r e g r e s s i o n equation a n a l y s e s , s e l f e v a l u a t i o n scores were b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r s of a n x i e t y f o r husbands than e i t h e r p e r c e i v e d s o l i d a r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p or p e r c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n by the wife, whereas s o l i d a r i t y and p e r c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n by the husband were the best p r e d i c t o r s of a n x i e t y f o r wives. T h i s would suggest that wives' emotional f u n c t i o n i n g may be more s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d t o r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a b l e s than husbands' emotional f u n c t i o n i n g . The r e s u l t s of both i n v e s t i g a t i o n s suggest that m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s and a n x i e t y are p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d , perhaps more s t r o n g l y f o r women than f o r men. In sum, resear c h i n the area of m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s and per s o n a l adjustment suggests that these problem areas are indeed r e l a t e d . In p a r t i c u l a r , m a r i t a l d i s t r e s s has been found to be r e l a t e d to de p r e s s i o n , a n x i e t y , emotional immaturity and lowered 7 self-concept and self-esteem. With one exception (depression), these relationships have been more consistently reported for women than for men. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed thus far on marital and personal adjustment has focussed on s p e c i f i c i d e n t i f i a b l e personal problems that may be related to marital problems. Many investigators have taken a more global, less pathology-oriented approach to thi s area, and have examined the relationship between marital adjustment and personality t r a i t s . The rationale behind t h i s research i s that there may be negative personality t r a i t s in one or both partners that predispose a relationship to d i f f i c u l t i e s or, conversly, that a dysfunctional marriage may have negative e f f e c t s on the person a l i t i e s of the individuals involved. Researchers have found that happily married men and women tend to rate themselves as more f l e x i b l e (Crouse, Rarlins & Schroder, 1968), a l t r u i s t i c (Buerkle, Anderson & Badgley, 1961), fr i e n d l y (Pickford, Signori & Rempel, 1966), warm (Luckey, 1964), and less blunt, aggressive, s k e p t i c a l , d i s t r u s t f u l (Luckey, 1964), h o s t i l e , cold and f e a r f u l (Eysenck, 1980; Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Zaleski & Galkowska, 1978) than unhappily married men and women. T r a i t s that have been found s p e c i f i c a l l y for women to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n are trust and unrebelliousness (Murstein & Glaudin, 1966), adventure seeking (Ficher, Zuckerman & Neeb, 1981), o b j e c t i v i t y , s t a b i l i t y and clothes consciousness (Bentler & Newcomb, 1978). Ambition, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and interest in art have been found to be negatively correlated with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n 8 in women (Bentler et a l . , 1978). For men, personal relations (Pickford et a l . , 1966) and deliberateness (Bentler et a l . , 1978) have been found to be p o s i t i v e l y correlated with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n in contrast with extraversion (Bentler et a l . , 1978) and experience seeking (Ficher et a l . , 1981) which are negatively correlated with marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . A major problem in interpreting the results of research in th i s area i s that most investigators have used personality inventories that provide scores for many di f f e r e n t t r a i t s , but have neglected to use multivariate s t a t i s t i c s to control for the li k e l i h o o d of finding some s i g n i f i c a n t differences by chance alone (e.g., Bentler et a l . , 1978; Luckey, 1964; Pickford et a l . , 1966). For example, Bentler et a l . (1978) found two of 28 correlations between personality and marital adjustment scores for men to be s i g n i f i c a n t . This result would be expected by chance alone. Thus, many of the t r a i t s attributed to happily and unhappily married individuals may simply be chance findings that w i l l not be repli c a t e d . Additional problems in this area are the lack of consistency and the questionable v a l i d i t y of the c r i t e r i a used to discriminate distressed from nondistressed marriages. Some researchers have assumed that couples who are not in therapy are maritally nondistressed (e.g., Murstein & Glaudin, 1966), whereas others have simply r e l i e d on couples' verbal reports that they are not experiencing problems (e.g, Buerkle et a l . , 1961). S t a b i l i t y of the marriage rather than reported s a t i s f a c t i o n was used as an indicator of marital adjustment in another study ( C a t t e l l & Nesselroade, 1967). 9 Because of the methodological problems outlined above, i t is d i f f i c u l t to draw conclusions from t h i s l i t e r a t u r e . The only finding that has been consistently replicated using v a l i d and r e l i a b l e measures is the one reported by Eysenck and his colleages (Eysenck, 1980; Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Zaleski & 9 Galkowska, 1978). They have obtained, for both men and women, small but s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and ho s t i l i t y / c o l d n e s s (the Psychoticism scale) (r = -.19 to -.27) and fearfulness (the Neuroticism scale) (r_ = -.19 to -.24) on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. The discovery of other personality t r a i t s r e l i a b l y associated with marital problems awaits more methodologically sound research. Relationships between Marital Distress, Parenting Behaviour and  Chil d Behaviour Problems: Theories The rel a t i o n s h i p between marital di s t r e s s and c h i l d behaviour problems has been examined from three major theoreti c a l orientations: family systems theory, s o c i a l learning theory and role theory ( c f . Margolin, 1981). Family systems theorists (e.g., Haley, 1967; Minuchin, 1974; S a t i r , 1969) hypothesize that a distressed marital rel a t i o n s h i p can result in dysfunctional parenting, thus rendering a c h i l d more prone to behaviour problems. According to t h i s theory, a distressed marital r e l a t i o n s h i p can af f e c t the parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p in two ways (S a t i r , 1969): 1) when parents are in c o n f l i c t , they may attempt to develop a more intense r e l a t i o n s h i p with the c h i l d (a c o a l i t i o n ) in order to compensate for the deterioration 10 of their own relationship; or 2) the parents may focus on the ch i l d ' s behaviour as the ''cause of the family disturbance and thus avoid d i r e c t l y confronting their own c o n f l i c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p (scapegoating). The c h i l d i s thought to respond to th i s change in parent-child interaction with feelings of c o n f l i c t , confusion or rejection, which may result in inappropriate behaviour. The parents may be more l i k e l y then to attend to t h i s behaviour since i t provides a. d i s t r a c t i o n from their own distressed relationship. Although family systems theorists view problems in one area as a f f e c t i n g other areas, they do suggest that marital problems most frequently underlie c h i l d problems, but not vice-versa. Social learning theorists (cf. Margolin, 1981) propose that a distressed marital relationship can result in c h i l d behaviour problems through accidental learning, coercion and modelling. Parents involved in marital problems may focus on their r e l a t i o n s h i p and spend less time with th e i r c h i l d r e n . A c h i l d , f eeling neglected or rejected, may accidentally find that she or he can e n l i s t the parents' attention by behaving in a deviant manner; t h i s behaviour then becomes reinforced through the parents' attention. The parent and c h i l d may then become involved in a coercive exchange in which they attempt to control each other's behaviour through the use of aversive consequences. Modelling also may play a more direct role in mediating t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p , in that a c h i l d may learn aggressive behaviours modelled by the parents in their interaction with one another. . In reviewing studies of s o c i a l i z a t i o n , B e l l (1968) hypothesized that not only do parents have ef f e c t s on their 11 children, but children also a f f e c t their parents' behaviour. Patterson (1982) provides an explanation for how a behaviour problem c h i l d can negatively a f f e c t a marital rel a t i o n s h i p . He suggests that in a family where the c h i l d behaves in an aversive fashion and where the parents have not learned to manage the ch i l d ' s behaviour in an e f f e c t i v e manner, parents and s i b l i n g s may learn to be coercive in order to control the chil d ' s behaviour. The parent most involved with the children, t y p i c a l l y the mother, may view the negative family si t u a t i o n as a result of her own ineffectiveness in parenting and experience a drop in self-esteem along with an increased r i s k of depression. The lowered self-esteem and depressed a f f e c t may in turn a f f e c t her a b i l i t y to function as a marital partner. In addition, Patterson postulates that where there i s an increased l e v e l of family aversiveness caused by the extensive use of coercion in the family, family members w i l l be reluctant to spend time together in shared a c t i v i t i e s or recreation and w i l l become more isolated from the rest of the community. This, in turn, w i l l negatively aff e c t the marital relationship. Patterson further suggests that increased c o n f l i c t in the marriage w i l l negatively af f e c t parenting, producing an increase in aggressive behaviour in the problem c h i l d . Role theorists (e.g, Cooper, Zirwing, Fedun, Kiely & Klugman, 1969; Heisler, 1972) hypothesize that the rel a t i o n s h i p between marital distress and c h i l d behaviour problems is b i d i r e c t i o n a l ; that i s , they view problems in either area as creating stress and an increased potential for developing problems in other family areas. For example, a problematic c h i l d 12 could create stress in a family by reducing the amount of freedom parents have in their choice of when and where to go out, reducing the time parents have available to each other or other family members, disrupting meals and other family events and by causing f i n a n c i a l problems. These factors, along with the g u i l t , anxiety, depression or blame the partners may experience regarding the c h i l d , may increase s t r a i n in the marital relationship, e s p e c i a l l y i f the partners are neither p a r t i c u l a r l y supportive of one another nor able to collaborate in their methods of dealing with the c h i l d . Conversely, a distressed marital relationship may render the c h i l d more vulnerable to problems in that such factors as f r i c t i o n between the parents and unplanned absences of one parent can cause greater u n p r e d i c t a b i l i t y in the home. In addition, the parents, who are involved in their own problems, may be more emotionally distant from the c h i l d and also more l i k e l y to disagree about parenting strategies, which could result in inconsistent d i s c i p l i n e . An overview of these theories suggests some differences as well as some commonalities in their views of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital, d i s t r e s s and c h i l d behaviour problems. The theories d i f f e r in the hypothesized d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the relationship as well as in the type and s p e c i f i c i t y of the mechanisms proposed to explain t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . However, they share the view that the parents' behaviour during parent-child interaction i s largely responsible for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital d i s t r e s s and the c h i l d ' s problem behaviour. As the mother i s t y p i c a l l y involved in more parent-child interaction, 1 3 the qua l i t y of her parenting behaviour i s viewed as an important mediating variable. The s o c i a l learning and role theories also suggest that the parent primarily responsible for child-care (usually the mother) may experience personal adjustment problems which may result from, and lead to, further problems in these areas. Relationships between Marital Distress, Parenting Behaviour and  Child Behaviour Problems: Empirical Support Researchers who have empirically assessed the relationship between marital and c h i l d problems have t y p i c a l l y r e l i e d on measures of parents' perceptions of c h i l d behaviour rather than assessing actual c h i l d behaviour as reported by independent observers. Although these measures have been thought to correspond c l o s e l y , recent studies of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children suggest that parents' perceptions of c h i l d behaviour are best predicted by the actual c h i l d behaviour as measured by independent observers as well as the parents' own personal adjustment (Griest, Forehand, Wells & McMahon, 1980; Griest, Wells & Forehand, 1979; Rickard, Forehand, Wells, Griest & McMahon, 1981). As such, discrepancies between the measures of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment and actual c h i l d behaviour may be expected, e s p e c i a l l y considering the established rel a t i o n s h i p between marital d i s t r e s s and personal adjustment problems within the marital dyad. Since a l l three theories r e l a t i n g marital and c h i l d problems have hypothesized parenting behaviour to be a mediating link between these two problem 1 4 areas, research r e l a t i n g marital d i s t r e s s and parent behaviour w i l l also be reviewed. Parent perception of c h i l d behaviour. Many investigators who have examined marital problems and parent perception of c h i l d problems have assessed the marital relationships of parents of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children. A control group consisting of parents of a matched group of non-clinic-referred children i s usually included in these studies. Family systems theorists t y p i c a l l y have used this design to compare family interaction on structured or unstructured laboratory tasks. Whereas researchers using such i n d i r e c t measures of family c o n f l i c t as the number of interruptions and the duration of incidences of simultaneous speech have f a i l e d to find consistent differences between c l i n i c and non-clinic families (e.g., Becker & Iwakami, 1969; F e r r e i r a & Winter, 1966; Leighton, Stollak Se Ferguson, 1971; O'Connor & Stachowiak, 1 9 7 1 ) , researchers using more dire c t measures of c o n f l i c t such as the frequency of parental agreements and disagreements have obtained more consistent r e s u l t s . They have found that parents of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children have more disagreements and fewer agreements than parents of non-clinic-referred children (e.g., Bugental, Love & Kaswan, 1971; Byassee & Murell, 1975; Gassner & Murray, 1969; Riskin & Faunce, 1970; Schreiber, 1 9 7 7 ) . To the extent that parental agreements and disagreements can be assumed to r e f l e c t marital d i s t r e s s , these results provide some support for the relationship between marital and c h i l d problems. 15 Investigators who have more d i r e c t l y assessed marital d i s t r e s s in parents of c l i n i c and non-clinic children by using interviewers' ratings or self-report measures of marital d i s t r e s s have found, with one exception (Griest et a l . , 1980), a p o s i t i v e relationship between marital and c h i l d problems. In a c r o s s - c u l t u r a l study carried out in India, Chawla and Gupt (1979) had interviewers rate parents of c l i n i c and non-clinic children on their marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and found that s i g n i f i c a n t l y more parents of c l i n i c children than parents of non-clinic children had unsatisfactory marital relationships. S i m i l a r l y , in comparing the self-reported marital s a t i s f a c t i o n of c l i n i c and non-clinic children, Kotler and Hammond (1981) found that c l i n i c parents rated their marriage as s i g n i f i c a n t l y less s a t i s f a c t o r y than did non-clinic parents. In assessing parents' perceptions of t h e i r c h i l d ' s deviancy at the i n i t i a t i o n and termination of treatment, Oltmanns, Broderick and O'Leary (1977) found that parents of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r marital relationship than parents of non-referred c h i l d r e n . Moreover, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n scores were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y negatively correlated with c h i l d deviance scores (conduct problems) in the c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d group but not in the n o n - c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d group. Christensen and Margolin (1983) found that in families characterized by both self-reported marital and c h i l d problems, as well as in families where neither problem was evident, there were s i g n i f i c a n t positive correlations between global ratings of marital problems and c h i l d problems. In addition, they found a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the parents' d a i l y 1 6 ratings of their s a t i s f a c t i o n with their spouse and their s a t i s f a c t i o n with their children. For both the global ratings and the d a i l y s a t i s f a c t i o n ratings in the distressed families, the correlations between the parents' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and ratings of the target c h i l d were stronger than correlations with ratings of other children in the family, suggesting a p a r t i c u l a r l y strong relationship between marital problems and the target c h i l d ' s problems. Porter and O'Leary (1980) had mothers of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d and non-clinic-referred children rate their marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , their c h i l d ' s deviant behaviour, and the extent to which they thought their c h i l d was exposed to overt marital h o s t i l i t y . Although they found no relationship between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and c h i l d deviancy, they did find that reported exposure to overt marital h o s t i l i t y was p o s i t i v e l y related to conduct disorder problems and t o t a l pathology scores in younger boys (under 11 years) and to personality disorder, inadequacy-immaturity, s o c i a l i z e d delinquency and t o t a l pathology scores in older boys (11 years and older). No relationship was found between either marital s a t i s f a c t i o n or h o s t i l i t y and behaviour problems in g i r l s , suggesting a possible sex difference in the re l a t i o n s h i p between marital d i s t r e s s and c h i l d deviance. Further evidence for a sex difference was obtained by Emery and O'Leary (1982), who found that boys' perceptions of their parents' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n were negatively correlated with mothers' perceptions of their sons' deviant behaviour (conduct problems); however, mothers' ratings of their daughters' deviant behaviour and daughters' ratings of their parents' marital 1 7 adjustment were not related. Researchers who have examined whether treatment of c h i l d behaviour problems w i l l generalize to improvement in the marital area have obtained mixed r e s u l t s . Whereas Oltman'ns et a l . (1977) found no change in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n for mothers or fathers following parent tr a i n i n g , Forehand, Wells, McMahon and Griest (1982) found that parents with low, but not those with medium or high, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n showed improvement in t h i s area following parent t r a i n i n g . However, the gains in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n were not maintained at a 2-month follow-up. Margolin (Note 1) also has presented preliminary research data suggesting that in families where both marital and c h i l d problems are evident, treatment focussed on either problem results in improvement in the other problem area. In sum, the empirical data suggest that marital di s t r e s s and marital h o s t i l i t y (as measured by self-report and interviewers' ratings) are p o s i t i v e l y related to parents' perceptions of c h i l d deviant behaviour, at least for children already c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d for behaviour problems. Problems of undercontrol (e.g., conduct disorders) seem to be more commonly related to marital di s t r e s s than c h i l d problems of overcontrol (e.g., anxiety, withdrawal). In addition, some research indicates that the relationship between marital and c h i l d problems may be stronger for male than for female children. The evidence regarding the impact of treatment of either marital or c h i l d problems for.the other problem area.is mixed. Although there i s considerable evidence suggesting a relationship between marital and c h i l d problems in a population 18 of children who have already been referred for behaviour problems, r e l a t i v e l y few investigators have assessed the relat i o n s h i p between marital d i s t r e s s and parent perceptions of c h i l d deviant behaviour in a population of children who have not come to the attention of helping agencies. This i s an important d i s t i n c t i o n that c l e a r l y has c l i n i c a l implications. A relat i o n s h i p between marital and c h i l d problems in a population referred for c h i l d problems suggests that there i s an increased l i k e l i h o o d that these families w i l l have marital problems as well as c h i l d problems and that both areas should be assessed. This relationship does not necessarily imply that a couple seeking help for marital problems w i l l be l i k e l y to have problem children. A posi t i v e relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and parent perception of c h i l d behaviour problems in a population of children who have not been c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d , however, would suggest that: 1) couples reporting marital problems would have an increased l i k e l i h o o d of perceiving c h i l d problems as well; and 2) children of maritally distressed couples would be at risk for being c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d , since parent perception of c h i l d behaviour has been shown to be the best discriminator between c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d and non-clinic-referred children (e.g., Griest et a l . , 1980). There have been three studies in which th i s relationship has been examined in a population where there has been no c h i l d -r e f e r r a l . Ferguson and Allen (1978) correlated marital s a t i s f a c t i o n scores with parent perception of c h i l d adjustment for 5 to 7-year-old children, and found a s i g n i f i c a n t but low positi v e c o r r e l a t i o n between these two variables (r = .21). In 19 addition, they found that marital adjustment was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with congruence in the parents' perception of their c h i l d ' s adjustment and with congruence in their perceptions of each other, leading Ferguson and Allen to suggest that family harmony may underlie a c h i l d ' s s o c i a l adjustment. Klein and Shulman (1980) divided their sample of 7 to 12-year-old children and their parents into maritally distressed and non-distressed groups, using the group mean score on a self-report marital questionnaire (Dyadic Adjustment Scale) as the cut-off point. They found that parents with poor marital adjustment perceived the i r children as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more adjustment problems than parents with good marital adjustment. In a large-scale study in which mothers', teachers' and school physicians' perceptions of emotional and a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour in 7-year-old children were correlated with a health v i s i t o r ' s opinion of whether marital tension existed between the parents during a home v i s i t , Whitehead (1979) obtained the following r e s u l t s : Compared with maritally non-distressed mothers, mothers who were judged to be m a r i t a l l y distressed rated t h e i r sons as more "sad, miserable and t e a r f u l " and as being more l i k e l y to become involved in fights and destroy others' belongings; in addition, they rated th e i r daughters as "more sensitive or highly-strung" and as being more l i k e l y to become involved in f i g h t s . In comparison with children from m a r i t a l l y non-distressed homes, teachers rated both boys and g i r l s from maritally distressed homes as having greater d i f f i c u l t y " s e t t l i n g down in school," and the boys in p a r t i c u l a r were perceived as being more " h o s t i l e " towards other children in 20 school. School physicians were more l i k e l y to rate g i r l s from maritally distressed homes as "emotionally maladjusted". Moreover, both boys and g i r l s were more l i k e l y to be attending a c h i l d guidance c l i n i c i f marital d i s t r e s s was present in the home. Although these studies do suggest a relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and parent perception of c h i l d adjustment, the usefulness of their results i s limited by a number of methodological problems: 1) in Whitehead's study (1979), neither the r e l i a b i l i t y nor the v a l i d i t y of the measure of marital distress (health v i s i t o r ' s opinion of whether marital tension existed during a home v i s i t ) was established; 2) the sample selected by Ferguson and Allen (1978) was disproportionately represented by maritally s a t i s f i e d couples and non-deviant children; and 3) neither the range of marital adjustment scores nor the means of the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups were spec i f i e d in Klein and Shulman's study (1980). Thus, the representativeness of the samples cannot be determined. Child behaviour. The relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and c h i l d deviant behaviour has been assessed by an independent observer in only one study. In t h i s study, Johnson and Lobitz (1974) assessed self-reported marital adjustment, personal adjustment (MMPI) and independent observers' ratings of c h i l d behaviour and parent behaviour in a sample consisting of 17 boys (aged 2-12) c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d for conduct problems. Observers rated 15 behaviours that had previously been designated as 21 deviant by parents of normal children, and the scores on these behaviours were summed to provide a t o t a l c h i l d deviant behaviour score. The results indicated that marital adjustment was s i g n i f i c a n t l y negatively related to c h i l d deviant behaviour for fathers (r = -.52) and for both parents together (r = -.45), but the relationship for mothers f e l l just short of s t a t i s t i c a l significance (r = -.32, p_ < • • • ) • The authors suggest that the small sample size (n = 17) and the resultant increased l i k e l i h o o d of making a Type II error ( f a i l i n g to reject a false n u l l hypothesis) may have been an important factor in the lack of s t a t i s t i c a l significance in the relationship for mothers. In any event, o v e r a l l test results suggest a strong relationship between marital adjustment and c h i l d deviant behaviour, at least for c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children. There have not been any studies in which the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and independent observers' assessments of c h i l d deviant behaviour has been examined in a non-clinic-referred population. Without such research i t i s d i f f i c u l t to e s t a b l i s h whether the parents' perception of behaviour problems r e f l e c t s an accurate perception of the c h i l d ' s behaviour or whether the perception i s influenced by marital and/or personal adjustment problems (Griest & Wells, 1983). In addition to relying on the parent's perception of c h i l d behaviour, researchers also have used the c h i l d ' s or adolescent's assessment of her or his own adjustment, or the teacher's perception of c h i l d adjustment as an indicator of c h i l d adjustment. Results from these studies indicate that marital d i s t r e s s i s negatively related to the c h i l d ' s assessment 22 of his or her self-concept (Raschke & Raschke, 1979), s e l f -esteem (Foster, 1977), and personality adjustment (Burchinal, Hawkes & Gordon, 1957); and i s p o s i t i v e l y related to the adolescent's assessment of her or his psychosomatic i l l n e s s and delinquent behaviour (Nye, 1955), and depression, discomfort, alienation and s o c i a l non-conformity (Schwarz & Getter, 1980; Schwarz & Zuroff, 1979). Interestingly, Schwarz and his colleagues (1979, 1980) found that some of the adjustment scores were best predicted by a three-way interaction involving parental c o n f l i c t , parental dominance, and gender of the adolescent, such that having an opposite-sex parent dominant when parental c o n f l i c t was high tended to be associated with low psychological adjustment for the adolescent. In accounting for t h i s relationship, Schwarz (1979) suggests that parental c o n f l i c t may force a c h i l d to a l i g n him or herself with one parent, often the more powerful parent. If the more powerful parent i s opposite in gender, the c h i l d may experience c o n f l i c t which could be expressed in some disorder. However, Schwarz suggests that variables such as the c h i l d ' s sex, temperament, and alternate sources of support may a l t e r t h i s relationship. Rutter (1971) had teachers rate the presence of neurotic and a n t i - s o c i a l disorders in children of families in which one parent had been referred recently for psychiatric help. He found a s i g n i f i c a n t linear trend r e l a t i n g marital d i s t r e s s to a n t i -s o c i a l behaviour in boys, but no such rela t i o n s h i p was found for g i r l s . Rutter's results also suggested that the e f f e c t s of marital discord on children are not necessarily permanent, since children from poor marital relationships who were relocated in 23 homes with less marital d i s t r e s s subsequently showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y less a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour compared with children who were relocated in homes with poor marital relationships. In an examination of variables that could p o t e n t i a l l y mediate th i s relationship, Rutter found that in homes where the marital relationship was good or f a i r , the presence of emotional maladjustment in either parent made no difference, but in homes where the marital relationship was poor and there was an emotionally disordered adult, twice as many boys were rated as a n t i - s o c i a l . In addition, he found that, regardless of the quality of the marital relationship, there was less a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour in boys i f they had a good re l a t i o n s h i p with at least one parent. To summarize, researchers have found that marital d i s t r e s s i s related to independent observers' assessments of c h i l d deviance in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d boys. Although this r e l a t i o n s h i p has not been assessed in a non-clinic-referred population, children's and teachers' perceptions of c h i l d adjustment suggest that these variables are p o s i t i v e l y related to marital adjustment. Moreover, Rutter's study (1971), l i k e some of the studies in which parent perception of c h i l d adjustment in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children was assessed (Emery & O'Leary, 1979; Porter & O'Leary, 1980), found support for the relat i o n s h i p for boys but not for g i r l s . Schwarz and his colleagues (1979, 1980) have suggested that parental dominance may play a role in mediating t h i s gender-linked r e l a t i o n s h i p . Although Rutter (1971) found that marital d i s t r e s s was related to behavioural problems of undercontrol ( a n t i s o c i a l behaviour) and not to 24 problems of overcontrol (neurosis), other researchers have found relationships for both (e.g., Nye, 1955; Whitehead, 1979). Parenting behaviour. Although parenting behaviour has been widely viewed as an important mediating variable in marital and c h i l d problems, r e l a t i v e l y few investigators have examined the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and parenting behaviour. Only one research team has used independent behavioural observations of parenting behaviour. Johnson and Lobitz (1974) correlated marital adjustment scores with home observations of parental negativeness in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d c h i l d r e n . The parental negativeness score was based on the proportion of t o t a l parental behaviour that involved negative communication directed toward the c h i l d . The results indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t negative co r r e l a t i o n between marital adjustment and maternal negativeness (r = -.45), negativeness of both parents together (r = -.50), and a non-significant trend for paternal negativeness (£ = -.30, p < .15). Researchers assessing the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and parenting behaviour in a non-clinic population have r e l i e d exclusively on parents' self-reports or adolescents' reports of parenting behaviour. Porter (1955) found that parents' reports of their marital s a t i s f a c t i o n correlated highly with their reports of their acceptance of the c h i l d . However, in a more recent study, Emery and O'Leary (1982) found that childrens' ratings of the degree of acceptance they f e l t from the i r parents were not related to their own or their parents' 25 ratings of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Kaufman (1961) found that adolescent's assessments of their relationships with their parents were s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with parents' reports of marital adjustment. In assessing the relationship between college students' perceptions of their parents' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and c o n f l i c t and their perceptions of the rewards and punishments they received from them, Kemper and Reichler (1976) found that the father's marital distress and c o n f l i c t was related to both son's and daughter's punishments, whereas the mother's marital c o n f l i c t was related to son's but not to daughter's punishments. Both parents' marital s a t i s f a c t i o n was related to the intensity and frequency of rewards for sons and daughters, but the mother's marital s a t i s f a c t i o n was more highly related to daughter's rewards than was the father's marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . In sum, research within t h i s area, although sparse, suggests a r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital distress and parenting behaviour; moreover, there is some evidence to suggest that t h i s relationship i s stronger for mothers than for fathers. Conclusions Various theorists have hypothesized relationships between marital d i s t r e s s and both adult and c h i l d adjustment problems. There has been general agreement among these theorists that parent behaviour, especially maternal parent behaviour, may be a mediating link in the r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital and c h i l d problems. Some theorists also have postulated that d i f f i c u l t i e s 26 in the marital or c h i l d domain may render the parent who i s primarily responsible for child-care ( t y p i c a l l y the mother) more vulnerable to personal adjustment problems which, in turn, may lead to further problems in other areas. Thus, on a th e o r e t i c a l basis, marital d i s t r e s s seems to be related to personal adjustment problems within the marital dyad, to c h i l d behaviour problems, and to less e f f e c t i v e maternal parenting behaviour. Investigators who have assessed these relationships empirically have found that marital d i s t r e s s i s p o s i t i v e l y related to various personal adjustment problems within the marital dyad. With the exception of depression, the relationship of marital d i s t r e s s to these adjustment problems i s more consistently reported for women than for men. There i s some research to indicate a r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital problems and certain personality t r a i t s , although many of the studies in t h i s area have been flawed by the use of univariate rather than multivariate s t a t i s t i c s . Research also supports a positive relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and parent perception of c h i l d behaviour problems, although the methodological problems inherent in the studies of non-clinic-referred children make the conclusions in t h i s area more tentative. Whereas marital d i s t r e s s has been shown to be related to problems of overcontrol in children, problems of undercontrol have been found to be more consistently correlated with marital problems. There also i s some evidence to indicate that the relationship between marital and c h i l d problems may be more l i k e l y to occur for boys than for g i r l s . Positive relationships have been established between marital d i s t r e s s and negative parent behaviour in a population 27 where the c h i l d has been c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d for behaviour problems; however, these relationships have not been assessed in a non-c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d population. Although marital d i s t r e s s has been viewed t h e o r e t i c a l l y as being related to personal adjustment, c h i l d behaviour and parenting problems, only one study has assessed the relationship of marital d i s t r e s s to a l l of these variables (Johnson & Lobitz, 1974). These researchers studied c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children and their parents. The other studies involving non-clinic-referred children have assessed one of these relationships to the exclusion of the others, thereby making i t impossible to compare the strength of these re l a t i o n s h i p s . The purpose of the present study was to provide a systematic, comprehensive investigation of the relationship of marital adjustment to maternal personal adjustment and personality t r a i t s , to maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment, and to c h i l d and parent behaviour as assessed by independent observers in samples of maritally distressed and non-distressed mothers and their children. The sample consisted of children who had never been c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d for behaviour problems. This study provided an opportunity both to r e p l i c a t e the findings from the few studies that have related marital d i s t r e s s and parent perception of c h i l d adjustment in a sample of non-clinic-referred children, and to extend the research in t h i s area by providing information on the relationships of parent and c h i l d behaviour to marital d i s t r e s s . It i s important to note that t h i s study was not designed to assess the r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of the theories r e l a t i n g marital and c h i l d problems. Rather, the 28 present investigation was designed to determine whether there are empirical relationships between marital d i s t r e s s and the five factors of maternal personal adjustment, personality, perception of c h i l d adjustment, parent and c h i l d behaviour. In addition, t h i s investigation was able to determine the r e l a t i v e relationships between each of these f i v e factors and marital d i s t r e s s . The sample consisted of 40 mother-child pa i r s . Mother-child pairs were selected because: 1) t h e o r e t i c a l l y , maternal parent-ing has been viewed as an important mediating l i n k between marital d i s t r e s s and c h i l d behaviour problems; 2) the evidence that i s available suggests that the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and negative parent behaviour i s stronger for mothers than for fathers; and . 3) the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and personal adjustment problems has, in general, been more consistently reported for women than for men. Half of the sample consisted of mothers who, according to a well-validated self-report measure, were experiencing s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r e s s in th e i r marital relationship. The other half consisted of mothers who, according to their s e l f - r e p o r t , were not experiencing marital problems nor had they ever sought treatment for marital problems in their current r e l a t i o n s h i p . Only children between the ages of 3 and 7 years were included in this study. Some researchers have sampled children from a larger age range. For example, Johnson and Lobitz (1974) included children aged 2 to 12 in their study. Since results from samples containing a large age range would be l i k e l y to include variance due to developmental changes in childrens' responses, a narrower 29 age range was considered preferable. A younger age range was selected because parents have a more exclusive influence on their children during t h i s period; thus, marital adjustment, personal adjustment, parenting and c h i l d problems would be expected to be more interrelated for th i s age group. Although the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and depression has a certain c l i n i c a l appeal, the research findings for t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p have been inconsistent, at least for women. In order to c l a r i f y t h i s relationship further, a measure of depression was included in t h i s study. Since the relationship between marital d i s t r e s s and anxiety has received l i t t l e attention in the l i t e r a t u r e , a self-report measure of anxiety also was included. This study was designed to test the following hypotheses: Compared to maritally non-distressed mothers, maritally distressed mothers w i l l be more depressed and anxious; w i l l d i f f e r in terms of their personality t r a i t s ; w i l l perceive their children as more deviant; w i l l demonstrate less appropriate parent behaviour; and w i l l have children who are, in fact, more deviant. Because of the close relationship that has been found between marital d i s t r e s s and personal adjustment problems, i t also was hypothesized that personal adjustment problems would be the best predictor of marital d i s t r e s s . Since parent perception of c h i l d adjustment is l i k e l y to be affected by both parent adjustment and c h i l d behaviour, parent perception of c h i l d adjustment was hypothesized to be the second best predictor of marital d i s t r e s s . Child behaviour was hypothesized to be the t h i r d best predictor of marital problems, followed by parent 30 behaviour. This order was selected because the relationship between marital problems and c h i l d problems has- been established more firmly in the l i t e r a t u r e than has the relationship between marital problems and parenting behaviour. F i n a l l y , because of the r e l a t i v e l y weak correlations found in the l i t e r a t u r e between personality and marital problems, parent personality was hypothesized to be the least e f f e c t i v e predictor of marital problems. 31 METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 40 mother-child p a i r s . Half of the sample (n = 20) was comprised of mothers who, according to their scores on a self-report marital inventory (the Dyadic Adjustment Scale), perceived themselves to be seriously d i s s a t i s f i e d with their marital relationship. Of these, eight mothers were involved in the early stages of marital therapy (fewer than seven treatment sessions) and were referred to the study by their marital therapists. The other 12 mothers were s o l i c i t e d through newspaper advertisements (see Appendix A). Two of these mothers also were involved in marital therapy. Thus, of the 20 women who perceived themselves as mar i t a l l y distressed, ten were involved in marital therapy and ten were not. In order to determine whether the mothers in marital therapy and those not in marital therapy could be treated as a single maritally distressed group, the two subgroups were compared with respect to demographic variables, mother's perception of marital adjustment, measures of mother's perception of her own personal adjustment and personality, measures of mother's perception of her chi l d ' s adjustment and behavioural observation measures of parent and c h i l d behaviour. A Hotelling's T 2 analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the demographic variables of age of c h i l d , age of mother, length of marriage, number of children in the family and socioeconomic 32 status of the family, F(5,14) = 0.87, g > .50. Socioeconomic status was calculated using the occupational and educational l e v e l of the head of the household as sp e c i f i e d in the s o c i a l status index developed by Myers and Bean (1968). Means and standard deviations of these demographic variables are presented in Table 1. Chi-square analyses revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the subgroups for the number of male and female children, x2 (1 ) = .95, p_ > .25, number of children in daycare, x2 (1 ) = 0, p_ > .50, number of mothers involved in their f i r s t or second marriage, x2 (1 ) = .39, p_ > .50, and number of mothers employed f u l l - t i m e , part-time, or unemployed, x 2(2) = 1.2, g > .10. The frequency data for these variables are presented in Table 2. A comparison of the marital adjustment scores (Dyadic Adjustment Scale) of the two subgroups using a t-test yielded no s i g n i f i c a n t differences, t ( l 8 ) = 0.62, p > .50. Si m i l a r l y , a Hotelling's T 2 analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two subgroups on the measures of the mother's perception of her own adjustment (Beck Depression Inventory, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), F(2,17) = 0.53, p > .50. The means and standard deviations of the marital adjustment and personal adjustment inventories for the two subgroups are presented in Table 3. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found between the two subgroups on the scales measuring the mother's perception of her own personality (Personality Research Form), using a Hotelling's T 2 analysis F(15,4) = 3.41, 2 > • 1 0 « The means and standard deviations of the personality scales are presented in Table 4. A Hotelling's T 2 analysis of the measures Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Characteristics for Mar i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy In Therapy Not in Therapy Variables M SD M SD Age of c h i l d (months) 59 .00 16. 94 59. 70 13 .70 Age of mother (years) 31 .50 3. 06 34. 70 3 .89 Length of marriage (years) 8 .80 2. 86 1 1 . 09 3 .96 Number of children in family 1 .90 0. 74 2. 60 1 .17 Socioeconomic status 33 .60 20. 19 35. 40 16 .75 Note. n = 10 for each group. Table 2 Frequency Data of Demographic Charact e r i s t i c s for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy Var iable Frequency In Therapy Not in Therapy Sex of c h i l d male female Chi l d in daycare in daycare not in daycare Number of marriages f i r s t marriage second marriage Mother employed f u l l - t ime part-time not employed 6 4 1 9 8 2 3 3 4 8 2 1 9 9 1 1 4 5 Note, n = 10 for each group. 35 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Marital and Personal Adjustment Measures for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy In Therapy Not in Therapy Variable M SD M SD Dyadic Adjustment Scale 84.70 9.51 82.10 9.10 Beck Depression Inventory 8.40 8.90 9.40 6.34 State-Trait Anxiety 45.00 11.64 44.70 9.79 Inventory Note. n = 10 for each group. 36 of the mother's perception of her child' s adjustment (Parent Attitudes Test, Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist, Child Behavior Checklist) revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two subgroups, F(5,14) = 0.64, p > .50. The means and standard deviations of these measures are presented in Table 5. A Hotelling's T 2 analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two subgroups on the c h i l d behavioural measures of compliance to alpha commands and c h i l d inappropriate behaviour, F(2,17) = 0.43, 2 > .50. In addition, no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the parent behavioural measures of rewards plus attends and beta commands, F(2,17) = 2.69, p > .10, using a Hotelling's T 2 analysis. Results from a t-test also revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the measure of contingent attention, t:(l8) = 0.12, p > .50. The means and standard deviations of the behavioural observation measures are presented in Table 6. Since no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found for any of the relevant variables between the maritally distressed mothers who were involved in marital therapy and those who were not, i t was assumed that the two subgroups came from the same population and hence could be treated as a single group. These subjects comprised the maritally distressed group. The other half of the sample (n = 20) was comprised of mothers who, according to their scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, perceived their marital relationship to be sa t i s f a c t o r y . In addition, they had no reported history of marital therapy in their current marital relationship. These women were recruited through newspaper and community centre advertisements (see Appendix A). Women involved in t h i s group formed the maritally Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Scales of the Personality Research Form for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy In Therapy Not in Therapy Scale M SD M SD Achievement 12. .90 2. .77 13. .20 3. ,08 A f f i l i a t i o n 15. .70 2. .87 14. .60 3. .13 Aggression 4. .00 2. . 1 1 8. .10 3. .75 Autonomy 6. .30 2. .31 7. .70 1 . 83 Dominance 7. .40 4, .40 10, .40 4. .88 Endurance . 10. 60 2, .87 1 1 . 70 4. .22 Exhibition 6. .60 4, .72 10, .30 4. . 1 1 Harmavoidance 12. ,20 3, .99 1 1 , .50 4. .35 Impulsivity 9, .60 3, .98 10, .00 3. .68 Nurturance 15, .70 3, .02 15, .20 1 , .55 Order 10, .60 4, .76 10, .80 4, .31 Play 8, .90 4, .23 8, .40 3, .02 Social Recognition 8, .70 3, .86 8, .80 2, .97 Understanding 14, .10 2, .85 14, .00 1 . 76 Infrequency 0, .30 0, .48 1 , .00 1 , .25 Note, n = 10 for each group. Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of the Parent Perception of Child Measures for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy In Therapy Not in Therapy Variable M SD M SD Parent Attitudes Test 44. 30 13. 23 47 .70 12. 17 Child Behavior Checklist 59. 60 9. 67 57 .40 8. 60 Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist Less Withdrawn and Hostile 19. 40 8. 95 22 .00 6. 99 More Aggressive 0. 00 6. 68 -o .30 7. 94 More Conduct Problems -4. 30 8. 10 0 .70 7. 59 Note. n = 10 for each group. Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of the Two Child and Three Parent Behavioural Measures for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers in Therapy and Not in Therapy In Therapy Not in Therapy Variable M SD M SD Compliance to Alpha 89 .56 6. 45 85. 36 1 3 .44 Commands plus Warnings 1 Inappropriate Behaviour 1 4 .69 3. 04 6. 06 4 .53 Rewards plus Attends 2 0 .45 0. 29 0. 60 0 .29 Beta Commands2 0 .59 0. 22 1 . 07 0 .61 Contingent Attention 2 4 .27 2. 49 4. 1 3 2 .36 Note. n = 10 for each group. 1 Child behaviour 2 Parent behaviour 40 non-distressed group. Although 40 mothers completed the study, a t o t a l of 52 expressed an interest in p a r t i c i p a t i n g . Of the 12 mothers who did not complete the study, nine f a i l e d to meet the requirements for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study, two decided not to par t i c i p a t e after the i n i t i a l interview, and one dropped out before completing the home observations. The children involved in the study ranged between 3 and 7 years of age inclus i v e , and had no reported history of c l i n i c r e f e r r a l for c h i l d behaviour problems. There were 6 g i r l s and 14 boys in both the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups. A comparison of the two groups using a Hotelling's T 2 analysis revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences on the demographic variables of age of c h i l d , age of mother, length of marriage, number of children in the family and socioeconomic status of the family, F(5,34) = 0.15, p_ > .50. The means and standard deviations of these demographic variables are presented in Table 7. Chi-square analyses revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two groups on sex of c h i l d , x2 (1 ) = 0.0, p > «50, number of children in daycare, x 2(1) = 0.36, p > .50, number of mothers involved in their f i r s t versus second marriage, x2 (1 ) = 0.91, p_ > .25, and number of mothers employed f u l l - t i m e , part-time, or unemployed, x 2(2) = 0.50, p > .25. The frequency data for these variables are presented in Table 8. Table 7 Means and Standard Deviations of Demographic Characteristics for Ma r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers and Non-Distressed Mothers Ma r i t a l l y M a r i t a l l y Distressed Non-Distressed Variable M SD M SD Age of c h i l d (months) 59. 35 15. 00 58. 50 14. 41 Age of mother (years) 33. 10 3. 78 32. 00 3. 93 Length of marriage (years) 9. 95 3. 56 9. 55 3. 1 2 Number of children in family 2. 25 1 . 02 2. 15 0. 81 Socioeconomic status 34. 50 18. 08 36. 00 14. 52 Note. n = 20 for each group. 42 Table 8 Frequency Data of Demographic Charact e r i s t i c s for M a r i t a l l y Distressed Mothers and M a r i t a l l y Non-Distressed Mothers Variable Frequency M a r i t a l l y M a r i t a l l y Distressed Non-Distressed Sex of c h i l d male female Child in daycare in daycare not in daycare Number of marriages f i r s t marriage second marriage Mother employed f u l l - t i m e part-time not employed 14 6 2 18 17 3 4 7 9 14 6 1 19 18 2 2 7 1 1 Note, n = 20 for each group. 43 Observers and Training Seven undergraduate psychology majors from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were employed as home observers. These observers remained naive as to the purpose and methodology of the study. Three graduate students and four undergraduate students experienced in using the coding system served as c a l i b r a t i n g observers during the r e l i a b i l i t y checks. Coders received at least 30 hours of tra i n i n g in the coding system, which consisted of didactic presentation of the system and practice in coding role-played, videotaped and l i v e mother-child interactions. Each observer reached at least 80% agreement with a pre-scored 10-minute videotaped mother-child interaction before being permitted to c o l l e c t data. During the data c o l l e c t i o n period, 1-hour t r a i n i n g sessions were held weekly to maintain high r e l i a b i l i t y and reduce observer d r i f t . Coding System The coding system used in the home observations was formulated by Forehand, Peed, Roberts, McMahon, Griest and Humphreys (Note 2). This system involved the recording of mother and c h i l d behaviours within 30-second intervals as well as a 30-second time sampling measure of c h i l d inappropriate behaviour (other than noncompliance). Using t h i s system, the following parent and c h i l d behaviours were recorded: Parent: (1) Rewards. Labelled verbal rewards (praise of the ch i l d ' s 44 s p e c i f i c behaviour), unlabelled verbal rewards (praise of the c h i l d or her or his a c t i v i t y that does not specify the reason for the praise), descriptions of the child' s behaviour that denote better than average performance, and physical rewards (physical contacts such as kisses or hugs). (2) Attends. Verbal descriptions of the a c t i v i t y , s p a t i a l orientation or appearance of the c h i l d . (3) Questions. Interrogatives or suggestions that require a verbal response on the part of the c h i l d . (4) Commands. Orders, suggestions, demands or dire c t i o n s in the form of statements or questions that require a verbal or motor response from the c h i l d . Commands can be those with which the c h i l d does (alpha) and does not (beta) have an opportunity to comply. (5) Warnings. Contingency statements describing negative consequences for the c h i l d that w i l l be administered by either parent in the presence or absence of a spe c i f i e d behaviour. (6) Time-out. Any procedure used by the parent that removes the c h i l d from positive reinforcement. C h i l d : (1) Compliance. I n i t i t a t e d obedience to a parental command within 5 seconds of that command. (2) Noncompliance. Failure to i n i t i a t e compliance with a parental command within 5 seconds of that command. (3) Inappropriate behaviour. Whining, crying, y e l l i n g , tantrums, aggression or threat of aggression toward objects or people, 45 or inappropriate talk (which includes d i s r e s p e c t f u l statements, stated refusals to comply, threatening commands to the parent, profanity and re p e t i t i v e requests). (4) Appropriate behaviour. A l l c h i l d behaviour not in the inappropriate behaviour category. Measures Both self-report and observational measures were used in th i s study. The self-report measures included: a marital adjustment inventory, two personal adjustment inventories, a personality inventory, and three parent perception of c h i l d adjustment inventories. Observational measures of parent and c h i l d behaviours were recorded in the home by independent observers. The self-report inventories and scoring procedures are contained in Appendices B-H. Marital adjustment. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) (Spa nier, 1976) (Appendix B) was administered to mothers to assess perceptions of their marital adjustment. This 32-item self-report inventory contains four empirically validated subscales of marital adjustment: dyadic consensus, dyadic cohesion, dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n and a f f e c t i o n a l expression. Dyadic consensus refers to the extent of spouses' agreement regarding such general marital issues as finances, recreation, r e l i g i o n , friends, in-laws, philosophy of l i f e , goals, conventionality, 46 time spent together, leisure-time a c t i v i t i e s , household tasks, major decisions and career decisions. Dyadic cohesion assesses the extent to which partners involve themselves in such jo i n t a c t i v i t i e s as working, talking, laughing, exchanging ideas, and pa r t i c i p a t i n g in outside interests together. Dyadic s a t i s f a c t i o n refers to the spouses' overal l evaluation of their marital relationship and their l e v e l of commitment to the relationship. A f f e c t i o n a l expression assesses the degree of aff e c t i o n and sexual involvement in the relationship. High internal consistency r e l i a b i l i t y has been demonstrated for these four subscales as well as the complete scale (Spanier, 1976). In addition, evidence supporting content, c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d and construct v a l i d i t y for thi s scale has been reported (Spanier, 1976). In c o l l e c t i n g normative data for thi s scale, Spanier (1976) administered the DAS to 218 married couples of varying socio-economic backgrounds and obtained a mean score of 114.8 and a standard deviation of 17.8 for thi s sample. Although Spanier has not spe c i f i e d DAS cut-off scores for c l a s s i f y i n g individuals as distressed or non-distressed, Jacobson and Anderson (1980) have suggested using a cut-off score that corresponds to one standard deviation below Spanier's normative sample mean to c l a s s i f y individuals as mar i t a l l y distressed. This yi e l d s a cut-off score of 97. To date, there have been no reports in the l i t e r a t u r e of using a DAS cut-off score to c l a s s i f y individuals as maritally non-distressed. However, in a study assessing the marital adjustment of 50 mothers, Houseknecht (1979) obtained a mean DAS score of 107.34 for t h i s sample. Since the population in the 47 present study also involves mothers, the mean of t h i s sample (107) would appear to be an appropriate cut-off score for c l a s s i f y i n g subjects as maritally non-distressed. Thus, in this study, the c r i t e r i o n for the selection of maritally distressed mothers was a DAS score at or below 97 and for maritally non-distressed mothers a DAS score at or above 107. Mothers who obtained a score between 97 and 107 were not included in the study. Parental personal adjustment. The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck, 1967) (Appendix C) and the T r a i t form of the State-T r a i t Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970) (Appendix D) were adminstered to mothers to assess perceptions of their personal adjustment. The BDI, a 21-item self-report inventory, assesses emotional, cognitive, motivational and physical symptoms of depression. Substantial evidence supporting the r e l i a b i l i t y and the content, concurrent and construct v a l i d i t y of t h i s instrument has been demonstrated (Beck, 1967). For example, scores on t h i s inventory have been shown to correlate s i g n i f i c a n t l y with c l i n i c i a n s ' ratings of depression (Beck, 1967; Metcalfe & Goldman, 1965) and with objective behavioural measures of depression (Williams, Barlow & Agras, 1972). The STAI consists of a state and t r a i t form, each containing 20 statements related to general anxiety. State anxiety refers to an individual's emotional response to the threat perceived in a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . This state 48 fluctuates over time, varying d i r e c t l y with the intensity of the perceived threat. T r a i t anxiety refers to an individual's tendency to perceive threatening events across a broad spectrum of stimulus conditions, and i s much less sensitive to short-term environmental stressors. Spielberger et a l . (1970) have provided data supporting the r e l i a b i l i t y and the concurrent and construct v a l i d i t y of t h i s measure. Research suggests that although short-term stressors do not af f e c t t r a i t anxiety scores (e.g., Martuza & Kallstrom, 1974; Spielberger, Auerbach, Wadsworth, Dunn & Taulbee, 1973), longer-term stressors do appear to be associated with higher t r a i t anxiety scores. For example, Manuck, Hinrichsen and Ross (1975) found that increasing levels of l i f e stress were associated with higher t r a i t anxiety as well as state anxiety scores, and Griest et a l . (1980) found that mothers of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children with behaviour problem children showed higher t r a i t anxiety scores than mothers of non-c l i n i c c h i l d r e n . Parental personality. The Personality Research Form (PRF) (Jackson, 1967) (Appendix E) was administered to mothers to assess perceptions of their own personality t r a i t s . The PRF was designed to provide measures of personality t r a i t s relevant to the normal functioning of individuals in a wide variety of sit u a t i o n s . There are four forms of the PRF: p a r a l l e l forms A and B each include 300 items and provide scores for 14 personality variables and one v a l i d i t y scale; and p a r a l l e l forms AA and BB each include the 300 items of forms A and B plus an 49 additional 140 items and provide scores for 20 personality variables and two v a l i d i t y scales. Form A was used in the present study. Jackson (1967) has provided substantial evidence supporting the r e l i a b i l i t y and the convergent and discriminant v a l i d i t y of this inventory. For example, in one study PRF scores were correlated with pooled peer ratings as well as s e l f ratings of personality and the combined scores of the two p a r a l l e l forms yielded a median cor r e l a t i o n of .52 with peer ratings and a median co r r e l a t i o n of .56 with self ratings (Jackson, 1967). In addition, extensive norms have been developed for a l l forms of the t e s t . Parental perception of c h i l d adjustment. The Parent Attitudes Test (PAT) (Cowen, Huser, Beach & Rappaport, 1970) (Appendix F), the Patterson and Fagot (1967) abridged version of the Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist (Becker) (Becker, 1960) (Appendix G), and the Child Behavior Checklist (CBC) (Achenbach, 1978) (Appendix H) were administered to mothers to assess maternal attitudes toward, and perceptions of, c h i l d behaviour. The PAT i s comprised of three scales: The Home Attitude Scale contains seven items designed to e l i c i t the parent's perception of the c h i l d ' s adjustment in the home; the Behavior Rating Scale consists of 25 statements of deviant behaviours; and the Adjective Checklist Scale contains 34 adjectives that describe the c h i l d ' s behaviour or personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Cowen et a l . (1970) have provided evidence demonstrating the r e l i a b i l i t y and c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y of these scales. Subsequent 50 researchers have shown that parents of - c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children rate their children as more poorly adjusted on each of these three scales than do parents of non-clinic children (Forehand, King, Peed & Yoder, 1975; Griest et a l . , 1980), and that the ratings of parents of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children show posit i v e increases following the implementation of a parent t r a i n i n g program (e.g., Forehand & King, 1977; Forehand, Wells & Griest, 1980; Peed, Roberts & Forehand, 1977). Because these three scales are highly correlated and a l l three provide global measures of c h i l d adjustment, the three scales were summed to provide a single measure of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment in t h i s study. The abridged version of the Becker contains 47 bipolar adjective pairs which anchor the end points of seven-point Likert scales. Three of the f i v e factors derived from the scale were used: Less Withdrawn and H o s t i l e , More Aggressive, and More Conduct Problems. Becker (i960) has provided evidence for the r e l i a b i l i t y of the o r i g i n a l scale, and Lobitz and Johnson (1975) have demonstrated c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y for the abridged version of the c h e c k l i s t . In addition, these three factors have been shown to r e l i a b l y discriminate c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d from non-c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children (Griest et a l . , 1980). The CBC was designed to assess parents' perceptions of s o c i a l competencies and behaviour problems of children aged 4 through 16. The Social Competency scale y i e l d s scores on three areas of s o c i a l competency and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in various a c t i v i t i e s , s o c i a l relationships and school success. The Behaviour Problem scale y i e l d s a t o t a l behaviour problem score, 51 subscores on two broad-band behaviour problem factors (Internalizing and Externalizing) and scores on up to 12 narrow-band behaviour problem factors (e.g., depressed, obsessive-compulsive, uncommunicative, somatic complaints, e t c . ) . The behaviour problem scales (broad-band and narrow-band) were derived through factor analysis of problem checklists completed by parents of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d behaviour problem children. In addition, norms have been derived for each scale based on responses from a randomly selected sample of parents of normal (non-referred) children. The behaviour problem scales have been standardized for each sex, ages 4-5, 6-11, and 12-16 years. No scales or norms are available for 3-year-olds, an age group that was included in t h i s study. In order to obtain a complete set of data for a l l subjects, the norms for the 4-5 year olds were used for the 3-year-olds in t h i s study. Total behaviour problem scores and scores on the Inter n a l i z i n g and Externalizing factors were obtained for each subject, and the raw scores were converted to T-scores. The Social Competency scale was not used in t h i s study. Research on the CBC has provided evidence supporting short-term and long-term test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y and interparent agreement for the 12 scales, the Internalizing and Externalizing factors and the t o t a l behaviour problem scores (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1981). In addition, highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences between normal and c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children on a l l of the scales support the c r i t e r i o n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y of t h i s measure (Achenbach, 1978; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1979). 52 Home observation data. Observers coded mother-child interaction in the home during four 40-minute observation periods. These observation periods were scheduled as cl o s e l y together as possible, with the s t i p u l a t i o n that no more than one could occur per day, and that they not be scheduled at the same time each day. During the observation period, the mother was instructed to ignore the observers and to interact with her c h i l d as she normally would, within the following constraints: that she l i m i t her a c t i v i t i e s to two adjoining rooms; that she not permit any other familiy members or v i s i t o r s in the room area; and that she r e f r a i n from reading, watching t e l e v i s i o n , or playing commercial games with her c h i l d during the observation period. Observers selected a position in the home that enabled them to code interactions in the two adjoining rooms. They were equipped with a cassette tape recorder and an earphone, which enabled them to hear pre-recorded 30-second in t e r v a l s during the observation. Data were co l l e c t e d in consecutive 30-second in t e r v a l s , with 1-minute rest periods every 10 minutes. Three parent behaviours and two c h i l d behaviours served as behavioural dependent measures for t h i s study. The parent behaviours were rewards plus attends, beta commmands (commands for which there was no opportunity for compliance) and contingent attention (rewards or attends delivered within 5 seconds of c h i l d compliance). Rewards plus attends and beta commands were both expressed as rates per minute. Contingent attention represented the percentage of p o s i t i v e parental attention given contingent on c h i l d compliance. 53 The c h i l d behaviours included compliance with alpha commands plus warnings (commands and warnings for which an opportunity for compliance existed), and c h i l d inappropriate behaviour. C h i l d behaviours were expressed as percentages: percentage of c h i l d compliance with alpha commands plus warnings; and percentage of 30-second intervals during which inappropriate behaviour was scored. Assessments of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the coding system have shown adequate test-rest r e l i a b i l i t y (Peed et a l . , 1977) and an average interobserver percentage agreement of 75% (Forehand & Peed, 1979). With respect to the v a l i d i t y of the coding system, the system had been shown to discriminate rates of compliance in c l i n i c and non-clinic children (Forehand et a l . , 1975; Griest et a l . , 1980), and i s also sensitive to treatment e f f e c t s in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children (e.g., Forehand, Griest & Wells, 1979; Forehand, Sturgis, McMahon, Aguar, Green, Wells & Breiner, 1979; Peed et a l . , 1977). Procedure I n i t i a l telephone contact. A number of therapists and agencies in the Greater Vancouver area who offer marital counselling were contacted in an e f f o r t to obtain their co-operation in refer r i n g m a r i t a l l y distressed c l i e n t s to the study. Therapists who agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study were asked to inform couples who had sought marital counselling and 54 who also had a c h i l d 3 to 7 years of age that mothers were needed for a research study on mother-child interaction. If the mother expressed an interest in the study or wanted more information, the therapist obtained her permission to have the author contact her by telephone to outline the requirements of the study. Mothers who were s o l i c i t e d through newspaper and community centre advertisements were instructed to contact the author by telephone. During the i n i t i a l telephone contact, the mother was informed that the purpose of the study was to examine mother-c h i l d interaction and mothers' perceptions of themselves and thei r f a m i l i e s . She was t o l d that she would be required to complete some questionnaires concerning her perceptions of herself and her family, and that she might be requested to schedule four times when a research assistant could come to her home to observe her and her c h i l d for a brief period. Payment for p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the study was outlined. This consisted of a $5.00 stipend for completion of the questionnaires and $10.00 for completion of the home observations. If the mother agreed to pa r t i c i p a t e in the study, demographic data were c o l l e c t e d and an i n i t i a l interview was scheduled. I n i t i a l interview and screening procedure. The i n i t i a l interviews were o r i g i n a l l y planned to be held in the Department of Psychology. Because many of the mothers l i v e d a considerable distance from the campus and were reluctant to come in, i t was decided that the i n i t i a l interviews would be held in the 55 mothers' homes. I n i t i a l interviews for ten of the mothers were held on campus (four of the maritally distressed and six of the nonydistressed mothers) and the remainder were held in the mothers' homes. During the i n i t i a l interview, the mother was again briefed regarding the requirements of the study and a consent form was signed indicating that she understood and agreed to those requirements (see Appendix I ) . The mother was then required to complete the various self-report measures presented e a r l i e r (DAS, BDI, STAI, PRF, PAT, Becker and CBC) under supervision. Once the mother had completed the DAS, t h i s inventory was immediately scored to determine whether she q u a l i f i e d for the study. As previously noted, the c r i t e r i o n for the selection of mari t a l l y distressed mothers was a DAS score at or below the cut-off point of 97, and for maritally non-distressed mothers a score at or above 107. Four home observations times were scheduled with those mothers who q u a l i f i e d for the study. Mothers who did not qu a l i f y for the study were paid $5.00 for completing the questionnaires and were informed that, because of certain selection c r i t e r i a , home observations were not necessary. Nine women obtained DAS scores between these cut-off points and thus did not qu a l i f y for the study. Col l e c t i o n of home observation data. Four 40-minute observations of mother-child interaction were made in the home. An average of 12.3 days (Range: 3-52 days) elapsed between the f i r s t and la s t observation for the mar i t a l l y distressed group 56 and 9.1 days (Range: 3-34 days) for the non-distressed group. These differences were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , t(38) = 1.10, p > .10. R e l i a b i l i t y checks were obtained on 23% of the home observations by having a c a l i b r a t i n g observer record the 40-minute observation session with the primary observer. A s p l i t earplug device (McQueen, 1975) was used to synchronize recording intervals for the two observers. R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were determined for each of the coded behaviours by c a l c u l a t i n g an int r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (Winer,. 1971) between the observer's and c a l i b r a t i n g observer's t o t a l session scores for each behaviour. Hartmann (1977) has recommended that t h i s method be used when more than two observers function as data c o l l e c t o r s . In a review a r t i c l e on the uses of the intraclass c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t in assessing i n t e r r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y , Shrout and F l e i s s (1979) specify guidelines for selecting the appropriate form of the in t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t . This c o e f f i c i e n t provides a r a t i o of the variance of interest over the sum of the variance of interest plus error. They describe three cases where di f f e r e n t forms of the i n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t are used: 1) where each subject i s rated by a d i f f e r e n t set of k observers, randomly selected from, a larger population of observers; 2) where a random sample of k observers i s selected from a larger population and each observer rates each subject; and 3) where each subject i s rated by each of the same k observers, who are the only observers of interest. In the present investigation, each subject was rated by a d i f f e r e n t set of k observers, selected from a larger population of observers; 57 thus, the model corresponding to case (1) was used. This corresponds to a one-way random ef f e c t s analysis of variance design. From t h i s MS between subjects and MS within subjects can be derived. In t h i s case, the ef f e c t s due to observers, to the interaction between observer and subject and to random error can not be separated; these effects represent MS within subjects. The following formula is used in cal c u l a t i n g the in t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t (Winer, 1971): MS between - MS within r = MS between + (k-1) MS within where k i s the number of observers rating each subject, MS between i s the mean square between subjects and MS within i s the the mean square within subjects. The i n t r a c l a s s c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s that were calculated for each measure of the parent and c h i l d behaviour are as follows: rewards plus attends, r_ = .93; beta commands, r_ = .88; contingent attention, r_ = .48; c h i l d compliance to alpha commands plus warnings, r = .73; and c h i l d inappropriate behaviour, r_ = .85. Debriefing mothers and therapists. A l l mothers who p a r t i c i -pated in the study were contacted by telephone following their involvement in the study and given individual feedback. For those who had par t i c i p a t e d in the home observations, t h i s feedback consisted of information r e l a t i n g to the mother's and c h i l d ' s behaviour during the home observations as well as a summary of the mother's responses to the questionnaires. For 58 those who did not meet the selection c r i t e r i a of the study, feedback was provided on the questionnaire data. M a r i t a l l y distressed mothers who were referred by therapists were given the option of having t h i s information forwarded to their therapist. If they decided to do so, a consent form was signed (see Appendix J ) , the therapist was contacted by telephone and the information given. Six women requested that the feedback information be given to their therapists. M a r i t a l l y distressed mothers who were not in therapy were provided with names and phone numbers of marital therapists in the Vancouver area. Upon completion of the study, the mothers who participated and the therapists who had agreed to refer maritally distressed c l i e n t s to the study were sent a report ou t l i n i n g the hypotheses and results of the Study. 59 RESULTS Ma r i t a l l y Distressed and Non-Distressed Group Differences Parent verbal report measures. Although the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups were selected on the basis of their scores on a marital adjustment inventory, the two groups were compared, on their DAS scores to ensure that the difference was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . A t-test revealed that the maritally distressed group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower scores on the DAS, indicating.greater marital dysfunction, t(38) = -13.49, p < .00001 . Separate Hotelling's T 2 analyses were conducted on each of the five sets of dependent measures: maternal personal adjustment, maternal personality, maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment, c h i l d behaviour and parent behaviour. A Hotelling's T 2 analysis of the personal adjustment measures of depression (BDI) and anxiety (STAI) indicated that the maritally distressed group perceived themselves as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more severe personal adjustment problems, F(2,37) = 13.17, g < .00005. In order to determine whether these differences held for both depression and anxiety, multiple comparisons were conducted. To ensure that the problem of escalating Type 1 error rate did not occur for these comparisons, the experiment-wise error rate was set at **> = .05. Using the Bonferroni procedure (Larzelere & 6 0 Mulaik, 1977) the c r i t i c a l significance l e v e l for the individual t-tests was computed as .05/2 = .025. Mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived themselves as more depressed, t(38) = 3.39, p_ < .005, and more anxious, t(38) = 5.01, p_ < .0001, than the maritally non-distressed group. The means and standard deviations of the marital and personal adjustment measures are presented in Table 9. Results from a Hotelling's T 2 analysis of the personality measures (PRF) revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the m a r i t a l l y distressed and non-distressed groups, F(15,24) = 0.75, p > .50. The means and standard deviations of the PRF scales are presented in Table 10. The parent perception of c h i l d adjustment measures for the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups were compared using a Hotelling's T 2 analysis. These measures included the sum of three scales of the PAT (Home Attitude Scale, Behavior Rating Scale, Adjective Checklist), the CBC, and the three factors of the Becker (Less Withdrawn and Hostile, More Aggressive, More Conduct Problems). The results indicated that mothers in the m a r i t a l l y distressed group perceived their children as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems than mothers in the maritally non-distressed group, F(5,34) = 4.09, p < .005. Again, the experiment-wise error rate for the multiple comparisons was set at <*> = .05. Using the Bonferroni procedure the c r i t i c a l s i gnificance l e v e l for each t-test was .05/5 = .01. Using t h i s c r i t e r i o n , the results indicated that mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived t h e i r children as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more behaviour problems on the PAT, t(38) = 3.70, 61 Table 9 Means and Standard Deviations of the Marital and Personal Adjustment Measures for Ma r i t a l l y Distressed and Non-Distressed Mothers M a r i t a l l y M a r i t a l l y Distressed Non-Distressed Variable M SD M SD Dyadic Adjustment Scale 83.50 9.12 118.15 6.98 Beck Depression Inventory 8.90 7.55 2.80 2.82 State-Trait Anxiety 44.85 10.47 31.70 5.30 Inventory Note. n = 20 for each group. Table 10 Means and Standard Deviations of Scales of the Personality Research Form for the M a r i t a l l y Distressed and Non-Distressed Mothers M a r i t a l l y M a r i t a l l y Distressed Non-Distressed Scale M SD M SD Achievement 13. ,05 2. ,85 12. ,35 2. 74 A f f i l i a t i o n 15. ,15 2. .98 15. ,75 1 . 74 Aggression 6. .05 3. .63 4. ,25 2. 47 Autonomy 7. .00 2. .15 6. ,40 2. 87 Dominance 8. .90 4. .78 8. .40 ' 3. 88 Endurance 1 1 . 15 3. .56 1 1 . ,70 4. 10 Exhibition 8. .45 4. .71 8. .15 4. 69 Harmavoidance 1 1 . 85 4, .08 12. .90 4. 62 Impulsivity 9, .80 3. .74 8. .00 3. 80 Nurturance 15. .45 2. .35 16. .20 2. 01 Order 10, .70 4. .42 1 1 . 65 4. 54 Play 8. .65 3, .59 10, .05 3. 1 5 Social Recognition 8. .75 3. .35 8. .40 3. 79 Understanding 14. .05 2. .30 12. .90 3. 60 Infreguency 0. .65 0. .99 0. .45 0. 89 Note, n = 20 for each group. 63 p < .001, and perceived their children as being sign i f i c a n t l y , more aggressive on the More Aggressive factor of the Becker, t(38) = 3.99, p < .0001. See Table 11 for the means, standard deviations and results of the multiple comparison analyses of the parent perception of c h i l d adjustment measures. In order to determine whether the maritally distressed and non-distressed mothers d i f f e r e d in their perception of overcontrol and undercontrol problems in their children, scores on the Internalizing (a measure o f j O v e r c o n t r o l l e d behaviour) and Externalizing (a measure of undercontrolled behaviour) factors of the CBC were compared for the two groups. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the experiment-wise error rate was set at <*• = .05 and the c r i t i c a l significance l e v e l for each t-t e s t was computed as .05/2 = .025. The results revealed that mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived their children as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more undercontrol problems, t(38) = 3.06, p < .005. Using t h i s c r i t e r i o n there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups on the Internalizing factor, t(38) = 2.09, p > .025. Although there were not enough g i r l s in the sample to permit an examination of differences in the maritally distressed and non-distressed mothers' perceptions of overcontrol and undercontrol problems in their daughters, there were enough boys in the sample to permit such analyses. Mothers' scores on the Internalizing and Externalizing factors of the CBC were compared for the boys. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the experiment-wise error rate was set at <=* = .05 and the c r i t i c a l s i gnificance l e v e l for each t-test was computed as .05/2 = .025. The results indicated that, compared to mothers in the non-64 distressed group, mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived their sons as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems of undercontrol, t(26) = 3.22, 2 < .005. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups on the Internalizing factor, t(26) = 1 .93, £ > .05. Behavioural data. A Hotelling's T 2 analysis was computed for the two c h i l d behavioural measures: compliance to alpha commands plus warnings and inappropriate behaviour. Although the results were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the conventional .05 l e v e l they did suggest a trend for children in the maritally distressed group to show more deviant behaviour than children in the m a r i t a l l y non-distressed group, F(2,37) = 2.95, 2 « n6. The established convention in psychological research i s to perform multiple comparisons only when the results of multivariate analysis have met «* = .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Although the r e s u l t s of the multivariate analysis f e l l just short of the .05 l e v e l of significance (2 - .06), a decision was made to proceed with the multiple comparison analyses given that the significance l e v e l was very close to commonly accepted levels and that the l i k e l i h o o d of making a Type II error with this small sample size was appreciable. It should be emphasized, however, that the results from the multiple comparisons, as with the results from the multivariate analysis, must be viewed as merely suggestive findings that require r e p l i c a t i o n . For a multiple comparison analysis, the experiment-wise error rate was also set at «*> = .05. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the Table 11 Means, Standard Deviations and Results from t-tests Performed on the Parent Perception of Child Measures for M a r i t a l l y Distressed and Non-Distressed Mothers Variable M a r i t a l l y Distressed M SD Ma r i t a l l y Non-Distressed M SD Parent Attitudes 46.00 Test Child Behaviour 58.50 Checklist Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist Less Withdrawn 20.70 and Hostile More Aggressive -0.15 More Conduct -1.80 Problems 12.49 30.20 8.98 52.10 7.93 24.90 7.15 -8.40 8.06 -3.70 14.35 9.35 6.50 5.85 6.62 3.70 .001 2.21 .033 •1 .83 .075 3.99 .000 0.81 .420 Note. n = 20 for each group. 66 c r i t i c a l significance l e v e l for each t-test was computed as .05/2 = .025. The results for the measure of c h i l d compliance to alpha commands approached sig n i f i c a n c e , t(38) = -2.20, p_ > .025, suggesting a trend for children from the maritally distressed group to be less compliant to alpha commands plus warnings than children from the non-distressed group. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups for the measure of inappropriate behaviour, t:(38) = 1.87, p_ > .05. The means, standard deviations and r e s u l t s of the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses for the c h i l d behavioural measures are presented in Table 12. The two parent behavioural measures of rewards plus attends and beta commands were analyzed using a Hotelling's T 2 analysis. Contingent attention was not included in t h i s analysis since t h i s measure was not independent of the measure of rewards plus attends. The results of t h i s analysis f a i l e d to reach s t a t i s t i c a l significance at the conventional .05 l e v e l but did reveal a trend for maritally distressed mothers to show less appropriate parenting behaviour than maritally non-distressed mothers, F(2,37) = 3.01, £ ^ .06. Again, in the interest of avoiding a Type II error, multiple comparisons were performed even though the results of the multivariate analysis f e l l just short of the conventional .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . Accordingly, results from both the multivariate analysis and the multiple comparisons must be viewed as merely suggestive and requiring r e p l i c a t i o n . The experiment-wise error rate was set at °<= .05 for the multiple comparison analysis. Using the Bonferroni procedure, the c r i t i c a l s ignificance l e v e l for each t-test was computed as .05/2 = .025. The results for the measure Table 12 Means, Standard Deviations and Results from t-tests Performed on the Two Child and Three Parent Behavioural Measures for the Ma r i t a l l y Distressed and Non-Distressed Mothers Mar i t a l l y M a r i t a l l y Distressed Non-Distressed Variable M SD M SD t 2 Compliance to 87.46 1 0.48 93.38 5.90 -2.20 .034 Alpha Commands plus Warnings 1 Inappropriate 5.38 3.82 3.34 3.04 1 .87 .070 Behaviour 1 Rewards plus 0.52 0.27 0.83 0.55 -2.22 .033 Attends 2 Beta Commands2 0.83 0.51 0.87 0.42 -0.29 .775 Contingent 4.20 2.36 5.03 3.55 -0.88 .387 Atte n t i o n 2 Note. n = 20 for each group. 1 C h i l d behaviour 2 Parent behaviour 68 of rewards plus attends approached significance, t(38) = -2.22, p > .025, suggesting a trend for maritally distressed mothers to give fewer rewards and attends than the non-distressed mothers. There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the groups on the measure of beta commands t(38) = -0.29, p > .50. A t-test comparing the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups on the percentage of contingent attention also revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two groups, M 3 8 ) = -0.88, p > .25. The means, standard deviations and results of the multiple comparison analyses for the parent behavioural measures are presented in Table 12. Predictors of Marital Adjustment Since the scores on the measures of maternal personal adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment were found to d i f f e r for the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups, and there was a trend in that d i r e c t i o n for the c h i l d and parenting behaviours, a series of step-wise discriminant function analyses was performed on these sets of variables to determine the best predictors of marital adjustment. In order to reduce the number of variables entered into the discriminant analysis, only those measures of personal adjustment and perception of c h i l d adjustment that were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t and those parent and c h i l d measures found to be at least marginally s i g n i f i c a n t via the Bonferroni procedure were selected for inclusion in the analyses. Variables that met t h i s selection c r i t e r i o n for each set were: (1) Maternal personal 69 adjustment: BDI and STAI; (2) Maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment: PAT, and the More Aggressive factor of the Becker; (3) Child Behaviour: compliance to alpha commands plus warnings; and (4) Parent Behaviour: rewards plus attends. In order to determine the best predictors within each of the sets of maternal personal adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment, two step-wise discriminant function analyses were performed before proceeding to the ov e r a l l analysis. A step-wise discriminant function analysis of the maternal personal adjustment measures of anxiety and depression indicated that anxiety was the better discriminator of marital distress/non-distress, F(1,38) = 25.11, p < .00001. The further inclusion of depression in the discriminant analysis did not make a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the discrimination of the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups, F(1,38) = 1.14, p > .25. A step-wise discriminant function analysis of the parent perception of c h i l d adjustment measures indicated that the More Aggressive Factor of the Becker was the better discriminator of marital distress/non-distress, F(1,38) = 15.95, p < .0005. The PAT did not make a further s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to the discrimination of marital distress/non-distress, F(1,38) = 2.54, p_ > . 1 0. A l l four sets of variables (two measures of maternal personal adjustment, two measures of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment and one measure of parent behaviour and c h i l d behaviour) were then entered into a step-wise discriminant 70 analysis to determine the best predictors of marital distress/non-distress. The results indicated that anxiety was the best discriminator variable of marital • distress/non-d i s t r e s s , F(1,38) = 25.11, p < .00001. This variable on i t s own resulted in the correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 75% of the cases into maritally distressed and non-distressed groups. The inclusion of the More Aggressive Factor of the Becker, a measure of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment, provided non-redundant information which resulted in a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement in the discrimination of distressed and non-distressed marriages, F(1,38) = 4.27, p < .05. This variable in conjunction with maternal perception of anxiety resulted in the correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 77.5% of the cases into maritally distressed and non-distressed groups.^ Neither the parent nor the c h i l d behavioural measures nor the remaining measures of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment and parent personal adjustment contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to further discrimination. A second question of theore t i c a l interest was the degree to which c h i l d and parent variables were able to predict marital adjustment. Unlike other studies in the research l i t e r a t u r e , c h i l d behaviour in t h i s study was assessed by two sources (as perceived by the mother and as measured by an independent observer), thus allowing for a comparison of the unique relationship of each to marital adjustment. As maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment i s l i k e l y to be influenced by both maternal personal adjustment and c h i l d behaviour (Griest et a l . , 1980) i t was predicted that maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment would be more cl o s e l y related to marital adjustment 71 than c h i l d behaviour measured by an independent observer. The two measures of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment (PAT and the More Aggressive factor of the Becker), the c h i l d behaviour measure (compliance to alpha commands plus warnings) and the parent behaviour measure (rewards plus attends) were entered into a step-wise discriminant function analysis to determine th e i r r e l a t i v e predictive power. The More Aggressive factor of the Becker was selected as the best discriminating variable of marital distress/non-distress, F(1,38) = 15.95, p < .0005. This variable resulted in the correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 67.5% of the cases into m a r i t a l l y distressed and non-distressed marriages. Neither the PAT nor the c h i l d and parent behavioural measures contributed s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the discrimination. Relationship between Form of Maternal Perception of Child  Behaviour Problem, Maternal Personal Adjustment, and Child  Behaviour Correlations between the type of c h i l d behaviour problem perceived by the mother (overcontrolled vs undercontrolled), her own maternal personal adjustment and the c h i l d ' s actual behaviour revealed some interesting patterns. Within the maritally distressed group, the more withdrawn a mother perceived her c h i l d to be (the Less Withdrawn factor of the Becker), the more l i k e l y she was to rate herself as depressed, r = -.40, p < .05, and anxious, r = -.52, p < .01. S i m i l a r l y , the more overcontrolled she perceived her c h i l d to be (Interna l i z i n g factor of the CBC), the more depressed, r =.53, g < .01, and anxious, r = .65, p < .001, she rated herself. 72 Neither the Withdrawn factor nor the Internalizing factor was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to measures of observed c h i l d behaviour. In contrast, perception of her c h i l d as aggressive (More Aggressive factor of the Becker), having conduct problems (More Conduct Problems factor of the Becker) or as having problems of undercontrol (Externalizing factor of the CBC) was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the mother's perception of herself as depressed or anxious (correlations ranged from r_ = -.007 to r_ = .31). However, perception of her c h i l d as aggressive was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to observations of the c h i l d as showing more inappropriate behaviour, r_ = .52, p < .01, and less compliance, r_ = -.46, p < .05. Results for mothers in the maritally non-distressed group were less consistent. The more overcontrolled she saw her child' (Internalizing factor of the CBC), the more anxious she rated herself, r_ = .49, p < .01. Perception of her c h i l d as aggressive (More Aggressive factor of the Becker), having conduct problems (More Conduct Problems factor of the Becker), or being undercontrolled (Externalizing factor of the CBC), was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to maternal personal adjustment (correlations ranged from r = .03 to r = .22) or to c h i l d behavioural measures (correlations ranged from r = .07 to r = -.26) . 7 3 DISCUSSION The purpose of t h i s study was to i n v e s t i g a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p of m a r i t a l adjustment to maternal p e r s o n a l adjustment and p e r s o n a l i t y , maternal p e r c e p t i o n of c h i l d adjustment, maternal p a r e n t i n g behaviour and c h i l d behaviour. Two groups of mothers and t h e i r c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study: mothers in the m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d group r a t e d themselves as e x p e r i e n c i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t r e s s i n t h e i r m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , whereas mothers i n the m a r i t a l l y n o n - d i s t r e s s e d group r a t e d themselves as having s a t i s f a c t o r y m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S e l f - r e p o r t measures a s s e s s i n g m a r i t a l adjustment, p e r s o n a l adjustment, p e r s o n a l i t y and c h i l d adjustment were completed by the mothers. In a d d i t i o n , maternal p a r e n t i n g behaviour and c h i l d behaviour were assessed i n home o b s e r v a t i o n s . Although h a l f of the mothers i n the m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d sample were i n v o l v e d i n m a r i t a l therapy and the other h a l f were not, there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between these two subgroups on any of the i n d i c e s r e l e v a n t to t h i s study. These two subgroups d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n terms of demographic v a r i a b l e s , measures of m a r i t a l adjustment, maternal p e r s o n a l adjustment and p e r s o n a l i t y , maternal p e r c e p t i o n of c h i l d adjustment or parent and c h i l d behaviour. A c c o r d i n g l y , the two subgroups were t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e group of m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d mothers. The i n c l u s i o n of m a r i t a l l y d i s t r e s s e d mothers who were i n v o l v e d i n m a r i t a l therapy as w e l l as those who were not i n v o l v e d i n therapy does, however, permit g r e a t e r c o n f i d e n c e to be p l a c e d i n the 74 generality of the results of t h i s study. The findings may be generalized to maritally distressed mothers, regardless of their therapeutic involvement. In terms of personal adjustment, mothers in the maritally distressed group rated themselves as more anxious and depressed than mothers in the non-distressed group. From a c l i n i c a l perspective, i t makes sense that a woman who perceives her marital re l a t i o n s h i p as having severe problems also would experience disappointment, insecurity, dysphoria, discouragement and many of the other symptoms of depression and anxiety. The relationship between anxiety and marital d i s t r e s s found in t h i s study i s consistent with the results of other research studies in which these two variables have been related (Lundgren et a l . , 1980; Rogers et a l . , 1970). Although the findings in t h i s study for depression are congruent with some previous research results (e.g., I l f e l d , 1977; Rickard et a l . , 1982; Rounsaville et a l . , 1978), they are discrepant with others (Coleman & M i l l e r , 1975; Weiss & Aved, 1978). The reasons for t h i s discrepancy are not readily apparent. The instrument used to measure depression does not appear to be related to the outcome since the BDI was used in studies where a relationship was found between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and depression (e.g., Rickard et a l . , 1982, the present study) as well as in one study where no relationship was found (Coleman & M i l l e r , 1975). The Coleman and M i l l e r (1975) and Weiss and Aved (1978) studies employed a c o r r e l a t i o n a l design rather than the quasi-experimental design used in t h i s study. However, an examination of the c o r r e l a t i o n between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and depression for the maritally distressed 75 group in t h i s sample reveals a s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n (r = -.47), indicating that the difference in methodology between the studies does not account for the discrepancy in the research findings. At t h i s point, the bulk of the evidence supports a r e l a t i o n s h i p between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and depression in women; reasons for the lack of support for t h i s relationship in some studies remain unclear. Although s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and various personality t r a i t s have been found in a number of studies in the l i t e r a t u r e (e.g., Bentler et a l . , 1978; Eysenck, 1980; Murstein & Glaudin, 1966), many of the studies have been flawed by methodological problems. The use of univariate rather than multivariate s t a t i s t i c s as well as the lack of consistency and the questionable v a l i d i t y of the c r i t e r i a used to discriminate distressed and non-distressed marriages are common methodological problems found in t h i s area. These problems were addressed in t h i s study by using measures of marital adjustment and personality that have demonstrated r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y , and by using multivariate rather than univariate s t a t i s t i c s to control for the l i k e l i h o o d of finding s i g n i f i c a n t differences by chance. With t h i s more rigorous methodology, no personality t r a i t differences were found between maritally distressed and non-distressed mothers. This lack of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t findings i s discrepant with the results obtained by Eysenck and his colleagues (Eysenck, 1980; Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981; Zaleski & Galkowska, 1978) who also employed more rigorous methodology. They found small but s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlations between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n 76 and the psychoticism and neuroticism subscales of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire for women. However, when personality was combined with background variables, s o c i a l attitudes, sexual attitudes and sexual behaviour in predicting marital s a t i s f a c t i o n , the wife's personality variables accounted for only 8% of the variance in marital s a t i s f a c t i o n (Eysenck & Wakefield, 1981). This r e l a t i v e l y small percentage of variance accounted for, along with the low correlations between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and personality obtained in Eysenck's studies, suggests that the relationship between marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and personality i s a r e l a t i v e l y weak one. The limited sample size in the present study (n=40) may not have provided enough s t a t i s t i c a l power to detect t h i s relationship. In terms of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment, mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived their children as more poorly adjusted than mothers in the non-distressed group. These findings are congruent with results found in other studies of non-clinic referred children (e.g., Ferguson & A l l e n , 1978; Klein & Shulman, 1980; Whitehead, 1979). There have been some reports in the research l i t e r a t u r e of an association between c h i l d problems involving overcontrol (e.g., depression, anxiety, withdrawal) and marital adjustment (e.g., Porter & O'Leary, 1980; Schwarz & Getter, 1980; Whitehead, 1979), but an association between c h i l d problems of undercontrol (e.g., aggression, conduct problems) and marital adjustment has been reported more consistently (e.g., Emery & O'Leary, 1982; Oltmanns et a l . , 1977; Rutter, 1971). Results from t h i s study provide additional support for the rel a t i o n s h i p between marital 77 adjustment and problems of undercontrol in children. On scales that were designed to measure problems of undercontrol in children (More Aggressive factor of the Becker, More Conduct Problems factor of the Becker and Externalizing factor of the CBC), mothers in the maritally distressed group perceived their children as having more problems on two out of three of these measures than did mothers in the maritally non-distressed group. On scales that were designed to measure parent perception of overcontrol in children (Less Withdrawn factor of the Becker and the I n t e r n a l i z i n g factor of the CBC), the differences between the groups approached s t a t i s t i c a l significance, but did not meet the s p e c i f i e d c r i t e r i o n for s i g n i f i c a n c e . It has been suggested that boys and g i r l s may respond d i f f e r e n t l y to marital problems in that g i r l s may be more l i k e l y to respond to marital discord with problems of overcontrol, whereas boys may respond with undercontrolled behaviour. The limited number of g i r l s in t h i s study (6 per group) prohibited a meaningful s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of group differences for g i r l s , but an analysis of the boys' scores on the I n t e r n a l i z i n g and Externalizing factors of the CBC provided support for t h i s hypothesis for boys. The r e s u l t s indicated that the maritally distressed mothers perceived their sons as having s i g n i f i c a n t l y more problems of undercontrol than did the non-distressed mothers, but there were no differences between the groups in their perception of behaviour problems of overcontrol. In a recent review of the relationship between marital and c h i l d problems, Emery (1982) reported that one of the most common methodological problems in t h i s area was the reliance on 78 a single judge to rate both marital and c h i l d adjustment. This creates a problem of non-independent data. If the mother i s required to rate both her own marital adjustment and her c h i l d ' s adjustment, any perceptual bias that she may have could influence both ratings, thus creating a stronger relationship between marital and c h i l d adjustment. I f , for example, the mother i s i n c l i n e d to present herself and her family in a s o c i a l l y desirable way, the relationship between her ratings of her marriage and her c h i l d may be mediated by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Indeed, Robinson and Anderson (Note 3) reported that a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between mothers' ratings of marital and c h i l d adjustment became non-significant when the e f f e c t s of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y were p a r t i a l l e d out. As marital d i s t r e s s has been shown to be related to depression (e.g., I l f e l d , 1977; Rickard et a l . , 1982), a maritally distressed mother may experience a negative perceptual set, a problem commonly found in depressed individuals. Beck (1976) reports that depressives are p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to s e l e c t i v e l y perceive and over interpret negative events while f a i l i n g to pay attention to positive events. If a^  mother perceives her marital re l a t i o n s h i p as problematic and feels depressed (or vice versa), she may be more l i k e l y to attend s e l e c t i v e l y to other negative events (e.g., seeing her son play aggressively with a friend) and ignore more positive events (e.g., seeing her son playing cooperatively with a f r i e n d ) . Hence, she may be more l i k e l y to rate other areas in her l i f e (e.g., her son's adjustment) as problematic because of her perceptual bias. Forehand and his colleagues (Griest et a l . , 1979, 1980; Rickard et a l . , 1981) 79 have reported evidence of such a bias in mothers of c l i n i c -referred children. They found that mothers of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children perceived themselves as having more personal adjustment problems ( i . e . , depression and anxiety) than did mothers of children who were not c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d . Moreover, for the mothers of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children, maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment was best predicted by actual c h i l d behaviour as measured by independent observers as well as the mothers' own personal adjustment. Emery (1982) has suggested that one way of avoiding t h i s problem of non-independent data i s to have d i f f e r e n t judges rate the c h i l d ' s behaviour in the same setting. When judges rate the chi l d ' s behaviour in two d i f f e r e n t settings (e.g., the teacher rates the c h i l d at school and the mother rates the c h i l d at home) a difference in ratings may be due to a difference in the chi l d ' s behaviour in those two settings as well as a difference in raters' perceptions of the ch i l d ' s behaviour. As marital problems may be most l i k e l y to have an influence on the ch i l d ' s behaviour at home, independent ratings of the ch i l d ' s behaviour in the home setting would probably be best. This study was designed to include independent behavioural ratings of the chi l d ' s behaviour in the home. In addition, obtaining measures of maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment enabled a comparison to be made between independent and non-independent sources of data on c h i l d behaviour. Whereas the results from the maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment measures c l e a r l y indicated that maritally distressed mothers perceived their children as more poorly adjusted, the 80 results from the c h i l d behavioural measures were less c l e a r . Although the results obtained from both the multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l analysis and the Bonferroni comparisons were in the expected d i r e c t i o n , the findings from the multivariate analysis f e l l just short of the conventional .05 l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l significance and the c h i l d compliance measure approached si g n i f i c a n c e . This lack of s t a t i s t i c a l significance makes an interpretation of these findings d i f f i c u l t . At least two interpretations are possible: 1) the trends may be purely chance findings that would not be replicated; or 2) the trends may actually r e f l e c t real differences between the groups. If the former interpretation were true, t h i s would indicate that maritally distressed mothers do not perceive their children's behaviour accurately. They perceive their children as having adjustment problems although the children are no less compliant and show no more inappropriate behaviour than children of maritally non-distressed mothers. Although t h i s interpretation may indeed be correct, the small sample size and corresponding limited s t a t i s t i c a l power in t h i s study provide a cogent argument for the second interpretation. Given that a l l the differences were in the expected d i r e c t i o n , i t seems l i k e l y that the children from the maritally distressed marriages were in fact less compliant than the children from the non-distressed marriages, but that the lack of s t a t i s t i c a l power in the study prohibited t h i s trend from attaining s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . At t h i s point, however, th i s trend must be viewed as merely suggestive and requiring r e p l i c a t i o n . If the trend does r e f l e c t a true difference then t h i s would indicate that not only do 81 mothers in distressed marriages perceive their children as being more poorly adjusted than do mothers in non-distressed marriages, but the children also appear to be less compliant. However, the strength of these relationships i s c l e a r l y not equal. The relationship between marital adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d behaviour i s much stronger than the relati o n s h i p between marital adjustment and actual c h i l d behaviour. There are a number of alternative explanations for this difference. Within the psychological l i t e r a t u r e i t i s common to fin d weak relationships between self-reported ratings of attitudes and behaviours and measures of behaviour obtained by independent observers. In p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s lack of correspondence has been found in the relationship between parent perception of c h i l d behaviour and c h i l d behaviour as assessed by independent observers. Forehand et a l . (1979) correlated measures of parent perception of c h i l d adjustment (PAT, Becker) with measures of c h i l d behaviour obtained by independent observers ( c h i l d compliance and c h i l d inappropriate behaviour) in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children and their mothers, and found no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between the parent perception measures and the behavioural measures. Some of the explanations that have been offered for this lack of correspondence are: 1) that questionnaire measures sample parent perception of c h i l d behaviour over a long period of time whereas observational measures sample behaviour over a short period of time; 2) that questionnaire measures sample a much broader range of c h i l d behaviour than do behavioural measures; 3) that the instructions 82 for the observational sessions (limited a c t i v i t i e s , no other family members present) even further l i m i t the range of behaviour that i s sampled; and 4) that the presence of observers themselves may change the parent-child interaction. In the present investigation, the range of behaviour that was sampled in the observations obviously did not r e f l e c t the scope of the problems sampled in the parent perception of c h i l d adjustment questionnaires. The two measures of c h i l d behaviour that were u t i l i z e d are primarily measures of undercontrolled behaviour in children. The difference between the groups on parent perception of overcontrolled behaviour approached significance indicating that many of the behaviours that were seen as problematic by maritally distressed mothers were problems of overcontrol. These problems would not have been as readily i d e n t i f i e d in the behavioural coding system. The difference between the strength of the relationship for marital adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment and the strength of the relat i o n s h i p for marital adjustment and c h i l d behaviour also may be due to problems of perceptual bias. Perhaps the maritally distressed mothers do develop a negative perceptual set and overattend to problem behaviours in their children. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , or perhaps in addition, mothers in the non-distressed group may present both their marriages and their children in a s o c i a l l y desirable way, so the ratings of both are a r t i f i c i a l l y high. The step-wise discriminant function analyses suggest that problems of perceptual bias may indeed be operating. Results from the discriminant analyses revealed that maternal anxiety resulted in the correct c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of 75% 83 of the cases into maritally distressed and non-distressed groups. The addition of the measure of maternal perception of c h i l d aggressiveness made a s i g n i f i c a n t contribution to predicting marital d i s t r e s s , but i t resulted in only a 2.5% increase in discriminating power. Thus, to a large extent, the measures of maternal personal adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment provided redundant information. This would suggest that how the mother views the c h i l d ' s problems i s more strongly related to how she views her own problems than i t i s to how she views her marriage. Interestingly, mothers in the m a r i t a l l y distressed group who viewed their children as having problems of overcontrol (Internalizing factor of the CBC; Less Withdrawn factor of the Becker) also were l i k e l y to view themselves as depressed (correlation with Internalizing factor was £ = .51; c o r r e l a t i o n with Less Withdrawn factor was r = -.40) and anxious (correlation with Internalizing factor was r_ = .64; c o r r e l a t i o n with Less Withdrawn factor was r = -.52). For the m a r i t a l l y non-distressed group the only s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was between the Int e r n a l i z i n g factor and anxiety (r = .49). Although these results could indicate that maritally distressed mothers who are depressed and anxious have children who are also that way, i t seems l i k e l y that the mother's perception of her c h i l d may be distorted by her own negative feelings about herself. Perception of undercontrolled behaviour, however, did not appear to be related to maternal personal adjustment. Mothers who perceived their children as aggressive (More Aggressive factor of the Becker) were not more l i k e l y to see themselves as depressed or 84 anxious. In fact, for mothers in the maritally distressed group, the more aggressive they perceived their children, the more inappropriate (r_ = .52) and less compliant (r = -.46) the c h i l d behaved in the home observations. This would suggest that the mothers' perception of their children as aggressive appears to be an accurate perception based on observations of the chi l d ' s behaviour. Perception of the c h i l d as aggressive may be less subject to perceptual bias than perception of the c h i l d as overcontrolled. Another reason for the discrepancy in the strength of the relationships between marital adjustment and maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment and between marital adjustment and c h i l d behaviour may be the problem of a biased sample. Children who had any history of c l i n i c r e f e r r a l were excluded from t h i s study in order that a sample of non-clinic referred children could be investigated. This selection c r i t e r i o n may have resulted in a non-representative sample of maritally distressed mothers and their children. Since an association between marital d i s t r e s s and c h i l d behaviour problems has been reported in numerous studies of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children, the exclusion of c l i n i c -referred children from the study may have resulted in a sample of less deviant children in the maritally distressed group. This would make i t more d i f f i c u l t to detect c h i l d behaviour differences between the maritally distressed and non-distressed groups. Another sampling bias that might have been operating was that maritally distressed mothers with the most pervasive and severe d i f f i c u l t i e s may not have volunteered for the study. Theorists from d i f f e r e n t orientations (e.g., family 85 systems, s o c i a l learning and role theory) have hypothesized that parenting variables are important mediators in the rel a t i o n s h i p between marital and c h i l d problems. Johnson and Lobitz (1974) found that, indeed, marital adjustment was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with the parenting variable of maternal negativeness in a sample of c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d boys. In t h i s study the findings for the parent behaviour were not c l e a r . Both the results from the multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l analysis and the results obtained from the Bonferroni procedure for the parent variable of rewards plus attends approached s t a t i s t i c a l significance but did not meet commonly accepted significance l e v e l s . Thus, although the data suggested that maritally distressed mothers gave fewer rewards and attends than non-distressed mothers, t h i s interpretation must be viewed with caution and as requiring r e p l i c a t i o n . Overall, the behavioural data, although not conclusive, suggested that maritally distressed mothers were less r e i n f o r c i n g with th e i r children, and their children were less compliant. These findings make sense given that posi t i v e reinforcement has been shown to increase c h i l d compliance (cf. Forehand & McMahon, 1981; Patterson, 1982). The other parenting variables examined in t h i s study f a i l e d to e f f e c t i v e l y discriminate distressed from non-distressed mothers. The variable of contingent attention, although similar to rewards plus attends in that i t i s a measure of positive reinforcement, i s a more complex variable to code.- This complexity and res u l t i n g d i f f i c u l t y in coding i s r e f l e c t e d in the low r e l i a b i l i t y obtained for t h i s variable. The d i f f i c u l t y in coding t h i s variable may have obscured any real differences 86 between the groups on t h i s variable. The reason for the lack of differences between the groups on the variable of beta commands is less c l e a r . Since depressed aff e c t has been shown to be related to inhibited communication (e.g, McLean et a l . , 1973), i t i s possible that mothers experiencing depression may be less l i k e l y to give commands in general, including beta commands. The data from the maritally non-distressed group provide some support for t h i s idea. Mothers who rated themselves as more depressed were less l i k e l y to give beta commands (r_ = -.38). However, the opposite effect occurred for the m a r i t a l l y distressed group. Depressed aff e c t in t h i s group was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with beta commands (r_ = .44). These results are curious and are not readily explainable. The parenting variables did not contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the discriminating power of the maternal personal adjustment and the maternal perception of c h i l d adjustment measures in predicting marital adjustment. Perhaps the addition of a measure of parental negativity, found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to marital adjustment in the Johnson and Lobitz study (1974), would have provided a good complementary parenting variable to the measure of p o s i t i v e parenting behaviour that appeared to be related to marital adjustment in t h i s study. Another parenting variable that might be explored with respect to i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to marital adjustment i s consistency. It seems l i k e l y that marital problems may have an impact on how consistently a parent behaves. This, however, i s a d i f f i c u l t behavioural measure to obtain since lack of consistency in parenting i s usually only evident when repeated contact i s made with parents. 87 This study has provided a comprehensive view of the maritally distressed mother and her c h i l d . Compared to a mother not experiencing marital problems, the ma r i t a l l y distressed mother i s l i k e l y to perceive herself as having personal adjustment problems, s p e c i f i c a l l y in the area of depression or anxiety. She also i s l i k e l y to view her c h i l d as being more poorly adjusted and, i f the c h i l d i s a boy, may see these problems as being primarily ones of undercontrol. Although not conclusive, the evidence was suggestive that her parenting s k i l l s may be lacking in that she may provide less positive reinforcement and her c h i l d also may be less compliant. In sum, the marital problems are associated with a number of other problems in the family domain. Although the re s u l t s of the study suggest that marital di s t r e s s and other family problems are related, the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of these relationships cannot be determined. The c o r r e l a t i o n a l nature of th i s study does not permit an answer to the question of whether marital problems cause other family problems or vice versa. Only longitudinal research, in which the progression of family problems can be studied over time, w i l l provide information on the issue of cau s a l i t y . Further research i s also required to provide an equally comprehensive view of the maritally distressed father and his c h i l d . In the past, behavioural assessments of marital functioning t y p i c a l l y have been confined to an assessment of problems within the marital dyad. Although there i s c l e a r l y a need to do a thorough assessment of problems within t h i s area, the results of thi s study suggest the need to go beyond an assessment of the 88 marital dyad and examine the other family problems that may be associated with marital d i s t r e s s . The results of t h i s study indicate that a mother presenting with marital d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l very l i k e l y experience problems of anxiety and depression as well. Based on previous research, i t seems l i k e l y that the converse also w i l l be true: women presenting with depression and anxiety may be having marital problems as well. C l i n i c i a n s should be aware of the close relationship between these various adjustment problems. The results also suggest that the greater the mother's feelings of depression and anxiety, the more l i k e l y she w i l l view her c h i l d as being depressed, anxious or withdrawn. She also i s l i k e l y to perceive her c h i l d as being aggressive, h o s t i l e or having conduct problems. If possible, an assessment of these perceived problems along with an observation of the c h i l d ' s actual behaviour should be made to determine the extent of these problems in the family. Should her perceptions of the c h i l d be consistent with the c h i l d ' s actual behaviour, an assessment may be done to determine whether the mother has a d e f i c i t in parenting s k i l l s or whether she does indeed have the s k i l l s but experiences d i f f i c u l t y in using them. If the c h i l d ' s behaviour appears to be normal, then the focus of the assessment may be more appropriately directed at examining the mother's perceptual bias. Since c h i l d r e f e r r a l to a c l i n i c i s determined primarily by the mother's perception of c h i l d behaviour, a biased maternal perception of the c h i l d may result in the c h i l d being a t . r i s k for an inappropriate c l i n i c r e f e r r a l . A biased perception of her c h i l d also may be indicative of a more general negative bias which may be a f f e c t i n g other facets of her l i f e 89 such as s o c i a l , occupational and f a m i l i a l relationships. Such a negative bias would place the mother at even greater risk for depression. It i s clear from the results of this study that multiple areas of family functioning should be assessed in couples presenting with marital problems. Although there is a certain appeal in viewing marital problems as discrete, the results of t h i s study indicate that i t i s essential to view marital d i s t r e s s in conjunction with . both individual and f a m i l i a l problems. 90 REFERENCE NOTES 1. Margolin, G. Treatment of multiproblem families: Specific and general e f f e c t s of marital and family therapy. Paper presented at Banff International Conference, Essentials of Behavioral Treatments for Families, March 1981. 2. Forehand, R., Peed, S., Roberts, M., McMahon, R., Griest, D. & Humphreys, L. Coding manual for scoring mother-child  int e r a c t i o n . (3rd ed.). Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia, 1978. 3. Robinson, E. A. & Anderson, L. L. Family adjustment, parental attitudes and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August 1981. 91 REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. The Child Behavior P r o f i l e : I. Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, 46, 478-488. Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. The Child Behavior P r o f i l e : I I . Boys aged 6-12 and g i r l s aged 6-11 and 12-16. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, 47_, 223-233. Achenbach, T. M. & Edelbrock, C. S. Behavioral problems and competencies reported by parents of normal and disturbed children aged 4 through 16. Monographs of the Society for  Research in Child Development, 1981, S e r i a l No. 188. Barnett, L. R. & N i e t z e l , M. T. Relationship of instrumental and a f f e c t i o n a l behaviours and self esteem to marital s a t i s f a c t i o n in distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, 47, 946-957. Barrett, R. K. The relationship of emotional disorder to marital maladjustment and disruption. Dissertation Abstracts, 1974, 34 (9-B), 4651-4652. Beck, A. T. Depression: C l i n i c a l , experimental and t h e o r e t i c a l  aspects. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. Beck, A.T. Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: The New American Library, 1976. Becker, w. L. The relationship of factors in parental ratings of se l f and each other to the behavior of kindergarten children as rated by mothers, fathers, and teachers. Journal of  Consulting Psychology, 1960, 24, 507-527. Becker, J. fie Iwakami, E. C o n f l i c t and dominance within families of disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 330-335. B e l l , R. Q. A reinterpretation of the d i r e c t i o n of e f f e c t s in studies of s o c i a l i z a t i o n . Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 81-95. Bentler, P. M. Se Newcombe, M. D. Longitudinal study of marital success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 1978, 46, 1053-1070. B i l l i n g s , A. C o n f l i c t resolution in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1979, 47, 368-376. 92 B i r c h l e r , G. R. & Webb, L. J. Discriminating interaction behaviors in happy and unhappy marriages. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 45, 494-495. Buck, C. W. & Ladd, K. L. Psychoneurosis in marital partners. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, 111, 587-590. Buerkle, J . V., Anderson, T. & Badgley, R. F. Altruism, role c o n f l i c t and marital adjustment: A factor analysis of marital interaction. Marriage and Family Li v i n g , 1961, 23, 20-26. Bugental, D., Love, L. & Kaswan, J. Verbal-non-verbal c o n f l i c t in parental messages to normal and disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77, 6-10. Bullock, R. C , Siegel, R., Weissman, M. & Paykel, E. S. The weeping wife: Marital relations of depressed women. Journal  of Marriage and the Family, 1 972, 3_4, 488-495. Burchinal, L. G., Hawkes, G. R. & Gardner, B. Marital adjustment, personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of parents and the personality adjustment of their children. Marriage and  Family Li v i n g , 1957, J_9, 366-372. Byassee, J . E. & Murrell, S. A. Interaction patterns in families of a u t i s t i c , disturbed and normal children. American Journal  of Orthopsychiatry, 1975, 45, 473-478. C a t t e l l , R. B. & Nesselroade, J. B. Likeness and completeness theories examined by sixteen personality factor measures on stably and unstably married couples. Journal of Personality  and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 351-361. Chawla, P. L. & Gupt, K. Comparative study of parents of emotionally disturbed and normal children. B r i t i s h Journal  of Psychiatry, 1979, _U4, 406-411. Christensen, A. & Margolin, G. Correlational and sequential analyses of marital and c h i l d problems. Submitted for publication, 1983. Coleman, R. E. & M i l l e r , A. G. The relat i o n s h i p between depression and marital maladjustment in a c l i n i c population: A multitrait-multimethod study. Journal of Consulting and  C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1975, 43, 647-651. Cooper, L. Z., Zi r i n g , P. R., Ockerse, A. B., Fedun, B. A., Kiely, B. & Krugman, S. Rubella: C l i n i c a l manifestations and management. Amercian Journal of Diseases of Children, 1969, 118, 18-29. 93 Cowen, E. L., Huser, J., Beach, D. R. & Rappaport, J. Parental perceptions of young children and their r e l a t i o n to indexes of adjustment. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 34, 97-103. Crago, M. & Tharp, R. G. Psychopathology and marital role disturbance: A test of the Tharp-Otis Descriptive Hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 32, 338-341. Crouse, B., Karlins, M. & Schroder, H. Conceptual complexity and marital happiness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30, 643-646. Dean, D. G. Emotional maturity and marital adjustment. Journal  of Marriage and Family, 1966, 28_, 454-457. Emery, R. E. Interparent c o n f l i c t and the children of discord and divorce. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1982, 92, 310-330. Emery, R. E. & O'Leary, K. D. Children's perceptions of marital discord and behaviour problems of boys and g i r l s . Journal of  Abnormal Child Psychology, 1982, J_0, 11-24. Eysenck, H. J . Personality, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and divorce. Psychological Reports, 1980, 47, 1235-1238. Eysenck, H. J . & Wakefield, J. A. Psychological factors as predictors of marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Advances in Behaviour  Research and Therapy, 1981, 3, 151-192. Ferguson, L. R. & A l l e n , D. R. Congruence of parental perception, marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and c h i l d adjustment. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, 46, 345-346. Fe r r e i r a , A. & Winter, W. S t a b i l i t y of international variables in family decision-making. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966, J_4, 352-355. Ficher, I. V., Zuckerman, M. & Neeb, M. Marital compatability in sensation seeking t r a i t as a factor in marital adjustment. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 1981, 1_, 60-69. Forehand, R., Griest, D. & Wells, K. C. Parent behavioral t r a i n i n g : An analysis of the relationship among multiple outcome measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 7, 229-242. Forehand, R., King, H. E., Peed, S. & Yoder, P. Mother-child interactions: Comparisons of a non-compliant c l i n i c group and a non-clinic group. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1975, 13, 79-84. 94 Forehand, R. & King, H. E. Noncompliant children: E f f e c t s of parent tr a i n i n g on behavior and attitude change. Behavior  Modification, 1977, J _ , 93-1.08. Forehand, R. & McMahon, R. J. Helping the noncompliant c h i l d : A  c l i n i c i a n ' s guide to parent t r a i n i n g . New York: Guilford, 1981. Forehand, R. & Peed, S. Training parents to modify noncompliant behaviour of their children. In A. J. Finch, J r . , & P. C. Kendall (Eds.), Treatment and research in c h i l d psychopathology. New York: Spectrum, 1979. Forehand, R., Sturgis, E. T., McMahon, R. J., Aguar, D., Green, K., Wells, K. & Breiner, J. Parent behavioral t r a i n i n g to modify c h i l d noncompliance: Treatment generalization across time and from home to school. Behavior Modification, 1979, 3, 3-25. Forehand, R., Wells, K. C. & Griest, D. L. An examination of the so c i a l v a l i d i t y of a parent training program. Behavior  Therapy, 1980, _M, 488-502. Forehand, R. , Wells, K. C , McMahon, R. J. & Griest, D. L. Side ef f e c t s of parent counseling on marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1982, 29, 104-107. Foster, T. D. Parental influences on son's self-esteem. Dissertation Abstracts, 1977, 37 (9-B), 4676. Gassner, S. & Murray, E. J . Dominance and c o n f l i c t in the interactions between parents of normal and neurotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 7_4, 33-41. Goodstein, R. K. & Swift, K. Psychotherapy with phobic patients: The marriage relationship as the source of symptoms and focus of treatment. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1977, 3J_, 285-293. Griest, D. Forehand, R., Wells, K. & McMahon, R. An examination of differences between nonclinic and behavior problem c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children and their mothers. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1980, 89, 497-500. Griest, D. L. & Wells, K. C. Behavioral family therapy with conduct disorders in children. Behavior Therapy, 1983, 14, Griest, D., Wells, K. C. & Forehand, R. An examination of predictors of maternal perceptions of maladjustment in c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 88, 277-281. 95 Haley, J . Experiment with abnormal families. Archives of General  Psychiatry, 1967, J_7, 5 3 - 6 3 . Hartmann, D. P. Considerations in the choice of interobserver r e l i a b i l i t y estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, J_0, 1 0 3 - 1 1 6 . Heins, T. Marital interaction in depression. Australian and New  Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 1978, _1_2, 2 6 9 - 2 7 5 . Heisler, V. A handicapped c h i l d in the family. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1972. Hetherington, E. M. Divorce: A c h i l d ' s perspective. American  Psychologist, 1979, 34 , 8 5 1 - 8 5 8 . Hoffman, K. C. Marital adjustment and interaction, related to individual adjustment of spouses in c l i n c and non-clinic families. Dissertation Abstracts, 1970, 3_1_ (5-B), 2 9 8 7 . Houseknecht, S. K. Childlessness and marital adjustment. Journal  of Marriage and the Family, 1979, 4J_, 2 5 9 - 2 6 5 . Huneeus, M. E. A dynamic approach to marital problems. Social  Casework, 1963, 44 , 1 4 2 - 1 4 8 . I l f e l d , F. W. Current s o c i a l stressors and symptoms of depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1977, 134, 1 6 1 -166. I l f e l d , F. W. Understanding marital stressors: The importance of coping s t y l e . The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1980, 1 6 8 , 3 7 5 - 3 8 1 . Jackson, D. N. Personality research form manual. New York: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. Jacobsen, N. S. & Anderson, E. A. The e f f e c t s of behavior rehearsal and feedback on the a c q u i s i t i o n of problem-solving s k i l l s in distressed and non-distressed couples. Behaviour  Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 2 5 - 3 6 . Johnson, S. M. & Lobitz, G. K. The personal and marital adjustment of parents as related to observed c h i l d deviance and parenting behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1974, 2, 1 9 3 - 2 0 7 . Kaufman, J. Interpersonal relations in t r a d i t i o n a l and emergent families among Midwest Mennonites. Marriage and Family  Living, 1961, 23, 2 4 7 - 2 5 2 . Kemper, T. D. & Reichler, M. L. Marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and conjugal power as determinants of intensity and frequency of rewards and punishments administered by parents. Journal of  Genetic Psychology, 1976, 129, 2 2 1 - 2 3 4 . 96 Klein, M. M. & Shulman, S. Behavior problems of children in re l a t i o n to parent instrumentality, expressivity and marital adjustment. Psychological Reports, 1980, 4_7, 11-14. Kotler, T. & Hammond, S. B. Marital quality and disturbed c h i l d behaviour. B r i t i s h Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1981, 20, 187-198. Larzelere, R. E. & Mulaik, S. A. Single-sample tests for many cor r e l a t i o n s . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1977, 8_4, 557-569. Leighton, L. A., Stollak, G. E. & Ferguson, L. R. Patterns of communication in normal and c l i n i c families. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 36, 252-256. Lobitz, G. K. & Johnson, S. M. Normal versus deviant children: A multi-method comparison. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1975, 3, 353-374. Luckey, E. B. Marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and i t s concomitant perceptions of self and spouse. Journal of Counseling  Psychology, 1964, JJ_, 136-1 45. Lundgren, D. C , Jergens, V. H. & Gibson, J. L. Marital relationships, evaluations of spouse and s e l f , and anxiety. Journal of Psychology, 1980, 106, 227-240. Manuck, S. B., Hinrichsen, J . J. & Ross, E. 0. L i f e stress, locus of control and state and t r a i t anxiety. Psychological  Reports, 1975, 36, 413-414. Margolin, G. The reciprocal relationship between marital and c h i l d problems. In J. P. Vincent (ed.), Advances in family  intervention, assessment and theory: An annual compilation  of research. JAI Press, 1981, 167-222. Martuza, V. R. & Kallstrom, D. W. V a l i d i t y of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory in an academic setting. Psychological  Reports, 1974, 35, 363-366. McLean, P. D., Ogston, K. & Grauer, L. A behavioural approach to the treatment of depression. Journal of Behaviour Therapy  and Experimental Psychiatry, 1973, 4_, 323-330. McQueen, W. M. A simple device for improving inter-rater r e l i a b i l i t y . Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 128-129. Metcalfe, M. & Goldman, E. Validation of an inventory for measuring depression. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, 111, 240-242. Minuchin, S. Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard, 1974. 97 Murstein, B. I. & Glaudin, V. The relationship of marital adjustment to personality: A factor analysis of the Interpersonal Check L i s t . Journal of Marriage and the  Family, 1966, 28, 37-43. Murstein, B. I. & Glaudin, V. Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in the determination of marital maladjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1968, 30, 651-655. Myers, J . K. & Bean, L. L. A decade l a t e r : A follow-up of s o c i a l  class and mental i l l n e s s . New York: Wiley, 1968. Nye, F. I. Child adjustment in broken and in unbroken homes. Marriage and Family Living, 1957, j_9, 356-361. O'Connor, W. & Stachowiak, J . Patterns of interaction in families with high adjusted, low adjusted and mentally retarded members. Family Process, 1971, J_0, 229-241 . Oltmanns, T. F., Broderick, J . E. & O'Leary, K. D. Marital adjustment and the e f f i c a c y of behavior therapy with children. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 45, 724-729. Overall, J. E., Henry, B. W. & Woodward, A. Dependence of marital problems on parental family history. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1974, 83, 446-450. Patterson, G. R. & Fagot, B. I. Selective responsiveness to s o c i a l reinforcers and deviant behavior in children. Psychological Record, 1967, VT_, 369-378. Patterson, G. R. Coercive family process. Eugene, Oregon: Ca s t a l i a , 1982. Peed, S., Roberts, M. & Forehand, R. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a standardized parent t r a i n i n g program in a l t e r i n g the interaction of mothers and their noncompliant children. Behavior Modification, 1977, 323-350. Pickford, J. H., Signori, E. J. & Rempel, H. The intensity of personality t r a i t s in r e l a t i o n to marital happiness. Journal  of Marriage and the Family, 1966, 28, 458-459. Porter, B. H. The relationship between marital adjustment and parental acceptance of children. Journal of Home Economics, 1955, 47, 157-164. Porter, B. & O'Leary, K. D. Marital discord and c h i l d behaviour problems. Journal of Abnormal Ch i l d Psychology, 1980, 8, 287-295. 98 Raschke, H. J . & Raschke, V . J . Family c o n f l i c t and c h i l d r e n ' s s e l f - c o n c e p t s : A comparison of i n t a c t and s i n g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l i e s . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 1979, 4J_, 3 6 7 -3 7 4 . R i c k a r d , K. M., Forehand, R., Atkeson, B. M. Se Lopez, C. An examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n and d i v o r c e with p a r e n t - c h i l d i n t e r a c t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l  C h i l d Psychology, 1982, JJ_ , 6 1 - 6 5 . R i c k a r d , K. M., Forehand, R., We l l s , K. C , G r i e s t , D. L. Se McMahon, R. J . F a c t o r s i n the r e f e r r a l of c h i l d r e n f o r b e h a v i o u r a l treatment: A comparison of mothers of c l i n i c -r e f e r r e d d e v i a n t , c l i n i c - r e f e r r e d nondeviant and n o n c l i n i c c h i l d r e n . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981 , _1_9, 2 0 1 - 2 0 5 . R i s k i n , J . Se Faunce, E . Family i n t e r a c t i o n s c a l e s . I I I . D i s c u s s i o n of methodology and s u b s t a n t i v e f i n d i n g s . A r c h i v e s  of General P s y c h i a t r y , 1970, 22, 5 2 6 - 5 3 7 . Rogers, L. S., Young, H. H., Cohen, I. H., Dworin, J . Se L i p e t z , M. E . M a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y , mental h e a l t h and m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1970, 3 5 , 3 4 2 - 3 4 8 . R o l l i n s , B. C. Se Feldman, H. M a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n over the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . J o u r n a l of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 2, 2 0 - 2 8 . R o u n s a v i l l e , B. J . , Weissman, M. M., P r u s o f f , B. A. Se Herceg-Baron, R. L. M a r i t a l d i s p u t e s and treatment outcome i n depressed women. Comprehensive P s y c h i a t r y , 1979, 2 0 , 4 8 3 -4 9 0 . R u t t e r , M. P a r e n t - c h i l d s e p a r a t i o n : P s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s on the c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y , 1971 , J_2, 2 3 3 - 2 6 0 . S a t i r , V . C o n j o i n t f a m i l y therapy: A guide to theory and technique. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : Science and Behavior Books, 1 9 6 9 . S c h r e i b e r , J . R. D i f f e r e n c e s i n decision-making i n t e r a c t i o n s of couples with problem or competent c h i l d r e n . D i s s e r t a t i o n  A b s t r a c t s , 1977, 37 ( 12-B), 6 3 5 0 . Schwarz, J . C. Childhood o r i g i n s of psychopathology. American  P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1979, 34 , 8 7 9 - 8 8 5 . Schwarz, J . C. Se G e t t e r , H. P a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t and dominance i n l a t e adolescent maladjustment: A t r i p l e i n t e r a c t i o n model. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology, 1980, 8 9 , 5 7 3 - 5 8 0 . 99 Schwarz, J. C. & Zuroff, D. C. Family structure and depression in female college students: E f f e c t s of parental c o n f l i c t , decision-making power, and inconsistency of love. Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 1979, 8 8 , - 3 9 8 - 4 0 6 . Shrout, P. E. & F l e i s s , J. L. Intraclass c o r r e l a t i o n s : Uses in assessing rater r e l i a b i l i t y . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86 , 4 2 0 - 4 2 8 . Spanier, G. B. Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal  of Marriage and -the Family, 1976, 38^ 1 5 - 2 8 . Spielberger, C. D., Auerbach, S. M., Wadsworth, A. P., Dunn, T. M. & Taulbee, E. S. Emotional reactions to surgery. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1973, 4_0, 3 3 - 3 8 . Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. E. STAI manual  for the s t a t e - t r a i t anxiety inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc., 1970. Tharp, R. G. & O t i s , G. D. Toward a theory for therapeutic intervention in families. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1966, 3_p_, 4 2 6 - 4 3 4 . Van Emde Boas, C. Intensive group psychotherapy with married couples. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1962, J_2, 1 4 2 - 1 5 3 . Weiss, R. L. & Aved, B. M. Marital s a t i s f a c t i o n and depression as predictors of physical health status. Journal of  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1978, 46 , 1 3 7 9 - 1 3 8 4 . Whitehead, L. Sex differences in children's responses to family stress: A re-evaluation. Journal of Child Psychology and  Psychiatry, 1979, 20 , 2 4 7 - 2 5 4 . Williams, J . G., Barlow, D. H. & Agras, W. S. Behavioral measurements of severe depression. Archives of General  Psychiatry, 1972, 2_7, 3 3 0 - 3 3 3 . Winer, B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Zaleski, Z. & Galkowska, M. Neuroticism and marital s a t i s f a c t i o n . Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, J_6, 2 8 5 -2 8 6 . 1 00 APPENDICES 101 APPENDIX A Newspaper Advertisements 103 APPENDIX B Dyadic Adjustment Scale 1 04 Scoring the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: The scoring key has been included within the questionnaire. To obtain a t o t a l score, sum the numbers that are c i r c l e d . Name Circle one: Male Female 10. Alms, goals, and things believed important 11. Amount of time spent together 12. Making major decisions 13. Household tasks 14. Leisure time inter-ests and activities i. Career decisions DYADIC ADJUSTMENT SCALE Most persons have disagreements in their relationships. Please indicate below the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement between you and your partner for each item on the following l i s t . (Place a checkmark / to indicate your answer.) Almost Occa- Fre- Almost Always Always sionally quently Always Always Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 1. Handling family finances ^ 4 3 2  2. Matters of recreation 5 4 3 2  3. Religious matters 4 3 2  |4. Demonstrations of 5 4 3 2 affection 5. Friends 5 4 3 2  6. Sex relations 5 4 3 2  7. Conventionality i (correct or proper behavior) 5 4 3 2  8. Philosophy of l i f e 5 4 3 2  9. Ways of dealing with ; parents or in-laws 4 3 2 I0<+ More A l l Most of Often Occa-the Time the Time Than Not stonally Rarely Never How often do you dis-cuss or have you con-sidered divorce, sep-aration, or terminat-ing your relationship? 17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? 19. Do you confide in your mate? 5 4 3 2 20. Do you ever regret that you married (or lived together)? 0 1 2 3 4 5 21. How often do you and your partner quarrel? 0 1 2 3 4 5 22. How often do you and your mate "get on each others' nerves"? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Every Day Almost Every Day Occa-sionally Rarely Never 23. Do you kiss your mate? 4 3 2 1 0 A l l of Most of Some of Very Few None of Them Them Them of Them Them 24. Do you and your mate engage i n outside interests together? How often would you say the following events occur between you and your mate? Less Than Once or Once or 1 Once a Twice a Twice a Once a More Never Month Month Week Day Often 25. Have a stimulating exchange of ideas i 1 2 A 5 107 Less Than Once or Once or Once a Twice a Twice a Once a More Never Month Month Week Day Often 26. Laugh together 0 1 2 3 4 5 27. Calmly discuss something 0 1 2 3 4 5 23. Work together on a project 0 1 2 3 4 5 These are some things about which couples sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate i f either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in your relationship during the past few weeks. (Check yes or no.) Yes No 29. 0 1 Being too tired for sex. 30. 0 1 Not showing love. 31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness i n your relationship. The middle point, "happy", represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. Please c i r c l e the dot which best describes the degree of happiness, a l l things considered, of your relationship. 0 * 1 2 3 4 5 6 • • • * m • • Extremely Fairly A L i t t l e Happy Very Extremely Perfect Unhappy Unhappy Unhappy Happy Happy 32- Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? ^ I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to see that i t does. j ^ I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and w i l l do a l l I I can to see that i t does. 3 I want very much for my relationship to succeed, and w i l l do my f a i r share to see that i t does. 2 It would be nice i f my relationship succeeded, but I can't do much more than I am doing now to help i t succeed. 1 It would be nice i f i t succeeded, but I refuse to do any more than I am doing now to keep the relationship going. ^ My relationship can never succeed, and there i s no more that I can do to keep the relationship going. 108 APPENDIX C Beck Depression Inventory 109 Scoring the Beck Depression Inventory: To obtain a t o t a l score, sum the numbers that are c i r c l e d . DO NOT COPY PAGES 110-112 no BECK INVENTORY Name Date On this questionnaire are groups of statements. Please read each group of statements carefully. Then pick out the one statement i n each group which best describes the way you have been feeling the PAST WEEK, INCLUDING TODAY! Circle the number beside the statement you picked. If several statements i n the group seem to apply equally well, c i r c l e each one. Be sure to read a l l the statements in each group  before making your choice. 1. 0 I do not feel sad. 1 I feel sad. 2 I am sad a l l the time and I can't snap out of i t . 3 I am so sad or unhappy that I can't stand i t . 2. 0 I am not particularly discouraged about the future. 1 I feel discouraged about the future. 2 I feel I have nothing to look forward to. 3 I feel that the future i s hopeless and that things cannot improve. 3. 0 I do not feel l i k e a failure. 1 I feel I have failed more than the average person. 2 As I look back on my l i f e , a l l I can see is a lot of failures. 3 I feel I am a complete failure as a person. 4. 0 I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to. 1 I don't enjoy things the way I used to. 2 I don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore. 3 I am dissatisfied or bored with everything. 5. 0 1 don't feel particularly guilty. 1 I feel guilty a good part of the time. 2 I feel quite guilty most of the time. 3 I feel guilty a l l of the time. 6. 0 I don't feel I am being punished. 1 I feel I may be punished. 2 I expect to be punished. 3 I feel I am being punished. 7. 0 I don't feel disappointed in myself. 1 I am disappointed i n myself. 2 I am disgusted with myself. 3 I hate myself. S. 0 1 don't feel I am any worse than anybody else. 1 I am c r i t i c a l of myself for my weaknesses or mistakes. 2 I blame myself a l l the time for my faults. 3 I blame myself for everything bad that happens. 9. 0 I don't have any thoughts of k i l l i n g myself. 1 I have thoughts of k i l l i n g myself, but I would not carry them out. 2 I would like to k i l l myself. 3 I would k i l l myself i f I had the chance. /II 10. 0 I don't cry anymore than usual. 1 I cry more now than I used to. 2 I cry a l l the time now. 3 I used to be able to cry, but now I can't cry even though 1 want to. 11. 0 I am no more irritated now than I ever am. 1 I get annoyed or irritated more easily than I used to. 2 I feel irritated a l l the time now. 3 I don't get irritated at a l l by the things that used to i r r i t a t e me. 12. 0 I have not lost interest in other people. 1 I am less interested in other people than I used to be. 2 I have lost most of my interest in other people. 3 I have lost a l l of my interest in other people. 13. 0 I make decisions about as well as I ever could. 1 I put off making decisions more than I used to. 2 I have greater d i f f i c u l t y in making decisions than before. 3 I can't make decisions at a l l anymore. 14. 0 1 don't feel I look any worse than I used to. 1 I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive. 2 I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me look unattractive. 3 I believe that I look ugly. 15. 0 I can work about as well as before. 1 It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something. 2 I have to push myself very hard to do anything. 3 I can't do any work at a l l . 16. 0 I can sleep as well as usual. 1 I don't sleep as well as I used to. 2 I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and find i t hard to get back to sleep. 3 I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to sleep. 17. 0 1 don't get more tired than usual. 1 I get tired more easily than I used to. 2 I get tired from doing almost anything. 3 I am too tired to do anything. 18. 0 My appetite i s no worse than usual. 1 My appetite i s not as good as i t used to be. 2 My appetite is much worse now. 3 I have no appetite at a l l anymore. 19. 0 I haven't lost much weight, i f any, lately. 1 I have lost more than 5 pounds. T , . . . o , , , fc i n . I air. purposely trying to lose 2 I have lost more than 10 pounds. . , f . „. ,_ „ O T U I - - I . - i c J weight by eating less. 3 I have lost more than 15 pounds. Y N I l l 20. 0 I am no more worried about my health than usual. 1 I am worried about physical problems such as aches and pains, or upset stomach, or constipation. 2 I am very worried about physical problems and i t ' s hard to think of much else. 3 I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot think about anything else. 21. 0 1 2 3 I have not noticed any recent change in ray interest in sex. I am less interested in sex than I used to be. I am much less interested in sex now. I have lost interest in sex completely. 1 1 3 APPENDIX D State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 1 14 Scoring the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Items are scored on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (Almost never) to 4 (Almost always). Items that are asterisked are scored in the reverse order (4 to 1). Reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Paolo Alto, CA 9^306 from The State Trait Anxiety Inventory by Charles Spielberger and Assoc. Copyright 1967. Further reproduction is prohibited without the Publisher's consent. (See leaf 115, Self-evaluation questionnaire.) SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE Name Date Sex: Male Female DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe them-selves are given below. Read each statement and then blacken ln the approp-riate circle to the right of the statement to Indicate how you generally feel. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer which seems to describe how you gen-erally feel. Almost Sometimes Often Almost Never Always * 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. * 6. * 7. 8. 9. * 10. 11. 12. * 13. 14. 15. * 16. 17. 18. * 19. 20. I feel pleasant. I tire quickly. I feel like crying. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. I am losing out on things hecause I can't make up my mind soon enough. I feel rested. I am "calm, cool, and collected." I feel that difficulties are piling up so that I cannot overcome them. I worry too much over something that really doesn't matter. I am happy. I am inclined to take things hard. I lack self-confidence. I feel secure. I try to avoid facing a crisis or difficulty. I feel blue. I am content. Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and bothers me. I take disappointments so keenly that I can't put them out of mind. I am a steady person. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interests. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 16 APPENDIX E Personality Research Form 1 17 Scoring the Personality Research Form: There are 15 scales on Form A of the Personality Research Form: Achievement, A f f i l i a t i o n , Aggression, Autonomy, Dominance, Endurance, Exhibition, Harmavoidance, Impulsivity, Nurturance, Order, Play, Social Recognition, Understanding, and Infrequency. Item 1 on the questionnaire assesses achievement, item 2, a f f i l i a t i o n , item 3, aggression, and so on, to item 15, infrequency. The series begins again at items 16, 31, 46, 61, 75, etc., to item 186. With each new series, the d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of the item i s reversed. To obtain a t o t a l score for each scale, sum the items that are scored in a positive d i r e c t i o n within each scale. PERSONALITY RESEARCH FORM D I R E C T I O N S On the following pages you will find a series of statements which a person might use to describe himself. Read each state-ment and decide whether or not it des-cribes you. Then indicate your answer on the separate answer sheet. If you agree with a statement or decide that it does describe you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statement or feel that it is not descriptive of you, answer FALSE. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number of the statement you have just read is the same as the number on the answer sheet. Answer every statement either true dr false, even if you are not completely sure of your answer. 1. I enjoy doing things which challenge me. 2. I pay little attention to the interests of people I know. 3. I get a kick out of seeing someone I dislike appear foolish in front of others. 4. If public opinion is against me, I usually decide that I am wrong. 5. I would enjoy being a club officer. 6. If I can't finish a task within a certain amount of time, I usually decide not to waste any more time on it. 7. Others think I am lively and witty. 8. I almost always accept a dare. 9. I admire free, spontaneous people. 10. I think a man is smart to avoid being talked into helping his acquaintances. 11. I often decide ahead of time exactly what I will do on a certain day. 12. I feel that adults who still like to play have never really grown up. 13. I consider it important to be held in high esteem by those I know. 14. Philosophical discussions are a waste of time. 15. I was born over 90 years ago. 16. Self-improvement means nothing to me unless it leads to immediate success. 17. I believe that a person who is incapable of enjoying the people around him misses much in life. 18. It doesn't bother me much to have someone get the best of me in a discussion. 19. I would like to wander freely from country to country. 20. I am not very insistent in an argument. 21. I don't mind doing all the work myself if it is necessary to complete what I have begun. 22. I am too shy to tell jokes. 23. I am careful about the things I do because I want to have a long and healthy life. 24. I have a reserved and cautious attitude toward life. 25. When I see someone who looks confused, I usually ask if I can be of any assistance. 26. I don't especially care how I look when I go out. 27. I love to tell, and listen to, jokes and funny stories. 28. I give little thought to the impression I make on others. 29. I often try to grasp the relationships between different things that happen. 30. I try to get at least some sleep every night. /•<7 31. I get disgusted with myself when I have not learned something properly. 32. Trying to please people is a waste of time. 33. I swear a lot. 34. Adventures where I am on my own are a little frightening to me. 35. I try to control others rather than permit them to control me. 36. If I find it hard to get something I want, I usually change my mind and try for something else. 37. I like to have people talk about things I have done. 38. I would enjoy learning'to walk on a tightrope. 39. I find that I sometimes forget to "look before I leap." 40. All babies look very much like little monkeys to me. 41. When I am going somewhere I usually find my exact route by using a map. 42. I consider most entertainment to be a waste of time. 43. I very much enjoy being complimented. 44. I can't see how intellectuals get personal satisfac-tion from their impractical lives. 45. I have a number of outfits of clothing, each of which costs several thousand dollars. 46. I work because I have to, and for that reason only. 47. Loyalty to my friends is quite important to me. 48. If someone does something I don't like, I seldom say anything. 49. When I was a child, I wanted to be independent. 50. I have little interest in leading others. 51. If people want a job done which requires patience, they ask me. 52. I would not like the fame that goes with being a great athlete. 53. I would never want to be a forest-fire fighter. 54. Rarely, if ever, do I do anything reckless. 55. I feel very sorry for lonely people. 56. My personal papers are usually in a state of con-fusion. 57. I enjoy parties, shows, games — anything for fun. 58. Social approval is unimportant to me. 59. I do almost as much reading on my own as I did for classes when I was in school. 60. I make all my own clothes and shoes. 61. I will keep working on a problem after others have given up. 62. Most of my relationships with people are business-like rather than friendly. 63. If someone has a better job than I, I like to try to show him up. 64. I don't want to be away from my family too much. 65. I feel confident when directing the activities of others. 66. The mere prospect ot having to put in long hours working makes me tired. 67. I don't mind being conspicuous. 68. I would never pass up something that sounded like fun just because it was a little bit hazardous. 69. The people I know who say the first thing they think of are some of my most interesting acquaint-ances. 70. I dislike people who are always asking me for advice. 71. I keep all my important documents in one safe place. 72. When I have a choice between work and enjoying myself, I usually work. 73. The good opinion of one's friends is one of the chief rewards for living a good life. 74. If the relationships between theories and facts are not immediately evident, I see no point in trying to find them. 75. I have attended school at some time during my life. 76. I try to work just hard enough to get by. 77. I am considered friendly. 78. I am quite soft-spoken. 79. My greatest desire is to be independent and free. 80. I would make a poor judge because I dislike telling others what to do. 81. If I want to know the answer to a certain question, I sometimes look for it for days. 82. I feel uncomfortable when people are paying atten-tion to me. 83. I can't imagine myself jumping out of an airplane as skydivers do. 84. I am not an "impulse-buyer." 85. People like to tell me their troubles because they know that I will do everything I can to help them. 86. Most of the things I do have no system to them. 87. Once in a while I enjoy acting as if I were tipsy. 88. The opinions that important people have of me cause me little concern. 89. I have unlimited curiosity about many things. 90. I rarely use food or drink of any kind. 91. I often set goals that are very difficult to reach. 92. After I get to know most people, I decide that they would make poor friends. 93. Stupidity makes me angry. 94. I usually try to share mv problems with someone who can help me. 95. 1 am quite good at kcep.ng others in line. °6. When someone thinks [ should not finish a project, 1 am usually willing to tollow his advice. 97. I like to be in the spotlight. 98. I think it would be enjoyable and rather exciting to feel an earthquake. 99.. I have often broken things because of carelessness. 100. I get little satisfaction from serving others. 101. Before I start to work, I plan what I will need and get all the necessary materials. 102. I only celebrate very special events. 103. I constantly trv to make people think highly of me. .104. When I was a child, I showed no interest in books. 105. I have never ridden in an automobile. 106. I would rather do an easy job than one involving obstacles which must be overcome. 107. I enjoy being neighborly. 108. I seldom feel like hitting anyone. 109. I would like to have a job in which I didn't have to answer to anyone. 110. Most community leaders do a better job than I could possibly do. 111. I don't like to leave anything unfinished. 112. I was one of the quietest children in my group. 113. I avoid some hobbies and sports because of their dangerous nature. 1 114. I make certain that I speak softly when I am in a public place. 115. I believe in giving friends lots of help and advice. 116. I can work better when conditions are somewhat chaotic. 117. Most of my spare moments are spent relaxing and amusing myself. 118. It seems foolish to me to worry about my public image. 119. 1 would very much like to know how and why natural events occur in the way they do. 120. I could easily count,from one to twenty-five. 121. My goal is to do at least a little bit more than anyone else has done before. 122. Usually I would rather go somewhere alone than go to a party. 123. Life is a matter of "push or be shoved." ! 2 4 . 1 often do things just because social custom d ic -tates. 125. 1 seek out positions of authori ty . 126. W h e n other people give up w o r k i n g on a p rob lem, I usual ly quit too.. '.27. I would CT.JOY being a popular singer wi th a large fan club. 128. 1 wou ld enjoy the feeling or r id ing to the top of an uni in ished skyscraper in an open elevator. 129. I enjoy arguments that require good quick t h i n k i n g more than knowledge . i b o . I really do not pay much attention to people when thev talk about their problems. 131. I d i s l ike to be in a room that is cluttered. 1 3 2 . Pract ica l jokes aren't at al l funny to me. 133. N o t h i n g wou ld hurt me more than to have a bad reputat ion. 134. Abs t rac t ideas are of little use to me. 135. Sometimes 1 feel thirsty or hungry . 136. I really don' t enjoy hard work . 137. I try to be in the company of friends as much as possible. 133. If someone hurts me, I just try to forget about it. 139. If I have a problem, I l ike to work it out alone. 140. I th ink it is better to be quiet than assertive. 141. W h e n I hit a snag in what I am do ing , I don' t stop - un t i l I have found a way to get around it. 142. A t a party, I usual ly sit back and watch the others. 143. I try to get out of jobs that w o u l d require using dangerous tools or machinery. 144. I am not one of those people who blurt out things wi thou t th ink ing . 145. I am usual ly the first to offer a he lp ing hand when it is needed. 146. I se ldom take time to hang up my clothes neatly. 147. I l ike to go "out on the t o w n " as often as I can. 14S. I w i l l not go out of my way to behave in an approved way. 149. W h e n I see a new invent ion, I attempt to find out how it works . lr.;0. 1 have never seen an apple. 151. I prefer to be paid on the basis of how much work I have done rather than on h o w many hours I have worked . 152. I have re la t ively few friends. 133. I often find it necessary to cri t icize a person sharp-ly i f he annoys me. 154. F a m i l y obl igat ions make me feel important . 155. W h e n I am w i t h someone else I do most of the dec i s ion-making . 156. I don' t believe in s t ick ing to something when there is lit t le chance of success. '157. If ! were to be in a play, I would want to play the, leading role. 15S. S w i m m i n g alone in strange waters wou ld not bother me. 159. I often get bored at having to concentrate on one th ing at a time. 160. If someone is in trouble.. I try not to become invo lved . 161. A messy desk is inexcusable. 162. I prefer to read w o r t h w h i l e books rather than spend my spare time p lay ing . 163. W h e n I am do ing something, I often wor ry about what other people w i l l th ink. 164. It is more important to me to be good at a sport than to k n o w about literature or science. 165. I usual ly wear something w a r m when I go outside on a cold day. 166. I have rarely done extra s tudying in connect ion w i t h my work . 167. T o love and be loved is of greatest importance to me. 168. If I have to stand in line, I seldom try to cut ahead of the other people. 169. I del ight in feeling unattached. 170. I w o u l d make a poor mi l i ta ry leader. 171. I am w i l l i n g to w o r k longer at a project than are most people.. 172. W h e n I was young I seldom competed w i t h the other ch i ldren for attention. 173. I prefer a quiet, secure life to an adventurous one. 174. I a lways try to be ful ly prepared before I begin w o r k i n g on any th ing . 175. I w o u l d prefer to care for a sick ch i ld myse l f rather than hire a nurse. 176. I could never find out w i t h accuracy just h o w I have spent my money i n the past several months . 177. I spend a good deal of my time just hav ing fun. 17S. I don' t care if my clothes are uns ty l i sh , as long as I l ike them. 179. I am more at home in an intellectual discussion than in a discuss ion of sports. 180. I th ink the w o r l d w o u l d be a much better place i f no one ever went to school . 181. People have a lways said that I am a hard worke r . 182. I se ldom go out of m y way to do something just to make others happy. 183. I often make people angry by teasing them. 184. I respect rules because they guide me. 185. When two persons are arguing, I often settle the argument for them. 186. If I had to do something I didn't like, I would put it off and hope that someone else might do it. 187. I often monopolize a conversation. 188. To me, crossing the ocean in a sailboat would be a wonderful adventure. 189. It seems that emotion has more influence over me than does calm meditation. 190. I avoid doing too many favors for people because it would seem as if I were trying to buy friendship. 191. My work is always well organized. 192. Most of my friends are serious-minded people. 193. One of the things which spurs me on to do my best is the realization that I will be praised for my work. 194. I really don't know what is involved in any of the latest cultural developments. 195. I have no sense of touch in my fingers. 196. When people are not going to see what I do, I often do less than my very best. 197. Most people think I am warm-hearted and soci-able. 198. I show leniency to those who have offended me. 199. I find that I can think better without having to bother with advice from others. 200. I would not do well as a salesman because I am not very persuasive. 201. When I am working outdoors I finish what I have to do even if it is growing dark. 202. I think that trying to be the center of attention is a sign of bad taste. 203. I never go into sections of a city that are consid-ered dangerous. 204. I generally rely on careful reasoning in making up my mind. 205. When I see a baby, I often ask to hold him. 206. I often forget to put things back in their places. 207. I like to watch television comedies. 208. If I have done something well, I don't bother to call it to other people's attention. 209. If I believe something is true, I try to prove that my theory will hold up in actual practice. 210. If someone pricked me with a pin, it would hurt. 211. I don't mind working while other people are having fun. 212. When I see someone I know from a distance, I don't go out of my way to say "Hello." 213. I become angry more easily than most people. 214. I find that for most jobs the combined effort of several people will accomplish more than one person working alone. 215. If I were in politics, I would probably be seen as one of the forceful leaders of my party. 216. If I get tired while playing a game, I generally stop playing. 217. I try to get others to notice the way I dress. 218. I would enjoy exploring an old deserted house at night. 219. Often I stop in the middle of one activity in order to start something else. 220. People's tears tend to irritate me more than to arouse my sympathy. 221. I spend much of my time arranging my belongings neatly. 222. People consider me a serious, reserved person. 223. I feel that my life would not be complete if I failed to gain distinction and social prestige. 224. I would rather be an accountant than a theoretical mathematician. 225. If I were exploring a strange place at night, I would want to carry a light. 226. It doesn't really matter to me whether I become one of the best in my field. 227. I truly enjoy myself at social functions. 228. I do not like to see anyone receive bad news. 229. I would not mind living in a very lonely place. 230. I feel incapable of handling many situations. 231. I will continue working on a problem even with a severe headache. 232. I never attempt to be the life of the party. 233. Surf-board riding would be too dangerous for me. 234. If I am playing a game of skill, I attempt to plan each move thoroughly before acting. 235. I feel most worthwhile when I am helping someone who is disabled. 236. I rarely clean out my bureau drawers. 237. If I didn't have to earn a living, I would spend most of.my time just having fun. 238. I don't try to "keep up with the Joneses." 239. I like to read several books on one topic at the same time. 240. I wear clothes when I am around other people. 241. Sometimes people say I neglect other important aspects of my life because I work so hard. 242. I want to remain unhampered by obligations to friends. 1X3 243. I have a violent temper. 244. To have a sense of belonging is very important to me. 245. I try to convince others to accept my political principles. 246. I am easily distracted when I am tired. | 247. When I was in school, I often talked back to the j teacher to make the other children laugh. 248. I would like to drive a motorcycle. 249. Most people feel that I act spontaneously. 250. I become irritated when I must interrupt my activ-ities to do a favor for someone. 251. I keep my possessions in such good order that I J have no trouble finding anything. 252. I usually have some reason for the things I do rather than just doing them for my own amuse-ment. 253. I would not consider myself a success unless other people viewed me as such. 254. I would rather build something with my hands than try to develop scientific theories. 255. I can't believe that wood really burns. 256. I am sure people think that I don't have a great deal of drive. 257. I spend a lot of time visiting friends. 258. I do not think it is necessary to step on others in order to get ahead in the world. 259. Having a home has a tendency to tie a person down more than I would like. 260. I would not want to have a job enforcing the law. 2L1. I won't leave a project unfinished even if I am very tired. 2|62. I don't like to do anything unusual that will call attention to myself. 2|63. I will not climb a ladder unless someone is there to steady it for me. 2|64. I think that people who fall in love impulsively are quite immature. 2^5. Seeing an old or helpless person makes me feel that I would like to take care of him. 266. I feel comfortable in a somewhat disorganized room. 267. I delight in playing silly little tricks on people. 268. When I am being introduced, I don't like the per-son to make lengthy comments about what 1 have done. 269. I am unable to think of anything that I wouldn't enjoy learning about. 270. I can run a mile in less than four minutes. 271. I enjoy work more than play. 272. I am quite independent of the people I know. 273. I often quarrel with others. 274. I can do my best work when I have the encourage-ment of others. 275. With a little effort, I can "wrap most people around my little finger." 276. When I feel ill, I stop working and try to get some rest. 277. I perform in public whenever I have the oppor-tunity. 278. I like the feeling of speed. 279. Life is no fun unless it is lived in a carefree way. 280. It doesn't affect me one way or another to see a child being spanked. 281. I can't stand reading a newspaper that has been messed up. 282. I would prefer a quiet evening with friends to a loud party. 283. I do a good job more to gain approval than be-cause I like my work. 284. There are many activities that I prefer to reading. 285. I would have a hard time keeping my mind a complete blank. 286. It is unrealistic for me to insist on becoming the best in my field of work all of the time. 287. I go out of my way to meet people. 288. I try to show self-restraint to avoid hurting other people. 289. My idea of an ideal marriage is one where the two people remain as independent as if they were single. 290. I don't have a forceful or dominating personality. 291. I am very persistent and efficient even when I have been working for many hours without rest. 292. The idea of acting in front of a large group doesn't appeal to me. 293. To me, it seems foolish to ski when so many people get hurt that way. 294. I like to take care of things one at a time. 295. I can remember that as a child I tried to take care of anyone who was sick. 296. If I have brought something home, I often drop it on a chair or table as I enter. 297. Things that would annoy most people seem humorous to me. 298. Inner satisfaction rather than fame is my goal in life. 299. If I were going to an art exhibit, I would first try to learn about the artist, his style and technique, his philosophy of art, and the story behind each piece of work. 300. I am able to breathe. 124 APPENDIX F Parent Attitudes Test 1 25 Scoring the Parent Attitudes Test: Items on the Home Attitude Scale are scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 ( f i r s t choice presented) to 4 (last choice presented). Items on the Behavior Rating Scale are scored on a 5-point scale in which "No" i s scored 0, and "Yes" responses range from 1 (Very mildly) to 4 (Very strongly). Items on the Adjective Checklist Scale are scored on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 (describes my c h i l d very well) to 2 (does not apply at a l l to my c h i l d ) . Items that are asterisked are scored in the reverse order (2 to 0). I XL* FORM PAT 66-1 NAME DATE CHILD'S NAME - DATE OF BIRTH GRADE Characteristic Attitudes and Behavior Each of the questions below aims at providing us with a better understanding of your child's attitudes towards home, as well as his/her actual behavior. For each item, please indicate by putting a check (/) next to the statement that you think is most true for your child. II. Home and Neighborhood Children do not always behave the same way in different situations. In school, a child may behave in one way while at home or in the neighborhood he/she may be quite different. A. As far as my child's behavior at home is concerned, he/she is doing: very well. quite well. neither well nor poorly. quite poorly. very poorly. B. Disciplining my child at home is usually: very effective. quite effective. neither effective nor ineffective. quite ineffective. very ineffective. C. With the other children in our neighborhood, my child gets along: very well. quite well. neither well nor poorly. quite poorly. very poorly. Jl/7 Form PAT 66-1 Attitudes and Behavior Child's Name D. With his/her t>xothe\rX&). and/or ^sister(s) , .-my child gets along: very well. quite well. neither well nor poorly. quite poorly. very poorly. E. When I try to reason with my child: i t almost always works. i t often works. i t sometimes works. i t seldom works. i t never works. F. Compared to other children of the same age s my child i s : very happy. quite happy. neither happy nor unhappy. quite unhappy. very unhappy. G. Compared to other children of the same age, my child has: many fewer problems. fewer problems. as many problems. more problems. many more problems. Parents' Rating Scale for Children A l l children, at one time or another, run into some d i f f i c u l t i e s and problems as part of the process of growing up. These are not always the same for different times. We are concerned primarily with your child's behavior as you have seen i t during the past month. Listed below are a series of d i f f i c u l t i e s that young children often show. Many of these may not apply at a l l to your child's behavior. On the other hand, many of them may be quite descriptive of his or her behavior during the past month. For each problem, please Indicate by a check (/) in the appropriate place whether or not the given characteristic applies. If i t does apply, please indicate the degree to which i t applies by placing a second check (/) in the appropriate column to the right. In addition, please underline the specific elements of the behavior pattern that apply. For example: Behavior Enjoys TV (cowboys, cartoons, comedy, news, travel, other) Does i t apply? Ifj Very Mildly No Yes 'yes", to what extent? Moder-ately Strongly Very Strongly Does i t apply? If "yes", to what extent? No Behavior Yes Very Mildly Moder-ately^ Strongly Very Strongly 1. Eating trouble (eats too much, eats too l i t t l e , has fads, eats only certain foods, other) 2. Trouble sleeping (won't go to bed, awakens often, fights sleep, has nightmares, other) 3. Stomach trouble (diarrhea, constipation, irregularity, vomiting, nervous stomach, other) 4. Is bothered by headaches, frequent colds, allergies, asthma, rashes, other '^5 Form PBR 66-1 Parents' Rating Scale Child's Name Does i t apply? If "yes", to what extent? No 5. Is timid, bashful, or retiring with children • i , i j Very ! Modern Yes! Mildly! ately | Strongly Very Strongly i i * ! . I j I I i ! S | j i • i ! 6. Is timid, bashful, or 1 retiring with grownups j ! 1 i ii i! J ! ! | 7. Bullies, argues, or j fights children j ! I i i < i t ; j • — " " " - ' • j 8. Is "fresh", talks back, j argues with adults j i • ! i \ | 1 9. Bites nails, sucks thumb, | chews blanket ! 1 ! ! 1 i ! i ' i i 10. Is overactive or restless j i — — — t — \1 1 1 i j I i 1 j 11. Daydreams i 12. Has temper tantrums i 13. Crying • ~i 1 ! 1 ! j j 14. Tears up or breaks things i 1 | 15. Wets bed 16. Depends on others for help i i 1 ! t [ 17. Gets upset by criticism j i 1 | | j j j Form PBR 66-1 Parents' Rating Scale Child's Name Does i t apply? If "yes", to what extent? Behavior No Yes Very Mildly Moder-! ately j Strongly Very Strongly 18. Is fearful of other children or adults 19. Stays by himself 20. Seeks attention 21. Criticizes others 22. Reacts poorly to failure 23. Disrupts household routines Form PACL 66-1 Child's Name Date of Birth Grade School Children's Behavior Scale Below are a series of single words that are often used to describe children. Some w i l l apply to your child-, others w i l l not. For each word lis t e d , please put a check (/) in the appropriate column indicating whether i t applies to your child or not. Describes my child very well Applies somewhat to my child Does not apply at a l l to my child aggressive alert boastful capable careless cheerful confident cooperative defiant disobedient friendly happy helpful honest inattentive i r r i t a b l e jealous kind i i i i I i t i ; ! 1 I i i i • i I 1 ! j ! ! j i i t .  / 3 Z Form PACL 66-1 Children's Behavioral Scale Child's Name 2 • • Describes my child very well Applies somewhat to my child Does not j apply at a l l to my child neat * noisy respectful * restless * rough responsible * rude j * sad 1 1 i * shy ! i i sincere' sociable * stubborn * tense thoughtful * worried 1 ' 1 33 APPENDIX G Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist 1 34 Scoring the Becker Bipolar Adjective Checklist: Items are scored on a 7-point scale ranging from +3 to -3. Items that are asterisked are scored in the reverse order (-3 to +3). Factor 2 (Less Withdrawn and Hostile) contains items 1 through 10 and item 45. Factor 3 (More Aggressive) contains items 18 through 23 and item 10. Factor 5 (More Conduct Problems) contains items 26, 28, 30, 31, 41, 42, 43, and 45. Child Inventory For Office Parent's Name Child's Name Please circle the point on the scale which most accurately describes your evaluation c i your child's behavior 1-3 4~ 5-6" 1 Sociable 2 Warm 3 Happy 4 Responsive 5 Loving 6 Colorful 7 Extroverted o Interesting 9 Optimistic *10 Trusting 11 Tense 12 Nervous 13 Excitable 14 Emotional 15 Anxious 16 Fluctuating 17 Fearful 18 Demanding 19 Prone to anger 20 Jealous 21 Prone to tantrums 3 i -l -fr--fr-3-• i -4-3-•i--fr-1 2 Unsociable Cold Depressed Aloof Not loving Colorless Introverted Boring Pessimistic Distrusting Relaxed Placid Calm _j_ Objectiv. 7_ 8_ 9_ 10 11 12_ 13 14_ 15 16 17_ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Nonchalant Stable Not fearful Not demanding Not prone to anger 25 Not jealous Not prone to tan- • trusts 26 27 3 ~2 Impatient 23 Irritable 24 Conceited 25 Self-centered 26 Strong-willed 27 Independent 28 Dominant 29 Adventuroua 30 Tough 31 Noisy 32 Dull-minded 33 Subject to distraction 34 Ineffective 35 Poor memory 36 Meaningless 37 Slow 33 Subjectively inferior 39 Bored 40 Responsible * 41 Obedient * 42 Cooperative * 43 Easily disciplined 44 Organized * 45 Helping 46 Adult-Like 47 Neat Patient 28_ Easy-going 29_ S e l f - c r i t i c a l 30_ Outgoing 31_ Weak-willed 32_ Dependent 33 Submissive 34 Timid 35_ Sensitive 36_ Quiet 37_ Intelligent 38 Able to concen- 39_ trate Effective 40_ Good Memory 41_ Meaningful 42_ Quick 43_ Self-confident 44_ Interested 45_ Irresponsible 46 Disobedient 47_ Obstructive 48_ Di f f i c u l t to 49_ discipline Disorganized 50_ Not helping 51_ Infantile 52_ Disorderly 53 1 37 APPENDIX H Child Behavior Checklist 138 Scoring the Child Behavior Checklist: Items are scored on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 (not true) to 2 (very true or often true). To obtain a t o t a l score, sum the numbers that are c i r c l e d . CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST FOR AGES 4-16 CHILD'S NAME GRADE IN SCHOOL SEX: Boy G i r l AGE RACE TODAY'S DATE: Mo. Day Year CHILD'S BIRTHDATE: Mo. Day Year PARENT'S TYPE OF WORK (Please be s p e c i f i c — f o r example: auto mechanic, high school teacher, homemaker, laborer, lathe operator, shoe salesman, army sergeant, even i f parent does not li v e with child.) FATHER'S TYPE OF WORK MOTHER'S TYPE OF WORK This form f i l l e d out by: Mother Father Other (Specify): Please , ;list the sports your child most likes to take part in. For example; swimming, baseball, skat-ing, skate boarding, bike riding, fishing, etc. None Compared to other children of the same age, about how much time does he/she spend in each? Compared to other children of the same age, how well does he/she do each one? Don t Less Than More Than Know Average Average Average Don't Below Above Know Average Average Average b. c. II. Please l i s t your child's favorite hobbies, a c t i v i -ties, and games, other than sports. For example: stamps, dolls, books, piano, crafts, singing, etc. (Do not include T.V. None ) Compared to other children of the same age, about how much time does he/she spend in each? Less More Don't Than Than Know Average Average Average Compared to other children of the same age, how well does he/she do each one? Don't Below Above Know Average Average Average a. b. c . J40 t i l . Please l i s t any organizations, clubs, j teams, or groups your child belongs to None a. b. c. IV. Please l i s t any jobs or chores your child has. For example: paper route, babysitting, making bed, etc. None a. b. c. V. 1. About how many close friends does your child have? None 1 2 or 3 4 or more 2. About how many times a week does your child do things with them? less than 1 1 or 2. 3 or more VI. Compared to other children of his/her age, how well does your child: Worse About the Same Better a. Get along with his/her brothers and sisters? b. Get along with other children? c. Behave with his/her parents? d. Play and work by himself /herself ? Compared to other children of the same age how active is he/she in each? Don't Less More Know Active Average Active Compared to other children of the same age how well does he/she carry them out? Don't Below Above Know Average Average Average VII. 1. Current school performance - for children aged 6 and older: Failing Below Average Average Above Average Does not go to school a. Reading or English b. Writing c. Arithmetic or Math d. Spelling Other aca- e. demic sub-jects - for f. example: history, g. science, foreign h. language, geography Is your child in a special class? No Yes - what kind? Has your child ever repeated a grade? No Yes - grade and reason 4. Has your child had any academic or other problems in school? N Yes - please describe When did these problems start? Have these problems ended? No Yes - when? 1 4 2. VIII. Below i s a l i s t of items that describe children. For each item that describes your child now or within the past 6 months, please c i r c l e the 2 i f the item is very true or often true of your child. Circle the 1 If the item is somewhat or sometimes true of your child. If the item is not true of your child, c i r c l e the 0_. 0 1 2 1. Acts too young for his/her age 0 1 2 2. Allergy (describe): 0 1 2 3. Argues a lot 0 1 2 4. Asthma 0 1 2 5. Behaves like opposite sex 0 1 2 6. Bowel movements outside toilet 0 1 2 7. Bragging, boasting 0 1 2 8. Can't concentrate, can't pay attention for long 0 1 2 9. Can't get his/her mind off certain thoughts, obsessions 0 1 2 10. Can't s i t s t i l l , restless, or hyperactive 0 1 2 11. Clings to adults or too dependent 0 1 2 12. Complains of loneliness 0 1 2 13. Confused or seems to be in a fog 0 1 2 14. Cries a lot 0 1 2 15. Cruel to animals 0 1 2 16. Cruelty, bullying, or meanness to others 0 1 2 17. Day-dreams or gets lost in his/her thoughts 0 1 2 13. Deliberately harms self or attempts suicide 0 1 2 19. Demands a lot of attention 0 1 2 20. Destroys his/her own things 0 1 2 21. Destroys things belonging to his/her family or other 0 1 2 22. Disobedient at home 0 1 2 23. Disobedient at school 0 1 2 24. Doesn't eat well 0 1 2 25. Doesn't get along with other children 0 1 2 26. Doesn't seem to feel guilty after misbehaving 0 1 2 27. Easily jealous 0 1 2 28. Eats or drinks things that are not food (describe): 0 1 2 29. Fears certain animals, situations, or places, other than school (describe) ; H2> 0 1 2 30. Fears going to school 0 1 2 31. Fears he/she might think or do something bad 0 1 2 32. Feels he/she has to be perfect 0 1 2 33. Feels or complains that no one loves him/her 0 1 2 34. Feels others are out to get him/her 0 1 2 35. Feels worthless or inferior 0 1 2 36. Gets hurt a l o t , accident-prone 0 1 2 37. Gets in many fights 0 1 2 38. Gets teased a lot 0 1 2 39. Hangs around with children who get i n trouble 0 1 2 40. Hears things that aren't there (describe): 0 1 2 41. Impulsive or acts without thinking 0 1 2 42. Likes to be alone 0 1 2 43. Lying or cheating 0 1 2 44. Bites fingernails 0 1 2 45. Nervous, highstrung, or tense 0 1 2 46. Nervous movements or twitching (describe): 0 1 2 47. Nightmares 0 1 2 48. Not liked by other children 0 1 2 49. Constipated, doesn't move bowels 0 1 2 50. Too fearful or anxious 0 1 2 51. Feels dizzy 0 1 2 52. Feels too guilty 0 1 2 53. Overeating 0 1 2 54. Overtired 0 1 2 55. Overweight 56. Physical problems without known medical cause: 0 1 2 a. Aches or pains 0 1 2 b. Headaches 0 1 2 c. Nausea, feels sick 0 1 2 d. Problems with eyes (describe): 0 1 2 e. Rashes or other skin problems 0 1 2 f. Stomachaches or cramps 0 1 2 g. Vomiting, throwing up 0 1 2 h. Other (describe): W7 0 1 2 57. Physically attacks people 0 1 2 58. Picks nose, skin, or other parts of body (describe): 0 1 2 59. Plays with own sex parts in public 0 1 2 60. Plays with own sex parts too much 0 1 2 61. Poor school work 0 1 2 62. Poorly coordinated or clumsy 0 1 2 63. Prefers playing with older children 0 1 2 64. Prefers playing with younger children 0 1 2 65. Refuses to talk 0 1 2 66. Repeats certain acts over and over; compulsions (describe): 0 1 2 67. Runs away from home 0 1 2 68. Screams a lot 0 1 2 69. Secretive, keeps things to self 0 1 2 70. Sees things that aren't there (describe): 0 1 2 71. Self-conscious or easily embarrassed 0 1 2 72. Sets fires 0 1 2 73. Sexual problems (describe) 0 1 2 74. Showing off or clowning 0 1 2 75. Shy or timid 0 1 2 76. Sleeps less than most children 0 1 2 77. Sleeps more than most children during day and/or night (describe) 0 1 2 78. Smears or plays with bowel movements 0 1 2 79. Speech problem (describe): 0 1 2 80. Stares blankly 0 1 2 81. Steals at home 0 1 2 82. Steals outside the home 0 1 2 83. Stores up things he/she doesn't need (describe) 0 1 2 84. Strange behavior (describe): 0 1 2 85. Strange ideas (describe): 0 1 2 86. Stubborn, sullen, or i r r i t a b l e 0 1 2 87. Sudden changes in mood or feelings 0 1 2 88. Sulks a lot 0 1 2 89. Suspicious 0 1 2 90. Swearing or obscene language 0 1 2 91. Talks about k i l l i n g self 0 1 2 92. Talks or walks in sleep (describe): 0 1 2 93. Talks too much 0 1 2 94. Teases a lot 0 1 2 95. Temper tantrums or hot temper 0 1 2 96. Thinks about sex too much 0 1 2 97. Threatens people 0 1 2 98. o Thumb-sucking 0 1 2 99. Too concerned with neatness or cleanliness 0 1 2 100. Trouble sleeping (describe): 0 1 2 101. Truancy, skips school 0 1 2 102. Underactive, slow moving, or lacks energy 0 1 2 103. Unhappy, sad, or depressed 0 1 2 104. Unusually loud 0 1 2 105. Uses alcohol or drugs (describe): 0 1 2 106. Vandalism 0 1 2 107. Wets self during the day 0 1 2 108. Wets the bed 0 1 2 109. Whining 0 1 2 110. Wishes to be of opposite sex 0 1 2 111. Withdrawn, doesn't get involved with others 0 1 2 112. Worrying 113. Please write in any problems your child has that were not listed abo1 0 1 2 0 1 2 APPENDIX I Subject Consent Form / W 7 Consent Form Date I, , voluntarily give my consent for myself and , to be participants in the research project to be conducted at the University of British Columbia during the period July 15, 1961 to December 15, lb'Sl with Robert J. McMahoh, Ph.D., as Principal Investigator and Catherine R. Bond, M.A. as Co-Investigator. The procedures to be followed and their purpose have been explained to me, and I understand them. They are as follows: 1. Completing questionnaires involving my perception of myself and my family. 2. Participating in four 40-minute home observations with my child. I understand that my child and I w i l l be observed by Dr. McMahon's assistants during the four home observations and that my responses on the questionnaires w i l l remain anonymous unless I give my consent otherwise. I understand that the entire procedure w i l l involve approximately 4 hours of my time. Benefits from my and his or her participation are as follows: 1. I w i l l receive feedback concerning my interaction with my child and my responses on the questionnaires. 2. I w i l l be paid $15 for my participation. I understand that this consent may be withdrawn at any time without prejudice. My questions concerning this project have been answered to my satisfaction. I have read and understand the foregoing. o Witness Parent 148 APPENDIX J Subject Consent Form to Have Information Forwarded to Therapist Consent Form Date I s , voluntarily give my consent to have the information which was obtained from my participation in the project conducted by Catherine Bond, forwarded to my therapist, ' Witness Parent 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095841/manifest

Comment

Related Items