P E R C E P T I O N S O F F A M I L Y M E M B E R S A N D A F R I E N D B Y D ISTURBED A N D N O R M A L C H I L D R E N A N D O N E O F THEIR N O R M A L S I B L I N G S by Astr ic l M a r t h a S t e c H o n . B . A . U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto 1965 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T O F THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R THE D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F ARTS In the Depar tmen t o f P s y c h o l o g y W e a c c e p t this thesis as con fo rm ing to the r equ i r ed s tandard THE U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A S e p t e m b e r , 1973 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date , ^ y / ^ •s~,/f'?J> I A B S T R A C T In the present s t u d y , the Bene A n t h o n y F a m i l y Re la t i ons Test was used to measure c h i l d r e n ' s pe rcep t ions o f the i r f a m i l y members and a f r i e n d . Compar isons were made be tween the pe rcep t ions of : a) a group o f d is turbed c h i l d r e n a n d one o f the i r no rma l s i b l i ngs ( c l i n i c p a i r ) , b) a group o f normal c h i l d r e n and one o f the i r normal s ib l i ngs (normal p a i r ) , and c) the c l i n i c and normal pairs o f c h i l d r e n . N o d i f fe rences were found between the pe rcep t ions o f d is turbed c h i l d r e n and the i r normal s i b l i ngs or be tween the percep t ions o f the two normal s i b l i n g s . The c l i n i c pa i r d i f f e red from the normal pa i r in two respects : I) the c l i n i c pa i r expressed more n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs toward the i r s i b l i n g s , and 2) the c l i n i c pa i r i n d i c a t e d more r e l i a n c e on the i r f r i e n d . A l l groups p e r c e i v e d the i r parents s i m i l a r l y . It was c o n c l u d e d that more a t ten t ion ough t to be p a i d to the ro le o f s ib l i ngs a n d e x t r a f a m i l i a l members . T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page Abs t rac t « In t roduct ion I M e t h o d 17 Results 19 Discussion 32 References 40 A p p e n d i c e s «• • • 4 4 i i i LIST O F T A B L E S P a g e Tab le I A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " M o t h e r " 22 Tab le 2 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " M o t h e r " . . . 23 Tab le 3 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " F a t h e r " 24 Tab le 4 Summary o f Ana l yses o f V a r i a n c e : " F a t h e r " 25 Tab le 5 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " S i b l i n g " 26 Tab le 6 Summary o f Ana l yses o f V a r i a n c e : " S i b l i n g " 2 7 Tab le 7 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " F r i e n d " 28 Tab le 8 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " F r i e n d " 2 9 Tab le 9 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " M r . N o b o d y " . . . . . . 3 0 Tab le 10 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " M r . N o b o d y " 3 i i v A P P E N D I X E S P a g e A p p e n d i x I L is t o f Statements 4 4 A p p e n d i x 2 Se t t i ng up the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y c i r c l e 48 A p p e n d i x 3 Tab le A A v e r a g e number o f i tems a t t r i bu ted to test f igures by e a c h sub jec t . . „ . . 5 0 Tab le B A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l sub jec ts to " M o t h e r " . . . . . . . . 51 Tab le C A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e of mean responses o f a l l sub jec ts to " F a t h e r " . . . 51 Tab le D A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l subjects to " S i b l i n g " ..................o..o... 5 2 Tab le E A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l sub jects to " F r i e n d " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » • 52 Tab le F A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l subjects to " M r • N o b o d y " 53 A p p e n d i x 4 A v e r a g e number o f i tems a t t r i bu ted to " M o t h e r " " F a t h e r " a n d " F r i e n d " by c l i n i c c h i l d r e n from large a n d smal I fami l ies . <>.. ° . . 54 A p p e n d i x 5 Tab le A D i f f e rences be tween obse rved mean scores for " M o t h e r " a n d Tukey • H S D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 Tab le B D i f f e rences be tween obse rved mean scores for " F a t h e r " a n d T u k e y - H S D . 55 Tab le C D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for s i b l i n g and Tukey H S D 56 Tab le D D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for " F r i e n d 5 1 a n d T u k e y H S D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 V Tab le E D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for " M r . N o b o d y " a n d Tukey H S D 57 VI LIST O F F I G U R E S „ Page F igu re I A v e r a g e N u m b e r of Items A t t r i b u t e d to e a c h Test F i g u r e . . . . . . 20 I O n e o f the assumptions in the t reatment a n d unders tand ing o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d is that the f a m i l y p lays an important part in the e t i o l o g y a n d ma in tenance o f the d i s t u r b a n c e . A r e v i e w o f the r e l e v a n t research w i l l show the changes that h a v e taken p l a c e in a t tempt ing to d e l i n e a t e the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s , resu l t i ng in a greater a p p r e c i a t i o n o f the c o m p l e x i t y o f the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y e n v i r o n m e n t . It w i l l be seen that three areas w h i c h deserve further s tudy a r e : I) the pe rcep t ions o f d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n compared to those o f normal c h i l d r e n ; 2) the ro le o f s i b l i ngs ; a n d , 3) the r o l e o f e x t a f a m i l i a l members . The present study used the B e n e - A n t h o n y Test o f F a m i l y Re la t i ons to i nves t i ga te c h i l d r e n ' s pe rcep t ions o f the i r fee l i ngs t o w a r d , a n d fee l i ngs they r e c e i v e f rom, the i r mother , f a the r , s ib l i ngs and a f r i e n d . The test was admin i s te red to two sets o f pa i rs o f s ib l i ngs : the c l i n i c pa i r w h i c h cons is ted o f a d is turbed c h i l d a n d his norma l s i b l i n g , and the normal pa i r in w h i c h both s ib l i ngs were n o r m a l . The o b j e c t i v e was to exp lo re the d i f fe rences in pe rcep t ions be tween s ib l i ngs from the same f a m i l y (normal as w e l l as d i s tu rbed) , a n d between the pai rs o f s ib l i ngs from d i f fe ren t f a m i l i e s * G e n e r a l Backg round E a r l y at tempts to e x p l a i n emo t i ona l d is tu rbance in c h i l d r e n were in terms o f the e f fec ts o f var ious pe rsona l i t y a n d b e h a v i o r a l cha rac te r i s t i c s o f the mother on the c h i l d . The methods used were perusal o f case h i s to r i es , i n fo rmat ion from p s y c h i a t r i c i n t e r v i e w s , or p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g . Frank (1965) summar i zed for ty years o f e a r l i e r research that focused on the m o t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p , and c o n c l u d e d that there was no s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e for anyone fac tor w h i c h c o u l d d is t ingu ish be tween mothers o f 2 s c h i z o p h r e n i c s or neuro t i cs and mothers o f n o r m a l s . Though i n t u i t i v e l y a p p e a l i n g , the w h o l e quest ion o f f a m i l i a l causa t i on o f psychopa tho logy had r e m a i n e d no more than a hypothes is (F rank , 1965). A na tu ra l progression from a focus on the d y a d o f the m o t h e r - c h i l d was to the t r i ad o f m o t h e r - f a t h e r - c h i l d . Instead o f s p e a k i n g about a p a t h o g e n i c mo the r , the " c l i n i c " f a m i l y became the un i t o f d i s c u s s i o n . Two t h e o r e t i c a l approaches seemed to emerge : I) that there is un reso lved p s y c h o l o g i c a l tens ion be tween the parents and the d is turbed c h i l d is used as a scapegoa t to reduce the t e n s i o n , a n d 2) in more b e h a v i o r a l terms, that the parents present themselves as c o n t r a d i c t o r y models and thus p rov ide a con fus ing l ea rn ing e x p e r i e n c e to the c h i l d ( L i d z , 1966). O n e prob lem w i t h the f irst app roach is t ha t , to substant ia te the e x i s t e n c e o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l p rob lems , one has to r e l y on the v a l i d i t y o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l tests . For e x a m p l e , F isher and M e n d e l l (1956) admin i s te red the R o r s c h a c h , Themat i c A p p e r c e p t i o n Tes t , a n d a p s y c h i a t r i c i n t e r v i e w to two or three genera t ions o f s i x f am i l i es a n d found tha t , " t he re seems to be a f a i r l y s p e c i f i c co re n e u r o t i c pat tern w h i c h pervades the p r o j e c t i v e expressions o f members o f e a c h g i ven f a m i l y ( p . 4 2 ) " . For e x a m p l e , some fam i l i es shared themes o f e x h i b i t i o n i s m , some o f d e a t h , a n d others were c o n c e r n e d w i t h b o d y i m a g e . O p p o s i t e results were repor ted by M u r r a y , S e a g u l l , a n d G e i s i n g e r (1968). In a r e v i e w o f the l i te ra ture a n d a s tudy us ing the Themat i c A p p e r c e p t i o n Tes t , M u r r a y e t a l . (1968) found l i t t l e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e for a core p rob lem r e v o l v i n g a round some bas ic mo t i ve when compa r i ng parents or normal and ma lad jus ted c h i l d r e n . V o g e l a n d B e l l (I960) descr ibe a t length the process o f s c a p e g o a t i n g aga ins t the c h i l d . R e c e n t e v i d e n c e comes from A l e x a n d e r (1973) who found that " n o r m a l parents w h i l e b e h a v i n g w i t h the i r c h i l d in suppor t i veness , d i d so less 3 w i t h e a c h o t h e r . In con t ras t , abnorma l parents d i d not behave r e c i p r o c a l l y w i t h thei r c h i l d in suppor t iveness but were s t rong ly r e c i p r o c a l w i t h e a c h other ( p . 227) , " . O n the o ther h a n d , C h e e k (1970) found the agreement be tween mother and c h i l d h ighest in the c l i n i c f am i l i es a n d agreement be tween mother and father h ighest in normal f a m i l i e s . R e c e n t l y , ins tead o f r e l i a n c e on p s y c h o l o g i c a l assessments to descr ibe pa ren ta l f u n c t i o n i n g , the emphasis has been on assessing patterns o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n , v e r b a l a n d / o r n o n v e r b a l , obse rved dur ing a c t u a l i n t e rac t i on in the labora to ry or in the home ( e . g . , A l k i r e , 1969; D o n n e l l y , I960; a n d L e i g h t o n , S t o l l e k & Fe rguson , 1971). S i m i l a r l y , ins tead o f p s y c h o l o g i c a l tensions and core problems the no t ion o f c o n f l i c t has g a i n e d a c c e p t a n c e , e s p e c i a l l y af ter the i n t roduc t i on o f the d o u b l e - b i n d hypothes is as f o r m u l a t e d by B a t e s o n , J a c k s o n , H a l e y and W e a k l and (1956). U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the d o u b l e - b i n d hypo thes i s has r e c e i v e d l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l support ( S h u h a n , 1967), a n d fu r thermore , K a f k a (1971) has proposed that d o u b l e - b i n d commun ica t i ons may be a n o r m a l , suppor t i ve mechan ism as w e l l as a p a t h o g e n i c o n e . A d i r e c t i o n suggested by B u g e n t a l , L o v e , Kaswan a n d A p r i l (1971) was to i nves t iga te nonve rba l as w e l l as v e r b a l messages. B u g e n t a l , for e x a m p l e , found that there is more c o n f l i c t be tween ve rba l con ten t and ve rba l e x p r e s s i o n , as w e l l as be tween ve rba l con ten t a n d tone o f v o i c e in c l i n i c f am i l i es than in normal f a m i l i e s . A n o t h e r app roach is to regard the m o t h e r - f a t h e r - c h i l d t r i ad as a un i t or system rather than compa r i ng e a c h member i n d i v i d u a l l y to the co r respond ing member o f the con t ro l t r i a d . A l e x a n d e r (1973) a p p l i e d the concep t s o f systems theory a n d found support for the no t ion that the abnorma l t r i ad does func t i on as a system and that i t operates d i f f e ren t l y from the normal t r i ad in terms o f ve rba l and nonve rba l commun i ca t i on pa t te rns . The abnorma l t r i ad gene ra ted more commun ica t i ons that tended to destroy the 4 sys tem, a l t hough suppor t ive behav io r o f the parents toward the c h i l d d i d not d i f fe r for the two g roups . L e i g h t o n , S t o l l e k a n d Ferguson (1971) r e a c h e d a s im i la r c o n c l u s i o n ; they measured var ious cha rac te r i s t i c s o f ve rba l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , such as the number o f i n te r rup t ions , amount s p o k e n , e t c . , and found d i f fe rences be tween the normal a n d c l i n i c f am i l i es w h i c h suggested that the c o m m u n i c a t i o n pat terns o f the members in the c l i n i c f a m i l y were less sa t i s fac to ry than those in the normal f a m i l y . H o w e v e r , W a x i e r and M i s h l e r (1971) s tudy ing s c h i z o p h r e n i c c h i l d r e n , c o n c l u d e d that " s c h i z o p h r e n i c a n d normal f a m i l y c l i m a t e s d i f fe r from e a c h o t h e r , but p r i m a r i l y when the pa t i en t c h i l d is p resen t . There are fewer d i f f e rences be tween types o f f am i l i es for w e l l s i b l i n g compar isons ( p . 227)" . L o o k i n g a t members o f the tr iads i n d i v i d u a l l y , a popu la r hypothes is has been that o f ro le reve rsa l — i . e . , the c l i n i c mother behaves l i ke the normal father, a n d v i c e v e r s a , e s p e c i a l l y in terms o f materna l dom inance a n d pa te rna l p a s s i v i t y . F rank (1965) l ists th i r teen studies that support this v i e w , but notes t ha t , when con t ro ls are e m p l o y e d , the d i f fe rences d isappear ; both normals a n d s c h i z o p h r e n i c s , for e x a m p l e , r e c a l l the i r mothers as h a v i n g been dominant a n d o v e r p r o t e c t i v e . M o r e r e c e n t e v i d e n c e is p r o v i d e d by A l k i r e (1969) . M e a s u r i n g the a c c u r a c y o f ve rba l messages be tween members o f the t r i ad v i a t e l e p h o n e , —thus e l i m i n a t i n g a n y nonve rba l messages, — he found tha t , o v e r a l l , there were s i m i l a r i t i e s be tween the c l i n i c mothers a n d norma l fa the rs , a n d between c l i n i c fathers and normal mothers . Bugen ta l e t a l . (1971) , c o n c e r n e d w i t h c o n f l i c t s be tween ve rba l messages a n d n o n v e r b a l accompan imen ts (such as f a c i a l exp ress ion ) , obse rved that c l i n i c mothers p roduce more c o n f l i c t i n g messages than normal mothers , but found no d i f f e rence between c l i n i c a n d normal fa the rs . It seems that c l e a r d i f fe rences between the normal and abnorma l t r iads have not been e s t a b l i s h e d . O n e a d d i t i o n a l poss i b i l i t y that has been e x p l o r e d is that the pa ren ta l i n t e rac t i on var ies depend ing on the nature o f the c h i l d ' s d i s t u r b a n c e . Re la t i onsh ip be tween Aspec ts o f Pa ren ta l Behav io r and N a t u r e o f D is tu rbance in the C h i l d In order to i nves t i ga te this r e l a t i o n s h i p , it is necessary to f i rst descr ibe attempts to de f i ne the var ious ca tego r ies o f d i s t u r b a n c e . A number o f c h e c k l i s t s have been d e v e l o p e d : e . g . , A c h e n b a c h (1966), Schae fe r a n d B e l l (1958), a n d Sines a n d P a u l k e r (1969). I nd ica t ions a r e , h o w e v e r , that no one s c a l e a d e q u a t e l y d is t ingu ishes be tween normal a n d d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n . Schech tman (1970) for e x a m p l e , c o n c l u d e s that " t h e presence o f symptoms themselves is not n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t i v e o f p a t h o l o g y . Ra the r , the cha rac te r i s t i c s o f the c h i l d ' s pa ren ts , his own h is tory o f past p rob lems , a n d the seve r i t y o f the symptoms d i s p l a y e d migh t be used as ind ica to rs o f behav io r disorders (p .40 ) " . Z a x , C a r m e n , Rappor t , B l e a c h and L a i r d (1968) e m p l o y e d such a g l o b a l app roach and found that they c o u l d r e l i a b l y i den t i f y the same c h i l d four years l a t e r . Pat terson (1964) made a s i m i l a r p l e a s t a t i n g , " a n y g i ven group o f aggress ive c h i l d r e n are e x t r e m e l y he terogeneous rega rd i ng o ther aspects o f the i r b e h a v i o r . . c o m b i n i n g a l l aggress ive c h i l d r e n in a s i ng le c a t e g o r y w o u l d con found a n y re l a t i onsh ip w h i c h might ex i s t be tween paren ta l p rac t ises and aggress ive behav io r ( p . 3 3 6 ) . " . In o ther wo rds , too much in fo rmat ion is o m i t t e d i f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n is de te rm ined by the h ighest fac tor score o n l y . Fu r the rmore , D i e l m a n , C a t t e l l a n d Lepper (1971) po in t ou t the p rob lem o f assuming o r t h o g o n a l i t y o f factors for s t a t i s t i c a l e a s e , a n d state the n e e d for 6 o b l i q u e ro ta t i ona l procedures i n s t e a d . E v i d e n c e o f the d i f f i c u l t y of assuming independen t ca tego r i es is s u p p l i e d by Arment rou t (1971) who t r i ed to separate sub jects into those w i t h h igh ex te rna I i z a t i o n scores a n d those w i t h h igh i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n scores but found that those h igh on one score were a lso h igh on the o t h e r . O t h e r factors i n f l u e n c i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are s o c i a l c l a s s , s e x , and age ( A l k i r e , 1971; A r m e n t r o u t , 1971; S p e e r , 1971). The biases o f the persons c l a s s i f y i n g the behav io r must a lso be taken in to a c c o u n t : e . g . ; N o v i c k , Rosen fe ld and B l o c h (1966) compared the i r observa t ions and ra t ings o f a c h i l d ' s behav io r w i t h the rat ings o f the c h i l d ' s parents and found that the parents d i d not agree w i t h e a c h o ther 's ra t ings and that l i t t l e o f the d isagreement was due to the a c t u a l s i t ua t i ona l v a r i a t i o n in the c h i l d ' s b e h a v i o r . Speer (1971) found a s im i l a r e f f e c t and suggested that " P e r c e p t i o n s and reac t i ons o f seve ra l adu l ts in d i f f e ren t re la t i onsh ips to a n d s i tua t ions w i t h a c h i l d must be assessed in order to a c h i e v e a comprehens ive v i e w o f his s o c i a l a n d persona l adjustment ( p . 2 2 8 ) . " . A t tempts to d e l i n e a t e b e h a v i o r a l ca tego r i es for the sake o f s e a r c h i n g for c o r r e s -pond ing pa ren ta l t ra i ts have usua l l y r e l i e d on four broad ca tegor ies o f c h i l d b e h a v i o r : a g g r e s s i v e , h y p e r a c t i v e , f e a r f u l - w i t h d r a w n , and poor a t ten t i on s p a n . A l k i r e (1969), for e x a m p l e , found that when the schoo l p rob lem was in te rpersona l in nature ( i . e . , aggress ive or fear fu l ) then ve rba l commun ica t i ons from mother to father were more e f f e c t i v e than those from father to mother , and that the reverse was true i f the p rob lem was in t rapersona l in nature ( i « e . , poor a t ten t i on span or h y p e r a c t i v e ) . These patterns were reversed for normal c h i l d r e n who d i s p l a y e d normal amounts o f the var ious b e h a v i o r s . 7 S i m i l a r l y , A l k i r e (1971) found that the overtness or asser t iveness used in e x e r t i n g pa ren ta l s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e a n d the focus o f power in one or the o ther parent were r e l a t e d to the form o f a d o l e s c e n t p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y — e . g . , the mother was the focus o f pa ren ta l power i n f am i l i es o f a g g r e s s i v e - a n t i s o c i a l a n d o f w i t hd rawn a d o l e s c e n t s . A rment rou t (1971), in r e v i e w i n g the research c o n c e r n e d w i t h c h i l d r e n s ' reports o f pa ren ta l a t t r ibu tes and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ( e . g . , fear fu l ) or e x t e r n a l i z a t i o n - l i k e ( e . g . , aggress ive) behav io r o f c h i l d r e n , c o n c l u d e d that the results were i n c o n s i s t e n t . In his own s t u d y , A rmen t rou t found that the degree o f malad jus tment v a r i e d i nve rse l y w i t h reports o f pa ren ta l a c c e p t a n c e . Bugen ta l e t a l . (1971), measur ing c o n f l i c t in pa ren ta l messages, found a t rend for c h i l d r e n ra ted as aggress ive to have mothers w h o p roduce more c o n f l i c t i n g messages, but found no o ther re la t i onsh ips be tween re fe r ra l ca tego r ies a n d presence o f c o n f l i c t in pa ren ta l messages . W h e n s tudy ing v ideo tapes o f spontaneous i n t e r a c t i o n s , B u g e n t a l , Love a n d Kaswan (1972) found no d i f f e rence be tween mothers , but d i d f i n d a c o r r e l a t i o n be tween the behav io r o f fathers in the w a i t i n g room and the aggress ive or s o c i a l l y w i t hd rawn behav io r o f the i r c h i l d in s c h o o l . A further c o m p l i c a t i o n is i n t r o -d u c e d by Bronfenbrenner ( in B e c k e r , 1964), w h o suggests that o p t i m a l l eve ls o f pa ren ta l behav io r may va ry d e p e n d i n g on the sex o f the c h i l d regard less o f o ther b e h a v i o r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . E f f ec t o f C l i n i c F a m i l y on S i b l i n g s of the D i s tu rbed C h i l d If the pa ren ta l i n t e rac t i on in d is tu rbed fam i l i es can be assumed to be p a t h o g e n i c , then it becomes necessary to e x p l a i n w h y other s ib l i ngs in the f a m i l y are not s i m i l a r l y a f f e c t e d . A prominent e x p l a n a t i o n has been in terms o f s c a p e g o a t i n g — i . e . , that 8 there is pa tho logy in the pa ren ta l i n te rac t i on and that the resu l t i ng tension is r e l i e v e d by l o a d i n g n e g a t i v e q u a l i t i e s onto one o f the c h i l d r e n (Be l l & V o g e l , 1968). M a x w e l l Jones (1968) speaks in terms o f m a i n t a i n i n g f a m i l y e q u i l i b r i u m at the expense o f r e j e c t i n g one i n d i v i d u a l a n d e x p l a i n s that f am i l i es may resist in terventbn on b e h a l f o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d because c u r i n g that member w o u l d upset the e q u i l i b r i u m . Some s c a p e g o a t i n g p robab l y does take p l a c e in normal f a m i l i e s , but when i t d o e s , i t is less severe a n d i t does not become s t a b i l i z e d w i t h one c h i l d as a c o n t i n u e d scapegoa t ( B e l l , 1971). F e w studies have i n c l u d e d i nves t i ga t i on o f the normal s i b l i n g o f the d is turbed c h i l d . W a x i e r a n d M i s h l e r (1971) in a r e v i e w o f the l i te ra tu re c o n c e r n i n g s c h i z o p h r e n i c c h i l d r e n , s ta ted tha t : d i r e c t a n d o b j e c t i v e measures o f i n t e rac t i on pat terns be tween parents a n d pa t i en t a n d parents a n d w e l l s i b l i ngs ex i s t in o n l y four e x p e r i m e n t a l s tudies o f f a m i l i e s w i t h s c h i z o p h r e n i c c h i l d r e n . In o n l y one o f these ( S h a r a n , 1966) is the t h e o r e t i c a l hypothes is d i r e c t l y tested by c o m p a r i n g p a r e n t a l i n t e rac t i on toward the pa t i en t w i t h the same parents ' i n t e r -a c t i o n toward a s i b l i n g , ( p . 224) It must be n o t e d , h o w e v e r , that there was no con t ro l g roup o f normal f am i l i es in Sharon 's s t u d y . In W a x i e r a n d M i s h l e r ' s e x p e r i m e n t , w h i c h measured aspects o f ve rba l c o m m u n i c a -t i o n s , s i b l i ngs we re i n c l u d e d , a n d it was found that parents g e n e r a l l y do not a c t d i f f e r e n t l y toward the pa t i en t and the w e l l s i b l i n g . The i r sub jects were a l l o v e r age f i f t e e n , a n d some were i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d . H a l e y (1967) w i t h younger sub jec t s , d i d show that i n t r a - f a m i l i a l speech sequences d i f fe r when parents are s p e a k i n g to the d is turbed c h i l d as opposed to the normal s i b l i n g s . K a p l a n (1970) found that both the r e l a t i v e age o f the d is turbed s i b l i n g a n d the stressfulness o f the s i t ua t i on were impor tan t . The p rob lem c h i l d tended to be t rea ted l i k e a younger s i b l i n g a n d , under h igh stress c o n d i t i o n s , the mother 9 in te r fe red w i t h the p rob lem c h i l d by p reven t i ng i ndependen t responses. In an unusua l l y i n fo rmat i ve s t u d y , D o n n e l l y ( I960) , a f ter ex tens i ve obse rva t i on in the homes, l i s ted a number o f ways in w h i c h the d is turbed c h i l d is t rea ted d i f f e r e n t l y . L i k e K a p l a n (1970), he found more i n f a n t i l i z i n g o f the d is turbed c h i l d as w e l l as more r e j e c t i o n , d i s t a n c e , less a f f e c t i o n , dec reased s e n s i t i v i t y to the c h i l d ' s n e e d s , more severe d i s -c i p l i n i n g , less democ ra t i c regu la t ions a n d more r e l i a n c e on emot ion and impulse in d e a l i n g w i t h the c h i l d ; i n te rac t i on w i t h others was k e p t a t a m i n i m u m . He a lso found d i f fe rences be tween the pa ren ts , w i t h the father be i ng more r e a d y to sat is fy the c h i l d ' s cu r i os i t y a n d to reason w i t h the c h i l d , w h i l e the mother was more e m o t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d and impu ls i ve toward the d is turbed c h i l d . The above studies suggest that the behav io r o f the c l i n i c c h i l d may at least p a r t i a l l y be a t t r i bu ted to d i f f e ren t i a l t reatment by the p a r e n t . A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y is that the w e l l s i b l i ngs are a lso a f f e c t e d by the p a t h o g e n i c env i ronmen t but respond w i t h d i f fe ren t defense mechan isms . Me i ssne r (1970) , in his r e v i e w o f s i b l i n g re la t i ons in the s c h i z o p h r e n i c f a m i l y , l ists e v i d e n c e by L i d z a n d others w h i c h suggests that the w e l l s i b l i n g compensates by d e t a c h i n g h imse l f e m o t i o n a l l y from the f a m i l y : " t h e i r pe rsona l i t i es showed a cons ide rab le degree o f cons t ra in t a n d cons t r i c t i on ( p . 2 ) . " . Du H a m e l a n d Jarmon (1971) (see a lso b e l o w ) , found that w e l l s i b l i ngs p l a c e d greater d is tance be tween themselves and their parents than e i t he r the i r own d is tu rbed s i b l i n g or a co r respond ing s i b l i n g from a normal f a m i l y . In order to compensate for the l ack o f e m o t i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h the f a m i l y , the w e l l s i b l i n g may stress sa t i s fac t i on from accomp l i shmen t rather than i n t i m a c y . 10 N o v a k and V a n der V e e n (1970) c o n c l u d e that : d is turbed c h i l d r e n as a group stress the impor tance o f the i r f a m i l i e s , wha t the f a m i l y members th ink o f one another and the i r dependence on e a c h o t h e r . . . . In con t ras t , the nond is tu rbed s ib l i ngs see the f a m i l y as s t rong , competen t and t a s k - o r i e n t e d , ( p . 164) A n o t h e r p o s s i b i l i t y is that the w e l l s i b l i ngs may seek emo t i ona l sa t i s fac t i on outs ide the home (Le igh ton e t a l . , 1971). In g e n e r a l , h o w e v e r , the w h o l e a rea o f the impor tance o f the e x t r a f a m i l i a l env i ronment in shap ing behav io r has l a r g e l y been i g n o r e d . Hess (1969), for e x a m p l e , s tates: It seems that w e have underes t imated the ex ten t to w h i c h d i r e c t ( though di f fuse) e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the env i ronmen t through i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h pee rs , T . C . , newspapers , popu la r m u s i c , awareness of s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c i n e q u a l i t y , and other points o f c o n t a c t , d i r e c t l y shape the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i o n and b e h a v i o r a l s t ra teg ies and r e s o u r c e s . ( p . 2 4 ) Both Reiss (1971) a n d B e l l (1971) have found d i f f e rences between the responses o f normal a n d c l i n i c f am i l i es to the e x t r a f a m i l i a l env i ronment in terms o f the a b i l i t y to use cues from the n o n f a m i l i a l env i ronmen t and in terms o f re la t ionsh ips w i t h the e x t e n d e d f a m i l y . Impor tance o f P e r c e p t i o n R e c e n t l y , in terest has d e v e l o p e d in a somewhat less obse rvab le but poss ib ly more c r u c i a l v a r i a b l e , that o f the pe rcep t ions o f the c h i l d . A c c o r d i n g to A u s u b e l , B a l t h a z a r , R o s e n t h a l , B l a c k m a n , Schpoon t and W e l k o w i t z (1954): A l t h o u g h parent behav io r is an o b j e c t i v e even t in the r e a l w o r l d , it a f fec ts the c h i l d ' s ego deve lopmen t o n l y to the ex ten t a n d in the form in w h i c h he pe rce i ves i t . H e n c e , p e r c e i v e d parent behav io r is in r e a l i t y a more d i r e c t , r e l e v a n t a n d p rox imate de terminant o f pe rsona l i t y deve lopmen t than the a c t u a l s t imulus con ten t to w h i c h i t r e f e r s , ( p . 173) II S i m i l a r l y , B a r w i c k a n d A r b u c k l e (1962) s t a t e , " A c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f whether his parents a c c e p t h im is a bet ter i n d i c a t o r o f the c h i l d ' s per fo rmance than his parents ' statements abou t thei r a c c e p t a n c e o f h im ( p . 6 0 ) . " . Frank (1965) ends his for ty year r e v i e w by propos ing that the impor tant d imens ion " m i g h t be the pe rcep t i on o f the f a m i l y members a n d this might o f ten have l i t t l e or no r e l a t i o n to the p e o p l e as they r e a l l y are ( p . 2 0 1 ) . " . G o l d i n (1969) r e v i e w e d the l i te ra ture c o n c e r n i n g c h i l d r e n s ' reports o f the i r parents ' behav io rs e s p e c i a l l y w i t h rega rd to three factors a d o p t e d from S e i g e l m a n (1965): a c c e p t a n c e - r e j e c t i o n , p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n t r o l , a n d pun i shmen t . C o n c l u s i o n s w i t h regard to ma lad jus ted normals i n d i c a t e less f e e l i n g o f a c c e p t a n c e in e l e v e n ou t o f t w e l v e s t u d i e s , more f e e l i n g o f be i ng p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , a n d a v i e w o f parents as b e i n g more p u n i t i v e . Me thods used were most ly ques t ionna i res a n d p r o j e c t i v e tes ts . N o n e o f the studies p r o v i d e d compar isons w i t h w e l l s i b l i n g s . Du H a m e l a n d Jarmon (1971) used a d i f fe ren t t echn ique in w h i c h f igures rep resen t ing f a m i l y members are p l a c e d on f e l t , two at a t i m e , a n d the amount o f f igure separa t i on is r e c o r d e d . W e l l s ib l i ngs p a r t i c i p a t e d in a d d i t i o n to the d is turbed s u b j e c t s . The normal s ib l i ngs o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d p l a c e d greater d is tance be tween c h i l d a n d parents than the d is turbed s i b l i n g or the norma l c h i l d from a normal f a m i l y . A l s o , the d is tu rbed c h i l d more o f ten p l a c e d the c h i l d be tween the pa ren ts , whereas the i r normal s ib l i ngs more of ten p l a c e d the c h i l d f igure apar t from the pa ren ta l f i g u r e s . The d is turbed group p l a c e d greater d is tance be tween the s e l f and ano ther c h i l d than the n o r m a l s . In g e n e r a l , " t he d is tu rbed boys d i d s c h e m a t i z e human re la t i onsh ips as more d is tant than the normal b o y s , but d is tu rbed boys were not d i f fe ren t from the i r s ib l i ngs ( p . 2 8 4 ) . " . 12 R e c e n t l y , G e r b e r (1973) used the same t e c h n i q u e , a g a i n w i t h d is turbed c h i l d r e n , the i r w e l l s ib l i ngs a n d normal c o n t r o l s , but r equ i r ed p lacements a c c o r d i n g to themes such as " l o v i n g f a m i l y " or " w o r r i e d f a m i l y " . Results show no d i f f e rence for happy themes between the groups , but for nega t i ve themes, the m o t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i onsh ip was s c h e m a t i z e d as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d is tant by the d is turbed g roup , a n d , s ib l i ngs o f the d is turbed i n d i c a t e d more d is tance in f a t h e r - s i b l i n g p l a c e m e n t than d i d norma l c o n t r o l s . N o v a k a n d V a n der V e e n (1970) a lso i n c l u d e d s ib l i ngs in a s tudy o f p e r c e p t i o n . They used the F a m i l y Q - S o r t t echn ique to test the hypothes is that " t he degree o f d i s -turbance shown by the c h i l d is a func t i on o f the f a m i l y , e s p e c i a l l y o f the degree o f f a m i l y ad justment and sa t i s fac t i on shown by his v i e w o f his f a m i l y ( p . 1 5 9 ) . " . They found that the norma l s ib l i ngs o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n were somewha t , but not s i g n i f i c a n t l y , lower than the n o n - c l i n i c c h i l d r e n , a n d that both the norma l s i b l i ngs o f the d is turbed c h i l d r e n a n d the n o n - c l i n i c c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d more f a m i l y sa t i s fac t i on and adjustment than the d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n . The B e n e - A n t h o n y F a m i l y Re la t i ons Test (FRT) A n o v e l ins t rument , des igned s p e c i f i c a l l y for i n v e s t i g a t i n g pe rcep t ions o f f a m i l y f e e l i n g s , the FRT was d e v e l o p e d in 1957 by E v a Bene a n d James A n t h o n y . It w i l l be desc r i bed in d e t a i l because i t was the instrument chosen for the present s t u d y . The FRT consists o f a set o f twenty red boxes a t t a c h e d to the back o f a m b i g u o u s l y drawn c a r d -board f i gu res , w h i c h are male and f e m a l e , adu l ts or c h i l d r e n , and from w h i c h the sub jec t se lec ts f igures to represent his f a m i l y . The boxes look l i ke ma i l boxes w i t h a s lot a t the t o p . There are 86 cards c o n t a i n i n g statements w h i c h are e i t he r read by the 13 expe r imen te r or by the subjects and are then p l a c e d by the sub jec t in the box beh ind the person they descr ibe bes t . A n ex t ra f i g u r e , " M r . N o b o d y " , is i n c l u d e d a l o n g w i t h the f am i l y to r e c e i v e r e j e c t e d i tems w h i c h are not seen to a p p l y to anyone in the f a m i l y . The statements are des igned to express fee l i ngs w h i c h are m i l d or s t r ong , pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e , and e i t he r i n c o m i n g or o u t g o i n g ( i . e . , f ee l i ngs d i r e c t e d toward the sub jec t or fee l i ngs the sub jec t has towards someone e l s e ) . For e x a m p l e , a m i l d i n c o m i n g pos i t i ve statement i s , "Th i s person is k i n d to me" . (See A p p e n d i x I for a comp le te l ist o f s ta tements . ) The advan tages o f the test are that the format is a p p e a l i n g to c h i l d r e n , the sco r i ng is o b j e c t i v e a n d hence in te rp re ta t ion is less s p e c u l a t i v e , a n d , because the items d isappear in to b o x e s , there is l i k e l y to be less o f an a t tempt a t e v e n d is t r ibu t ion to a l l members . H o w e v e r , the authors have p r o v i d e d l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l da ta a n d the test has not r e c e i v e d the a t ten t ion in c l i n i c a l research that i t p robab l y meri ts (Buros, 1959). The authors gave no results for normal c h i l d r e n , but Frost (1969) has made an a t tempt to p rov ide such normat ive d a t a . He adm in i s te red the FRT to 190 e l e v e n - y e a r - o l d , s ix th grade c h i l d r e n . The resul ts showed an e q u a l d is t r ibu t ion o f cards to a l l members o f the f a m i l y w i t h a lmost t w i c e as many ass igned to the " M r . N o b o d y " f i g u r e . S i b l i n g s were g i ven more n e g a t i v e than pos i t i ve c h o i c e s , e s p e c i a l l y o u t g o i n g n e g a t i v e o n e s . Parents on the o ther h a n d , r e c e i v e d more o u t g o i n g pos i t i ve c h o i c e s than o u t g o i n g n e g a t i v e o n e s . Incoming nega t i ve c h o i c e s were most ly g i v e n to " M r . N o b o d y " . Frost a lso compared the responses o f the normal group to those o f a sma l l group o f de l i nquen ts a n d n o n - r e a d e r s . Some c l e a r d i f f e rences emerged : the d e l i n q u e n t group had less pos i t i ve re fe rences to " f a t h e r " , less n e g a t i v e statements to "mo the r " a n d more ou tgo ing 14 n e g a t i v e statements to " M r . N o b o d y " than a n y other group; the n o n - r e a d e r group d i s -persed the i r pos i t i ve statements throughout the f am i l y more so than the other groups and a t t r i bu ted fewer statements to " M r . N o b o d y " . A d d i t i o n a l compara t i ve data are p r o v i d e d by K a u f f m a n , W e a v e r and W e a v e r (1972) a n d Kau f fman (1971). Kau f fman (1971) admin i s te red the test to twen ty n o r m a l , t w e n t y - s e v e n s c h o o l - d i s o r d e r e d , and to ten i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d e m o t i o n a l l y d is tu rbed p reado lescen t b o y s . The s c h o o l - d i s o r d e r e d boys were fur ther s u b d i v i d e d in to those w h o had r e c e i v e d c o u n s e l l i n g a n d those w h o had n o t . W i t h regard to responses to pa ren ta l f i gu res , the o n l y d i f f e rence was that the s c h o o l - d i s o r d e r e d sub jec ts who had not r e c e i v e d c o u n s e l l i n g i n d i c a t e d less pos i t i ve fee l i ngs c o m i n g to them from " m o t h e r " than the o ther three g roups . O t h e r w i s e , a l l groups tended to p e r c e i v e " m o t h e r " a n d " f a t h e r " s i m i l a r l y . W i t h rega rd to s i b l i n g s , the s c h o o l - d i s o r d e r e d boys who had r e c e i v e d c o u n s e l l i n g expressed fewer i n c o m i n g pos i t i ve fee l i ngs than e i t he r the normal group or the group w i thou t c o u n s e l l i n g towards the o ldes t s i b l i n g , a n d more n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs towards the youngest s i b l i n g than the group w i t h o u t c o u n s e l l i n g (but no t more than the normal g r o u p ) . The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d e m o t i o n a l l y d is tu rbed group gave more n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs g e n e r a l l y to a l l members , but were more pos i t i ve to the o ldes t s i b l i n g than a n y other g r o u p . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Kau f fman 's results are not d i r e c t l y comparab le to Frost 's (1969) because Kau f fman d i f f e r e n t i a l l y w e i g h t e d st rong and m i l d f e e l i n g s . K a u f f m a n , W e a v e r and W e a v e r (1972) c o n d u c t e d a r e l i a b i l i t y s tudy w i t h f o r t y - s i x re ta rded readers and c o n c l u d e d that the FRT's s t a b i l i t y over short in te rva ls is g o o d . The response patterns o f the group were s i m i l a r to Frost 's (1969) group o f normals : " M r . N o b o d y r e c e i v e d the most i tems, e s p e c i a l l y the n e g a t i v e ones ; o ther members e a c h 15 r e c e i v e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y the same number o f i tems; fee l ings towards parents were most ly pos i t i ve and towards s i b l i n g s , n e g a t i v e . In summary , a l though there are l i t t l e da ta to d a t e , a n d those that ex i s t a re not d i r e c t l y c o m p a r a b l e , there are i nd i ca t i ons that normal and c l i n i c subjects respond d i f f e ren t l y to the F R T . Kau f fman et a l . (1972) suggest that the l ack o f c l e a r d i f f e rences may not be " a resu l t o f i n sens i t i v i t y or i r r e l e v a n c e o f the FRT as an instrument o f measur ing f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s " but ra ther i n d i c a t e s : the necess i t y o f c o n s i d e r i n g the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f his f a m i l y re la t i onsh ips in the c o n t e x t o f paren t a n d s i b l i n g d a t a . A l o n e , da ta from e i the r parents or c h i l d r e n may be o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a l u e in assessing f a m i l y v a r i a b l e s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e pe rsona l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t . It may b e , for e x a m p l e , that the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n versus the parents ' or s i b l i n g s ' pe rcep t ions o f e m o t i o n a l r e l a t i o n -ships in the f a m i l y is a fac tor more d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to p a t h o l o g y than the c h i l d ' s pe rcep t i on per s e . ( p .359 ) The Present S tudy The present s tudy fo l l ows Kau f fman 's suggest ion (see above) a n d compares the percep t ions o f two c h i l d r e n from the same f a m i l y . The FRT was admin i s te red to two sets o f s i b l i n g s , one set cons is t i ng o f a d is turbed c h i l d a n d one o f his normal s ib l i ngs ( c l i n i c p a i r ) , the o ther set cons is t ing o f two normal s ib l i ngs from a normal f a m i l y (normal p a i r ) . Compar isons were then made be tween the ave rage number o f responses and the type o f i tem ( i . e . , pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e , o u t g o i n g or i ncoming) a t t r i bu ted to "mother . , " f a t h e r " , s i b l i n g s , " f r i e n d " a n d " M r . N o b o d y " by the d is turbed c h i l d a n d his normal s i b l i n g , by the two normal s i b l i n g s , a n d by the c l i n i c pa i r a n d the normal p a i r . It was h y p o t h e s i z e d that : 16 1. F a m i l y re la t ionsh ips are p e r c e i v e d d i f f e r e n t l y by the d is turbed c h i l d than by his normal s i b l i n g . 2 . There are no d i f fe rences be tween the pe rcep t ions o f the two normal s i b l i n g s . 3 . There are d i f fe rences be tween the pe rcep t ions o f the normal pa i r and the c l i n i c p a i r . 4 . The normal s i b l i n g o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d shows more e m o t i o n a l dependence on the n o n f a m i l i a l member , the " f r i e n d " , than e i the r the d is turbed c h i l d or the normal s i b l i n g s . 17 M e t h o d Sub jec ts Sub jec ts were two sets o f ten pai rs of s i b l i n g s , one pa i r b e i n g the d is turbed c h i l d and his normal s i b l i n g ( c l i n i c p a i r ) , a n d the other pa i r be ing two normal s ib l i ngs (normal p a i r ) , who a t tended the same schoo l a n d were ma tched to the f irst pa i r in terms o f age and s e x . A l l sub jects were be tween e i gh t a n d twe l ve years o l d (mean age - 10.5 yea rs ) , o f ave rage i n t e l l i g e n c e , r es id i ng in the same gene ra l a r e a o f the c i t y , and a t t end ing l o c a l p u b l i c schoo ls in V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a . Th i r t y subjects were g i r l s , a n d ten were b o y s . C h i l d r e n from broken homes were e x c l u d e d . In order to o b t a i n the sub jec t s , the exper imen te r r e l i e d on her a f f i l i a t i o n w i t h the V a n c o u v e r H e a l t h Depa r tmen t , p a r t i c u l a r l y the P u b l i c H e a l t h Nurses a n d the menta l hea l t h consu l t an t s . The P u b l i c H e a l t h Nurses are s i t ua ted in the schoo ls a n d r e g u l a r l y v i s i t the fami l i es in the sur round ing d i s t r i c t , a n d h e n c e have in fo rmat ion abou t a c h i l d ' s behav io r both at schoo l a n d a t h o m e . The menta l h e a l t h personne l p rov ide consu l t a t i on to schoo l staff a n d fami l i es r ega rd i ng c h i l d r e n w i t h behav io r p r o b l e m s . The c l i n i c pai rs were s e l e c t e d f i r s t . D is tu rbed subjects had been re fe r red to the menta l hea l t h consu l tan t for a v a r i e t y o f c o n d u c t or pe rsona l i t y d i so rde rs . In f i ve o f the cases , the major c o m p l a i n t c o n c e r n e d the degree o f a g g r e s s i o n , in two o f the c a s e s , h y p e r a c t i v i t y , and in three fear fu lness and w i t h d r a w n b e h a v i o r . N o n e c o u l d be c l a s s i f i e d as s c h i z o p h r e n i c ; a l l we re in regu la r c lass p l a c e m e n t ; a n d none had been removed from the f a m i l y home because o f thei r d is rup t i ve b e h a v i o r . The f irst ten d i s -tu rbed subjects who a lso had s ib l i ngs in the same age r a n g e , who had not p resented 18 a n y p rob lems , were chosen to p a r t i c i p a t e in the s t u d y . The normal pairs o f con t ro l s ib l i ngs we re o b t a i n e d by ask i ng the P u b l i c H e a l t h Nurses o f the schools from w h i c h the d is tu rbed subjects had been chosen to p rov ide names o f f am i l i es whose c h i l d r e n had not p resented a n y p rob lems , and were o f the same age and sex as the c l i n i c p a i r s . P rocedu re The exper imen te r t e l ephoned e a c h f a m i l y to e x p l a i n the nature o f the e x p e r i -ment and to ask for the i r coope ra t i on in the s t u d y . Mo thers were asked to b r ing the i r two c h i l d r e n to the expe r imen te r ' s o f f i c e . N o n e o f the c l i n i c f am i l i es r e f u s e d . O n l y one o f the normal fam i l i es r e f u s e d , a l t hough i t took much longer to ar range a su i t ab le t ime w i t h them because they a lways seemed to be busy w i t h o ther f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s . O n a r r i v a l , the mother and both c h i l d r e n were b r i e f ed on the nature o f the task , a n d were shown the ca rdboa rd f igures a n d a few o f the s ta tements . The c h i l d r e n d e c i d e d between themselves who w o u l d go f i rs t , and the exper imen te r then i n d i v i d u a l l y admin i s te red the F a m i l y Re la t ions Test w h i l e the o ther s i b l i n g a n d mother w a i t e d in an a d j a c e n t r o o m . In t roductory remarks were as o u t l i n e d in the manua l (Bene & A n t h o n y , 1957, p . 9-10 A p p e n d i x 2), e x c e p t for the i nc l us i on o f ins t ruct ions to a lso s e l e c t a f r i e n d , desc r i bed as " a f r i end o f you rs , someone you know w e l l a n d someone you see o f t e n " . The p o s i t i o n i n g o f the ca rdboa rd f igures was a l w a y s from lef t to r i gh t in the order of : " M r . N o b o d y " , " m o t h e r " , " f a t h e r " , " s e l P 1 , o ther s i b l i n g p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the e x p e r i m e n t , r e m a i n i n g s i b l i n g s , dec reas ing in a g e , a n d the " f r i e n d " . Sub jec ts were not g i v e n the c h o i c e o f r e a d i n g the i tems; i n s t e a d , the expe r imen te r r e a d e a c h i tem 19 (omi t t i ng the phrase " i n the f a m i l y " ) , passed i t to the sub jec t (who somet imes a lso r e a d i t ) , and the sub jec t then dropped it into the appropr ia te s l o t . Sub jec ts were a l l o w e d to a t t r ibu te one i tem to two or more f i gu res , but were d i scou raged from d o i n g so f r e q u e n t l y . Sub jec ts were a lso d i scou raged from p l a c i n g too many items in to the " M r . N o b o d y " s l o t . O n c o m p l e t i o n o f the test , the subjects s t ayed and c h a t t e d w i t h the e x p e r i m e n t e r , w h i l e the exper imen te r e m p t i e d the boxes a n d r e c o r d e d the i tems, thereby a v o i d i n g c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h the other s i b l i n g before that s i b l i n g was tested in the same m a n n e r . To ta l t ime o f adm in i s te r i ng the test to one pa i r o f s i b l i ngs was a p p r o x i m a t e l y one h o u r . The number a n d type o f i tems (pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e , i n c o m i n g or ou tgo ing) a t t r i bu ted to e a c h f a m i l y member were r eco rded for e a c h s u b j e c t . In cases o f more than one s i b l i n g , the number r e c o r d e d was the a v e r a g e number o f i t e m s . A n ana l ys i s o f v a r i a n c e was per formed for e a c h o f the f a m i l y members , a n d the p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l for r e j e c t i o n o f the n u l l hypothes is was set a t . 0 5 . Results The ave rage number o f pos i t i ve i n c o m i n g pos i t i ve o u t g o i n g , n e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g , a n d n e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g i tems, a t t r i bu ted to e a c h o f the test f i gu res , by the four groups o f subjects is shown g r a p h i c a l l y in F igu re I. The four quadrants represent the four types o f i tems; he igh t on the o rd ina te re f l ec ts the ave rage number o f responses; a n d pos i t ions a l o n g the absc issa i n d i c a t e the var ious test f igures (mo the r " , " f a t h e r " , e t c . ) . Insert F igure I abou t here Figure C a p t i o n F igu re I. A v e r a g e M j m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to e a c h Test F i g u r e . N o b o d y F r i e n d S i b l i n g Father M o t h e r Pos i t i ve - O u t g o i n g O O * „ O"D O O ° • • - • o D O" o o •o N e g a t i v e - O u t g o i n g • D is tu rbed C h i l d r e n O N o r m a l S i b l i n g s o f D is tu rbed C h i l d r e n M o t h e r Father S i b l i n g F r i e n d N o b o d y Pos i t i ve - Incoming •7 •6 •5 2 •o a o 2 3 a a 4 5 6 7 N e g a t i v e - Incoming • N o r m a l C h i l d r e n • N o r m a l S ib l i ngs o f N o r m a l C h i l d r e n $0 21 M e a n s not d i r e c t l y obse rvab le from F igu re I, - i . e . , the number o f pos i t i ve items a n d n e g a t i v e items (regardless o f whether they are i n c o m i n g or o u t g o i n g ) , a n d s i m i l a r l y the number o f o u t g o i n g a n d i n c o m i n g i tems (regardless o f whe ther they are pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e ) , as w e l l as the to ta l number o f i t ems , are l i s ted in Tab les I, 3 , 5 , 7 , a n d 9 (for " m o t h e r " , " f a t h e r " , " s i b l i n g s " , " f r i e n d " , and " M r . N o b o d y " r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . Co lumns I and 2 show the responses o f the d is turbed c h i l d and h is normal s i b l i n g ; co lumns 3 and 4 , the responses o f the normal c h i l d a n d his normal s i b l i n g ; a n d , co lumn 5 and 6 , the c o m b i n e d responses o f the c l i n i c pa i r and the normal p a i r . E a c h o f the tab les o f mean scores is f o l l o w e d by a summary tab le o f the r e l e v a n t ana lyses o f v a r i a n c e : Tab les 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , a n d 10. Insert Tab les I to 10 about here Hypothes is ' l p r e d i c t e d that the pe rcep t ions o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d w o u l d d i f fe r f rom the pe rcep t ions o f his norma l s i b l i n g . The hypothes is was not c o n f i r m e d . The d is tu rbed subjects and the i r no rma l s ib l i ngs a t t r i bu ted an e q u a l number o f i tems o f the same type to e a c h test f igure (see co lumns I a n d 2 o f Tab les I, 3 , 5 , 7 , a n d 9; a n d the c lose c l u s t e r i n g o f means in F igu re I ) . Hypo thes is ^ 2 s ta ted that there w o u l d be no d i f fe rences in pe rcep t ions be tween the normal c h i l d and his normal s i b l i n g . The hypothes is was c o n f i r m e d ; the pa i r o f normal s i b l i ngs responded s i m i l a r l y in a l l ca tego r ies to e a c h f igure (see co lumns 3 and 4 o f Tables I, 3 , 5 , 7 , a n d 9; a n d the s i m i l a r i t y o f means in F igure I) . Hypo thes is ^ 3 e x p e c t e d some d i f fe rences between the percep t ions o f the c l i n i c 22 Tab le I A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " M o t h e r " Item D is tu rbed N o r m a l N o r m a l N o r m a l C l i n i c N o r m a l S i b l i n g s S i b l i n g s P a i r P a i r P o s i t i v e 8.1 8 . 3 8.1 7 . 4 8 . 2 7 . 8 N e g a t i v e 1.7 2 . 5 I.I 1.4 2.1 1.3 O u t g o i n g 4 . 3 5 . 2 4 . 6 4 . 7 4 . 8 4 . 7 Incoming 5 . 5 5 . 6 4 . 6 4 .1 5 . 6 4 . 4 To ta l 9 . 8 10.8 9 . 2 8 . 8 10.3 9 . 0 23 Tab le 2 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " M o t h e r " Source SS df M S F G 5 . 6 3 1.9 . 3 S s / G 194.2 3 6 5 . 4 V x G 2 . 2 3 . 7 .1 V x S s / G 3 0 5 . 9 3 6 8 . 5 D x G 4 . 2 3 1.4 . 8 D x S s / G 6 0 . 0 3 6 1.7 V x D x G 2 . 0 3 . 7 . 3 V x D x S s / G 7 0 . 7 3 6 2 . 0 G = G r o u p s V = V a l e n c e i . e . pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e D = D i r e c t i o n i . e . ou tgo ing or i n c o m i n g 24 Tab le 3 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " F a t h e r " Item D is tu rbed N o r m a l N o r m a l N o r m a l C l i n i c N o r m a l S i b l i n g s S i b l i n g s P a i r P a i r P o s i t i v e 7 . 8 6 . 6 5 . 5 5 . 8 7 . 2 5 . 7 N e g a t i v e 2 . 3 3 . 3 2 . 7 2 . 2 2 . 8 2 . 5 O u t o i n g 4 . 2 4 . 7 3 . 8 3 . 5 4 . 5 3 . 7 Incoming 5 . 9 5 . 2 4 . 4 4 . 5 5 . 7 4 . 5 To ta l 10.1 9 . 9 8 . 2 8 . 0 10.0 8.1 25 Tab le 4 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " F a t h e r " Source SS df M S F G 9 . 2 3 3.1 . 5 S / G 2 2 4 . 8 3 6 6 . 2 V x G 10.4 3 3 . 5 . 5 V x S s / G 2 6 4 . 4 3 6 7 . 3 D x G 2.1 3 . 7 . 3 D x S s / G 6 8 . 8 3 6 1.9 V x D x G 2 . 5 3 . 8 . 7 V x D x S s / G 44 .1 3 6 1.2 G = G r o u p s V = V a l e n c e i . e . pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e D = D i r e c t i o n i . e . ou tgo ing or i n c o m i n g 26 Tab le 5 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " S i b l i n g " * I tem D is tu rbed N o r m a l S i b l i n g s N o r m a l N o r m a l C l i n i c N o r m a l S i b l i n g s P a i r P a i r P o s i t i v e 3 . 5 2 . 8 3 . 3 2 . 7 3 . 2 3 . 0 N e g a t i v e 9 . 3 10.5 6 . 7 7 . 4 9 . 9 7.1 O u t g o i n g 7 . 3 7 . 5 5 . 6 5 . 7 7 . 4 5 . 7 Incoming 5 . 5 5 . 8 4 . 4 4 . 3 5 . 7 4 . 3 To ta l 12.8 13 .7 10.0 10.0 13.3 10.0 * If the sub jec t has more than one s i b l i n g , the ave rage o f the responses to the s i b l i ngs is g i v e n . Tab le 6 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " S i b l i n g " Sou rce SS df M S F G 2 3 . 2 3 7 . 7 . 9 S s / G 327 .1 3 6 9.1 V x G 2 4 . 7 3 8 . 2 . 7 V x S s / G 4 7 8 . 5 3 6 13.3 D x G . 7 3 . 2 . 6 D x S s / G 5 4 . 5 36 1.5 V x D x G 14.9 3 5 . 0 2 . 8 * V x D x G | v s G 2 . 2 1 . 2 .1 V x D x G 3 v s G 4 1.7 1 1.7 .1 V x D x G | & 2 v s 13.0 1 13.0 7 . 2 * V x D x S s / G 65 .1 3 6 1.8 * p < - 0 5 G = G r o u p s V = V a l e n c e i . e . pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e D = D i r e c t i o n i . e . o u t g o i n g or i n c o m i n g G |=D is tu rbed c h i l d r e n G 2 = N o r m a l s i b l i ngs of d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n G 3 = N o r m a l c h i l d r e n G 4 = N o r m a l s i b l i ngs o f normal c h i l d r e n 28 Tab le 7 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " F r i e n d " I tem D is tu rbed N o r m a l N o r m a l N o r m a l C l i n i c N o r m a l S i b l i n g s S i b l i n g s P a i r P a i r P o s i t i v e 8 . 2 10 .0 7 . 3 6 . 8 9.1 7.1 N e g a t i v e 4 . 6 2 . 9 2 .1 2 . 0 3 . 8 2 .1 O u t g o i n g 6 . 9 6 . 7 4 . 9 4 . 7 6 . 8 4 . 8 Incoming 5 . 9 6 . 2 4 . 5 4 .1 6.1 4 . 3 To ta l 12.8 12 .9 9 . 4 8 . 8 12 .9 9.1 29 Tab le 8 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " F r i e n d " Sou rce SS df M S F G | v s G 2 . 0 1 . 0 . 0 GgVS G 4 . 4 1 . 4 . 0 G I & 2 V S G 3 & 4 3 5 . 2 1 3 5 . 2 6 . 8 * S / G 189.2 36 5 . 2 V x G 15.9 3 5 . 3 . 4 V x S s / G 4 7 7 . 5 3 6 13.2 D x G . . 6 3 . 2 .1 D x S s / G 4 9 . 7 3 6 1.4 V x D x G 6 . 0 3 2 . 0 .8 V x D x S s / G 9 9 . 5 3 6 2 . 8 * P C - 0 I G = G r o u p s V = V a l e n c e i . e . pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e D = D i r e c t i o n i . e . o u t g o i n g o r i n c o m i n g G j = D i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n N o r m a l s i b l i ngs o f d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n G 3 = N o r m a l c h i l d r e n G 4 = N o r m a l s i b l i ngs o f norma l c h i l d r e n 3 0 Tab le 9 A v e r a g e N u m b e r o f Items A t t r i b u t e d to " M r . N o b o d y " Item D is tu rbed N o r m a l N o r m a l N o r m a l C l i n i c N o r m a l S i b l i n g s S i b l i n g s P a i r P a i r P o s i t i v e 7 . 7 7 . 3 6 . 6 7 . 0 7 . 5 6 . 8 N e g a t i v e 10.8 8.1 9 . 3 9 . 2 9 . 5 9 . 3 O u t g o i n g 7 . 3 7 . 2 7 . 4 7 . 6 7 . 3 7 . 5 I ncoming 9 . 3 8 . 2 8 . 5 8 . 6 8 . 6 8 . 6 To ta l 16.3 15.4 15.9 16.2 15 .9 16.1 31 Tab le 10 Summary o f A n a l y s e s o f V a r i a n c e : " M r . N o b o d y " Sou rce SS df M S F G 1.3 3 . 4 .1 S x G 5 9 3 . 2 3 6 16.5 V x G 21 . 5 3 7 . 2 . 4 V x S s / G 621 . 7 3 6 17.3 D x G . 8 3 . 3 . 3 D x S s / G 9 2 . 3 3 6 2 . 6 V x D x G 8 . 3 3 2 . 8 J V x D x S s / G 150.1 3 6 4 . 2 G = G r o u p s V = V a l e n c e i . e . pos i t i ve or n e g a t i v e D = D i r e c t i o n i . e . o u t g o i n g or i n c o m i n g 32 pa i r and the normal p a i r . Two d i f fe rences emerged : the c l i n i c pa i r a t t r i bu ted more n e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g items (6 .3 ) to the i r s ib l i ngs than d i d the normal pa i r (4 .2 ) (p <"-05) (see Tab le 6 a n d lower lef t quadrant of F igure I); a l s o , the c l i n i c pa i r gave a s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater to ta l number o f i tems (12.1)to the i r " f r i e n d " than d i d the normal pa i r (9.1) (p <^ .05) (see co lumns 5 a n d 6 o f Tab le 7 ) . Hypothes is * 4 p r e d i c t e d that the normal s i b l i n g o f the d is turbed c h i l d w o u l d i n d i c a t e greater r e l i a n c e on his f r i end (by a t t r i bu t i ng more items) than e i t he r his d is turbed s i b l i n g or the normal pa i r o f s i b l i n g s . The hypothes is was p a r t i a l l y c o n -f i rmed in that the normal s ib l i ngs d i d a t t r ibu te s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i tems to the i r " f r i e n d " (12.9) than the normal s i b l i ngs o f the normal p a i r ( 9 . 4 a n d 8 . 8 ) ( p < . 0 5 ) , but the i r d is tu rbed s ib l i ngs gave an e q u a l number o f responses (12.8) to the i r " f r i e n d " (see co lumns I, 2 , 3 , a n d 4 o f Tab le 7) . Discuss ion C o n t r a r y to e x p e c t a t i o n s , the pe rcep t ions o f the d is turbed sub jec ts d i d not d i f fe r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the percep t ions o f the i r normal s i b l i n g s ; s i m i l a r l y , there was no d i f f e rence between the pe rcep t ions o f the two s i b l i ngs in the normal f a m i l y . A l l sub jects responded s i m i l a r l y to the " m o t h e r " , " f a t h e r " , s ib l i ngs a n d " f r i e n d " a n d p l a c e d the same k i n d o f items into the " M r . N o b o d y " c a t e g o r y . There we re h o w e v e r , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e rences in some o f the responses o f the c l i n i c pa i r compa red to the normal pa i r o f c h i l d r e n ; the former expressed more n e g a t i v e f ee l i ngs toward the i r s ib l i ngs than the l a t te r , a n d they a lso a t t r i bu ted more items to the " f r i e n d " . A post hoc ana l ys i s (see A p p e n d i x 4) was c o n d u c t e d compa r i ng the obse rved d i f fe rences be tween the mean number o f items a t t r i bu ted to e a c h test f igure in e a c h 33 c a t e g o r y , w i t h c r i t i c a l d i f f e rences compu ted a c c o r d i n g to the Tukey H S D Test ( K i r k , 1968). The ana lys i s p r o v i d e d e s s e n t i a l l y the same in fo rmat ion rega rd ing s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences be tween means as the ana lyses o f v a r i a n c e , but in a d d i t i o n , a l l o w e d for c a l c u l a t i o n o f the r e l a t i v e sums o f d i f fe rences o f the three p l a n n e d compar isons ( d i s -turbed c h i l d r e n versus normal s i b l i n g s , normal c h i l d r e n versus normal s i b l i n g s , and c l i n i c pairs versus normal p a i r s ) . For e a c h test f i g u r e , the greatest d i f f e rence a p p e a r e d e i the r between the means o f the c l i n i c a n d normal p a i r , or be tween the means o f the d is turbed c h i l d r e n a n d their normal s i b l i ngs ; e x c e p t for the " M o t h e r " f i g u r e , the least d i f f e rence a lways ex i s t ed be tween the means o f the two normal s i b l i n g s . H e n c e , a l t hough there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rences found be tween the percep t ions o f d is turbed c h i l d r e n a n d the i r normal s ib l i ngs or be tween the pe rcep t ions o f the two normal s i b l i n g s , i t appears that there is more v a r i a t i o n be tween the responses o f the former pa i r than the l a t t e r . A s d iscussed in the i n t r o d u c t i o n , most o f the research to date has focused on the ro le o f the parents a n d the i r e f f e c t on the d is tu rbed c h i l d . The f ind ings o f the present s tudy i n d i c a t e that the d is turbed c h i l d and his normal s i b l i n g have s im i l a r p e r c e p t i o n s , and that the i r pe rcep t ions d i f fer from those o f normal s ib l i ngs w i t h regard to the i r fee l i ngs toward their s ib l i ngs and r e l i a n c e on pee rs . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the results lend support to the impor tance o f cons ide r i ng the ro le o f the s ib l i ngs and e x t r a f a m i l i a l members, as w e l l as i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f ec t o f the f a m i l y on the w e l l s i b l i n g o f the d is turbed c h i l d . A t the same t i m e , ce r ta i n gene ra l l im i ta t ions o f the app roach used in the present s tudy must be n o t e d . In the f i rst p l a c e , pe rcep t ions were measured by means 34 o f a p a r t i c u l a r ins t rument , the F R T , whose v a l i d i t y is s t i l l not f i rm ly e s t a b l i s h e d . Thus , n e g a t i v e (as w e l l as pos i t i ve ) f ind ings m a y , to an unknown e x t e n t , r e f l e c t i d i o s y n c r a c i e s a n d , perhaps weaknesses o f the ins t rument . The measurement o f in te rpersona l pe rcep t ions i s , in g e n e r a l , s t i l l a d i f f i c u l t and c h a n c y e n t e r p r i s e . In a d d i t i o n , a further l im i t a t i on o f the present s tudy concerns the p a r t i c u l a r nature o f the s u b j e c t s . It is not known i f the present f ind ings are a p p l i c a b l e to other c h i l d r e n w h o d i f fe r from the present sample in terms o f , e . g . , age or ex ten t o f d i s t u r b a n c e . W i t h these cau t ions in m i n d , the f ind ings o f the present s tudy w i l l be d iscussed w i t h re fe rence to pe rcep t ions o f parents by the c l i n i c p a i r , pe rcep t ions o f e x t r a f a m i l i a l members , and r e a c t i o n to s i b l i n g s , f o l l o w e d by some suggest ions for future research and further comments on the F R T . Pe rcep t i ons o f Parents in the C l i n i c P a i r It had been e x p e c t e d that there w o u l d be some d i f fe rences between the pe rcep t ions o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d a n d those o f his w e l l s i b l i n g , e s p e c i a l l y w i t h regards to the ca tego r i es " m o t h e r " a n d " f a t h e r " . This e x p e c t a t i o n was based on a) o ther s tudies us ing the F R T , where d i f f e rences were found be tween the responses o f d e l i n q u e n t , d i s t u r b e d , a n d normal c h i l d r e n ( e . g . F ros t , 1969), b) e v i d e n c e that the d is tu rbed and w e l l s i b l i ngs are t rea ted d i f f e ren t l y by the i r parents ( e . g . D o n n e l l y , I960) , a n d c) the s p e c u l a t i o n that the d i f f e r i ng pe rcep t ions may themselves be part o f the d is turbed behav io r ( e . g . D u H a m e l & J a r m o n , 1971). A t the same t i m e , studies have a lso shown that the d is tu rbed a n d the w e l l s i b l i n g are t reated d i f f e ren t l y o n l y in s p e c i f i c s i tua t ions ( K a p l a n , 1970), a n d that the behav io r o f the c h i l d r e n towards 35 the parents does not d i f fer as much as is g e n e r a l l y assumed: M i s h e r and W a x i e r (1968) w i t h re fe rence to s c h i z o p h r e n i c sub jec t s , c o n c l u d e that " the re are e v i d e n t l y many ways in w h i c h s c h i z o p h r e n i c pat ien ts c a n behave in i n te rac t i on w i t h the i r parents that are i nd i s t i ngu ishab le from the behav io r e i t he r o f c h i l d r e n w i t h no known p s y c h i a t r i c p a t h o l o g y or o f the i r own w e l l s i b l i ngs ( p . 2 8 8 ) " . W i t h regard to p rev ious studies us ing the F R T , a l t hough the present s tudy d i d not f i nd the d i f fe rences be tween the responses o f d is tu rbed and w e l l s i b l i ngs to the i r pa ren ts , in a l l o ther r espec t s , the d is t r ibu t ion o f responses c l o s e l y resemb led that repor ted by o ther researchers : the range o f items a t t r i b u t e d to e a c h f a m i l y member was a p p r o x i m a t e l y the s a m e , ; " m o t h e r " and " f a t h e r " were p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r l y by a l l sub jec ts ; parents g e n e r a l l y r e c e i v e d pos i t i ve items w h i l e s i b l i ngs r e c e i v e d nega t i ve items ( e s p e c i a l l y ou tgo ing nega t i ve ones) ; a n d more i n c o m i n g n e g a t i v e i tems were a t t r i bu ted to " M r . N o b o d y " than to anyone e l s e . (See A p p e n d i x 3 for summaries o f ana lyses o f v a r i a n c e . ) A s a l r e a d y s t a t e d , the present data are not a l w a y s d i r e c t l y comparab le to the da ta o f p rev ious studies because o f va r i a t i ons in sco r i ng p r o c e d u r e s . P e r c e p t i o n o f E x t r a f a m i l i a l Members A further p r e d i c t i o n was that the w e l l s i b l i n g o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d w o u l d i n d i c a t e more r e l i a n c e on an e x t r a f a m i l i a l member; this was based on the assumpt ion that the d is turbed c h i l d is psycho log i ca l l y i n v o l v e d w i t h his pa ren ts , a n d that in response to the p a t h o l o g y in the f a m i l y , the w e l l s i b l i n g seeks sa t i s fac t i on outs ide the home to a greater ex ten t than his d is tu rbed s i b l i n g or o ther normal c h i l d r e n . The w e l l s i b l i n g o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d d i d a t t r ibu te s i g n i f i c a n t l y more items to the " f r i e n d " than 36 d i d the norma l s i b l i n g s , but this was a lso true o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d - A s im i l a r f i n d i n g has been repor ted by D u H a m e l and Jarmon (1971); us ing the techn ique o f measur ing the d is tance between f igures p l a c e d on f e l t , they found that "d i s tu rbed boys d i d s c h e m a t i z e human re la t i onsh ips ( i n c l u d i n g those w i t h peers) as more d is tant than the normal b o y s , but d is turbed boys were not d i f fe ren t from the i r s ib l i ngs ( p . 2 8 4 ) " . D u H a m e l and Ja rmon 's f i nd i ng seems to i n d i c a t e greater p s y c h o l o g i c a l d is tance from pee rs , w h i l e the present s tudy 's f i nd ing seems to i n d i c a t e more r e l i a n c e , and t he re fo re , poss ib l y less d i s t a n c e . It is d i f f i c u l t , h o w e v e r , to draw c l e a r conc lus ions from e i t he r s tudy because o f the lack o f k n o w l e d g e o f the co r respondence be tween the two measures, a n d a lso be tween the co r respondence o f the measures and the a c t u a l pat terns o f i n t e rac t i on and e m o t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The f ind ings do i n d i c a t e that r e a c t i o n o f c l i n i c and normal c h i l d r e n to peers is wor thy o f further s t u d y . R e a c t i o n to S i b l i n g s The other f i n d i n g , that the c l i n i c p a i r a t t r ibu te more o u t g o i n g n e g a t i v e items to the i r s ib l i ngs than do the normal p a i r , seems more e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e . If one assumes that there are un reso l ved c o n f l i c t s and tensions in the f a m i l y , then it f o l l ows that there w i l l be more frustrat ions a n d n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs g e n e r a l l y , a n d that i t w o u l d be safer for the c h i l d r e n to express these towards the i r s i b l i ngs than towards the pa ren ts . It is in te res t ing to note that n e g a t i v e fee l ings are not fe l t as much in re tu rn : i n s t e a d , most i n c o m i n g nega t i ve items are r e j e c t e d by a l l groups a n d p l a c e d in to the " M r . N o b o d y " c a t e g o r y . The greater number o f ou tgo ing n e g a t i v e items a t t r i bu ted to s i b l i ngs may a l so be in te rp re ted as r e f l e c t i n g a greater degree o f s i b l i n g r i v a l r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y in 3 7 v i e w o f other studies ( e . g . , K a p l a n , 1970) w h i c h have shown more i n f a n t ! l i z i n g o f the d is tu rbed c h i l d . The ex i s t ence o f greater s i b l i n g r i v a l r y may in turn e x p l a i n the greater r e l i a n c e on p e e r s . A g a i n , there is no in fo rmat ion rega rd ing the co r respondence between nega t i ve test scores and n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs a c t u a l l y e x p r e s s e d . It shou ld be no ted h o w e v e r , that a c c o r d i n g to Kau f fman ' s (1970) r e v i e w , nega t i ve items on the FRT co r re la te h i g h l y w i t h o ther measurements o f p e r c e p t i o n o f fee l i ngs toward pa ren t s . F a m i l y S i z e If the ro le o f the s i b l i n g in the c l i n i c f a m i l y is to p rov ide an ou t l e t for nega t i ve f e e l i n g s , then future research c o u l d compare the d i r e c t i o n o f f ee l i ngs in large a n d smal l f a m i l i e s . It may be that the c h i l d r e n from sma l l f am i l i es n e e d to r e l y more on parents or peers than the c h i l d r e n o f large f a m i l i e s . The number o f sub jects in the cur ren t s tudy was too sma l l to permi t v a l i d compar isons (four o f the d is turbed subjects had o n l y one s i b l i n g , s i x had more than one s i b l i n g ) , but trends were in the e x p e c t e d d i r e c t i o n . (See A p p e n d i x 4) It appears that the d is turbed c h i l d r e n o f the sma l l f am i l i es a t t r i bu ted a lmost t w i c e as many items to "mo the r " a n d " f a t h e r " than the d i s -turbed c h i l d r e n from the larger f a m i l i e s , who gave tw i ce as many items to the " f r i e n d " than to "mo the r " or " f a t h e r " . There was a l so a d i f f e rence in the responses o f the normal s ib l i ngs from large and sma l l c l i n i c f a m i l i e s . Those from the sma l l f am i l i es expressed more r e l i a n c e on the " f r i e n d " than on " m o t h e r " or " f a t h e r " , w h i l e those from large fami l i es responded in a s im i l a r fashion to " f r i e n d " , "mo the r " a n d " f a t h e r " . It is i n te res t ing to note that some o f the d i f fe rences that have emerged when 3 8 the responses o f the c l i n i c sub jects are a n a l y z e d sepa ra te l y a c c o r d i n g to s i ze o f f a m i l y support the o r i g i n a l hypotheses in sma l l fami l i es o n l y ; the d is turbed s i b l i n g re l i es more on the parents and the normal s i b l i n g re l i es more on f r iends (hypotheses ^1 a n d ^ 4 ) . The t rend in large fam i l i es is in the oppos i te d i r e c t i o n , w i t h less r e l i a n c e on parents by the d is turbed c h i l d r e n . P o o l i n g o f the f ind ings from large and sma l l f am i l i es c a n c e l s ou t the d i f f e rence . E igh t o f the ten normal f am i l i es c o n t a i n e d more than one s i b l i n g ; t he re fo re , no mean ing fu l compar isons c o u l d be drawn be tween large and smal l normal f a m i l i e s . The ave rage responses o f the c h i l d r e n from the large fam i l i es were more s i m i l a r to the responses o f the c l i n i c c h i l d r e n from large f a m i l i e s . Some Comments on the FRT The FRT is cons t ruc ted in such a w a y that i tems dea l o n l y w i t h fee l ings toward a n d from the s u b j e c t . It w o u l d be o f in terest to ob ta i n a d d i t i o n a l in format ion abou t how the sub jec t pe r ce i ves the f l ow o f f e e l i n g be tween the other members o f the f a m i l y ; an e x a m p l e o f an i tem o f this sort w o u l d b e , " M y sister o f ten fee ls angry towards this pe rson" . Ano the r w a y to ob ta i n s im i l a r in fo rmat ion w o u l d be to admin is te r the test to a l l members o f the f a m i l y , a n d compare p r o t o c o l s , but this might be too t i m e -consuming a p r o c e d u r e . O n the other h a n d , there is danger in further expans ion o f the test by the i nc lus ion o f more items because the test a l r e a d y y i e l ds a p le tho ra o f scores w h i c h can resul t in con fus ion a n d consequent d i f f i c u l t y in compa r i ng d a t a . A s suggested by Kau f fman (1970), the present items need to be " r e e v a l u a t e d for the i r con ten t v a l i d i t y , i n c l u d i n g l i ngu i s t i c con ten t and structure (p . 189) " , and sco r i ng 39 procedures n e e d to be u n i f i e d . A p a r t from the n e e d for further i tem a n a l y s i s , i t is not c l e a r w h y there is so much c o n f u s i o n . The ca tegor ies o f pos i t i ve a n d n e g a t i v e , i n c o m i n g and o u t g o i n g seem to represent r e l e v a n t d imensions o f f e e l i n g s . The m i l d and strong ca tegor ies are ignored (as was the case in the present s tudy ) , or they are i nco rpo ra ted by means o f d i f f e ren t i a l w e i g h t i n g (as in Kau f fman 's r e s e a r c h ) . O n e o f the problems may be that in the F R T , both the pos i t i ve and n e g a t i v e , as w e l l as the i n c o m i n g and o u t g o i n g ca tegor ies are i ndependen t o f e a c h o t h e r . O r d i n a r i l y , one e x p e c t s , e . g . , "more p o s i t i v e " to imp ly a lso " l ess n e g a t i v e " , but in the F R T , a sub jec t can g i ve many pos i t i ve as w e l l as many n e g a t i v e i tems to the same p e r s o n . H e n c e , i f one study reports more pos i t i ve f e e l i n g toward a p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n , this does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e p l i c a t e less n e g a t i v e fee l i ngs repor ted in another s t u d y . For c l i n i c a l i n te rp re ta t i on h o w e v e r , the i ndependence o f ca tego r ies is usefu l in that an e q u a l number o f nega t i ve a n d pos i t i ve fee l i ngs towards one pe rson , for e x a m p l e , can be unders tood as fee l i ngs o f a m b i v a l e n c e • N e v e r t h e l e s s , the test is not popu la r w i t h c l i n i c i a n s , p a r t l y because it does not p rov ide as w i d e a range o f in fo rmat ion as o ther p r o j e c t i v e tests , but poss ib l y a lso because i t seems i n t u i t i v e l y i ncongruen t for a p r o j e c t i v e test to appear as c o n c r e t e and q u a n t i t a t i v e as the FRT p ro toco l a p p e a r s . In summary , the results o f the present s tudy support the v i e w t ha t , in i nves t i ga t i on o f d is turbed c h i l d r e n , i nsu f f i c i en t a t t en t i on has been p a i d to the ro le o f s i b l i ngs a n d e x t r a f a m i l i a l members . H e n c e f o r t h , s ib l i ngs a n d others shou ld be c o n s i d e r e d in a d d i t i o n to the pa ren ts . 4 0 References A c h e n b o c h , T . M . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s p s y c h i a t r i c symptoms: A fac tor a n a l y t i c s t u d y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l M o n o g r a p h s , 1966 , 8 0 . A l e x a n d e r , J . F . De fens i ve a n d suppor t ive commun ica t i ons in normal a n d dev ian t f a m i l i e s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1973 , 4 0 , 2 2 3 - 2 3 1 . A l k i r e , A . A . S o c i a l power a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n f am i l i es o f d is tu rbed and n o n -d is tu rbed p r e a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, _I3, 3 3 5 - 3 4 9 . A l k i r e , A . A . , G o l d s t e i n , M . J . , R o d w i c k , E . E . , a n d J u d d , L . L . S o c i a l i n f l u e n c e a n d c o u n t e r i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n f am i l i es o f four types o f d is tu rbed a d o l e s c e n t s . " J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 7 7 , 3 2 - 4 1 . A rmen t rou t , J . A . P a r e n t a l c h i l d - r e a r i n g a t t i tudes a n d p reado lescen ts ' p rob lem b e h a v i o r s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 3 7 , 3 7 8 - 3 8 5 . A u s u b e l , D . P . , B a l t h a z a r , E . E . , R o s e n t h a l , I., B l a c k m a n , L . S . , S c h p o o n t , S . H . , a n d W e l k o w i t z , J . P e r c e i v e d paren t a t t i tudes as determinants o f c h i l d r e n ' s ego s t r uc tu re . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1954, 2 5 , 173-183. B a r w i c k , J . , a n d A r b u c k l e , D . The s tudy o f the re l a t i onsh ip be tween pa ren ta l a c c e p t a n c e and the a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t o f a d o l e s c e n t s . J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1962 , 5 6 , 148-151. " B a t e s o n , G . , J a c k s o n , D . D . , H a l e y , J . , and W e a k l a n d , J . Toward a theory o f s c h i z o p h r e n i a . B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1956, I, 2 5 1 - 2 6 5 . B e c k e r , W . C . Consequences o f d i f fe ren t k inds o f pa ren ta l d i s c i p l i n e . In M . L . Hof fman a n d L . W . Hof fman ( E d s . ) , R e v i e w o f c h i l d deve lopmen t r e s e a r c h . V o l I I , N e w Y o r k : Russe l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n , 1966. B e l l , R . Q . S t imu lus con t ro l o f parent or c a r e t a k e r behav io r by o f f s p r i n g . D e v e l o p m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 4 , 6 3 - 7 2 . ' B e n e , E . , a n d A n t h o n y , J . M a n u a l for the F a m i l y Re la t i ons T e s t . L o n d o n : N a t i o n a l Founda t i on for E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 1957. B u g e n t a l , D . E . , L o v e , L . R . , K a r m a n , J . W . , and A p r i l , C . V e r b a I-non verba I c o n f l i c t in pa ren ta l messages to normal a n d d is turbed c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f A b n o r m a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 7 7 , 6 - 1 0 . Buros , O . K . ( E d . ) The f i f th menta l measurements y e a r b o o k . H i g h l a n d P a r k , N e w J e r s e y : G r y p h o n , 1959. 41 C h e e k , F . C . The " S c h i z o p h r e n i c mother" in wo rd a n d d e e d . In N . W . A c k e r m a n (Ed . ) F a m i l y P r o c e s s . N e w Y o r k : Bas ic Books , I n c . , 1970. D i e l m a n , T . E . , C a r t e l I, R . B . , and L e p p e r , C . D imens ions o f p rob lem behav io r in the e a r l y g r a d e s . Jou rna l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 3 7 , 2 4 3 - 2 4 9 . D o n n e l l y , E . M . The quan t i t a t i ve ana lys is o f parent behav io r toward p s y c h o t i c c h i l d r e n a n d the i r s i b l i n g s . G e n e t i c P s y c h o l o g y M o n o g r a p h s , I960 , 62 , 3 3 1 - 3 7 6 . D u H a m e l , T . R . , and J a r m o n . H . S o c i a l schemata o f e m o t i o n a l l y d is tu rbed boys a n d the i r male s i b l i n g s . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l a n d C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 3 6 , 2 8 1 - 2 8 5 . ~ F i s h e r , S . , a n d M e n d e l I, D . The c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f neu ro t i c patterns ove r two a n d three g e n e r a t i o n s . P s y c h i a t r y , 1956, 19, 4 1 - 4 6 . F r a n k , G . H . The ro le o f the f a m i l y i n the deve lopmen t o f p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1965, 6 4 , 191-205. F ros t , B . P . F a m i l y Re la t i ons Test: A no rmat i ve s t u d y . J o u r n a l o f P r o j e c t i v e Techn iques a n d P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment , 1969, 33 , 4 0 9 - 4 1 3 . G o l d i n , P . C . A r e v i e w o f c h i l d r e n ' s reports o f parents ' b e h a v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1969, 71 , 2 2 2 - 2 3 6 . H a l e y , J . S p e e c h sequences o f normal a n d abnorma l f am i l i es w i t h two c h i l d r e n p resen t . F a m i l y P r o c e s s , 1967, 6, 8 1 - 9 7 . H e s s , R . D . L inks be tween the s o c i e t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r . In E . G r o t b e r g ( E d . ) , C r i t i c a l issues in research r e l a t e d to d i sadvan taged c h i l d r e n . P r i n c e t o n : E d u c a t i o n a l Tes t ing S e r v i c e , 1969. J o n e s , M . S o c i a l p s y c h i a t r y in p r a c t i c e . Ha rmondswor th , M i d d l e s e x : Pengu in Books L t d . , 1968. K a f k a , J . S . A m b i g u i t y for i n d i v i d u a t i o n . A r c h i v e s o f G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1971, 2 5 , 2 3 2 - 2 3 9 . ~ ~ K a p l a n , N . R . M o t h e r - c h i l d i n te rac t i on a n d its r e l a t i onsh ip to speech d i so rde rs . J o u r n a l o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n D iso rde rs , 1970, 3 , 1 9 8 - 2 0 6 . K a u f f m a n , J . M . V a l i d i t y o f the F a m i l y Re la t i ons Test: A r e v i e w o f r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f P r o j e c t i v e Techn iques a n d Pe rsona l i t y Assessment , 1970, 3 4 , 186-189. 42 K a u f f m a n , J . M . , W e a v e r , J . S . , and W e a v e r , A . F a m i l y Re la t ions Test responses o f re ta rded readers: R e l i a b i l i t y and c o m p a r a t i v e d a t a . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment , 1972, 3 6 , 3 5 3 - 3 6 0 . K i r k , R . E . Expe r imen ta l des ign : P rocedures for the b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s . Be lmon t , C a l i f o r n i a : B r o o k s / C o l e P u b l i s h i n g C o m p a n y , 1968. L e i g h t o n , L . A . , S t o l l a k , G . E . , and Fe rguson , L . R . Pat terns o f commun i ca t i on in normal and c l i n i c f a m i l i e s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 3 6 , 2 5 2 - 2 5 6 . L i d z , T . , F l e c k , S . , A l a n e n , Y . O . , a n d C o r n e l i s o n , A . S c h i z o p h r e n i c pat ien ts and the i r s i b l i n g s . In J . O . P a l m e r and M . J . G o l d s t e i n (Eds. ) Pe rspec t i ves in P s y c h o p a t h o l o g y • N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966. M e i s s n e r , W . W . S i b l i n g re la t i ons in the s c h i z o p h r e n i c f a m i l y . F a m i l y P rocess , 1970, 9 , 1 -25 . M i s h l e r , E . G . , and W a x i e r , N . E . In te rac t ion in f a m i l i e s : A n e x p e r i m e n t a l s tudy o f f a m i l y processes a n d s c h i z o p h r e n i a . N e w Y o r k : W i l e y , 1968. M u r r a y , I . J . , S e a g u l l , A . , a n d G e i s i n g e r , D . M o t i v a t i o n a l patterns in the f am i l i es o f ad jus ted a n d ma lad jus ted b o y s . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, _ 3 3 , 3 3 7 - 3 4 2 . N o v a k , A . L . , and V a n der V e e n , F . F a m i l y concep ts and e m o t i o n a l d is tu rbance in the f a m i l y o f d is turbed ado lescen ts w i t h normal s i b l i n g s . F a m i l y P rocess , 1970, 9 , 157-171. N o v i c k , J . , R o s e n f e l d , E . , a n d B l a c k , D . A . S i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n in the behav io r o f c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 3 0 , 4 8 8 - 4 9 3 . P a t t e r s o n , G . R . A n e m p i r i c a l app roach to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f d is turbed c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1964, 2 0 , 3 2 6 - 3 3 7 . S c h a e f e r , E . S o , a n d B e l l , R . Q . D e v e l o p m e n t o f a pa ren ta l a t t i t ude research ins t rument . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1958 , 2 9 , 3 3 9 - 3 6 1 . S c h u h a m , A . I . The d o u b l e - b i n d hypothes is a decade l a t e r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1967, 6 8 , 4 0 9 - 4 1 6 . S h e c h t m a n , A . P s y c h i a t r i c symptoms obse rved in normals and d is tu rbed c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1970, 2 6 , 3 8 - 4 1 . S e i g e l m a n , M . E v a l u a t i o n o f Bronfenbrenner 's ques t ionna i re for c h i l d r e n c o n c e r n i n g pa ren ta l b e h a v i o r . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1965 , 3 6 , 164-174. 43 S i n e s , J . O . , a n d P a u l k e r , J . D . I den t i f i ca t i on o f c l i n i c a l l y r e l e v a n t d imensions o f c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1969, 3 3 , 7 2 8 - 7 3 4 . ; S p e e r , D . C . Behav io r P rob lem C h e c k l i s t ( P e t e r s o n - Q u a y ) : b a s e - l i n e da ta from parents o f c h i l d g u i d a n c e a n d n o n - c l i n i c c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g a n d C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1971, 3 6 , 2 2 1 - 2 2 8 . V o g e l , E . F . , a n d B e l l , N . W . (Eds. ) The F a m i l y . N e w Y o r k : Free P ress , I 960 . W a x i e r , N . E . , a n d M i s h l e r , E . G . P a r e n t a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h s c h i z o p h r e n i c c h i l d r e n a n d w e l l s i b l i n g s . A r c h i v e s o f G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y , 1971, 2 5 , 2 2 3 - 2 3 1 . Z a x , M . , C o r n e r , E . L . , Rappopor t , J . , B l e a c h , D - , a n d L a i r d , J . D . F o l l o w - u p s tudy o f c h i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d e a r l y as e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d . J o u r n a l o f C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 3 2 , 3 6 9 - 3 7 4 . 44 A p p e n d i x I List o f Statements Pos i t i ve o u t g o i n g fee l ings This person is ve ry n i c e . This person is ve ry j o l l y . This person a lways helps the o the rs . This person has the n i ces t w a y s . This person never lets you d o w n . This person is lots o f f u n . This person deserves a n i c e p resen t . This person is a good spo r t . This person is ve r y n i c e to p l a y w i t h . This person is ve r y k i n d - h e a r t e d . I l i k e to c u d d l e this p e r s o n . I l i ke to be k i ssed by this p e r s o n . 1 somet imes w ish I c o u l d s leep in t h e same bed w i t h this p e r s o n . I w i sh I c o u l d keep this person near me a l w a y s . I w ish this person w o u l d care for me more than for anyone e l s e . W h e n I get mar r ied I wan t to marry somebody who is just l i ke this p e r s o n . I l i ke this person to t i c k l e m e . I l i ke to hug this p e r s o n . 45 N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g fee l i ngs Th s person is somet imes a b i t too fussy . Th s person nags somet imes . Th s person somet imes spo i ls o ther p e o p l e ' s f u n . Th s person is somet imes q u i c k - t e m p e r e d . Th s person somet imes comp la ins too m u c h . This person is somet imes a n n o y e d w i t h o u t good reason . This person sometimes grumbles too m u c h . This person is somet imes not v e r y p a t i e n t . This person somet imes gets too a n g r y . Somet imes I w o u l d l i k e to k i l l this p e r s o n . Somet imes I w i sh this person w o u l d go away» Somet imes I hate h is p e r s o n . Somet imes I fee l l i ke h i t t i n g this p e r s o n . Somet imes I th ink I w o u l d be happ ie r i f this person was not in our f a m i l y . Somet imes I am f e d - u p w i t h this p e r s o n . Somet imes I wan t to do th ings just to a n n o y this p e r s o n . This person c a n make me f ee l ve r y a n g r y . Pos i t i ve i n c o m i n g fee l i ngs This person is k i n d to m e . This person is ve r y n i c e to m e . This person l i kes me ve ry much . This person pays a t ten t ion to m e . This person l i kes to h e l p m e . This person l i kes to p l a y w i t h m e . This person r e a l l y understands m e . This person l istens to wha t I have to s a y . This person l i kes to kiss m e . This person l i kes to c u d d l e m e . This person l i kes to he lp me w i t h my b a t h . This person l i kes to t i c k l e m e . This person l i kes to be in bed w i t h m e . This person a l w a y s wants to be w i t h m e . This person cares more for me than for anyone e l s e . N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g fee l i ngs This person somet imes frowns at m e . This person l i kes to tease m e . This person sometimes te l l s me o f f . This person w o n ' t p l a y w i t h me w h e n I l i k e i t . This person w o n ' t a lways he lp me when 1 am in t roubl This person sometimes nags at m e . This person somet imes gets angry w i t h m e . This person is too busy to have t ime for m e . This person hi ts me a l o t . This person punishes me too o f t e n . This person makes me fee l s i l l y . 47 This person makes me fee l a f r a i d . This person is mean to m e . This person makes me fee l u n h a p p y . This person is a lways c o m p l a i n i n g abou t m e . This person does not love me e n o u g h . 48 A p p e n d i x 2 S e t t i n g up the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y c i r c l e * A f t e r the exam ine r has found ou t who the peop le are in the c h i l d ' s f a m i l y a n d has l i s ted them on the sco r i ng shee t , he says to the c h i l d : W e are g o i n g to p l a y a game o f p r e t e n c e . Do you see a l l those f igures s tand ing t h e r e ? W e are g o i n g to p re tend that some o f them are the peop le in your f a m i l y . " H e then takes the c h i l d c loser to the f i gu res , po ints at the four female f igures and asks: " W h i c h one o f these do you th ink w o u l d make the best m o m m y ? " H e lets the c h i l d make his c h o i c e and hands h im the chosen f i g u r e , then asks h im to put i t on the desk or t ab le where the tes t ing is to take p l a c e . H e then points to the group o f male f igures and asks the c h i l d : " N o w w h i c h one do y o u th ink w o u l d be the best one for d a d d y ? " H e a g a i n has the chosen f igure taken by the c h i l d to the o ther t a b l e . He then points to the boy or g i r l f i gu res , as the case may b e , a n d asks: " N o w w h i c h one w o u l d y o u l i k e to be y o u r s e l f ? " a n d has that f igure c a r r i e d to the t a b l e . H e con t inues in this manner un t i l the c h i l d has a f igure a t the tes t ing tab le for e v e r y member o f his f a m i l y . If the c h i l d wants to make a n y changes he is pe rm i t ted to do s o . W h e n the f a m i l y c i r c l e is c o m p l e t e , the exam ine r says: " N o w we have a l l the members o f the f a m i l y t oge the r , but we are a lso g o i n g to have someone e lse in the g a m e . " He brings ove r " M r . N o b o d y " , puts i t nex t to the f a m i l y members, a n d says: "The name o f this person is M r . N o b o d y . He w i l l a l so be in the g a m e . I sha l l t e l l you in a minute what he w i l l be d o i n g . " The c h i l d is now sea ted a t the tab le w i t h h is f igures in easy r e a c h . exam ine r shows the s tack o f items a n d says: See here are a lot o f l i t t l e c a r d s w i t h messages wr i t t en on t h e m . I sha l l r ead you wha t they say a n d you put e a c h ca rd in to the person whom you th ink i t f its bes t . If the message in a c a r d doesn ' t f i t a n y b o d y , you put it into M r . N o b o d y . See wha t I m e a n ? Somet imes you may f i n d that a message f i ts seve ra l p e o p l e . If it does then t e l l me abou t i t a n d g i v e the c a r d to m e . N o w remember . If wha t a ca rd says f its one person bes t , you put the c a r d in to that p e r s o n . If i t doesn ' t f i t a n y b o d y you put i t in to M r . N o b o d y . If i t f i ts seve ra l p e o p l e , you g i ve the c a r d to m e . * A d o p t e d from Bene 8 A n t h o n y (1957, p .9 -10 ) 5 0 A p p e n d i x 3 Tab le A A v e r a g e number o f items a t t r i bu ted to test f igures by e a c h sub jec t (N=40) I tem M o t h e r Fa ther S i b l i n g F r i e n d M r . N o b o d y P o s i t i v e 4 . 0 3 . 2 1.5 4 . 0 3 . 3 N e g a t i v e . 8 1.3 4 . 2 1.5 4 . 6 O u t g o i n g 2 . 3 2 . 0 3 . 3 2 . 9 3 . 7 Incoming 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 5 2 . 6 4 . 3 P o s i t i v e O u t g o i n g 4 .1 3 . 0 1.3 4 . 4 3 . 7 P o s i t i v e Incoming 3 . 8 3 . 4 1.7 3 . 8 2 . 9 N e g a t i v e O u t g o i n g . 6 I.I 5 . 2 1.5 3 . 7 N e g a t i v e Incoming I.I 1.6 4 . 3 1.4 5 . 6 51 Tab le B A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l 1 subjects to " M o t h e r " (N=40) Source SS df M S F V 3 6 9 . 9 1 3 9 6 . 9 4 6 . 7 * ( m o r e pos i t i ve ) V x S x / G 3 0 5 . 9 36 8 . 5 D •8 1 . 8 . 5 D x S s / G 6 0 . 0 3 6 1.7 V x D 6 . 3 1 6 . 3 3 . 2 V x D x S s / G 7 0 . 7 3 6 2 . 0 * P < . 0 I Tab le C A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l sub jects to " F a t h e r " (N=40) S b u r c e : SS df M S F V 144.4 I 144 .4 I 9 . 8 * * ( more pos i t i ve ) V x S s / G 2 6 4 . 4 3 6 7 . 3 D 9.1 I 9.1 4 . 8 * ( m o r e Incoming) D x S s / G 6 8 . 8 36 I . 9 V x D .1 I .1 . | V x D x S s / G 44 .1 3 6 1.2 * p < . 0 5 * * P < . 0 I 52 Tab le D A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l sub jects to " S i b l i n g " (N=40) Source V V x S s / G D D x S s / G V x D V x D x S s / G SS 2 9 2 . 4 4 7 8 . 5 2 3 . 6 5 4 . 5 5 4 . 9 65 .1 df 36 3 6 3 6 M S 2 9 2 . 4 13.3 2 3 . 6 1.5 5 4 . 9 1.8 2 l . 9 * ( m o r e nega t i ve ) l 5 . 7 * ( m o r e outgo ing) 3 0 . 5 * ( m o r e o u t g o i n g n e g a t i v e than i n g o i n g n e g a t i v e ) T a b l e E A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l subjects to " F r i e n d " (N=40) Sou rce SS df M S F V 2 6 7 . 8 I 2 6 7 . 8 2 0 . 3 * ( m o r e pos i t i ve ) V x S s / G 4 7 7 . 5 36 13.2 D 3 . 9 I 3 . 9 2 . 8 D x S s / G 4 9 . 7 3 6 1.4 V x D 2 . 8 I 2 . 8 1.0 V x D x S s / G 9 9 . 5 3 6 2 . 8 * p < . 0 l 53 Tab le F A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f mean responses o f a l l sub jects to " M r . N o b o d y " (N=40) Source SS df M S V 7 0 . 3 I 7 0 . 3 V x S s / G 621 . 7 3 6 17.3 D 14.4 I 14.4 D x S s / G 9 2 . 3 3 6 2 . 6 V x D 6 7 . 6 I 6 7 . 6 V x D x S s / G 150.1 3 6 4 . 2 * p < . 0 5 * * p < . 0 I F 4 .1* (more nega t i ve ) 5 . 5 * ( m o r e incoming ) l 6 * * (more nega t i ve i n c o m i n g than pos i t i ve i ncoming ) 5-4 A p p e n d i x 4 A v e r a g e number o f i tems a t t r i bu ted to " M o t h e r " " F a t h e r " and " F r i e n d " by c l i n i c c h i l d r e n from large a n d sma l l f am i l i es S i z e o f " M o t h e r " " F a t h e r " " F r i e n d " D is tu rbed N o r m a l D is tu rbed N o r m a l D is tu rbed N o r m a l f a m i l y C h i l d S i b l i n g C h i l d S i b l i n g C h i l d S i b l i n g S m a l l 13.8 11.3 15.8 11.0 11.3 15.8 Large 7 . 2 10.5 6 . 3 9 . 2 13.8 11.0 A p p e n d i x 5 Tab le A D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for " M o t h e r " a n d Tukey H S D 5 5 Item P o s i t i v e o u t g o i n g P o s i t i v e i n c o m i n g N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g D is tu rbed c h i l d versus N o r m a l s i b l i n g .2 0 . 7 N o r m a l c h i l d versus N o r m a l s i b l i n g .3 . 4 . 4 C l i n i c pa i r versus N o r m a l pa i r . 7 . 4 •5 H S D 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 Sum o f d i f f e rences 1.0 .2 1.9 Item Tab le B D i f f e rences be tween obse rved mean scores for " F a t h e r " and T u k e y H S D D is tu rbed c h i l d N o r m a l c h i l d C l i n i c pa i r versus versus versus N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l pa i r H S D P o s i t i v e o u t g o i n g Pos i t i ve i n c o m i n g N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g . 3 . 9 .8 .2 . 3 . 6 0 . 5 . 7 . 9 .1 .2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 Sum o f d i f f e rences 2.2 1.4 1.9 Tab le C 56 D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for s i b l i n g and Tukey H S D D is tu rbed c h i l d N o r m a l c h i l d C l i n i c pa i r I tem versus versus versus H S D N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l pa i r P o s i t i v e o u t g o i n g . 3 . 5 . 4 1.6 Pos i t ve i n c o m i n g . 4 .1 . 5 1.6 N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g . 5 . 7 2 . 1 * 1.6 N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g . 7 0 . 8 1.6 Sum o f d i f f e rences 1.9 1.3 3 . 8 * p < . 0 5 Tab le D D i f f e rences be tween obse rved mean scores for " F r i e n d " a n d T u k e y H S D D is tu rbed c h i l d N o r m a l c h i l d C l i n i c pa i r I tem versus versus versus H S D N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l s i b l i n g N o r m a l pa i r Pos i t i ve o u t g o i n g 1.0 . 3 I.I 2 . 0 P o s i t i v e i n c o m i n g . 8 .8 . 9 2 . 0 N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g 1.2 . 5 . 8 2 . 0 N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g .5 . 4 . 9 2 . 0 Sum o f d i f fe rences 3 . 5 2 . 0 3 . 7 5 7 Tab le E D i f f e rences between obse rved mean scores for " M r . N o b o d y " and Tukey H S D Item Pos i t i ve o u t g o i n g P o s i t i v e i n c o m i n g N e g a t i v e o u t g o i n g N e g a t i v e i n c o m i n g D is tu rbed c h i l d versus N o r m a l s i b l i n g . 7 . 8 N o r m a l c h i l d versus N o r m a l s i b l i n g .4 .2 C l i n i c pa i r versus N o r m a l p a i r . 4 . 4 1.7 .3 . 5 H S D 2 . 4 2 . 4 2 . 4 2 . 4 Sum o f d i f f e rences 4 .1 .9 1.5