Familial interactions that impact a daughter’s style of life

The father-daughter relationship: familial interactions that impact a daughter’s style of life

Rose Merlino Perkins

This research explored a father’s impact within the family unit, specifically the role he may have played in shaping familial transactions that affect a daughter’s self-appraisal and style of life. Ninety-six college women who attended a small private liberal arts college on the east coast responded to The Adjective Check List, ACL, (Gough, 1952) employed in this study to measure Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego States and Negative Self-Image. In addition the women responded to the father-daughter questionnaire, a questionnaire designed by the author to identify specific father-daughter relationships. Multivariate analyses of variance contrasted father-daughter relationships by the women’s self-perceptions on the ACL. Results showed that the women’s responses to the Father-Daughter questionnaire identified six distinct father-daughter. relationships: a doting father; a distant father; a demanding/supportive father; a domineering father; a seductive father; an absent father. Furthermore, ACL measures showed a significant difference in the women’s self-perceptions by their identified father-daughter relationships.

**********

Relational and intimacy issues often surface on a college campus where students struggle to understand themselves, separate from childhood dependencies and develop an intellectual and emotional depth to their identity. College women have been prominent in this search for self-understanding. Motivated by the feminist movement, women of the Twentieth Century sought personal understanding by openly addressing family relationships that may have shaped or inhibited mature growth in women, e.g., the mother-daughter relationship (Freud, 1988; Howe, 1990; Robbins, 1990). Although research concerning the mother-daughter relationship has been readily available, little has been written or researched concerning the relationship a woman has experienced with her father.

However, existing literature has suggested that woman may be deeply affected by the father they knew as a child. Sophie Freud (1988), in a text that highlighted the identity struggles faced by postmodern women, dedicated an entire chapter to the pain experienced by a woman when she feels abandoned by her father because she is no longer his “little princess,” his admiring disciple or his little angel. The literature has suggested that most women, by simply growing up, experience the loss of their fathers’ love; for even in the best of circumstances, men find it difficult to relate to their adult daughter in the same manner that they related when she was a little-girl (Freud, 1988; Secunda, 1992).

In a comprehensive text that discussed various father-daughter relationships, Secunda (1992) described a woman’s. father as her “first love,” regardless of her experience with her father. If theorists are correct, it may be assumed that the father-daughter relationship has the potential to shape interaction patterns that surface as women enter into adult college relationships. For example, if a college woman has learned patterns of relating through a father that have infantalized and weakened her, college life could be problematic; assertiveness issues often surface in the college classroom where male and female students struggle to find their own voices (Johnson, 1997; Lecompte, 1986; Lopez, Melendez, Sauer, Berger & Wyssmann, 1998).

Although there is an agreement in the literature that father-daughter relationships take many forms of interaction, a literature review of father-daughter research shows an emphasis on the abusive or absent father (Downs & Miller, 1998; Hetherington, 1972; Oates, Forrest & Peacock, 1985) and results focus on the impact these relationships have on a woman’s adult intimacies. The psychological premise most commonly cited in research is that women with abusive or absent fathers have difficulty with men and often choose husbands who abuse or abandon them (Secunda, 1992). However, a greater percentage of women experience fathers who are not abusive or absent (Freud, 1988; Secunda, 1992). Further research is needed that seeks to identify the varied interactions between a father and his daughter and to understand the impact these interactions have on a woman’s emotional, cognitive and behavioral life-style. Finally, if the father does impact his daughter’s self-perception and/or life style, it is important for college counselors, educators and members of the mental health community to consider all father-daughter interactions rather than focusing primarily on the affects of abusive or neglectful fathers.

The work reported in this paper reports a pilot study conducted with ninety-six college woman who volunteered participation and self-reported by responding to a standardized personality instrument, The Adjective Check List, ACL, (Gough, 1952) and to a Father-Daughter Questionnaire developed by the author, the Father-Daughter questionnaire, composed of sixty-two mini-family interactions identified six father-daughter relationships: The Doting Father; The Distant Father; The Demanding/Supportive Father; the Domineering Father; the Abusive Father; The Absent Father. Participants’ self-perceptions for the ACL personality instrument measured the study’s dependent variables: Assertiveness; Relational Needs; Cognitive Ego State; Critical Self-Image. Each participant responded to the ACL four different times and reported four levels of self-perception: Real-Self; Ideal-Self; Their Perception of Their Father; Their Perception of How Their Father Would View Them.

A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) contrasted mean scores for the dependent variables by self-perception and father-daughter relationship. The questions for research were specified as follows: (a) Will responses women make to the Father-Daughter questionnaire identify specific father-daughter relationships through significantly different patterns in measured father-daughter transactions? (b) Will patterns in a daughter’s self-perception, Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego State and Critical Self-Image, as measured on the Adjective Check List (Gough, 1952), be significantly different by her identified father-daughter relationship?

Method

Sample Selection and Procedure

Undergraduate women attending a General Psychology class in a small liberal arts college on the east coast were invited to participate in the study. Before volunteering, the participants were informed that students from a Psychology of Women. class, in collaboration with their professor, would be conducting research concerning a woman’s relationships within her family. Participants were also informed that they would be asked to respond to a series of questionnaires concerning their family relationships and that they would be guaranteed anonymity. That is, the women would be asked not to place their name or any other identifiers on the questionnaires. They would be instructed to simply respond to the materials, to clip their questionnaires together and to place them in a sealed box that would be supervised and opened by the professor in charge. The professor also shared that she would open the box privately and immediately shuffle the packets of questionnaires so that the order of entries in the box would not resemble the order of participants in the study. Finally, the need for the study was stressed; that is, the researcher shared that open, honest responses from women today about their relationships would ultimately help women understand themselves and each other.

Ninety-six women volunteered participation. Each participant, given individual direction by a member of the Psychology of Women class, worked privately in a small cubical in the Psychology Research Center. All participants responded to the questionnaires, presented one-at-a-time, in the following order and manner:

1) ACL – Real-Self measure, mark those adjectives that you believe describe you;

2) ACL – Ideal-Self measure, mark those adjectives that you believe describe your ideal;

3) Father-Daughter Questionnaire – Relationship Identifier, mark those interactions that you believe describe how you feel about your relationship with your father;

4) ACL – Daughter’s Perception of Father measure, mark those adjectives that you believe describe your father;

5) ACL – Daughter’s Perception of How Her Father Views Her measure, mark those adjectives that you believe your father would mark to describe you.

Students from the Psychology of Women class, who guided the participants through the questionnaire process, were not aware of the father-daughter relational categories, nor were they aware of how the ACL responses would be employed in data analyses. Although, the students would be studying the father-daughter relationship in their course, all mention of the father-daughter relationship and its implications was delayed until they completed the research process. As the instructional guides, students in the Psychology of Women class were given a manual with specific directions and instructions; the manual of directions served to standardized student-participant interaction across all participants in the study.

Instruments

The Father-Daughter Relational Questionnaire. Sixty-two father-daughter interactions were written for the questionnaire; the questionnaire interactions represented six distinct father-daughter relationships. Content validity for each item in the questionnaire had support in the literature. Briefly stated: 1) The Doting Father (Freud, 1988) has been described as the father who keeps his daughter close to him through disproportional personal and economic support. Although his need to keep his daughter young and close to him may be unconscious, his attachment to her is overwhelming and the daughter never feels the need or the freedom to grow up; 2) The Distant Father (Secunda, 1992) has been described as reserved, stoic and even withdrawn. He often controls the family unit with silence. He escapes into silence during moments of family stress leaving his wife to handle family problems and the disciplining of children; 3) The Demanding/Supportive Father (Secunda, 1992) interacts with both his sons and daughters equally. He expects and even demands that they do their best. However, whenever necessary he is there for his children with support and comfort. 4) The Domineering Father (Downs & Miller, 1998; Secunda, 1992) expects a great deal from his children but is not there with support or encouragement when they need it. Domineering fathers may differ in severity from heavy controllers to tyrants and finally bullies. 5) Seductive Fathers (Secunda, 1992) sexually abuse their daughters. The abuse may come in the form of physical attack or verbal suggestions. 6) The Absent Father (Freud, 1988; Hetherington, 1972) left the family when his daughter was a small girl, either through an early death or divorce. The daughter may have few memories of her father. However, she may have memories of his departure and the experience may have been traumatic.

In addition to the content validity established in the literature for items in the Father-Daughter questionnaire, three Ph.D. psychologists (One Developmental Psychologist; Two Counseling Psychologists) read the father-daughter relational items in the Questionnaire for content validity; the psychologists made content and language alterations that were implemented in the final Questionnaire. The final Questionnaire’s sixty-two father-daughter interactions included ten Doting Father-Daughter experiences, ten Distant Father-Daughter experiences, ten Demanding/Supportive Father-Daughter experiences, twelve Domineering Father-Daughter experiences; ten Seductive Father Daughter experiences and ten Absent Father-Daughter experiences. Twelve items’ were written for the Domineering Father to adequately present the range of interactions within that category, i.e., the Domineering Controller, the Domineering Tyrant, the Domineering Bully. A complete description of the Father-Daughter Relational Questionnaire may be obtained from the author on request. A few item examples appear below:

Distant Father: Dad would have made a good medical doctor or therapist

because he always seemed to care deeply about the feelings of others. It

was odd, though, because I never could really go to him with my problems; I

guess I figured he wanted to be given a “little peace” in his own home.

Doting Father: When I was a child, dad and I were a team. Yes, mom and my

sisters (and/or brothers) were there; but dad and I had a special

relationship. Sometimes I felt guilty, but most times I was really happy

that dad loved me most.

A post hoc item analysis conducted on the responses made by the study’s ninety-six participants, identified items in the questionnaire that had high and low discrimination indexes. Those items with significantly low indexes, marked by more than half of the participants and thus items that did not identify a particular father-daughter relationship, were eliminated from calculations made to identification specific father-daughter relationships. Calculations to determine cutoff scores that would identify specific father-daughter relationships were not possible due to the varied number of total items marked across participants. Thus, the calculation for the father-daughter relationship was computed through a percentage of the total items marked by each participant. The identification of specific father-daughter relationships (Doting, Distant, Demanding/Supportive, Domineering, Seductive, Absent) for each participant required a percentage response rate greater than fifty percent of the total items marked by that participant.

The Adjective Check List. The Adjective Check List, ACL (Gough 1952) measured the dependent variables in this study: Assertiveness; Relational Needs; Cognitive Ego State; Critical Self-Image. Each participant responded to the ACL four different times marking those adjectives that described: Real-Self; Ideal-Self; How They Viewed Their Father; How They Perceived Their Father Viewed Them. The study’s four levels of perception, supported in theory as a comprehensive index for self-concept (Rogers, 1961), were contrasted to produce six difference scores (d statistics): 1) Real-Self versus Ideal-Self; 2) Real-Self versus Participant’s View of Father; 3) Real-Self versus Participant’s View of How Father Would Describe Her; 4) Ideal-Self versus Participant’s View of Father; 5) Ideal-Self versus Participant’s View of How Her Father Would Describe Her; 6) Participant’s View of Father versus Participant’s View of How Her Father Would Describe Her. The literature interprets the difference scores between self-perceptions as indicators of one’s relational and emotional stability (Rogers, 1961), the greater the difference scores the more problematic one’s self-perceptions may be.

The ACL, a standardized personality instrument composed of three hundred adjectives, measured participant responses for thirty personality variables. Reliability and validity for the instrument’s measures have been supported in the literature (Galassi, Delo, Galassi & Bastien, 1974; Pedersen, 1969; Wohl & Palmer, 1970). The ACL does not specify the number of adjectives to be checked; thus, participant responses could vary significantly. An analysis of the “number of adjectives checked,” showed no significant difference among the ninety-six participants in this study. Consequently the number of adjectives checked by each participant in this study was not identified as an independent variable affecting change.

Measures of Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego State, and Critical Self-Image. A factor analysis was employed to cluster the ACL thirty personality measures into manageable variables. A principal axis factor analysis with varimax rotation applied to the participants’ Real-Self responses, clustered the personality variables into four factors that explained 79 percent of the variance. Factor 1 labeled Assertiveness, Factor 2 labeled Relational Needs, Factor 3 labeled Cognitive Ego State, Factor 4 labeled Critical Self-Image.

Loadings for Factor 1 were as follows: Autonomy, .839; Creative, .723; Dominance, .836; Exhibitionism, .857; Free Child Ego State, .917; Self-Confidence, .730; Aggression, .678; Change, .621; Abasement, -.895; Deference, -.854; Self-Control, -.837; Succorance, -.680; Yielder, -.625. These measures describe a woman who is spontaneous, self-motivated and free to express herself (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Therefore, each participant’s mean score for these personality variables was employed as a measure for Assertiveness.

Loadings for Factor 2 were as follows: Affiliation, .833; Favorable Adjectives Checked, .849; Intraception, .740; Nurturance, .784. These adjectives describe a woman who actively invites relationships, seeks to understand others and wishes to be viewed positively by others (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Therefore, each participant’s mean score for these personality variables was employed as a measure for Relational Needs.

Loadings for Factor 3 were as follows: Adult Ego State, .818; Achievement, .685; Endurance, .869; Order, .857; Adapted Child, -.648 These adjectives describe a woman who is rational, organized and responsible (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983).. Therefore, each participant’s mean score for these personality variables was employed as a measure for Cognitive Ego State.

Loadings for Factor 4 were as follows: Counselor Readiness, .804; Critical Parent Ego State, .820; Unfavorable Adjectives, .880. These adjectives describe a woman who is self-critical with an inner voice that causes her to feel inadequate (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Therefore, each participant’s mean score for these personality variables was employed as a measure for Critical Self-Image.

Results

Research questions were answered through multivariate analyses of personality measures for Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego State and Critical Self-Image by six self-perception contrasts: 1) Real-Self versus Ideal-Self, 2) Real-Self versus Daughter’s View of Father, 3) Real-Self versus Daughter’s View of How Her Father Perceives Her, 4) Ideal-Self versus Daughter’s View of Father, 5) Ideal-Self versus Daughter’s View of How Her Father Views Her, 6) daughter’s view of father versus daughter’s view of how her father views her, and by six identified father-daughter relationships, Doting, Distant, Demanding/Supportive, Domineering, Seductive, Absent.

MANOVAs reported significant mean difference by Assertiveness, F (5, 95) = 2.908, p < .05, by Relational Needs, F (5, 95) = 5.69, p < .05; by Cognitive Ego State, F (5,95) = 3.714, p <.05 and by Critical Self-Image, F (5, 95) = 5.898, p < .05. Follow-up Tukey tests for d statistic means identified significant means as reported in Table 1. Due to the excessive number of means in the analyses, only the mean contrasts that showed significant difference have been reported in Table 1. No significant difference was shown contrasting the women's Real-Self versus their Ideal-Self by personality variable or father-daughter relationship. Thus, mean scores for Real-Self versus Ideal-Self were not reported in Table 1; a table reporting all d statistic means may be obtained from the author on request.

Table 1 reports significant mean differences by personality variables employed in this study: Assertiveness; Relational Needs; Cognitive Ego State; Critical Self-Image.

Assertiveness. D statistic means for Assertiveness showed a significant difference by Doting Fathers as compared to Distant Fathers on measures for Real-Self versus Her View of Father.

Relational Needs. D statistic means for Relational Needs showed significant difference as follows: 1) by Doting Father as compared to Domineering Father on measures for Real-Self vs Father’s View of Her; 2) by Doting Father and Demanding/Supportive Father as compared to Absent Father and Seductive Father on measures for Real-Self versus Her View of Father; 3) by Demanding/Supportive Father and Doting Father as compared to Seductive Father on measures for Ideal-Self versus Father’s View of Her; 4) by Seductive Father and Absent Father as compared to Distant Father, Demanding/Supportive Father and Doting Father on measures for Her View of Father versus Father’s View of Her.

Cognitive Ego State. D statistic means for Cognitive Ego State showed significant difference as follows: 1) by Doting Father, Domineering Father and Demanding/Supportive Father as compared to Seductive Father on measures for Real-Self versus Her View of Father; 2) by Doting Father and Demanding/Supportive Father as compared to Seductive Father and Absent Father on measures for Ideal-Self versus Her View of Father.

Negative Self-Image. D statistic means for Negative Self-Image showed significant difference as follows: 1) Seductive Father as compared to Doting Father, Demanding/Supportive Father and Distant Father on measures for Real-Self versus Her View of Father; 2) by Distant Father, Demanding/Supportive Father and Doting Father as compared to Seductive Father on measures for Father’s View of Her versus Her View of Father.

Discussion

Overall results suggest that this study’s specified father-daughter relationships were identified through responses made to the Father-Daughter Relational Questionnaire. In addition the Adjective Check List (Gough, 1952) that measured the women’s self-perceptions and their perceptions of their fathers showed significant difference by identified father-daughter relationship. Specific results suggested that a woman’s on-going relationship with a particular kind of father could impact her self-perception and in consequence her style of life.

Women who experienced Doting Fathers identified with their fathers on all four personality variables measured in this study, Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego States and Critical Self-Image. Furthermore, women with Doting Fathers perceived their fathers to be ideal, as shown by significantly similar father-daughter means for Relational Needs and Critical Self-Image measures.

It seems important to note that daughters with Doting Fathers were the only group of women in the study who significantly identified with their fathers’ assertive behavior, implying identifications with their fathers beyond that of the other women in the study. However, the Assertiveness measure in this study integrated personality variables that implied an ability to be unique, independent and free to express oneself. Paradoxically, this study’s finding, that daughters significantly identify with their doting fathers’ assertive behavior, raises the possibility supported in psychological theory, that a daughter may not have the psychological permission to be herself, if being herself differs from her father’s self (Adler, 1952; Horney, 1950; Mahler, 1968). Although daughters of Doting Fathers may show a congruent real and ideal-self measure of self-concept, the finding in this study suggests that a simple congruence between one’s real and ideal-self may hide the basic nature of a woman’s problem, that her concept of “self” is not her own but one supplied by a Doting Father (Freud, 1988; Mahler, 1968; Secudna 1992).

Unlike the women with Doting Fathers, women with Demanding/Supportive Fathers showed no significance for mean scores that contrasted assertive behaviors between daughters and their fathers. However, they did show significant identification with their fathers on measures for Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego State and Critical Self-Image. This finding indicates that although the women identified with their fathers and valued them, they appeared to have psychological permission to be different and assert behaviors unlike their fathers (Secunda, 1992). Thus a demanding but supportive father who relates to his daughter as he has his son seems to promote mature mental-health-growth in women (Secunda, 1992).

Further results showed that women with Distant Fathers significantly described themselves with assertive behaviors that differed from their fathers’ behaviors. However, these same women, who perceived that they are significantly different from their fathers, also believed that their fathers viewed them to be alike, as shown on measures for Relational Needs and Critical Self-Image. Therefore, it seems that the daughter of a Distant Father is strong in her belief that she “is” different from her Distant, often-passive father; however, she believes that her father identifies with her. This finding confirms the concern cited by family therapists who discuss the affects of a father who controls by distancing from family interactions causing the daughter to rescue him through a silent alliance (Bowen, 1961, Secunda, 1992). Although, this alliance may, in reality, only exist in the daughter’s mind, psychological theory suggests that as the daughter moves into a private-unspoken alliance with her father she is distanced from her mother (Bowen, 1961). If the family triangle exists as cited, it would lead counselors and therapists to speculate on the kind of man the daughter of a Distant Father would ultimately seek in adult intimacy (Horney, 1950; Dicks, 1963). If she does seek a man like her father in order to perpetuate her alliance of protection, theory suggests that she may, with children, find herself outside on the point of her family triangle distanced not only from her husband but also from her children (Bowen, 1961).

Results further showed that women with Domineering Fathers identified only with their father’s Cognitive Ego State; for measures of Relational Needs,

these women perceived themselves significantly different from their fathers. No further significant mean contrasts were reported. These findings suggest that daughters of Domineering Fathers are able to maintain a rational relationship with their fathers but feel disconnected from them emotionally. The self-reports made by daughters of Domineering Fathers reflect the distancing that occurs between people when one person in the relationship is domineering, tyrannical and perhaps feared (Adler, 1952; Bowen, 1961; Horney, 1950).

Results showed that daughters of Absent Fathers described themselves and their ideal as significantly more assertive and relational than their fathers. Daughters of Seductive Fathers also perceived themselves and their ideal as significantly different from their fathers for Relational Needs, Cognitive Ego State and Critical Self-Image measures. In addition, contrasted means for Relational Need measures showed that the daughters of Absent and Seductive Fathers saw themselves significantly different as compared to how they felt their fathers would perceive them. The findings in this study seem to show that although the Absent Father and Seductive Father cannot be compared behaviorally or emotionally, the relational affect seems similar. That is, women with Absent Fathers are left feeling separated and misunderstood by their fathers; so too, women with Seductive Fathers, in addition to being emotionally and physically violated, feel alienated and misunderstood (Downs & Miller, 1998; Freud, 1988; Hetherington, 1972; Oater, Forrest & Peacock, 1985; Secunda, 1992).

In summation, the findings in this study have raised a need for further research concerning the father-daughter relationship. Although important work has been reported concerning the absent and seductive father, this research shows a need to further explore the varied relationships that young girls and adult women have with their fathers. Further research with a multicultural sample is also recommended.

Table 1

D Statistic Means for: Assertiveness, Relational Needs, Cognitive

Ego State, Critical Self-Image

Part 1: ACL Subtest for Measures of Assertiveness

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Real vs Her View Ideal vs Father’s

View of Her of Father View of Her

Do (n=28) .0012 *

Ds (n=22) 1.725 *

Part 2: ACL Subtest for Measures for Relational Needs

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Real vs Her View Ideal vs Father’s

View of Her of Father View of Her

Do (n=28) 1.830 * Do (n=28) 1.813 D-Sp (n=11)-.023

Dom (n=24) 9.770 * D-Sp (n=11) 5323/ * Do (n=28) .661/ *

Ab (n=8) 18.656 Sd (n=3) 20.000 *

Sd (n=3) 19.167/ *

Part 3: ACL Subtest for Measures for Cognitive Ego State

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Real vs Her View Ideal vs Father’s

View of Her of Father View of Her

Do (n=28) -1.777

Dom (n=24) -1385 *

D-Sp (n=11) -1.056/

Sd (n=3) 6.33 *

Part 4: ACL Subtest for measures for Negative Self-Image

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Real vs Her View Ideal vs Father’s

view of Her of Father view of Her

Sd (n=3) -8.889 *

Do (n=28) 2.071

D-Sp (n=11) 2.636 *

Ds (n=22) 3.455/

Part 1: ACL Subtest for Measures of Assertiveness

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Ideal vs Her view Her view of Father vs

View of Her of Father Father’s View of Her

Part 2: ACL Subtest for Measures for Relational Needs

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Ideal vs Her View Her View of Father vs

View of Her vs of Father Father’s View of Her

Do (n=28) 1.830 * Sd (n=3) -14.583

Dom (n=24) 9.770 * Ab (n=8) -10.479/ *

Ds (n=22) -1.455

D-Sp (n=11) -.705 *

Do (n=28) -.002 /

Part 3: ACL Subtest for Measures for Cognitive Ego State

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Ideal vs Her View Her View of Father vs

View of Her of Father Father’s View of Her

Do (n=28) .509

D-Sp (n=11) .523/ *

Sd (n=3) 8.833

Ab (n=8) 8.000/ *

Part 4: ACL Subtest for measures for Negative Self-Image

Mean Contrasts Between Women’ Self-Perceptions and Their Perceptions

of Their Father

Real vs Father’s Ideal vs Her view Father’s View of Her

View of Her of Father vs Her View of Father

Ds (n=22) -2.409

D-Sp (n=11) -.939 *

Do (n=28) -.691/

Sd (n-3) 7.556 *

Note: The Symbols Do, Ds, D-Sp, Dom, Sd and Ab identify father daughter

relationships: Do=Doting; Ds=Distant; D-Sp=Demanding/Supportive;

Dom=Domineering; Sd=Seductive; Ab=Absent.

The Symbols and / cluster similar mean patterns of significance

* Mean difference p < .05

References

Adler, A. (1952). The practice and theory of individual psychology. New York: Humanities Press.

Bowen, M. (1961). Family psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31. 40-60.

Dicks, H. V. (1963). Object relations theory and marital studies. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 36. 125-129.

Downs, W. R. & Miller, B. A. (1998). Relationships between experiences of parental violence during childhood and women’s self-esteem. Violence and Victims, 13 (1) 63-77.

Freud, S. (1988). My three mothers and other passions. New York: New York University Press.

Galassi, J. P., DeLo, J. S., Galassi, M. D., & Bastien, S. (1974). The college Self-Expression Scale: A measure of assertiveness. Behavior Therapy, 5, 165-171.

Gough, H. G. (1952). The adjective check list. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. (1983). Adjective cleck list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hetherington, E. M. (1972). Effects of father absence on personality development in adolescent daughters. Developmental Psychology 7. (3) 313-326.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: Norton.

Howe, K. G. (1990). Daughters discover their mothers through biographies and genograms: Educational and clinical parallels. Women & Therapy, 1(3. 31-40.

Johnson, D. W. (1997). Reaching out; Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lecompte, D. (1986). Emotional distress in a first-year university population. Acta Psychiatry of Belgium, 86. 64-70.

Lopez, F. G., Melendez, M. C. Sauer, E. M.; Berger, E., & Wyssmann, J. (1998). Internal working models, self-reported problems, and help-seeking attitudes among college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45. (1) 7983.

Mahler, M. S. (1968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individuation: Infantile psychosis. New York: International Universities Press.

Oates, R. K., Forrest, D., & Peacock, A. (1985). Self-esteem of abused children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9. 159-163.

Pedersen, D. M. (1969). Evaluation of self and others and some personality correlates. Journal of Psychology, 71. 225-244.

Robbins, M.A. (1990). Mourning the myth of mother/hood: reclaiming our mother’s legacies. Women in Therapy, 10, 41-59.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Secunda, V. (1992). Women and their fathers. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell.

Wohl, J., & Palmer, A. B (1970). Correlations between Adjective Check List and Edwards Personal Preference Schedule measures of Murray’s needs. Psychological Reports, (27). 525-526.

ROSE MERLINO PERKINS, ED.D.

Associate Professor of Psychology Department Chairperson

Stonehill College

COPYRIGHT 2001 Project Innovation (Alabama)

COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group