1126784

The Measurement of IdentificationAuthor(s): Alfred B. Heilbrun, Jr.Source: Child Development, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1965), pp. 111-127Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child DevelopmentStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126784 .

Accessed: 15/10/2013 09:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.44.110.66 on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:40:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=srcd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1126784?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE MEASUREMENT OF IDENTIFICATION

ALFRED B. HEILBRUN, JR.

State University of Iowa

Various attempts to measure parental identification have been seriously criticized. The present paper describes a new psychometric technique for measuring identification and discusses a large number of studies in which the technique has been employed. The nature of the relationships obtained between the identification scale and several relevant variables (level of adjustment, sex identity, conscience development, and ordinal position of the child; model attributes, nurturance, and social power of the parents; maternal approval of the father as a model) were consistent with theory and with prior empirical findings. It was concluded that the evidence supports the construct validity of the identification measure.

Within the last five years Bronfenbrenner has published two important papers bearing upon theories of parental identification (1960) and the

problems inherent in its measurement (1958). In the course of conducting or supervising empirical investigation of identification in adolescents, the

present writer has encountered skepticism regarding his psychometric- measurement techniques engendered in part by Bronfenbrenner's pessimistic critique. Since psychometrics represent the most economic approach to as-

sessing identification and correlated phenomena such as conscience function and sex-typing, a second look at the problem of identification measurement is warranted before a moratorium on this method of assessment is imposed.

The plan of this paper is to describe a psychometric procedure proposed as an index of parental identification and then to scrutinize the measure in

light of Bronfenbrenner's criticisms. Most important, empirical evidence will be presented of sufficient scope to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions as to whether the identification measure is a valid one. That is, whether the identification variable, as measured, enters into theoretically predicted laws or into relevant empirical relationships reported by other investigators. Since no single identification theory is clearly established and the criterion measures employed in studies of identification are often open to serious

Author's address: Dept. of Psychology, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, I.



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

criticism in themselves, it is clear that no single finding can stamp an identification measure as valid. Construct validation in which the measure in ques- tion is introduced into a network of relevant but not crucial relationships is in order; to the best knowledge of the writer, no single identification metric has been exposed to similar scrutiny.

THEORIES OF IDENTIFICATION

Although credit is traditionally given to Freud for initiating the concept of parental identification and for his ingenuity in specifying its importance to

developmental phenomena, his hypotheses have remained refractory to em-

pirical test. Among other reasons, Freud's stress on the unconscious nature of identification and his use of terms such as incorporation and introjection, which are not readily translatable into current learning-theory terminology, have hindered empirical study. Most of the research upon parental identification has been guided by modeling principles of learning (e.g., Symonds, 1946; Mowrer, 1950; Sears, 1957) and has used response similarity of child to parent on a common measure as the index of identification. Bronfenbrenner based his critique of identification measures upon Symonds' (1946) definition; namely, "the modeling of oneself in thought, feeling, or action after another person." For sake of consistency, the present discussion shall also take this general definition of identification as a point of departure. The

proposed antecedents and consequences of the modeling behavior of children shall be specified in the context of examining the construct validity of the identification measure.

THE PROPOSED MEASURE OF PARENTAL IDENTIFICATION

The Identification Scale (IS) is composed of two independent measures. One is the Adjective Check List (ACL) (Gough & Heilbrun, 1964) from which 15 personality scores are derived. The personality variables- are taken from Murray's (1938) catalogue of manifest needs and were adapted by Edwards (1957) in constructing his Personal Preference Schedule. The 300-item ACL is administered under self-description instructions to check those adjectives which characterize S's behavior. Description of the derivation of the personality scales is available in an earlier paper (Heilbrun, 1959), and citation of some 20 studies supporting the usefulness of the scales in

personality research is available in the ACL Manual (Gough & Heilbrun, 1964). Raw scale scores are converted to standard T scores (mean =

50, SD = 10) to allow for between-variable comparison, the conversions being based upon separate male and female college norms.

1 Achievement,f deference,t order, exhibition, autonomy,f affiliation,t abase- ment,4 dominance,t succorance,4 endurance, nLirturance,t change, intraception, heterosexuality, aggression. t masculine sex-typed attributes; t feminine sex-type attributes.

112




The second component of IS is a rating form which provides brief

descriptive paragraphs of the 15 personality variables measured by the ACL. S is instructed to judge whether the behaviors included in each paragraph better typify his father or his mother. The two components of IS have been

routinely administered with the ACL given first and the parent ratings obtained later; other measures or an extended period of time have been interpolated between them so that S would not associate the two tasks as

components of a single measure. Since the same descriptive paragraphs were used by judges in the initial selection of adjectives for the ACL scales, there is reason to presume that the behavioral variables being assessed by S in ACL self-description and in his judgments about his parents are the same. This is accomplished, however, without making it obvious to S that he is being asked to compare himself to his mother or father.

IS scoring proceeds by giving plus credits for (1) each T-score point S scored above the college mean on an ACL personality scale for which the trait was judged to be more characteristic of the same-sex parent or (2) each point S scored below the college mean on a scale for which the trait was judged to be less characteristic of the same-sex parent. Negative credits are assigned for (1) each point scored above the college mean on a scale for which the trait was rated as less characteristic of the same-sex parent and for (2) each point scored below the college mean on a scale judged to be more characteristic of the same-sex parent. The final IS raw score represents the algebraic sum of plus and minus credits over the 15 personality variables. These raw scores are then compared to college norms based upon the records of 200 males and 200 females which provide a T-score mean of 50 and an SD of 10 for each sex. Higher scores indicate higher identification with the same-sex parent and lower scores indicate greater cross-sex parental identification.

Several properties of the IS scale, some of which are unique to this particular psychometric, can be immediately specified.

1. It is a subtle measure. 2. It is based upon S's perceptual system. 3. It is an ipsative measure of parent-child similarity, that is, its scores reflect

similarity to one parent relative to the other parent. 4. It is based upon a wide array of salient social behaviors. 5. It is an economic measure, both components taking less than 30 min.

to administer to college students. 6. Its scoring is completely objective.

BRONFENBRENNER'S CRITICISMS OF IDENTIFICATION MEASURES

Assumed versus Real Similarity

Since identification measures are standardly based upon the dimension of parent-child behavioral similarity, which would follow from a modeling

113



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

analogue of learning, Bronfenbrenner has found it useful to employ distinctions drawn from person-perception studies (Fiedler, 1954; Cronbach, 1955) between assumed and real similarity. Thus a parallel is drawn between the standard interpersonal-perception study in which S describes himself as well as his conception of the "average" person and the identification study in which the child engages in self- and parent description; both represent assumed similarity. In addition, real similarity refers to the overlap between S's self-description and the self-description (s) of some other person or group as well as to the correspondence between the child's and parent's own self-

discriptions on a common measure. One unfortunate consequence of this translation is the surplus meanings

elicited by the terms "assumed" and "real." These terms, as applied to parent- child similarity measures, refer only to two different types of R-R relation-

ships, and which of the two will best predict a more widely accepted criterion of behavioral similarity is best decided on empirical grounds.

In answer to Sopchak's contention (1952) that perceptual (assumed) measures of parent-child similarity are the only reasonable ones, Bronfen- brenner provides the box score for positive findings in identification studies: four studies reporting positive findings for assumed similarity measures (Cass, 1952; Cava & Rausch, 1952; Gray, 1959; Sears, 1961), four with positive findings for real similarity measures (Cass, 1952; Helper, 1955; Gray & Klaus, 1956; Maccoby, 1959), and one study reporting a substantial correlation between the two types (Gray & Klaus, 1956). The evidence presented in the construct-validity section of this paper may serve to break the dead- lock.

Similarity and Generalized Esteem

Bronfenbrenner cites evidence (Bronfenbrenner, Harding, & Gallwey, 1958) which suggests that college Ss who show the greatest assumed or real

similarity to other college students are those with the highest self-esteem. Scores on some purported measures of identification thus could be interpreted as reflecting little more than relationships between S's self-esteem and esteem for a parent. High-identification scores would suggest high esteem for both; low scores would most commonly be attributable to lowered self-esteem but maintenance of higher esteem for the parent. Though self-esteem should

definitely be reflected in ACL performance, since S is free to select from a wide array of positive and negative attributes, esteem for a parent model is less likely to be a systematic influence in IS scoring. The reason for this is that S is forced to make judgments about two esteemed persons relative to each other in IS procedures.

114




Failure in Absolute Measurement

Two studies (Helper, 1955; Lazowick, 1955) report findings suggesting that the measured similarity between the child and his own parent is no greater than the similarity between that child and a parent chosen at random. That is, the absolute similarity in the former comparison is no greater than in the latter. Bronfenbrenner concludes from this that typical measures of identification are essentially equivalent to assumed or real similarity to "adults in general," of the same or opposite sex. The IS procedure, however, demands no assumption about the absolute similarity of the child to a given parent. Based only upon the assumption that some (unknown) amount of the child's behavior is similar to one or both parents, IS scores indicate the proportion of this unknown amount attributable to a father identification and to a mother identification. To use a numerical analogy, one child might have 16 units of similarity to both parents, 12 units to his father, and 4 units to his mother. A second child might have 8 units of parental similarity, 6 to his father and 2 to his mother. Both children would have the same IS score.

The primary reason why relative similarity was incorporated in the IS has to do with the nature of human judgment. It was believed that S could make more reliable judgments about his parents if he compared these two often-observed persons to one another on manifest behavioral variables. The alternative was to take the standard perceptual approach in which S must make judgments about a single parent's behavior, presumably by employing some vague reference group like "fathers in general" or "men in general" to formulate his decisions. In addition, relative ratings provide the opportunity for S to base his judgments upon prior observational experience in which the relevant behaviors have occurred or have failed to occur within mother-father interactions (e.g., who tends to dominate, defer, aggress?).

Explanations of why a relative rather than an absolute approach to parental-similarity measurement was adopted are not intended to suggest that relative measures are without sources of error. One apparent limitation of the IS procedure, for example, is that equal weight is given to each of the 15 ACL deviation scores which cumulate algebraically to provide the raw IS score. Even though the parents will differ markedly on some of the personality dimensions and very little on others, S is required to rate one parent as better characterized by each set of behaviors. This procedure does not differ- entiate then between similarity to a given parent on a dimension for which that parent is quite distinct from the spouse and similarity on a dimension where the parents are quite similar. It does appear legitimate to assume, however, that the magnitude of perceived differences between parents will be a random source of error and will not systematically influence group comparisons on IS. Future revision of the IS procedure, if called for, might well include a combination of relative comparisons and an absolute rating of both parents on each trait to allow for the use of a weighting sys-

115



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

tem; certainly the two ratings approaches are not mutually exclusive. Some readers may have noted that the IS scores, reflecting relative

similarity, are used normatively to infer individual differences in identification. There is, however, empirical evidence (Block, 1957; Heilbrun, 1963) that ipsative measures used in normative fashion correlate highly with normative measures of the same variables. Further, valid prediction has been demonstrated for ipsative scales when employed normatively (Edwards, 1957; Heilbrun, 1963).2

Similarity Measures and Consciousness

Freud considered the identification process to be unconscious. Based

upon this, Bronfenbrenner states that "One could justify a measure of identification based upon assumed similarity as theoretically valid solely on the

assumption that the S is not aware of the similarity between his descriptions of his parent and himself." This criticism can be answered, as far as the IS is concerned, in three ways. First, it is assumed (though it has not been tested) that in the IS procedures the S is unaware that he is being asked to

compare his own personality attributes with those of his parents. Second, granting that identification per se occurs without awareness, there is no reason in principle why a child cannot become aware of behavioral similari- ties which exist between himself and a parent even though he is unaware of their origin. His own observations and the comments of other observers may well be sufficient to convince S he is "a chip off the old block." Third and most basic, once one departs from Freud's original notions about identification to adopt a learning-theory-modeling interpretation of this phenomenon, there seems to be little reason to consider identification as an unconscious process. Fantasy role play and instrumental modeling behaviors must cer-

tainly occur within the awareness of the child. In fact, Mussen, Conger, and

Kagan (1963, pp. 267-268) propose awareness of similarity to the model as a functional part of the identification process. They state, "Each time the child perceives a basis of similarity with the model, the identification with the model is strengthened. Thus, the crucial events in the acquisition of an identification are perceptions of similarity with a model."

2 Experts have differed in their opinions regarding the normative treatment of ipsative scores. Whereas one (Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954, p. 528) warns against the use of between-individual differences upon ipsative measures because there is no single scale for all individuals, another (Cattell, R. B. Psychological measurement: ipsative, normative, and interactive. Psychol. Rev., 1944, 51, 292-303) asserts that the "normative treatment of scores primarily ipsative . . . seems legitimate and real."

116




Response Sets

When two psychometric measures are used to determine similarity between S and some model, the possibility exists that test-response identity is a function of similar test-taking habits for S and the parent. The possibility is even more extant when perceived measures are employed, since test scores are obtained from the same person, S. Bronfenbrenner mentions two response sets as being of prime concern-favorability of description and "expressiveness," the tendency to be expansive or conservative in description.

The writer has argued elsewhere (1964e) that favorability (or, as it is often called, social-desirability) response set is a much overworked and mis- construed term. Such argument aside, favorability of description would not be expected to play a major role in IS score variance. The ACL personality scales show low or zero correlations with the K scale of the MMPI, a com-

monly employed measure of test-taking guardedness (Heilbrun, 1960). One of the ACL scales was also shown to be a better predictor of a non-test criterion than its counterpart from a multivariable test especially constructed to control for social desirability (Heilbrun, 1962).

Favorability-response set should not be an important factor on the

parental-rating component of IS either, since S is required to accord greater typicality of behavior to one of two esteemed objects (mother and father) in each comparison. It is possible that favorability might operate through S's ascribing sex-typical behaviors to each parent, but it is known (Heilbrun, 1964d) that the average percentage differential in attributing the ACL traits to the mother or father is not large (ca. 27 per cent).

Individual differences in expressiveness cannot systematically affect IS scores. Number of adjectives checked is uncorrelated with ACL personality scores, and the parent ratings involve a fixed number of responses for S.

Multiple Sources of Similarity between Child and Model

Bronfenbrenner makes the point that similarity between parent and child may be a product not only of a modeling process (identification) but also the result of other learning experiences or even genetic factors. Thus, similarity between father and son may stem from genetic transmission, cul- tural presses to which both are exposed (e.g., conformity to sex type), direct tuition of the child, or from systematic rewards and punishments imposed upon the child's behaviors. While it is true that similarity measures, including IS, are vulnerable to this confounding, one is led to wonder how tenable the distinctions are between these sources of parent-child identity. Sears, Maccoby, and Levin (1957) suggest that there is more effective conscience development when values are learned through identification than when rewards and punishments are administered to establish values. Yet withdrawal of love as a punishment technique is proposed as the most

117



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

effective incentive for conscience development, which blurs the distinction on the antecedent side between identification-learning and reward-punishment instrumental learning. Further, it is difficult to believe that some of the

proposed antecedents to identification learning which have garnered empirical support do not also influence the effectiveness of reward-punishment or tuition as modifiers of the child's behavior. Among the most important of these proposed antecedents are parental nurturance (Mowrer, 1950; P. S. Sears, 1953; Mussen & Distler, 1959; Bandura, 1961; Mussen, 1961; Mussen & Rutherford, 1963) and attributed parental power (Maccoby, 1959; Mussen & Distler, 1959, 1960; Whiting, 1960; Maccoby, 1961; Mussen, 1961; Bandura & Ross, 1962; Mussen & Rutherford, 1963). Since behaviors learned by identification cannot be clearly distinguished either by antecedents or by their own intrinsic properties, serious conceptual difficulties are introduced by trying to maintain distinct sources of learned parent-child similar-

ity, identification being but one. It might be more fruitful to define parent- child similarity, without respect to source, as identification. Said another

way, identification might more fruitfully be defined as a product than as a process.

Identification and Motivation

The criticism of similarity measures which seems to be given greatest weight by Bronfenbrenner is that identification must be considered a motivated attempt to model oneself after a parent, and none of the measures employed has incorporated a conative index. He cites, as evidence, Helper's finding (1955) of a positive correlation between the mother's approval of the father and the son's perceived similarity to the father. In elaborating this point, Bronfenbrenner employs terms such as "personally directed motivation," "conative effort to take on the characteristics of that particular parent," and "the child [wants] specifically to be like his father." (It should be noted that a conscious effort to emulate a prized model is clearly implied in these terms which is inconsistent with his earlier criticism of assumed similarity measures as conceptually inadequate to account for identification as an unconscious process.)

There is little argument with the propositions that identification-modeling behavior is motivated behavior and that psychometric scores should be related to classes of motivational variables (e.g., reinforcers) in specified ways. However, the more basic criticism of an identification measure is that when tested it fails to show such relationships; that "motivation to model" is not an explicit-constituent of the measure is secondary.

118




CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE IDENTIFICATION SCALE

Fortunately, the adequacy of the IS as a measure of identification need not be evaluated on an a priori basis. IS scores have been related to a wide

variety of variables which have been accorded theoretical emphasis or which have garnered empirical support as correlates of identification. All of the data to be reported in this section were collected from college undergraduate Ss.

Identification and Adjustment

It is generally assumed that faulty identification learning has poor psychological adjustment as a common social-psychological correlate. Extensive empirical support can be found for the proposition that young males who are more highly identified with their fathers than their mothers are better adjusted (Sopchak, 1952; Helper, 1955; Gray & Klaus, 1956; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). However, the trend of prior findings regarding the adjustive consequences of a maternal identification in girls is that it is either unrelated to adjustment (Helper, 1955; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957) or negatively related (Sopchak, 1952; Gray & Klaus, 1956).

In one study (Heilbrun, 1962) the IS scores of personal-counseling clients were compared to those of control normals. Male clients were significantly less identified with their fathers than were male controls. Female clients were more highly identified with their mothers than were female controls, but the difference was not reliable. In a second study (Heilbrun, 1964c), females defined as maladjusted by their MMPI performance were also more highly identified (p < .05) with the maternal model than were normal controls.

Identification and Model Attributes

If a modeling theory of identification is to be adopted, certain attributes of the parental models should show specifiable relationships with identification. For one, masculinity-femininity of parent behaviors should be important to the extent that the modeled behavior of the child is exposed to social reinforcement contingent upon sex-role conformity. Thus boys would be expected to identify more strongly with more masculine fathers and to be better adjusted than the boy identifying with a less masculine model (Brown, 1958). Greater flexibility in sex-role development is accorded the female as well as less stringent demands for sex-role conformity (Brown, 1958) which disallows clear-cut expectations for maternal model attribute-daughter identification relationships.

Parent model sex-typing has been measured in IS studies by employing

119



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

the nine parent-rating variables (see n. 1) which were rated more typical of one parent or the other in at least a two-to-one ratio by 400 colleges Ss

(Heilbrun, 1964c). A model score can range from 0 (both parents highly sex-atypical, complete sex-role reversal) to 9 (both parents highly sex-typical, no sex-role reversals).

Previously unanalyzed data from a study by Heilbrun (1964b) provide tests of the identification-model attribute relationships. IS score means for males and females of high and low sex-typical parents are given in the top section of Table 1. As can be seen, sons did identify more with more mascu-

TABLE 1 IDENTIFICATION SCALE SCORES AS A FUNCTION OF SEX-TYPICALITY OF PARENTS,

PARENTAL NURTURANCE, AND MATERNAL APPROVAL OF FATHER AS A MODEL

IS MEAN

Sons Daughters t

Sex Typicality of Parents HMF (N = 29) ........................ 53.3 LMF (N = 27)........................ 49.2 ... 1.49 HFM (N = 28) .......................... 47.6 LFM (N = 33)......................... ... 54.0 2.28*

Sex Typicality and Nurturance of Parents: HMHNF (N = 15)....................... 56.7 All other fathers (N = 41). ................ 49.3 2.53* LFHNM (N = 18) ........................ 56.4 All other mothers (N = 43).................... 48.8 2.56*

Sex Typicality, Nurtuance, and Approval of Father as Model:

HMHNF approved by mother (N = 6)...... 61.3 All other fathers (N = 47). ................ 49.4 ... 2.93**

HMF = high-masculine fathers; LMF = low-masculine fathers; HFM = high-feminine mothers; LFM = low-feminine mothers; HMHNF = high-masculine high-nurturant fathers; LFHNM = low- feminine high-nurturant mothers; HMHNF = high-masculine high-nurturant fathers. All data in this table are based upon the same sample of males and females. Significance at p < .05 given by*, at p < .01 by**.

line fathers though not significantly so. Daughters were more highly identified (p < .05) with less feminine mothers.

Another study (Heilbrun & Fromme, 1964) investigated the relation-

ships between parental sex-role attributes, identification, and adjustment level of the child. Normal males were significantly more identified with high- masculine than with low-masculine fathers, and females with low-feminine mothers showed reliably higher IS scores than those with high-feminine mothers. Thus the relationships found in the study cited immediately above were both replicated. Further, as increasingly more maladjusted samples were considered, males presented a trend toward identifying with feminine father models and females with feminine mother models. Since the trends were significant, this study also provides a refinement and essential replica- tion of the finding cited earlier (Heilbrun, 1962) that a more masculine identification in males and in females was associated with better adjustment.

120




Identification and Parental Nurturance

Probably no other proposed antecedent to identification-learning has received as much theoretical recognition and empirical support as the nurturance variable. In line with this, IS scores should vary positively with the degree of parental nurturance.

IS studies of nurturance-identification contingencies have employed multifactor nurturance-rating scales in which S is required to rate each parent along several dimensions of parent-child interaction. The nurturance score is based upon a summation of scores over ratings. A more complete description of the Parent-Child Interaction Rating Scales as well as some

validity evidence is available elsewhere (Heilbrun, 1964b). Hall (1963) has reported that sons with high-nurturant mothers are

more likely to show a cross-sex identification with the mother than are those with low-nurturant mothers, but no simple relationship between the nurturance attributed to either parent and IS scores of male and of female Ss appeared in the data collected for another investigation by Heilbrun (1964b). However, a more complex function between nurturance, parent- model attributes, and IS scores was provided by the data from the latter

study. Since parental nurturance has been proposed as a source of secondary reinforcement for modeling behavior, and certain model attributes, when emulated, elicit greater social and instrumental rewards, it would follow that the greatest identification would be found in those cases where the combined effects of both sources of reinforcement would be expected, namely, boys whose fathers are both nurturant and high-masculine. For females, it would have to be predicted that identification would be strongest with mothers who are both nurturant and low-feminine. Reference back to the middle section of Table 1 will show that both predictions were supported.

Identification and Maternal Approval of the Father as a Model

Helper (1955) has found that father-son similarity scores are positively correlated with the degree to which the mother approves of the father as a model for the son. Although maternal attitudes toward the father have not been directly assessed in an IS study, one indirect measure is available. The Parent Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) (Schaeffer & Bell, 1955) has been administered under instructions to S to predict his mother's responses. One factor-analytically identified cluster of three scales on the PARI includes "marital conflict," "irritability," and "rejecting the homemaking role." If it can be presumed that a mother attributed a high score on this trial is unlikely to have a favorable attitude toward the father, then the analysis reported in the bottom section of Table 1 represents a test of whether IS is sensitive to the maternal-approval variable. Although based upon a small residual of Ss, this analysis does indicate that the highest IS

121



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

scores are provided by sons for whom all three positive reinforcers hold; namely, masculinity of the father, nurturance of the father, and approval by the mother of the father.

Identification and Sex Identity of the Child

Another commonly proposed correlate of identification is the establish- ment of the sex identity of the child (P. S. Sears, 1953; Mussen & Distler, 1959; 1960; Mussen, 1961; Mussen & Rutherford, 1963). In order to study the masculinity-femininity (MF) variable without increasing the number of tests standardly employed in the writer's developmental studies, an MF scale was developed (Heilbrun, 1964a) for the ACL. The scale included those adjectives which differentiated the self-descriptions of highly masculine males from those of highly feminine females. These two comparison groups were selected by taking males identified with masculine fathers and females identified with feminine mothers, IS procedures being employed for selection.

Unfortunately, the derivation procedure confounds MF scores and IS scores, so relating the two provides no evidence for IS validity.

However, if it can be shown that the MF scale is a better predictor of a sex-role criterion than biological sex alone, it would suggest that the inclu- sion of IS scores in the MF scale construction allowed for more sensitive measurement of sex identity than if the usual biological male versus female derivation procedures had been pursued. Accordingly, an IS-sex identity re-

lationship could be inferred. Such evidence is available in a recently published study by Cosentino and Heilbrun (1964) in which MF scores were related to aggression anxiety scored from a questionnaire developed by R. R. Sears (1961). It is generally agreed that higher anxiety elicited by aggressive behavior or impulses is sex-typically feminine, and the difference in anxiety scores between females and males was in this direction and highly significant (p < .001). Further, it was found that high-feminine females were higher in aggression-anxiety scores than were low-feminine females (p < .002) and that high-masculine males scored lower than low-masculine males (p < .05). Thus the MF measurement technique, based in part upon IS, allowed for criterion prediction beyond that provided by biological sex alone.

In an earlier study (Heilbrun, 1964f), validity of the IS was assessed by within-sex comparisons on several measures of dominance and aggression (masculine sex-typed behaviors in children) for masculine-model identified and feminine-model identified Ss. The results suggested that a masculine identification in either sex was associated with higher dominance; similarly, higher aggression was found for masculine identified Ss but more clearly in the case of females.

122




Identification and Conscience Development

The identification process is accorded a central role in the conscience development of the child (Sears, Maccoby, & Levin, 1957). It would follow that the value system of the child, his catalogue of approved and disap- proved behaviors, should be most similar to the particular parent with whom he is more highly identified. Fromme (1963), in an unpublished study, requested Ss to rate a large number of social behaviors along nine-point rating scales of social desirability. Following this they were asked to rate the same behaviors as their same-sex parent would. A cumulative absolute difference score was then obtained, smaller scores indicating greater perceived similarity in social values. Males with higher IS scores were significantly closer to their fathers attributed values than were low IS Ss. No differences were found between high and low IS females, however, in value similarity to their mothers.

Identification and Social Power of the Parents

Maccoby (1959, 1961) has proposed that the child will identify with the parent whom he perceives as having the greatest control over those re- sources which he prizes (e.g., affection, freedom from punishment, con- crete rewards). A recent experiment by Bandura and Ross (1962) indicates the importance of social power as an antecedent to modeling behavior in young children. Similarly, Mussen and Rutherford (1963) conclude that "the boy who loves his father (regards him as nurturant) and perceives him as a powerful person is highly motivated to incorporate some of that parent's behavior and personal qualities."

From this theory and evidence it would be predicted that the child should identify more with the parent who was both controlling and nurturant compared to the degree of identification with a parent who failed to combine both of these attributes. Heilbrun and Hall (1964) did find this to be the case for males; the IS showed reliably greater cross-sex identification to occur when the mother was perceived as controlling in her child-rearing attitudes and highly nurturant. Female Ss identified significantly more with the highly controlling mothers, but IS scores did not interact with nurturance.

Identification and Ordinal Position of the Child

Since mothers tend to be more nurturant with first children than with those which follow (Sears et al., 1957), the well-documented positive relationship between nurturance and identification would lead one to predict a greater maternal identification for first boys and girls.

When the mean IS scores of children within varying ordinal positions

123



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

were compared (Heilbrun & Fromme, 1964), first-child males without sib-

lings were more highly identified with their mothers (p < .10) than all children with siblings combined. First-child females with siblings were also more highly identified with their mothers (p < .002) than middle and

youngest siblings combined. These findings are generally consistent with a

greater maternal identification for first children of either sex. The fact that first-child girls with siblings show the greatest maternal identification (as opposed to only-child boys) seems reasonably attributable to the greater likelihood that such girls will assume maternal responsibilities in relation-

ship to younger sibs and thereby engage in more maternal-role practice.3

CONCLUSIONS

Although parental identification is accorded cardinal significance in most attempts to describe the behavioral development of the child, systematic investigation of this process has been hampered by difficulties involved in its measurement. Bronfenbrenner has made an important contribution by clearly specifying what he considers to be the major presumptive fallacies and procedural inadequacies in the psychometric instruments employed to date in identification measurement. The present paper has taken issue with some points of criticism which if accepted en toto would go far in discourag- ing further psychometric research upon identification.

A particular psychometric approach to identification measurement, based upon perceived similarity of behavior, was described, and studies relevant to construct validation were presented. Generally speaking, the nature of the relationships between the identification measure and a host of relevant variables was consistent with theory and prior empirical findings and, in the opinion of the writer, goes far in establishing the construct validity of the measure. At the least, the weight of evidence in these studies was sufficient to place the burden of proof upon the person who wishes to con- tend that the network of relationships can be better attributed to the opera- tion of irrelevant factors.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. Identification as a process of incidental learning. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 311-318.

Bandura, A., and Ross, D. An experimental test of the status envy, social power, and the secondary reinforcement theories of identification learning. Cited by A. Bandura, Social learning through imitation. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1962. Pp. 211-269.

s The writer is indebted to Professor M. Brewster Smith for this suggestion.

124




Block, J. A comparison between ipsative and normative ratings of personality. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 54, 50-54.

Bronfenbrenner, U. The study of identification through interpersonal perception. In R. Tagiuri and L. Petrullo (Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univer. Press, 1958. Pp. 110-130.

Bronfenbrenner, U. Freudian theories of identification and their derivatives. Child Develpm., 1960, 31, 15-40.

Bronfenbrenner, U., Harding, J., and Gallwey, M. O. The measurement of skill in interpersonal perception. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958.

Brown, D. G. Sex-role development in a changing culture. Psychol. Bull., 1958, 55, 232-242.

Cass, L. K. An investigation of parent-child relationships in terms of awareness, identification, projection, and control. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat., 1952, 22, 305-313.

Cava, E. L., and Rausch, H. L. Identification and the adolescent boy's perception of his father. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 855-856.

Cosentino, F., and Heilbrun, A. B. Sex-role identity and aggression anxiety. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 729-730.

Cronbach, L. J. Processes affecting scores on "understanding of others" and "assumed similarity." Psychol. Bull., 1955, 52, 177-193.

Edwards, A. L. Manual for the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Psychologi- cal Corp., 1957.

Fiedler, F. E. Assumed similarity measures as predictors of team effectiveness. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 49, 381-389.

Fromme, D. K. Parent-child value similarity and identification. Unpublished study, 1963.

Gray, S. W. Perceived similarity to parents and adjustment. Child Develpm., 1959, 30, 91-107.

Gray, S. W., and Klaus, R. The measurement of parental identification. Genet. psychol. Monogr., 1956, 54, 87-114.

Gough, H. G., and Heilbrun, A. B. Joint manual for the Adjective Check List and the need scales for the ACL. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965.

Hall, C. L. Patterns of parental identification as related to schizoid behaviors in grossly normal males. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State Univer. Iowa, 1963.

Heilbrun, A. B. Validation of a need scaling technique for the Adjective Check List. J. consult. Psychol., 1959, 23, 347-351.

Heilbrun, A. B. Personality differences between adjusted and maladjusted college students. J. appl. Psychol., 1960, 44, 341-346.

Heilbrun, A. B. Parental identification and college adjustment. Psychol. Rep., 1962, 10, 853-854.

Heilbrun, A. B. Social desirability and the relative validities of achievement scales. J. consult. Psychol., 1962, 26, 317-320.

Heilbrun, A. B. Evidence regarding the equivalence of ipsative and normative personality scales. J. consult. Psychol., 1963, 27, 152-156.

Heilbrun, A. B. Conformity to masculinity-femininity stereotypes and ego identity in adolescents. Psychol. Rep., 1964, 14, 351-357. (a)

125



CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Heilbrun, A. B. Parent model attributes, nurturant reinforcement, and consistency of behavior in adolescents. Child Develpm., 1964, 35, 151-167. (b)

Heilbrun, A. B. Perceived material attitudes, masculinity-femininity of the maternal model, and identification as related to incipient psychopathology in adolescent girls. J. genet. Psychol., 1964, 70, 33-40. (c)

Heilbrun, A. B. Sex differences in identification learning. J. genet. Psychol., 1964, in press. (d)

Heilbrun, A. B. Social learning theory, social desirability, and the MMPI. Psychol. Rev., 1964, 61, 377-387. (e)

Heilbrun, A. B. Social value-social behavior consistency, parental identification, and aggression. J. genet. Psychol., 1964, 135-146. (f)

Heilbrun, A. B., and Fromme, D. K. Parental identification of late adolescents and level of adjustment: the importance of parent model attributes, ordinal position and sex of the child. J. genet. Psychol., 1965, in press.

Heilbrun, A. B., and Hall, C. L. Maternal child-rearing control, resource mediation, and identification: implications for the social development of schizo- phrenics. J. Child Psychol. & Psychiat, 1964, 5, 139-149.

Helper, M. M. Learning theory and the self-concept. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 184-194.

Lazowick, L. M. On the nature of identification. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 175-183.

Maccoby, E. E. Role taking in childhood and its consequences for social learning. Child Develpm., 1959, 30, 239-252.

Maccoby, E. E. The taking of adult roles in middle childhood. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 493-503.

Mowrer, O. H. Learning theory and personality dynamics. New York: Ronald, 1950. Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality: a clinical and experimental study of

fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford Univer. Press, 1938. Mussen, P. Some antecedents and consequents of masculine sex-typing in ado-

lescent boys. Psychol. Monogr., 1961, 75, No. 2 (Whole No. 506). Mussen, P., Conger, J. J., and Kagan, J. Child development and personality. New

York: Harper & Row, 1963. Mussen, P., and Distler, L. Masculinity, identification and father-son relationships.

J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1959, 59, 350-356. Mussen, P., and Distler, L. Child rearing antecedents of masculine identification

in kindergarten boys. Child Develpm., 1960, 31, 89-100. Mussen, P., and Rutherford, E. Parent-child relations and parental personality in

relation to young children's sex-role preferences. Child Develpm., 1963, 34, 589-607.

Osgood, C., Suci, G., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning. Urbana: Univer. of Illinois Press, 1957.

Schaeffer, E. S., and Bell, R. Q. Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI). Normative data. Unpublished manuscript. National Institutes of Health, 1955.

Sears, Pauline S. Child-rearing factors related to playing of sex-typed roles. Amer. Psychologist, 1953, 8, 431. (Abstract)

Sears, R. R. Identification as a form of behavior development. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development. Minneapolis: Univer. of Minnesota Press, 1957. Pp. 149-161.

126




Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. 1. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 466-492.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., and Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. New York: Row, Peterson, 1957.

Sopchak, A. L. Parental "identification" and "tendencies toward disorder" as measured by the MMPI. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 159-165.

Symonds, P. M. The dynamics of human adjustment. New York: Appleton-Century, 1946.

Whiting, J. W. M. Resource mediation and learning by identification. In I. Iscoe and H. Stevenson (Eds.), Personality development in children. Austin: Univer. of Texas Press, 1960. Pp. 112-125.

127



Documents

1126784