Birth order and personality: Some empirical findings and a biobehavioral theory

The birth-order variables assessed included sex and number of siblings, assignment to 2- or 3-child family for separate sample analysis, family position as appropriate to given sample, spacing effect—was the birth of the second child spaced 4 years or more after the first child—dominance relationships in the family, sex of nearest siblings, sex of other siblings as appropriate, whether raised by both original parents, whether raised by foster parent(s). The personality variables assessed included sociability, anxiety, dominance, superego, phlegmatic temperament, involvement, self-regard and other scales measured by the new Howarth Personality Questionnaire. Samples of 50 for the 2-child families and 58 for the 3-child families were analyzed and it was found that: (a) in the 2-child families eldest children were less cooperative than younger, that those reporting dominance by another sibling were higher in state anxiety and this also applied to the younger of the pair, that those spaced in birth order were less afraid of being socially unacceptable, that those raised by both parents were higher in involvement; (b) in the 3-child families those dominated by a sibling, regardless of position, had more hypochondriac symptoms (a sign of anxiety), and that those spaced in birth order showed less cooperativeness. A biobehavioral theory to encompass biological-hormonal spacing effects and dominance as well as other intrafamilial behaviors was proposed.     

Factor analytic examination of Kline's scales for psychoanalytic concepts

Seventeen personality scales were administered to 133 subjects to investigate the relation of three new psychoanalytically-derived scales to the personality scales of Howarth and Eysenck, respectively. A previous study (Howarth, 1980a) suggested that Kline's oral optimism scale related to Eysenck's extraversion scale, oral pessimism to neuroticism, and Kline's anal syndrome scale to Eysenck's psychoticism scale. In order to investigate this further Eysenck's scales were included as well as ten scales of Howarth's and Kline's three scales. The factors found among the 17 variables were: I. Anxiety; II. Psychoticism; III. Sociability; IV. Anality; V. Lie scale; VI. Conscience.The present study found that the anal scale was relatively independent of all of Eysenck's ‘superfactor’ scales and did not verify the possibility that this anal scale might relate to psychoticism (as measured by Eysenck). However, the present study verified the previously found relation between oral optimism and extraversion and, of the three Kline scales, oral pessimism related more to psychoticism than the anal syndrome scale.     

In defense of monotheistic father religion

Many questions are currently being raised, by women especially, regarding the religious, social, and psychological effects of the emphasis on God as father in Western religion. Viewed in the light of key insights from developmental psychoanalysis, patriarchal monotheism does indeed seem to confront us with a dilemma. However, a resolution of this dilemma does not appear to lie in a move toward androgyny or matriarchy. Evaluated from the point of view of its overall capacity to mediate a meaningful, unified, personal religious reality to both sexes, monotheistic father religion is still the preferable ultimate symbolic configuration.     

Controllability and human stress: method, evidence and theory.

Concepts are defined and evidence reviewed on whether control reduces stress in man. Individuals seem to prefer instrumental control over an aversive event, seem to prefer to administer it to themselves, and are less aroused when waiting for a controllable event. When groups without control have equal predictability, having control is still less arousing; as potential (but unexercised) control seems to be. The evidence also suggests that controllable events may hurt less. Methodological weaknesses and empirical gaps in these data are pointed out. These data are grossly inconsistent with Relevant Feedback theory and rather inconsistent with Information-seeking theory and Safety Signal theory. A Minimax hypothesis is proposed: When individuals control aversive events, they believe relief to be caused by a stable source—their own response. This belief entails that maximum future danger will be minimized. When they have no control, they believe relief to be less stable, which entails no guarantee that maximum future danger will be minimized. The data are largely consistent with the Minimax hypothesis and wholly consistent when Minimax is supplemented by the premise that aversive events hurt less when encountered against a background of relaxation.