Statement of the Problem
This study was designed to explore how primary caregivers’ behavior, as perceived by the adolescent research participants, relates to one aspect of adolescents’ personality development: their adaptational style.
The foundation for this investigation was a number of long-term studies conducted by the Institute of Human Development at the University of California at Berkeley (Block, 1971; Haan, 1977) showing a connection between early family environment and adaptational styles.In particular, Haan (1974) was able to demonstrate that the adaptational style of adolescents (described in terms of ego processes of coping and defending) has a meaningful, albeit complex, relationship with the adaptational style of their parents.As mentioned in the discussion of her results, the complexity of the relationship between parents’ and children’s adaptational styles suggests that modeling is an inadequate explanation for this phenomenon.A number of relationships show that children not only adopt their parents’ adaptational styles but also adapt to them.Haan also found that an authoritarian style of parenting is related to the more frequent use of defense mechanisms, whereas a facilitative style is related to the more frequent use of coping mechanisms by children.A more recent study of adolescents and their families by Hauser, Borman, Jacobson, and Powers (1991) revealed that parental ego development is directly related to the adolescents’ differentiating/engaging coping style and inversely related to constricting/detaching coping style.All these results suggest that family environment is relevant to an understanding of the relationship between parents’ and their children’s adaptational styles.
The theory of the development of ego processes proposed by Haan makes family systems an integral part of this development (Haan, 1977, p. 275) and many family systems theorists speak about multigenerational transmission of interactional patterns (Bowen, 1976; Framo, 1981; Green, 1981; Guerin & Guerin, 1976).� In particular, Framo (1981) wrote about internalization of relationship patterns, projection, and transference as mechanisms of multigenerational transmission of adaptation in a family context.More generally, the influence of the family of origin on the development of defensive processes was discussed in family systems literature with respect to the families of schizophrenics (Ferreira, 1981; Lidz, 1981; Wynne, Ryckoff, Day, & Hirsch, 1981).� However, no systematic investigation of the relationship of family interactions and processes of coping and defense in the normal population has ever been undertaken, nor has a detailed theory of such a relationship been developed (Aldwin, 1994, p. 275; Cramer, 1991).This study begins to address this important question.
Background
Haan’s Theory of Ego Processes
One of the most extensive descriptions of adaptational styles, conceptualized as ego processes of coping and defense, was provided by Haan (1977).Haan’s work was important in clearly differentiating between coping and defense. Haan postulated that there are certain generic ego processes that can be used for adaptation.These processes can be used consciously in order to adapt to and/or change the situation as it is, with awareness of what one is doing and why; such conscious processes are classified as coping.The same ego processes can be used unconsciously in order to restrict or distort the information available to consciousness and, in this way, change one’s perception of the situation; these unconscious processes are classified as defenses.In the extreme, defenses can lead to fragmentation as observed in various forms of psychopathology.For example, the ego process of selective awareness� would be classified as coping� when one intentionally uses concentration and as defense� when one uses denial.In Haan’s theory, the terms coping and defense signify only whether the person distorts the information available to consciousness or not.These terms do not imply how effective or mature these methods of adaptation would be in specific circumstances although, under normal circumstances, the use of coping is associated with better adjustment.There is research confirming the importance of this distinction between the process and its outcome and some studies have shown that defenses can be adaptive depending on the circumstances (Emavardhana & Tori, 1997; Gottschalk, Fronczek, & Abel, 1993).��
Previous research demonstrated that the distinction between coping and defensive processes is important.Not only do clinicians use the concept of defense, but there are also many studies that associate defensiveness with poor mental health, interpersonal problems, low self-esteem, external locus of control, poor behavioral adjustment, and drug abuse (Cramer, 1991;� Garmezy, 1991; Haan, 1977;� Rutter, 1990; Shedler & Block, 1991; Vaillant, 1992).Another advantage of this theory is that it describes ego processes that are independent of particular contents and contexts, and there is some evidence that people use certain processes preferentially across their life span (Haan, 1976; Haan, 1977).Thus, it provides a useful conceptualization of relatively stable adaptational styles.
Haan (1977) also classified the ego processes into four different functional modes: cognitive, reflexive-intraceptive, attention-focusing, and affective-impulse regulation.Table� below presents a summary of ego processes in Haan’s theory.
Theoretical Definitions of Ego Processes of Coping and Defense in Haan’s Theory
| Generic Process | Coping | Defense | |
| COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS – Represent the active, outer-directed, instrumental aspects of aperson’s problem-solving efforts and involve extensive extrapsychic accomodation. | |||
| 1. Discrimination – Separates ideas and feelings. | Objectivity | Isolation | |
| 2. Detachment Lets mind roam freely. | Intellectuality | Intellectualizing | |
| 3. Means-end Symbolization – Analyzes causal�� texture of experiences and problems. | Logical analysis | Rationalization | |
| REFLEXIVE-INTRACEPTIVE FUNCTIONS – Reflect the person’s assimilatory engagement withhis or her own thoughts, feelings, and intuitions. | |||
| 4. Delayed Response – Holds up decisions in complex, uncertain situations. | Tolerance of ambiguity | Doubt | |
| 5. Sensitivity – Apprehends others’ reactions and feelings. | Empathy | Projection | |
| 6. Time Reversion – Recaptures and replays past experiences – cognitive, affective, social. | Regression in service of the ego | Regression | |
| ATTENTION-FOCUSING FUNCTIONS Narrow the field of awareness. | |||
| 7.��� Selective Awareness Narrows awareness. | Concentration | Denial | |
| AFFECTIVE-IMPULSE REGULATION – Regulate one’s own affect directly. | |||
| 8.�� ��Diversion Expresses affectivity in diverse ways and situations. | Sublimation | Displacement | |
| 9. Transformation Transforms primitive affectivity to more complicated forms. | Substitution | Reaction formation | |
| 10.��� Restraint Restrains affectivity. | Suppression | Repression | |
Note.� Compiled from Coping and defending: Processes of self-environment organization� (Haan, 1977, pp. 37-38.)
Several studies investigated the factor structure of these ego processes (Haan, 1963; Haan, 1974; Weinstock, 1967) and four meaningful factors have been reported: Regulative Coping — regulating the environment; Intraceptive Coping — concentrating on one’s own reactions; Undifferentiated Defense — unqualified negation of information; and Differentiated/Sophisticated Defense — complex defenses. The present study also investigated the factor structure of the Joffe/Naditch (Haan, 1977) scales measuring coping and defensive processes.
Aspects of Family Interaction
In the field of family systems research, the dimension of� enmeshment, previously conceptualized as a high degree of family cohesion (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983), was reconceptualized as two separate dimentions: closeness-caregiving and intrusiveness by Green and Werner (1996).This distinction became necessary in part because of the contradictory findings reported in the literature: higher cohesion scores in a study using Olson’s Clinical Rating Scale were associated with poorer family functioning (Olson, 1994), while in the study using Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES; Cluff, Hicks, & Madsen, 1994) higher cohesion scores were associated with better functioning.Green and Werner (1996) argued that the contradictions would be explained and that understanding of family interactions would improve considerably if what was considered to be a single dimension was divided into two distinct concepts: (a) closeness, warmth, and nurturance and (b) a lack of self/other differentiation, which fits the classical understanding of enmeshment.Recent empirical findings support this distinction, (i.e., intrusive and cohesive behaviors fell into distinct factors in factor analytic studies) (e.g., Fanjoux-Cohen, Mouly-Bandini, Werner, & Green, 1998; Lewinsohn & Werner, 1997; Werner, Green, Greenberg, Browne, & McKenna, 1998).In addition, the dimension of intrusiveness was found to be negatively correlated with marital adjustment whereas the dimension of closeness-caregiving was positively correlated with marital adjustment (Werner & Green, 1991).These results are consistent with Green and Werner’s (1996) theory.
In this study, I used the California Inventory for Family Assessment (CIFA; Werner & Green, 1993) to measure adolescents’ perception of the behaviors of their primary caretakers towards them.This measure of family interactions expands upon models using family adaptability, cohesion, and communication (Pederson & Valanis, 1988) and differentiates between the intrusiveness and closeness-caregiving factors (Werner & Green, 1993).This measure also allows us to assess family dyads, which is important because of the differential effects of mothers and fathers on their offspring.
Definitions of Family Interaction Variables Measured by the CaliforniaInventory for Family Assessment
| Variable | Definitions |
| Warmth | The degree to which Person A shows warmth, kindness, acceptance, caring, friendliness, love, and positive regard toward Person B. |
| Time Together | The degree to which Person A enjoys, puts a high priority on, seeks time with, and gives attention to Person B. |
| Nurturance | The degree to which Person A extends emotional comfort, help, caretaking, and emotional support to Person B. |
| Physical Intimacy | The degree to which Person A hugs, holds hands, cuddles with, kisses, seeks physical closeness to, and enjoys touching and being affectionate with Person B. |
| Consistency | The degree to which Person A’s behavior and feelings towards Person B are consistent, clear, predictable, and emotionally constant from day to day. |
| Openness/Self-disclosure | The degree to which Person A is open, self-revealing, honest, direct, and forthright with Person B. |
| Conflict Avoidance | The degree to which Person A tries to avoid facing conflict, denies that there are differences of opinions or needs, evades discussing sources of tension (for example, by changing the topic), pretends to agree or pretends that everything is harmonious (pseudomutuality), and generally tries to sweep difficulties under the rug in the relationship with Person B. |
| Anger/Aggression | The degree to which Person A gets angry, is critical, gets annoyed, uses harsh words, raises his/her voice, blows up, and acts in a physically aggressive or emotionally hurtful way toward Person B. |
| Separation Anxiety | The degree to which Person A feels uncomfortable, upset, anxious, worried, hurt or left out when Person B wants to spend time alone have privacy, or spend time doing things independently. |
| Possessiveness/��� Jealousy | The degree to which Person A feels threatened and afraid of loosing Person B to others and acts toward B in a possessive and jealous manner. |
| Emotional Inter-����� Reactivity | The degree to which Person A overidentifies with and overreacts emotionally to stressful events and problems in Person B’s life (for example, Person A may worry excessively or become more upset than Person B when B is sad, anxious about something, going through a hard time, applying for a job, etc.). |
| Projective��� Mystification | The degree to which Person A erroneously assumes he/she knows what is on Person B’s mind without checking it out first (mindreading, projection), especially the degree to which Person A presumes that he/she knows better what B really needs, thinks, and feels, and why B acts in certain ways. |
| Authority/��� Dominance | The degree to which Person A takes and is granted greater authority and dominance in the relationship in terms of having the final say over how things are done, taking the lead, getting his/her own way when disagreements arise, setting the rules for B’s behavior, and making decisions for B or for what they will do together. |
Note:� From California Inventory for Family Assessment:� Manual for the second research edition, by P. D. Werner & R. J. Green, 1999, pp. 6-7. Unpublished Manuscript, California School of Professional Psychology, Alameda.Reprinted with permission.
Results
The sample consisted of 181 girls and 48 boys from high schools throughout Northern California.Their mean age was 17, ranging from 15 through 19 years.The Joffe/Naditch scales of coping and defensive processes (Haan, 1977), the California Inventory for Family Assessment (Werner & Green, 1999), and two background questionnaires were administered.
The major results were that the caregivers’ closeness-caregiving and openness of communication as perceived by adolescents were positively associated with conscious regulation of affect as a means of coping and positively associated with less defensiveness.By contrast, perception of caregivers’ intrusiveness had an inverse relationship with these coping and defense variables.Defensive processes were more closely related to adolescents’ perception of caregivers’ behaviors than were coping processes.
It also was found that girls’ overall tendency to use defensive processes was positively related to female caregivers’ intrusiveness and closed communication and negatively related to close expressiveness from caregivers of both genders.Girls’ overall tendency to use coping processes was positively related to male caregivers’ close expressiveness.Additionally, girls’ tendency to use active, outer-directed coping strategy of regulative coping was positively related to male and female caregivers’ intrusiveness.Finally, girls’ tendency to regulate their own reactions to environmental stimuli or intrapsychic coping was positively related to female caregivers’ closed communication.� Boys’ overall tendency to use defensive processes was positively related to female caregivers’ angry intrusiveness and negatively related to male caregivers’ close expressiveness.
Discussion
In general, the results of this study are consistent with theories and research indicating that certain behaviors of primary caregivers are related meaningfully to their children’s adaptational styles (Bowen, 1976; Copeland & Hess, 1995; Framo, 1981; Dusek & Danko, 1994; Green, 1981; Guerin & Guerin, 1976; Haan, 1974; Hauser et al., 1984; Hauser et al., 1991; Perosa & Perosa, 1993; Powers et al., 1989; Schulman et al., 1987; Weinstock, 1967).The overall pattern of relationships fits well with previous research (Haan, 1974; Perosa & Perosa, 1993; Shulman et al., 1987; Weinstock, 1967).
I will start with a few cautionary notes.It should be kept in mind that, even though the behaviors of primary caregivers are used throughout this chapter for brevity, CIFA actually measures adolescents’ perception of these behaviors.� Most of the correlations between caregivers’ behaviors and adolescents’ coping and defensive processes obtained in this study were weak or moderate and each explained relatively small percentage of variance, though there were a large number of them.This modest size of correlations is not unusual for the studies of coping and defensive processes (Cramer, 1991).This could be explained by the low reliability of Joffe/Naditch scales and by the fact that coping and defense are adaptive processes and are related to a large number of variables in addition to primary caregivers’ behaviors (Haan, 1977).� Intelligence, education, behavior of people outside the nuclear family, cultural and subcultural norms and ideals, temperamental traits, self-concept, and other biological and environmental variables not considered in the present study may interact with family variables (e.g., Bolger, 1990; Cramer, 1991; Emavardhana & Tori, 1997; Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995; McCrae & Costa, 1986).
Adolescents’ Overall Coping and Defensiveness and Family Variables
The majority of the relationships found in this study were the relationships of family variables and adolescents’ defensive processes.Very few family variables were related to girls’ coping processes, and none were related to boys’ coping.��
These results suggest that the caregivers’ behaviors are more closely related to defensiveness than to coping.This is congruent with Haan’s (1977) suggestion that coping is a normative process of adaptation, while defense is used when and if it becomes necessary.The need to use defenses would, therefore, have to be necessitated by external environments, including caregivers’ behaviors.� On the other hand, the tendency to cope is normative and would not be related to the family environment to the same degree.However, the lack of significant results for boys should be interpreted cautiously because of the low power of correlational analyses for boys.
Primary Caregivers’ Closeness-Caregiving and Communication Styles and Adolescents’ Adaptational Styles
Closeness-caregiving and open communication in caregivers of both genders were related to less defensiveness in adolescents.However, the tendency to use coping was related only to male caregivers’ consistency and openness of communication for girls.� For boys, the tendency to use coping was not related to these family variables.
The positive correlation of coping with male caregivers’ consistency and openness of communication is consistent with the theory that internalization is one of the mechanisms of intergenerational transmission of interactional patterns (Framo, 1981; Haan, 1977; Miller & Swanson, 1966).The finding that male rather than female caregivers’ behaviors are internalized by girls may be explained by the prevalent cultural norms, where men are still used most commonly as role-models of active coping.This study cannot test this theory due to design limitations, but the pattern of the relationships obtained in this study� lends it some support.It is possible that boys’ adaptational processes are less related than those of girls to communication styles in the family because of cultural expectations which emphasize action, rather then communication, as gender-congruent adaptational strategy.
Closeness-caregiving and openness of communication were also negatively correlated with the Sophisticated Defense factor.Coping by means of direct conscious regulation of one’s own affect loaded negatively on this factor and was positively correlated with these family variables.A sufficiently secure and open environment might be necessary for adolescents to admit to negative affect — the first step in controlling it without distortion.This finding is especially important for clinicians because of the view that mature mental health always involves affect recognition� (Vaillant, 2000, p. 90).This finding gives credence to the view that one of� the factors involved in inability to perceive and manage one’s feelings consciously is the perceived behavior of one’s primary caregivers.
Primary Caregivers’ Intrusiveness and Adolescents’ Adaptational Styles
It was hypothesized that female caregivers’ intrusiveness would create pressure to be dependent and to keep conflictual aspects of the relationship out of awareness in girls.This would lead girls to use defenses of projection, displacement, and regression more frequently, since these particular defenses would allow girls to conform to this pressure.The results of this study were largely consistent with this hypothesis.Angry, possessive, and mind reading behaviors had stronger relationships to the defense variables than other intrusive behaviors.Since these behaviors are likely to be consequences of lower level of ego development in caregivers themselves (Hauser et al., 1984; Powers et al., 1989), this finding is also congruent with previous research finding a relationship between caregivers’ and children’s ego processes (Haan, 1974; Hauser et al., 1991). A parallel hypothesis was proposed for boys.Intrusiveness from both caregivers was predicted to be related to the use of projection, displacement, repression, and rationalization.In this study, it was found that these defenses in boys were largely unrelated to caregivers’ intrusiveness. The defense of displacement was an exception.The use of displacement was related to most of the scales assessing intrusive behaviors in male caregivers, and to angry and mind reading behaviors in female caregivers.Once again, we can speculate that the pressure to be dependent is less relevant for boys, since dependency is less congruent with stereotypical male gender roles.However, the pressure to keep conflicts with intrusive and aggressive caregivers out of awareness is the same as for girls, and this pressure can explain the relationship between displacement and caregivers’ intrusiveness.
Coping by means of direct conscious regulation of one’s own affect, loading negatively on Sophisticated Defense factor, was negatively correlated with female caregivers’ intrusiveness.This is understandable, given that intrusive behaviors, combining apparent attachment with aggressive and possessive behaviors (Green & Werner, 1996) are likely to produce highly ambivalent affects in adolescents, who are developmentally at the stage of separation-individuation (Daniels, 1990).Intrusiveness in itself is likely to be a behavioral outcome of poorly regulated affect (Cramer, 1991), inability to regulate anger and anxiety appropriately would contribute to most of the behaviors described by the scales in this domain.The caregivers who are very attached to their children and unable to regulate their own emotions are likely to be more threatened by adolescents’ negative affect.Therefore, intrusive caregivers would create more pressure for adolescents to deal with negative affect while simultaneously providing a poorer model for learning how to do it consciously.This would increase the likelihood of adolescents pushing it out of awareness rather than managing it consciously.
Interestingly, caregivers’ intrusiveness was positively correlated with coping styles involving active regulation of one’s environment in girls. This finding is congruent with Weinstock’s (1967) and Haan’s (1974) findings discussed in Chapter I.Haan’s (1977) theory that an environment which is too accommodating and devoid of pressure does not provide sufficient stimuli to develop an active coping style also suggests that certain degree of intrusiveness may actually stimulate its development.In terms of this theory, the pressure on adolescents would come from intrusive behaviors interfering with the developmental task of separation-individuation (Daniels, 1990) and the active coping style would develop as a result of active attempts of adolescents to disengage from their intrusive caregivers.This finding of intrusiveness relating to both coping and defensiveness is also congruent with the Aldwin and Stokols’ (1988) model that certain environmental pressures can lead to deviation amplification (i.e., active coping), as well as deviation countering (i.e., defensive) processes.
Finally, the coping style involving regulation of one’s reactions to the environment, rather than attempting to change the environment itself, was largely unrelated to family variables.This style represents adaptation by means of changing one’s internal processes.It is possible, therefore, that this style is related less to external environment and more to other variables (Haan, 1977), such as extroversion (McCrae & Costa, 1986), which is a personality trait believed to be biologically based (Eysenck, 1986) or neuroticism and hardiness (Bolger, 1990; Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995).
Clinical Implications
Because previous research has found that defensiveness is associated with poor mental health, interpersonal problems, low self-esteem, external locus of control, poor behavioral adjustment, and drug abuse (Cramer, 1991; Dakof, 1996), the results of this study and the theories generated by these results may have some implications for clinical outcome research and case formulation in clinical practice.
These results suggest that closeness-caregiving and expressiveness may be related to a more healthy adaptational style in adolescents.Intrusiveness, in particular anger, aggression, possessiveness, and assuming that one knows what the child feels or thinks without confirmation, may be related to defensiveness and may impede development of children’s ability to consciously control their emotions. Outcome research where interventions are aimed at these caregiver behaviors would clarify whether such interventions are feasible.
In terms of case formulation and treatment strategy planning, the results of this study suggest particular behaviors of primary caregivers towards their children that may make particular coping and defensive processes more likely to appear.� Moreover, they suggest that Haan’s taxonomy can be meaningfully employed to conceptualize these processes.The ability to clearly formulate which defensive processes are more likely to be used would not only improve our understanding of the clients’ functioning, it would also help us plan effective strategies for uncovering or sidestepping interfering defenses.Conversely, the ability to formulate which coping processes are developed and which are not would allow us to use our clients’ strengths in treatment and to help our clients in developing the coping processes which are not their strengths.��
For example, intrusiveness and inability to communicate openly in the family of origin are related to weaker coping skills needed for direct regulation of affect and a greater use of� defenses by clients.The defenses most likely to be used include rationalization, doubt, regression, and displacement.A therapist might want to pay especial attention to these defenses in and outside the therapeutic relationship and to their impact on client’s functioning.He or she may plan a strategy involving working with these particular defenses.� Finally, if it is consistent with the therapist’s theoretical orientation, he or she might teach coping strategies for direct regulation of affect to the client.If the therapy is conducted with the whole family, systemic or psychoeducational interventions aimed at minimizing intrusive behaviors and maximizing open communication and closeness-caregiving may be considered.
