Perceived parental acceptance and female juvenile delinquency

The responses of 62 adolescent females residing at a state training school and 62 high school females on a measure of perceived parental acceptance were compared while statistically controlling for mental age, chronological age, socioeconomic status, social desirability, and family structure. Generally significant (p less than .05) results indicate that incarcerated females viewed their mothers and fathers more negatively than did nonincarcerated females. Slightly more ambivalent results were indicated in the mother-daughter relationship (delinquent girls reported mothers to be more rejecting/neglecting than did nondelinquents, but no significant differences were found between the groups on perceived mother acceptance) than in the father-daughter relationship. Results were discussed in terms of reported parental differences in acceptance-nonacceptance, providing limited support for Ausubel's satellization theory of child development, and the difficulty of inferring causality from retrospective self-report studies using "captive" subjects.     

Delinquent youths and family

This study investigates the relationship of several demographic variables, family structure (number of siblings in house, family intactness, sibling rank, number of persons in household) and family environment (family relationship, personal growth, and family system maintenance). The family environment variables are dimensions of the Family Environment Scale (Moos, 1974). The subjects reported a fairly good reliability on the scale (Cronbach's alpha = .753). The data collection for the present study represents 198 youths: 68 official chronic delinquents and 130 official nondelinquents. A discriminant analysis was used to determine which of the demographic and family environment variables had the most predictive power in discriminating between the groups. The general analysis indicated that ten of the variables explained 49% of the variance between the chronic delinquent and nondelinquent groups. Personal growth was found to have the most discriminating power, followed by number of siblings, race, sex, and system maintenance.     

Psychoanalysis, marital therapy, and object-relations theory

This paper attempts to indicate why psychoanalysts should be interested in marital therapy. It discusses the clinical advantages and disadvantages of marital therapy as compared to psychoanalysis, describes the contributions of the classical psychoanalytic viewpoint to marital therapy, and finally, attempts to complement the classical psychoanalytic viewpoint with an object-relations viewpoint which can illuminate marital dynamics and provide interpretive content during the course of marital therapy.     

Transference across gender lines

Four clinical examples of oedipal-based transference across gender lines are presented with the aim of illustrating (1) its existence, (2) the defenses against its emergence, and (3) the use of the analyst's gender as both an organizer of and resistance to certain transference manifestations. Factors that contribute to the availability for analysis of cross-gender transference are discussed, as are the resistances and other obstacles to its actualization.     

Psychoanalysis, psychoanalytic science, and psychoanalytic research--1986

The present standing of psychoanalysis as a science and the vitality of psychoanalytic research effort are reviewed. The two are interdependent, since the possibilities for empirical research rest on the necessary assumption that psychoanalysis is indeed enough a science to be susceptible to knowledge advance by the (research) methods of science. Concerning our status as a science, I review attacks on our scientific credentials (both from within our ranks and without) by the logical positivists, by the hermeneuticists (a rubric comprising a variety of hermeneutic, phenomenological, exclusively subjectivistic, and/or linguistically based conceptualizations of our field), and the most recent by the philosopher of science, Adolf Grünbaum. I try to demonstrate what I feel to be the failure of each of these assaults, and why I feel there is no reason to see psychoanalysis as anything other than a scientific psychology and, therefore, in theory amenable to empirical research approaches. I then review the history and the current status of these systematic research efforts in psychoanalysis, and the reasons why these have been far less in scope and in accomplishment than has been possible or than has been needed. Here I have focused especially on research involving technique and our theory of change and cure--i.e., research on the analytic process; on what changes take place (outcome) and how those changes come about or are brought about (process).