ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-CONCEPT
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Psychology
by
Jennifer Marie Maulding
FALL
2012
© 2012
Jennifer Marie Maulding
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-CONCEPT
A Thesis
by
Jennifer Marie Maulding
Approved by:
__________________________________,Committee Chair
Dr. Marya Endriga
__________________________________,Second Reader
Dr. Lawrence Meyers
__________________________________,Third Reader
Dr. Greg Kim-Ju
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Jennifer Marie Maulding
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Dr. Lisa Harrison,
Date
Department of Psychology
iv
Abstract
of
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-CONCEPT
by
Jennifer Marie Maulding
The purpose of the current study was to broaden our understanding of the relationships
between family functioning and self-concept. Participants included 311 Psychology
students at California State University Sacramento (82% females) who completed selfreported surveys. A hierarchical regression analysis revealed that, as predicted, a more
positive self-concept was significantly related to less family intrusiveness, enmeshment,
disengagement, and greater family social support. Results suggest that in enmeshed
families, social support is not mistaken for family intrusiveness; however, the presence of
family intrusiveness, enmeshment, and disengagement can possibly stifle the
development of a positive and confident self-concept. Psychology professionals may find
it helpful to become aware of these underlying family dynamics that mayplay a subtle but
crucial role in an individual’s well-being.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Marya Endriga
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It goes without saying that I had unending amounts of support during my graduate years
while I furthered my knowledge and understanding of a field that captured both my interest and
curiosity. I would like to acknowledge my parents and their never ending faith in me to strive for
whatever goals I had set for myself and then some. I would also like to thank my husband for
being there with me without complaint all those late nights while I recited section after section of
my thesis. I truly do apologize for trying out each new practice I learned about in class on you
and hope the psychological damage is not too great. I want to thank Dr. Lawrence Meyers and Dr.
Greg Kim-Ju for agreeing to help throughout the process of completing my thesis. I am also
especially thankful to all of the wonderful women in my thesis group that offered a helping hand
in the development and refining of my thesis. Thank you all so much for being there for me
through the tears and laughs along the way. I only hope I can return the favor for you all. Finally,
I would like to give my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Marya Endriga for not only being the Chair of
my thesis committee, but for also being an anchor for me when my academic world seemed to be
whirling out of control. Her motivating and non-judgmental advice and support allowed me to
finally reach the finish line.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.....................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Personality Constructs .................................................................................................. 2
Five Factor Model and the NEO-PI .............................................................................. 3
Core Self-Evaluation..................................................................................................... 5
Family Constructs ......................................................................................................... 6
Structural Family Therapy and Family Enmeshment ................................................... 7
Family Intrusiveness and Family Social Support ......................................................... 8
Role of the Family in Personality Development ........................................................... 10
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 11
2. METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 12
Participants.................................................................................................................. 12
Materials ..................................................................................................................... 13
Procedure .................................................................................................................... 18
3. RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 20
Preliminary Analysis................................................................................................... 20
Hierarchical Regression .............................................................................................. 23
Post Hoc Analysis ....................................................................................................... 26
4. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 28
Future Research Directions ......................................................................................... 30
vii
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 31
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix A.Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES) .................................................................... 35
Appendix B.Family Profile II (FP-II) ..................................................................................... 36
Appendix C.Perceived Social Support – Family Scale (Pss-Fa).............................................. 38
Appendix D.Family Intrusiveness Scale (FIS) ....................................................................... 40
Appendix E.Demographic Questionnaire ............................................................................... 41
References ................................................................................................................................ 42
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Summary of Participant Characteristics...................................................................... 13
2.
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha and 95%
Confidence Intervals for All Variables ....................................................................... 21
3.
Bivariate Correlations between CORE Self-Evaluation with
Family Relationships .................................................................................................. 23
4.
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting CORE Self-Evaluation ........................ 25
5.
CORE Self-Evaluation Means and Standard Deviations by
Ethnicity and Low or High Levels of Family Scale.................................................... 27
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
While the study of family relationships and personality traits as separate fields
have been of interest to psychologists, relatively little research has looked at the
relationship between the two. Personality theories acknowledge the influence of the
environment (Passer, Smith & Holt, 2008; Riberio, 2011) as well as heredity (Plomin&
Daniels, 2011; Plomin&Nesselroade, 1990). It is interesting that the family encompasses
both aspects: families pass down their genes to its members and they also create the
immediate environment that surrounds the individual. This is especially so in the
beginning years of life when the child is dependent on his or her parents. During these
crucial years of self-growth, the family has considerable influence over individual
personality development.
The dispute over the relative contributions of the innate qualities of heredity and
the personal experiences of the environment to personality dates back to psychology’s
philosophical roots. Philosophers such as Plato and Descartes believed that certain
aspects of an individual’s character are innate and are uninfluenced by environmental
factors. Others, such as John Locke, sided with Nurture and the tabula rasa, believing
that one’s mind is a blank slate and entirely affected by the world around the
individual(Baird & Walter, 2008).
For others, genetics as well as the environment affect the personality development
of individuals. For example, it is believed that genetics, parent-child relations and the
2
longitudinal stability of individual differences affect one’s personality development
(McCrae, et.al, 2000). Support for this theory was found by Scarr, Weinberg and Wittig
(1981) who observed personality similarities between adolescents and either their
biological or adoptive parents. A modest degree of resemblance was found between those
who were biologically related with only minimal similarities found between those who
were adopted. It was also concluded that variations in personality were more likely to be
found between siblings within the same family rather than between parents and their
children. Recent models of personality development tend toward the middle ground
where personality traits are primarily influenced by the environment and life events but
are genetically mediated (Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, &Spinath, 2012).
Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Jokela (2010) also found that there may be genetic factors
involving the serotonergic and dopaminergic genes which moderate the influence of
environmental conditions on aspects of a person’s personality, including but not limited
to temperament, depression, and hostility. Thus, current research has demonstrated that
the line between Nature and Nurture is not as distinctly drawn as had been previously
thought.
Personality Constructs
Personality has been studied by numerous well-recognized scholars including
Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson and, throughout the years, several definitions of
personality have evolved. The word “personality” actually comes from the Latin word
persona which means mask; referring to the masks worn by Greek performers in dramas
to portray to the audience the characteristics of those they were representing (Colendrino-
3
Bucu, Guerrero, Pascual, & Mateo, 1997). Personality is often interpreted as the sum of
one’s subjective ways of identifying oneself in distinction to the environment. The term
“personality’ is sometimes confused, however, with the idea of the “self”. The self is
regarded as a representation of the whole human being whereas personality is merely a
portrayal of a portion of the entire identity of an individual (Priddy, 2012). The concept
of personality is not exclusive to the concept of the self, but is in fact fundamentally
linked, providing theorists in the field of psychology with a more coherent set of
principles to explore the personal aspects of the self (Brinich& Shelly, 2002). For the
purposes of this study the following definition accepted by many within the field of
psychology will be utilized: Personality refers to “more or less stable, internal factors that
make one person’s behavior consistent from one time to another, and different from the
behavior other people would manifest in comparable situations” (Child, 1968, p.83).
Five Factor Model and the NEO-PI
Several theories including biological, behavioral, psychodynamic, and humanistic
approaches exist regarding the development of personality. However, the most widely
recognized approach to the study of personality and its development is the Five Factor
Model (FFM) (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Although numerous researchers and
psychologists studied the five specific domains of openness, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism as key concepts to exploring personality, it
was not until 1980 when Lewis Goldberg coined them as the “Big Five” that they were
recognized as being correlated with one another (Goldberg, 1981). By 1985, a measure
4
was created in order to assess these five personality domains and is still to this day a
well-recognized scale known as the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985).
The Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) was developed by Paul T. Costa, Jr. and
Robert R. McCrae (1985) and is a concise measure of the five major dimensions or
domains of normal adult personality traits. Those five domains are Neuroticism (N),
Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness
(C). Each of these domains contains six facets which encapsulate specific properties of
the domain. The six facets which create the Neuroticism domain describe people who do
not feel safe: anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and
vulnerability. The facets under the Extraversion domain are warmth, gregariousness,
assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions. Under the Openness to
Experience domain are fantasy, aesthetics, feelings (openness to feelings of self and
others), actions (willingness to try new activities), ideas (intellectual curiosity), and
values. The facets under the Agreeableness domain are trust, straightforwardness,
altruism, compliance, modesty, and tendermindedness. Finally, under the
Conscientiousness domain, the six facets are competence, order, dutifulness, achievement
striving, self-discipline, and deliberation (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The NEO-PI and its
several variations have consistently been found to be both reliable and valid (Costa &
McCrae, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Sherry, Hewitt, Flett, Lee-Baggley, & Hall, 2007;
Conard, 2006)
5
Core Self-Evaluation
A more recently formed theory than the Five Factor Model is the Core SelfEvaluation (Judge, Erez, Bono, &Thoresen, 2003). For a considerable amount of time,
locus of control, self-esteem, neuroticism, and general self-efficacy have been studied
within the field of psychology. However, it has only been recently addressed that these
four personality traits may be separate parts of a larger trait. In a study conducted by
Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002), it was found that the four traits had poor
discriminant validity. Structural relations between the four traits found that each
personality trait could not entirely be treated as independent from the others. In addition,
the amount of variance accounted for by each individual measure for each trait was not
any higher than the variance accounted for by their common core (Judge, Erez, Bono,
&Thoresen, 2002).
From these findings, as well as other supporting evidence, the Core SelfEvaluation Scale (CSES) was developed that encapsulated each of these personality traits
(Erez, Bono, &Thoresen, 2003). Through factor analysis, Erez, Bono and Thoreson
(2003) found that a single factor structure emerged, and that the measure showed
convergent and discriminant validity (Gardner & Pierce, 2010). The CSES was shown to
correlate highly with self-esteem, with an average corrected correlation of .87,
generalized self-efficacy, with an average corrected correlation of .82, and neuroticism,
with an average corrected correlation of .76. Locus of control showed a moderate
correlation with an average corrected correlation of .50 (Erez, Bono, &Thoresen, 2003).
6
The CORE Self-Evaluation measures a stable personality trait which encompasses
an individual’s subconscious evaluation of themselves regarding their abilities and their
own control. This trait is otherwise known as one’s self-concept. There are some
arguments that the CORE Self-Evaluation Scale does not offer any new information
beyond what can be gained through the FFM; specifically, the FFM’s measure of
neuroticism. The FFM, however, does not explicitly refer to self-esteem in either its
description of neuroticism nor is self-esteem a facet of neuroticism. The CORE SelfEvaluation thus offers a broader conceptualization of neuroticism than that of the FFM
and is the reason for its employment in this study. In addition, the core self-evaluation
construct has not been used outside of the industrial/organizational psychology field and
may have utility in other sub-disciplines of psychology.
Family Constructs
In the biological sense, the family is built upon its function to reproduce
(Schneider, 1984). However, in a cultural context definitions of family can expand to
include the extended family and non-blood relations including those who are related by
marriage (Williams, Sawyer, &Wahlstrom, 2005). For the purpose of this study, family
members of the participants will include the parents, step-parents, siblings, grandparents,
uncles, aunts, godparents, and any other immediate and extended family members. Those
who are related by marriage will be included as well but friends, schoolmates, and other
non-blood relatives will be excluded.
Familyis not only defined by its members but also by its dynamics. Family
dynamics is meant to describe the ways in which the family interacts with one another.
7
This may include traditions, behavioral patterns, styles of communication, and emotional
independence (Bowen, 2011). It is important to take into consideration the ethnic culture
of the family environment when interpreting family dynamics. Self-construal, or the ways
in which individuals view themselves as separate or connected to others, can affect the
ways in which they perceive the relationships between one another(Markus &Kitayama,
1991). Whereas Caucasian cultures tend to embrace independence, personal uniqueness,
and self-sufficiency, Asian societies typically emphasize interdependence, group
solidarity, social hierarchy and personal humility (Wang &Leichtman, 2000). This is
important to keep in mind when interpreting family dynamics because culture may
influence whether an individual perceives family members to be intrusive or supportive,
for example.Cultural variations in family experiences such as this can be found
throughout multiple ethnic groups, ultimately affecting the delicate nuances within
familyrelationships (Julian, Mckenry&Mckelvey, 1994; Howes, Wishard&Zucker, 2007).
Structural Family Therapy and Family Enmeshment
Between 1974 and 1978, Minuchin and several colleagues sorted and condensed
what had been previously theorized about family functioning into a new framework that
they called Structural Family Therapy. According to Minuchin, family structure was the
“invisible set of functional demands that organizes the ways in which family members
interact,” (Minuchin, 1974, p.51). The family itself could then be divided into
subsystems, which included the spouse subsystem, the parental subsystem, and the
sibling subsystem. Boundaries were then set by the rules of each subsystem’s role in the
family structure (Minuchin, 1974). Once these definitions and boundaries had been set, a
8
bipolar linear continuum was created to express the extent of these family systems. On
one end of the continuum were relationships which were considered enmeshed. Family
enmeshment is characterized by an extreme sense of closeness between family members;
so much so, that if an individual member were to express independence, it would be seen
as disloyalty to the family (Stoop &Masteller, 1996). In the middle of the spectrum were
the relationships that had clear boundaries and were considered normal. At the opposite
end of the continuum were those who had a disengaged relationship. A disengaged family
was characterized by inappropriately rigid boundaries (Minuchin, 1974). According to a
study done by Barber and Buehler (1996), family enmeshment and family cohesion are
not to be confused with one another. Family enmeshment is based on psychological
control whereas family cohesion is built upon supportive interaction. Once the definition
of what constitutes as a family is set, and the borders have been drawn, one can then
explore how the interactions between its members can waver between healthy and
unhealthy relationships.
Family Intrusiveness and Family Social Support
Family intrusiveness is based on the emotional boundaries of each member and
how others within the family manage those boundaries with regard to consequences for
the individual and the family (Minuchin, 1974; Gavazzi, Reese &Sabatelli, 1998). These
boundaries can then be managed by either high intimacy and low conflict (low
intrusiveness) or with low intimacy and high conflict (high intrusiveness) (Minuchin,
1974).
9
A healthy level of family social support relies on the interpersonal networks of an
individual and their family members as well as if the individual feels that their needs for
support, information, and feedback are fulfilled through these networks (Caplan, 1974).
Family social support has been connected to factors within an individual’s life including
stress and its buffers (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Ologun&Ibigbami, 2006) as well as selfesteem (Brown, Andrews, Harris, Adler, &Brindge, 1986; Orshan, 1999). The amount of
family social support does not necessarily increase its protective value; what matters is
how well the support is accepted by the individual (Lyons, Perrotta, &Hancher-Kvam,
1988; Heller, Swindle, &Dusenbury, 1986).
Toepfer (2010) went further by exploring the relationship between family social
support and family intrusiveness in young women. The study included 78 female
undergraduates from a large Midwestern University. Participants were given the
Perceived Social Support Scale- Family (PSS-FA) and the Family Intrusiveness Scale
(FIS). Results from descriptive and correlational analyses revealed an inverse relationship
between family social support and family intrusiveness. Toepfer’s study did not take into
account that enmeshment may have been present in the families. As was stated in
Toepfer’s limitations, “previous research on enmeshed family systems suggested the
possibility that a façade of support could mask intrusive interactions,” (Toepfer, pg. 61,
2010). In other words, the participant and the family may be enmeshed to the point where
intrusiveness is mistaken for support which leads to the unexpected inverse relationship.
In this current study, both enmeshment and intrusiveness will be measured.
10
Role of the Family in Personality Development
According to Bhatti (2011), the role of the family is the first and foremost
influence over a child’s development, including his or her personality. The social ethics,
developmental practices and the roles of the parents and other family members directly
affect the development of each of its members. The parents, specifically, are responsible
for creating an environment that aids in the development of a healthy personality. Bhatti
also states that intellect, physique and emotions are the raw materials of a personality;
thus, parents should maintain a pleasant living environment that supports and motivates
their children. Children who feel safe and secure within their environment show secure
base behavior, which ultimately leads to these children becoming joyful, social, and
inquisitive about the world around them (Bowlby, 1988). Should the child’s development
be void of these supports, the individual becomes detached or disengaged from the family
and develops a passive, avoidant demeanor. Research within cultures that emphasize
independence has found that children who are raised by family members who utilize an
authoritarian child rearing style in which the parents or family appear cold, rejecting,
intrusive and controlling, tend to have low self-esteem and self-reliance and tend to react
with hostility and frustration (Berk, 2006). However, for cultures characterized by
interdependence, the appearance of authoritarian parenting may be normative (cite Ruth
Chao or others). Ultimately, the family environment and its interactions play a crucial
role in the development of a child and their personality.
11
Purpose of the Study
The preceding review of the literature on personality and family factors
demonstrates the relationships among the specific constructs; yet relatively little work has
been done to group key variables and examine their relationship with one another within
a single study. The current study attempts to advance the study of associations between
personality and family variables with the following specific hypotheses:
H1:
Specific aspects of family dynamics will account for a significant amount of
variance in self-concept.
H2:
Self-concept will negatively correlate with perceived family intrusiveness.
H3:
Self-concept will negatively correlate with enmeshment.
H4:
Self-concept will negatively correlate with disengagement.
H5:
Self-concept will positively correlate with perceived family social support.
12
Chapter 2
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 311undergraduate students from the human subjects pool of a
Northern California public university. They were recruited on a volunteer basis and
received credit towards one or more of their current psychology courses. Undergraduates
were between the ages of 17 and 57 (M = 20.55, SD = 4.48), and primarily female (225
females and 56 males). Ethnicity was based on seven possible categories with the
majority of participants reporting their ethnicity as White/Caucasian (n=117, 37.6%).
Class status was also tracked through the demographics portion of the packet, resulting in
the majority of participants being in their first/freshman year (n=95, 30.5%).
13
Table 1
Summary of Participant Characteristics
Total Sample
(N=311)
N
%
Demographic Variable
Gender
Male
Female
56
225
18.0%
82.0%
Class Status
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
95
72
91
53
30.5%
23.2%
29.3%
17.0%
Ethnicity
American Indian/ Alaska Native
Asian/ Asian-American
Black/ African-American
Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander
Hispanic/ Latino
White/ Caucasian
Other
6
83
29
7
49
117
20
1.9%
26.7%
9.3%
2.3%
15.8%
37.6%
6.4%
Materials
Family Profile II.The Family Profile II(PF-II; Lee, Burr, Beutler, Olsen,
Yorgason, &Harker, 1997) identifies twelve different dimensions of family functioning,
style, and communication. These dimensions include Kindness, Unkindness,
Communication, Disengaged, Enmeshed, Bridging, Financial Management, Self
Reliance, Work Orientation, Daily Chores/ Tasks, Sacred/ Secular Orientation, and
Rituals(Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001). Based on the study hypotheses, only two
of the twelve subscales will be utilized. The Disengaged subscale will be used in order to
14
measure the extent to which family members act without considering others in the family
and fail to communicate with one another. The Enmeshed subscale will also be used in
order to measure the extent to which family members insist on being involved with each
other without allowing time or space for individual family members to lead their own
lives.
The PF-II contains a total of 58 items. Sample questions include “We do nice
things for each other,” “As a family, we take the responsibility to provide for ourselves,”
and “Some family members are very critical of each other.” The participants will selfreport using a 7-point Likert scale with 1 representing a response of “Never” and 7
representing a response of “Always” (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001). Possible
scores for each item range in value between 1 and 7 and correspond to the response given
by participants. Specific items are then grouped together in order to create the twelve
dimensions of the family profile. Each dimension results in its own unique total score by
summing the response values for each item within that dimension. The enmeshment and
disengagement subscales contain 4 items each for a possible total score of 56. Had the
entire measure been utilized, sixteen items would have been reverse coded (as indicated
within the measure); however, neither of the two subscales used in the study required
reverse coding.
The alpha levels for each of the subscales of the measure have been found to
range between .72 and .95. Seven of the twelve subscales had alphas between .80 to .89.
Through the use of a factor analysis, only items that had a loading of .5 or above were
included in the final measure (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001).
15
Perceived Social Support-Family Scale.The Perceived Social Support-Family
Scale (Pss-Fa; Procidahno& Heller, 1983) measures the extent to which a family supports
one another through the means of verbal and behavioral expression of intimacy tolerance.
With this measure, those who perceive higher social support should also have a greater
ability to accept intimacy (Toepfer, 2010).
The measure contains 20 items with a three option response scale which includes
“yes,” “no,” and “don’t know.” Sample items include “I rely on my family for emotional
support,” “Most other people are closer to their family than I am,” and “My family is
sensitive to my personal needs,” (Toepfer, 2010).
For each item within the measure where the response suggests the presence of
social support, a score of +1 is given while the other two options are given a score of 0.
The possible scores for the measure as a whole ranges between 0 to 20. If the frequency
of “no” and “don’t know” responses exceeds that of the “yes” responses, then this
represents a low level of perceived family support. Five items were reverse coded as the
literature instructed. Low scores indicate that the participant perceives a lesser amount of
social support from his or her family, while high scores indicate that the participant has a
higher perceived level of social support (Toepfer, 2010).
The scale was found to have a high test-retest reliability where r=.83 over a
period of 1 month. It also had a high internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha of .90
(Procidahno& Heller, 1983). The scale had also been given to a sample of college
students and was found to have a normative mean of 15.5 with a standard deviation of
5.08 (Fischer & Corcoran, 1994).
16
Family Intrusiveness Scale. The Family Intrusiveness Scale(FIS; Gavazzi,
Reese, &Sabatelli, 1998) was used in order to. Different domains of intrusiveness are
taken into account with this scale. These domains include decision-making, maintaining
familial connections with those who are outside of the family, and the involvement of
global qualities of everyday life (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001).
The scale contains 13 items, each with a 7-point Likert scale response ranging
from “never” to “always.” A response of “never” will be scored as a 1 while a response
of “always” will be given a score of 7. The remaining responses will be scored
accordingly within those two anchors. Sample items from this measure include “Family
members tell me I do things that a member of our family shouldn’t,” “Family members
interfere with my friendships,” and “Family members tell me how I should spend my
money,” (Touliatos, Perlmutter, & Holden, 2001).
To obtain a total score for the measures each of the 13 items will be summed
together with possible scores ranging between 13 and 91. Higher total scores on the
measure will indicate that there is a greater amount of perceived intrusiveness from the
family with the participant’s development of independence (Touliatos, Perlmutter, &
Holden, 2001).
A factor analysis conducted on the original 14 items created for this measure
proved that only a single factor of family intrusiveness was present. A final 13 items were
included in the scale with loadings of .30 or higher. An alpha level of .91 was calculated
for males, .88 for females, and .89 for the entire sample. The items within the scale
correlated with the age of the participant with a value of .13. Because of this, participants
17
who were older tended to have lower scores of intrusiveness (Touliatos, Perlmutter, &
Holden, 2001).
CORE Self-Evaluation. The Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSEs; Judge, Erez,
Bono, &Thoreson, 2003) will be used in order to measure the larger underlying selfconcept that is comprised of the four individual personality traits: locus of control,
neuroticism, general self-esteem, and self-efficacy. The scale contains twelve items that
are responded to using the provided 5-point Likert scale. The possible responses range
from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). Sample items within the measure
include, “ I am confident I get the success I deserve,” “ I am filled with doubts about my
competence,” and “ I determine what will happen in my life.” The possible range of
scores for this scale spans between 12 and 60. All even items within the scale are
inversely scored while all odd numbered items will be scored normally. This allows for
higher total scores to represent more positive Core Self-Evaluations (Judge et al., 2003).
During the original development of the scale, Judge et al. distributed the scale to
four independent samples of people including the following: employees from three
locations of a Midwestern food service company, pharmaceutical salespeople from a
large corporation in the easternU.S., undergraduate college students at a southeastern
university, and finally undergraduatecollege students who attended a large Midwestern
university. According to Judge et al., his findings for these three groups displayed high
internal reliability due to the coefficient alphas for the four samples ranging between .83
and .87, with an average of .85 (Judge et al., 2003).
18
As for convergent validity, the CSEs significantly correlated with the individual
core traits of locus of control, neuroticism, self-esteem, and generalized self-efficacy. The
CSEs was also found to have a moderate correlation with the Big 5 traits of
conscientiousness and extraversion, which supported the idea thatthese traits possess
discriminant validity. It was expected that the CSEs would show no correlational
relationships with openness to experience and agreeableness, furthering the evidence to
support that the traits possess discriminant validity (Judge et al., 2003).
Procedure
Participants entered the research room and were seated. Consent forms were then
distributed for the participants to sign (see Appendix F). These consent forms were then
collected and placed into a separate folder with no markings to ensure that the documents
could not be traced back to the participant. At this point, the participants were notified
that they may exit the study at any point should they feel the need to without fear of
penalty; however, they would be ineligible to receive credit for their specific course.
Before handing any materials to the participants, they were informed that they are not to
put any identifying marks such as their name, or student ID on their packet. The
participants were then handed a packet of the materials and were informed that they were
to complete the packet in order and were not to skip ahead or around for any reason. They
were then told to begin filling out the packets.
The packets given to the participants included the following: The Core SelfEvaluation Scale (Appendix A), The Family Profile II (see Appendix B), the Perceived
Social Support Scale- Family Scale (see Appendix C), the Family Intrusiveness Scale
19
(see Appendix D) and a demographics questionnaire (see Appendix E). With the
exception of the demographics sheet which was presented at the end of every packet, the
order of the scales were counterbalanced in the survey packets.
When the participants completed the packet of measures, they turned it into the
researcher who placed the packets into a completed packets envelope. The researcher
then handed a debriefing sheet to the research participants that described in greater detail
the purpose of the study. The researcher thanked the participants for their participation,
provided them with information on where they may follow up with the study, as well as
information about the psychological services provided on campus should feel any
negative effects from their involvement in the study. Approval for the study was obtained
by the departmental Human Subjects Committee.
20
Chapter 3
RESULTS
The results of this study are presented in three sections. The first section reports
preliminary analyses, including internal consistency, descriptive statistics and bivariate
correlations for all variables. The second section presents the results from a hierarchical
regression. Finally, four two-way between-subject analyses of variance (ANOVA) were
run as a post hoc analysis to observe the effects of racial group (White, Black, Asian and
Hispanic) and family scale score (family intrusiveness, social support, enmeshment and
disengagement) on CORE Self-Evaluation.
Preliminary Analyses
Prior to conducting any statistical analyses, all survey packets were examined for
missing data. Four participants failed to complete an entire measure within their survey
packets and these cases were excluded from all data analyses.
Also, preceding the hierarchical regression, the relevant assumptions of this
statistical analysis were tested. First, a sample size of 311 was deemed adequate given
that there were a total of four independent variables included within the study
(Tabachnick&Fidell, 2001). The assumption of singularitywas also met as the
independent variables (Family Intrusiveness, Enmeshment, Disengagement, and Social
Support) were not acombination of other independent variables. Finally, an examination
of correlations revealed thatno independent variables were highly correlated; thus, the
assumption of multicollinearity was deemed to have been met.
21
In order to examine the internal consistency of the scales included in the study,
Cronbach’s Alphas were calculated for the current study and compared to previous
studies involving the same scales. The alphas for each scale and subscale used within the
current study were found to be within an acceptable range and consistent with those
published in the literature.
Findings of the descriptive analyses showed that participants had relatively high
levels of self-concept (as measured by the CORE Self-Evaluation). Participants also
perceived their family to be intrusive sometimes, and perceived a moderate amount of
family social support. Participants also perceived their family to be disengaged some of
the time according to the response scale of the measure.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alpha and 95% Confidence Intervals for
All Variables
95% confidence
bounds
M
SD
α
Lower
Upper
CORE Self-Evaluation
42.90
6.98
.83
.80
.86
Family Intrusiveness
42.16
15.80
.90
.88
.91
Family Social Support
14.98
24.04
.89
.88
.91
Enmeshment
11.47
23.51
.73
.68
.78
Disengagement
14.85
27.71
.81
.77
.84
The bivariate correlations showed that the CORE Self-Evaluation, or one’s level
of self-concept, was significantly correlated with family intrusiveness, enmeshment,
22
disengagement, and perceived family social support. This then suggests that participants
with higher levels of family intrusiveness, enmeshment, and disengagement evaluated
themselves negatively, whereas participants with higher levels of perceived family social
support evaluated themselves positively.
Family intrusiveness was found to correlate significantly with family social
support, family enmeshment, and family disengagement. In other words, as a participant
perceived higher levels of intrusiveness from their family, they also perceived lower
levels of family social support and higher levels of family disengagement and family
intrusiveness.
Family social support was found to correlate significantly with family
enmeshment as well as disengagement. Basically, as a participant perceived higher levels
of social support from their family, they would also perceive lower levels of family
enmeshment and lower levels of disengagement.
Finally, family enmeshment was found to correlate significantly with
disengagement. This then suggests that as a participant perceived higher levels of
enmeshment, the also perceived higher levels of disengagement.
23
Table 3
Bivariate Correlationsbetween CORE Self-Evaluation with Family Relationships
Constructs
1
1. CORE Self-Evaluation
1.00
2. Family Intrusiveness
-.35*
3. Family Social Support
2
3
4
5
1.00
.33*
-.34*
1.00
4. Enmeshment
-.25*
.57*
-.37*
5. Disengagement
-.24*
.24*
-.56*
1.00
.36*
1.00
Note. *p<.01
Hierarchical Regression
A hierarchical regression analysis was utilized in order to predict the level of
participant’s self-concept. Family enmeshment, intrusiveness, social support, and
disengagement were entered as independent variables while self-concept was entered as
the dependent variable. According to previous research, the presence of enmeshment
within a family may cause family intrusiveness to be mistaken for social support(Toepfer,
2010). With this in mind, enmeshment was entered in the first block to distinguish the
amount of variance it accounted for as the sole predictor variable in the model. Family
intrusiveness was entered into the second block to see if any additional variance was
accounted for without the presence of social support within the model. Family social
support was then entered into the third block to examine the amount of variance
accounted for when enmeshment and family intrusiveness had been controlled for.
Finally, disengagement was entered into the fourth block due to the fact that it measures
the exact opposite of enmeshment and would be expected to account for little of the
24
remaining variance. Results from the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in Table
3.
The hierarchical regression revealed that in Block 1, perceived family
enmeshment contributed significantly to the regression model and accounted for 6.1% of
the variance in self-concept. Introducing the family intrusiveness variable explained an
additional 6.4% of the variance in self-concept and the change in R2was significant.
Adding family social support to the regression model explained an additional 5.0% of the
variance and the change in R2was significant. Finally, the addition of family
disengagement to the regression model did not explain any additional variance; thus, the
change in R2was found to be insignificant. When all four independent variables were
included in the fourth block of the regression model, neither enmeshment nor
disengagement were significant predictors of self-concept. The most important predictor
of self-concept was family intrusiveness which uniquely explained 5% of the variation in
self-concept. Together, the four independent variables accounted for 18% of the variance
in self-concept.
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Analysis Predicting CORE Self-Evaluation
2
R
2
Block R Change
Model
1
.06
.06 Constant
Enmeshment*
2
3
4
.13
.17
.18
.06
.05
.00
Pearson
r
sr
-.25
.06
-1.00
1.00
1.00
-.07
-.31
-.25
-.35
.00
.06
-0.71
-0.99
.68
.68
1.48
1.48
1.99
.09
.03
.08
-.02
-.28
.21
-.25
-.35
.33
.00
.05
.05
-0.60
-0.84
0.80
.64
.66
.84
1.57
1.52
1.20
2.66
.10
.03
.09
.08
.01
-.27
.20
-.07
-.25
-.35
.33
-.24
.00
.05
.03
.00
-0.60
-0.84
0.79
-0.57
.62
.66
.64
.67
1.62
1.52
1.57
1.50
b
46.97
-.35
SE-b Beta
.99
.08 -.25
Constant
Enmeshment
Family Intrusiveness*
49.81
-.10
-.14
1.13
.09
.03
Constant
Enmeshment
Family Intrusiveness*
Family Social Support*
42.87
-.01
-.12
.34
Constant
Enmeshment
Family Intrusiveness*
Family Social Support*
Disengagement
44.76
.01
-.12
.29
-.09
2
Structure
Coefficient Tolerance VIF
Note. *p<.01
25
26
Post Hoc Analysis
In order to examine the potential main and interaction effects of ethnicity, CORE
Self-Evaluation scores were subjected to four separate two-way between-subject analysis
of variance tests. Each ANOVA had four levels of ethnicity representing the ethnic
groups with sufficient sample size to analyze (White, Asian, Black and Hispanic), and
two levels for each family scale (high, low). Table 5 presents the means and standard
deviations of the analysis. No significant main or interaction effects for ethnicity were
found.
Table 5
CORE Self-Evaluation Means and Standard Deviations by Ethnicity and Low or High Levels of Family Scale
White
Condition
Asian
Black
Hispanic
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
High Level
40.46
7.05
39.98
6.73
42.43
6.99
40.36
6.67
Low Level
44.77
6.41
44.94
6.22
47.13
4.96
45.26
6.83
High Level
43.94
7.13
44.41
7.75
46.33
5.62
45.81
6.95
Low Level
41.60
6.58
40.92
6.17
41.00
7.01
41.00
6.64
High Level
44.12
6.78
43.69
6.53
46.93
5.36
45.21
7.82
Low Level
41.93
7.06
40.55
7.05
42.93
6.82
41.00
5.82
High Level
44.64
6.71
45.74
6.02
47.35
4.14
46.25
6.05
Low Level
40.65
6.75
39.98
6.58
41.33
7.45
40.86
7.07
Family Social Support
Enmeshment
Disengagement
Family Intrusiveness
27
28
Chapter 4
DISCUSSION
Previous studies have been conducted in which only two or three family
relationship variables are being compared to one another within a single study (Barber &
Buehler, 1996; Toepfer, 2010); however, studies observing numerous family dynamics at
once are harder to find. Family dynamics and their relationship with personality are even
rarer. The purpose of the current study was to address this gap in the literature by
examining family intrusiveness, family enmeshment, family disengagement, and
perceived family social support as they relate to one’s self-concept as measured by the
CORE Self-Evaluation. Overall, study results support this line of inquiry as potentially
fruitful.
Results from the hierarchical regression analysis revealed that 18.0% of the
variability in participant’s self-concept was accounted for by family enmeshment, family
intrusiveness, family social support, and family disengagement. Although 18.0% is not
considered to be a large amount of variance statistically, the results show promise in
finding significant relationships between family dynamics and self-concept. Family
intrusiveness alone, when all independent variables were entered into the regression
model, accounted for 5.0% of the variance in self-concept which may show cause for
further investigation of the relationship between the two. In addition, due to the fact that
the CORE Self-Evaluation had never been previously used beyond the scope of the work
environment prior to the current study, 18.0% is a significant finding for the beginnings
29
of this venture in researching its use within the family setting. Thus, this finding supports
the first hypothesis (H1) that specific aspects of family dynamics will account for a
significant amount of variance in self-concept.
The results of the bivariate and regression analyses also provided support for the
second hypothesis (H2) that self-concept was negatively related to perceived family
intrusiveness. Those who have high core self-evaluations think positively of themselves
and are confident in their own abilities (Erez, Bono, &Thoresen, 2003). Intrusive
families, however, falter in having functioning boundaries which allow for the autonomy
and individuality of its members (Hess & Handel, 1985). In essence, individual family
members may not have had the ability to develop confidence within themselves due to
the family’s interfering.
A significant negative correlation was also found between self-concept and
enmeshment as was hypothesized (H3). Enmeshed families within individualistic cultures
are overly dependent on one another which does not allow for the healthy psychological
development of achieving a level of emotional independence from one’s family
(Whiteside, Aronoff& Ward, 1993). Due to this inability to separate one’s self from their
family setting, the development of self-esteem and confidence in one’s self is stifled and
is thus reflective of the findings.
Support was found for the fourth hypothesis (H4) that self-concept will negatively
correlate with disengagement. Disengaged families are the exact opposite of families
which are enmeshed in that the behaviors of one family member do not affect the
behaviors of the others (Miermont, J., 1995). This then may explain the negative
30
correlation between self-concept and disengagement should the participant have had a
strong sense of self due to factors external to the influences of the family environment.
Finally, support was also found for the fifth hypothesis (H5) that self-concept will
positively correlate with perceived family social support. The bivariate correlation
resulted in a correlation value of .33 between the two variables which is not substantially
high, but was found to be statistically significant. Orshan (1999) had previously found a
significant correlation between self-esteem and family social support with a correlational
value equaling .35, and seeing as how the CORE Self-Evaluation partially assesses for
self-esteem, the correlation found in the current study is comparative to that of Orshan’s
findings.
Results from the current study also support Toepfer’s (2010) findings of an
inverse relationship between perceived family intrusiveness and perceived family social
support as well. However, the bivariate analysis also revealed that higher levels of family
social support were also associated with lower levels of family intrusiveness and
enmeshment, indicating that within highly enmeshed families, intrusive interactions were
not perceived as social support. This then contradicts Toepfer’s theory that highly
enmeshed families mistake family intrusiveness for social support.
Future Research Directions
Future studies that have access to a wide range of ethnicities in their subject pool
should consider exploring the differences between these ethnicities in regards to their
family interactions. The cultural environment in which a child is raised has been found to
affect not only their social skills (Jay, 2010), but their patterns of attachment
31
(IJzendoorn&Kroonenberg, 1988) and the ways in which they emotionally react to
difficult situations (Cole, Bruschi, &Tamang, 2002). Cultural differences also have
profound impacts on our sense of well-being within our mental and physical health
(McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., &Garcia_Preto, N., 2005). According to Lewin, Lippitt,
and White (1939) the degree to which ethnicity influences personality development is
dependent on how prominent ethnicity is in the environment. Should the participant have
come from a home in which their culture was deeply ingrained in their day to day living,
it could be hypothesized that the results found for family enmeshment and intrusiveness
would have had outcomes highly skewed in either the positive or negative direction.
Ultimately, exploring the cultural differences in family relationships may give further
insight into the influences on personality development.
Also, within the present study, enmeshment and intrusiveness were strongly
associated, suggesting that the two constructs are alike in nature or they have yet to be
fully examined as separate entities. Future research should explore and further the
differentiation between these two variates.
Furthermore, since the CORE Self-Evaluation scale has been employed limitedly
to assess job satisfaction, a more in-depth examination of the scale’s utility in exploring
the relationship between personality and family dynamics is recommended.
Limitations
With any cross sectional study, there are possible limitations. One in particular is
that the data is collected at only one point in time providing a “snapshot” of the frequency
and characteristics of the variables included in the study. This then suggests that any
32
outside factors that occurred within that particular day that the participant completed the
survey packet could have possibly influenced their responses. For example, due to the
population being comprised solely of students, many procrastinate until the end of the
semester to participate in studies to gain credits for their classes. This rush, alongside the
possible stress associated with finals may have influenced their outcomes. Differing
outcomes may have resulted had another time-frame been chosen.
As was alluded to above, an additional limitation of the study was the fact thatthe
main reason for participation was because students were receiving credit for the time they
spent completing the surveys. This may have caused participants to rush their responses
and be primarily motivated by receiving course credit rather than fully focusing on the
information they were providing to the study.
Yet another limitation is that all data was self-reported. With this type of data
collection there is always the possibility that participants answer in a way which they feel
is socially “correct” or acceptable or they may do the polar opposite by exaggerating to
make their situation seem worse. This then becomes an issue of validity. Self-report
studies are also inherently biased by the person's feelings at the time they filled out the
questionnaire. If a person happens to feels badly at the time they fill out the
questionnaire, for example, their answers will be more negative. If the person feels good
at the time, then the answers will be more positive.
A final limitation of the study is in its design. A correlational study in limited in
that it can only suggest a relationship present between variables. It cannot, however,
prove that one variable causes change in another.
33
Conclusion
Beyond the realm of genetics is the influence of the environment surrounding and
molding personality development. Families provide a child’s initial environment
suggesting that they have a significant influence on the early development of the
personalities of its members. Specifically, the current study has shown that the family
dynamics of intrusiveness, enmeshment, disengagement, and social support all relate to
an individual’s self-concept.
The results of this study provide insight into the importance of the environment
provided by and for family members and the impact that environment has on its
individual member’s personality development. A family setting that is supportive of the
individuality and independence of its members results in confident and healthy
personalities. On the other hand, family settings that are discouraging, intrusive,
enmeshed, or disengaged in nature can ultimately lead to its members thinking poorly of
themselves.
Professionals within the field of psychology can possibly benefit from the results
of this study through the identification of individuals with poor self-concepts and the ties
it may have within the family setting. The environment in which young adults may be
living or have lived could have affected the ways in which they view themselves as well
as the world around them. By discussing the issues an individual may have encountered
within their family setting regarding boundaries and support, professionals may be able to
gain some insight into the effects that environment had on the individual’s personality
development and their choices in life attached to those personality traits. In a more
34
general sense, upon the understanding of how these family relationships affect the
outcomes of personality, this information can be utilized to create more positive living
environments for future generations to increase the likelihood of their healthy personality
development.
35
APPENDIX A
CORE Self-Evaluation Scale
Instructions: Below are several statements with which you may agree or disagree. Using
the response scale below, indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each
statement.
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
Disagree
3
4
5
Neutral
Agree
Strongly
Agree
_____1. I am confident I get the success I deserve.
_____2. Sometimes I feel depressed.
_____3. When I try, I generally succeed.
_____4. Sometimes when I fail, I feel worthless.
_____5. I complete task successfully.
_____6. Sometimes I do not feel in control of my work.
_____7. Overall I am satisfied with myself.
_____8. I am filled with doubts about my competence.
_____9. I determine what will happen in my life.
_____10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career.
_____11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems.
_____12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.
36
APPENDIX B
Family Profile II
Instructions: Write the number from the following scale that best describes your family.
1
2
3
Never
Almost
Never
Once in a
While
4
5
Sometimes Frequently
6
7
Almost
Always
Always
_____1. We do nice things for each other.
_____2. Some family members are rude to others.
_____3. Some members of our family have difficulty expressing themselves.
_____4. When we are At home, family members usually do their own thing.
_____5. Some members of the family want more individuality than our family allows.
_____6.Our family as uncomfortable socializing with others.
_____7. We live within our income.
_____8. As a family, we take the responsibility to provide for ourselves.
_____9. We are taught that work is a key to success.
_____10.The quality of our work on family chores as poor.
_____11. Faith in religious things is important to our family.
_____12. We participate in valued traditions that are unique to our family.
_____13. The overall quality of our family life is very good.
_____14. We give each other compliments.
_____15. Some family members are very critical of others.
_____16. Some members of our family are poor communicators.
_____17. Family members lead very separate lives.
_____18. Individuals in our family are not given enough freedom.
_____19. Our family avoids social situations.
_____20. We are in debt for many things that are not necessary.
_____21. We try to be self-supporting.
_____22. We avoid hard work.
_____23. Everyday tasks are left undone in our family.
_____24. We pay attention to the spiritual part of life.
_____25. Our family should give more emphasis to celebrating special events.
_____26. We are satisfied with how we get along our family.
_____27. Family members sacrifice for each other.
37
1
2
3
Never
Almost
Never
Once in a
While
_____28.
_____29.
_____30.
_____31.
4
5
Sometimes Frequently
6
7
Almost
Always
Always
Some family members are cruel to one another.
Some members of our family have difficulty understanding others.
In our family, everyone is on their own.
The family puts too much pressure on us to conform to the family’s way of
doing things.
_____32. In times of need, our family has a network of people we can count on for help.
_____33. We pay our bills on time.
_____34. We try to be independent financially.
_____35. Work is an important value taught in our family.
_____36. Some family members do not do their fair share of the family chores.
_____37. Faith in God, or a higher power, is important to our family.
_____38. We give the right amount of emphasis to special events like holidays,
birthdays, and anniversary.
_____39. The overall quality of our family life is very poor.
_____40. Family members give of their time for one another.
_____41. Some family members ridicule others.
_____42. Some members can put their thoughts into words very well.
_____43. We do things as separate individuals rather than as a family unit.
_____44. The family discourages independence.
_____45. Helpful neighbors are unavailable to our family in times of need.
_____46. Being in debt is a serious problem for family.
_____47. We accept the challenge provide for ourselves.
_____48.Our family as good about getting daily chores done.
_____49. We attend worship services.
_____50. We have some valued traditions that are unique to our family.
_____51. Our family is about the way we want it to be.
_____52. We are compassionate.
_____53. Some family members are verbally abusive with one another.
_____54. When serious problems arise, our family is on its own.
_____55. Some family members fail to do their share of work.
_____56. We rely on a supreme being.
_____57. We enjoy the celebration of special holidays in our family.
_____58. Overall, the family get along well.
38
APPENDIX C
Perceived Social Support – Family Scale
Instructions: For each of the following statements there are three possible answers: Yes,
No, Don’t know. Using the scale provided, write you answer in the spaces below.
1 = Yes
2 = Don’t Know
3 = No
___1. My family gives me the moral support I need.
___2. I get good ideas about how to do things or make things from my family.
___3. Most other people are closer to their family that I am.
___4. When I confide in the member of my family who are closest to me, I get the idea
that it makes them uncomfortable.
___5. My family enjoy hearing about what I think
___6. Members of my family share many of my interests.
___7. Certain members of my family come to me when they have problems or need
advice.
___8. I rely on my family for emotional support.
___9. There is a member of my family I could go to if I were just feeling down, without
feeling funny about it later.
___10. My family and I are very open about what we think about things.
___11. My family is sensitive to my personal needs.
___12. Members of my family come to me for emotional support.
___13. Member of my family are good at helping me solve problems.
___14. I have a deep sharing relationship with a number of members of my family.
___15. Members of my family get good ideas about how to do things or make things
from me.
___16. When I confide in members of my family, it makes me feel uncomfortable.
39
___17. Members of my family seek me out for companionship.
___18. I think that members of my family feel that I’m good at helping them solve
problems.
___19. I don’t have a relationship with a member of my family that is as intimate as other
people’s relationships with family members.
___20. I wish my family were much different.
40
APPENDIX D
Family Intrusiveness Scale
Instructions: Please indicate how often your family members say or do the following
things to you. Keep in mind that there are no correct answers. Please circle the best
answer.
1
Never
2
3
4
Sometimes
5
6
7
Always
_____1. Family members tell me I have not been a responsible family member.
_____2. Family members criticize the way I run my life.
_____3. Family members tell me there are certain obligations I have to the family.
_____4. Family members tell me I do things that a member of our family shouldn’t.
_____5. Family members tell me how I should use my time and energy.
_____6. Family members question my loyalty to the family.
_____7. Family members try to influence the decisions I make about my life.
_____8. Family members tell me how I should spend my money.
_____9. Family members tell me what I should be doing with my career.
_____10. Family members tell me there are certain times I should be with them.
_____11. Family members interfere with my friendships.
_____12. Family members try to influence my intimate relationships.
_____13. Family members remind me of my obligation to the family.
41
APPENDIX E
Demographic Questionnaire
Please check ONE box for each question
1. What is your sex?
 1 = Male
2 = Female
2. What is your age? ____________
3. What is your major?
______________________
4. Class Status:
 1 = Freshmen
 2 = Sophomore
 3= Junior
 4 = Senior
5. My ethnicity is
 1 = American Indian/ Alaska Native
 2 = Black/African American


Islander
3= White/ Caucasian
4 = Asian/Asian American
42
REFERENCES
Baird, F. E., & Walter K. (2008).From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Barber, B., & Buehler, C. (1996). Family cohesion and enmeshment: Different
constructs, different effects. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58, 433-41.
Berk, L. E. (2006).Child development. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bhatti, J. R. (2011). The dynamics of successful personality development and projection.
India: Pearson Education India.
Bieling, P.J., Israeli, A.L., & Antony, M. (2004).Is perfectionism good, bad or both?
Examining models of the perfectionism construct. Personality and Individual
Differences, 36, 1373-1385.
Branden, N. (1969). The psychology of self-esteem: A revolutionary approach to selfunderstanding that launched a new era in modern psychology. New York, NY:
Nash Publishing.
Bowen theory. (2011). Retrieved June 30, 2012, from The Bowen Center website,
htttp://www.thebowencenter.org/pages/theory.html
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human
development. New York, NY: Basic Books.
43
Brinich, P., & Shelly, C. (2002).The self and personality structure. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Brown, G. W., Andrews, B., Harris, T. O., Adler, Z. (1986). Social support, self-esteem
and depression.Psychological Medicine, 16(4), 813-831.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rogers, W. L. (1976).The quality of American life. New
York: Russell Sage.
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental health. New York, NY:
Behavioral Publications.
Child, I.,&Iwao, S. (1968). Personality and esthetic sensitivity: Extension of findings to
younger age and to different culture. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8(31), 308-312.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering
hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357.
Cole, P. M., Bruschi, C. J., &Tamang, B. L. (2002).Cultural differences in children’s
emotional reactions to difficult situation.Child Development, 73(3), 983-996.
Colendrino-Bucu, L., Guerrero, M. R., Pascual, B. M., & Mateo, R. (1997).Introduction
to psychology: a textbook in general psychology. Florentino St. Quezon City:
REX Printing Company, Inc.
44
Conard, M. A. (2006).Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict
academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(3), 339-346.
Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985).The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992).NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Craddock, A., Church, W., & Sands, A. (2009). Family of origin characteristics as
predictors of perfectionism.Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(3), 136-144.
Fisher, J., & Corcoran, K. (1994).Measures for clinical practice: A source book. New
York: The Free Press.
Fletcher, A. E. (2002). The effects of self-concept and perceived level of social support on
collective self-esteem and subjective well-being. Retrieved August 10, 2012, from
http://proquest.umi.com.proxy.lib.csus.edu/pqdweb?index=0&did=885726011&S
rchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=
PQD&TS=1298948834&clientId=17934
Garbato, M. C. (2005). The effects of leader sex, leadership style, and locus of control on
employee satisfaction. Retrieved on September 8, 2012, from http://csusdspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10211.9/627/Final_Thesis_no_copyri
ght_August%2013_2010_Final.pdf?sequence=1
45
Gardner, D., & Pierce, J. (2010). The core self-evaluation scale: Further construct
validation evidence. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(2), 291304.
Gavazzi, S. M., Reese, M. J., &Sabatelli, R. M. (1998). Conceptual development and
empirical use of the family intrusiveness scale. Journal of Family Issues, 19(1),
65-74.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in
personality lexicons. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 141–165.
Heller, K., Swindle, R. W., Dusenbury, L. (1986). Component social support processes:
Comments and integration. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology,
54(4), 466-470.
Hess, R. D., & Handel, G. (1985).The family as a psychosocial organization. New
York:Aldine.
Howes, C. ,Wishard Guerra, A. , &Zucker, E. (2007). Cultural communities and
parenting in Mexican-heritage families. Parenting: Science & Practice, 7(3), 235270.
IJzendoorn, M. H., &Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988). Cross-cultural pattern of attachment: A
meta-analysis of the strange situation. Child Development, 59(1), 147-156.
46
Jay, A. (2010). Cultural differences: Their effect on social skill development. Retrieved
August 12, 2012, from
http://digitalcommons.providence.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context
=socialwrk_students
Jeynes, W. (2005).Effects of parental involvement and family structure on the academic
achievement of adolescents.Marriage & Family Review, 37(3), 99-116.
Joo, B., Jeung, C., & Yoon, H. (2010).Investigating the influences of core selfevaluations, job autonomy, and intrinsic motivation on in-role job
performance.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(4), 353-371.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a
common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3),
693-710.
Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono, J.,&Thoresen, C. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303-331.
Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. (2004). Emotional stability, core
self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for
future research. Human Performance, 17, 327–347.
47
Julian, T. W., McKenry, P. C., &McKelvey, M. W. (1994). Cultural variation in
parenting: Perceptions of Caucasian, Afiracn-American, Hisapnic, and AsianAmerican Parents. Family Relations, 43(1), 30-37.
Kacmar, K., Collins, B., Harris, K.,& Judge, T. (2009). Core self-evaluations and job
performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(6), 1572-1580.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., &Spinath, F. (2012). Life events
as environmental states and genetic traits and the role of personality: A
longitudinal twin study. Behavior Genetics, 42(1), 57-72.
Lakey, B., &Cassedy, P. B. (1990). Cognitive processes in perceived social support.
Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 59, 337-348.
Lam, B. T. (2006). Self-esteem among Vietnamese American adolescents.Journal of
Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 14(3), 21-40.
Lee, T. R., Burr, W. R., Beutler, I. F., Yorgason, F., Harker, H.B., &Olsen, J. A. (1997).
The Family Profile II: A self-scored, brief family assessment tool. Psychology
Reports, 81, 467-477.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939).Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271301.
48
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318.
Lyons, J. S., Perrotta, P., Hancher-Kvam, S. (1988). Perceived social support from family
and friends: Measurement across disparate samples. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 52(1), 42-47.
Markus, H. R., &Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.
McCrae, R., Costa, P.,Hrebickova, M., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., et al. (2000). Nature
over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span development. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 78(1), 173-186.
Meyers, L. S., & Wong, D.T. (1988). Validation of a new test of locus of control: The
Internal Control Index. Education and Psychological Measurement, 48, 753-761.
McGoldrick, M., Giordano, J., & Garcia-Preto, N. (2005).Ethnicity & family therapy.
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Miermont, J., Jenkins, H., & Turner, C. (1995).A dictionary of family therapy.
Minuchin, S., (1974).Families & family therapy.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nugent, S. A. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestations and classroom-based
interventions. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11, 215-222.
49
Ologun, A. O., &Ibigbami, O. S. (2006). Post-traumatic stress disorder after childbirth in
Nigerian women: Prevalence and risk factors. International Journal of Obstetrics
& Gynecology, 113(3), 284-288.
Orshan, S. A. (1999). Acculturation, perceived social support, self-esteem, and pregnancy
status among Dominican adolescents.Health Care for Women International,
20(3), 245.
Park, H., Monnot, M., Jacob, A., Wagner, S. (2011).Moderators of the relationship
between person-job fit and subjective well-being among Asian
employees.International Journal of Stress Management, 18(1), 67-87.
Passer, M. W., Smith, R. E., & Holt, N. (2008).Psychology: The science of the mind.
Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (2011). Why are children in the same family so different from
one another? International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(3), 563-582.
Plomin, R., &Nesselroade, J. (1990). Behavioral genetics and personality change.
Journal of Personality, 58, 191-220.
Priddy, R. (2012). The human personality and the ego vs. the self. Retrieved November
16, 2012, from http://robertcpriddy.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/the-humanpersonality-and-the-ego-vs-the-self/
50
Procidano, M. E., & Heller, K. (1978). Measures of perceived social support from friends
and family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 11, 1-24.
Ribeiro, J. (2011). Personality and masks use in changing environment. Retrieved
October 12, 2012, from
www.j5studios.com/about/portfolio/.../PSYC120_EandSE_Final.doc
Riemann, R., Kandler, C., &Bleidorn, W. (2012). Behavioral genetic analyses of parent
twin relationship quality. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4), 398-404.
Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Sato, T. (2007). The family allocentrism-idiocentrism scale: Convergent validity and
construct exploration. Individual Differences Research, 5(3), 194-200.
Scarr, S. , Webber, P. , Weinberg, R. , & Wittig, M. (1981). Personality resemblance
among adolescents and their parents in biologically related and adoptive
families.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(5), 885-898.
Schneider, D. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship.MI: University of Michigan Press.
Sherry, S. B., Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L., Lee-Baggley, D. L., Hall, P. A. (2007). Trait
perfectionism and perfectionistic self-presentation in personality
pathology.Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 477-490.
51
Stoop, D., &Masteller, J. (1996). Forgiving our parents, forgiving ourselves: Healing
adult children of dysfunctional families. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Tabachnick, B.G., &Fidell, L.S. (2001).Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.
Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S.
(1988). Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1031-1039.
Toepfer, S. M. (2010). Family social support and family intrusiveness in young adult
women.Family Science Review, 15(2), 57-65.
Touliatos, J., Perlmutter, B. F., & Holden, G. W. (2001).Handbook of family
measurement techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wang, W. &Leichtman, M.D. (2000). Same beginnings, different stories: A
comparison of American and Chinese children's narratives. Child development,
71, 1329 –1346.
Whiteside, M., Aronoff, C.E. & Ward, J.L. (1993).How Families Work Together.
Mariette, GA: Family Enterprise Publications.
Williams, B.,Sawyer, S. C., Wahlstrom, C. M. (2005). Marriages, Families & Intimate
Relationships. Boston, MA: Pearson.
52
Zhou, M., &Bankston, C. L. (1998).Growing up American: How Vietnamese children
adapt to life in the United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.