Development of a Measure of Perceived

Entropy

I^iíthin The Famí1ies of Respondents

by

Deborah J. PhiliPs

A Thesis

Presented To The University of lvlanitoba

In Partial Fulfillment.of The

Requirements For The Degree of

Master of Arts

in

Psychology

Winnipeg, Manitoba

I 985

Deborah J. PhiliPs

DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE OF PERCEIVED ENTROPY

I{ITHIN THE FAMILIES OF RESPONDENTS

DEBORAH J. PHILIPS

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of

the University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the requirentents

of the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

"/@ ,1985

Permissio¡t has beert grattted to the LIBRARY OF THE UNIVER'

SITY OF MANTTOBA to lend or sell copies of this thesis. to

the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA to microfilnr this

thesis and to lend or sell copies of the film, and UNMRSITY

MICROFILMS to publish an abstract of this thesis.

The author reserves other publicatiolr rights, artd neither tlte

thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or other-

wise reproduced without the autltor's writte¡r perntissiott'

BY

Abstract

TheFamilySystemsliteraturedealingwithentropy

contains h1çotheses that certain " entropic" f amily

interaction patterns are dysfunctional' and may lead to

problems in the children (or other members) of these

families. case study reports have described entropic

families as behaviorally and attitudinally rigid, and as

lacking calmness and cohesion, knowledge of individual

members' thoughts and feelings and/or clear norms" These

and other possibte characteristics of these " entropic'o

families fatl on a continuum, and may lead to increasing

problemsastheybecomemorepronounced.However,êñ

instrument to assess the degree of entropy present in a

family envíronment has until this time been lacking" such a

scale has been recently developed by this author, and as the

subject of this thesis its psyci:ometric properties have been

explored" The instrument, or Entropy Scale' measures

respondents' perceptions of interaction patterns in their

families. It is eomprised Of 33 entropy items, and ís

complemented by various items which will aid in making

future normative comparisons. The subjects were 28l- male

and female unversity students, between the ages of l8 and

2Q, selected from Introductory Psychology classes at the

university of Manit,oba. summary statistics were obtained

frorn their responses, and analyses of the Entropy scale's

ternporal stability, internal consistency and factoral

structure were Performed "

Temporal stability was assessed. for a one-month

interval, and the instrument was found to be reasonably

stable for this period. Itên-total correlations were

calculated to determine the internal consistency of the

scale, and the Cronbach's. Alpha obtained revealed that the

overall level of internal consistency of the scale is good'

Item distributions htere examined for normalcy, and were

found to be normal or positively skewed for the most part"

This contra-indicated a risk of correlation attenuation,

which may have led to deceivingly low factor loadings in the

factor analyses. The scale was correlated with a measure of

social desirability, and it was determined that social

desirability bias was not sufficient to invalidate the

subjects' responses. Finally, a factor analysis was

performed to explore the factoral structure of the Entropy

Scale. The factors, which were extracted with a Principal

Axis Factoring procedure, correspond quite well to several

aspects of entropy which have been described in the

literature "

Ideas for future research 'wittr the scale have been

proposed, such as administering ít to "cIinical" groups of

delinquent and schizophrenic adolescents. It has been

hypothesized that entropy may Promote schizophrenia and

delinquency in adolescents, especially in combination with

ottrer dysfunctional interaction patterns such as

centripetality and centrifugality" Thus it will be possible

to investigate the relationship between various aspects of

entropy in the fanity and specific problems experienced by

family members" It may also be possible to eventually make

diagnoses and plan treatment according to scores obtained on

the Entropy Scale, and on the items of particular factors"

The determination of the scale's psychometric properties,

which was the purpose of the present study, will form the

groundwork t.or these and other f uture uses of the scale "

1

List of

Ëist of

Chapter

I

Table of Contents

Tables

Figures

General IntroductionPresent Evaluation Methods

General Systems TheorY

Centrípetality and CentrifugalityRelation to Schizophrenia and DelinquencyThe Notion of EntroPY

Entropy in the LiteratureModels of EntroPYNeed for an EntroPY Sca1e

Composition of the EntroPY ScaleAim of the StudY

SubjectsInstrumentsProcedureAnalyses

Summary StatisticsContent ValiditYTemporal StabilitYInternal ConsistencYFactor AnalysesRelationship of the Entropy Scale to

the Social DesirabilitY Scale of

Page

iiiiv

I6

B

9

1lL4

l6l92L

24

26

2A

2B

29

30

3l32

34

34

35

36

2 Method

the Personality(Jackson, L967)

Research Form AA39

3 Results

ii

42

42

4B

49

52

54

5B

65

6B

6B

77

BIB3

83

92

94

Y4

r09

L22

L24

r41

Summary StatisticsContent ValiditYTemporal StabilitYInternal ConsistencYFactor Analyses

Item Composition of FactorsRelationship of the Entropy Scale to the

PersonalitY Research Form AA(Jackson, 1967)

4 DiscussionSummary StatisticsTemporal StabilitYInternal ConsistencYFactor Analyses

Interpretation of FactorsFactor Summarization

Relationship of the Entropy Scale to the SocialDesirabilíty Scale of the PersonalityResearch Form AA (Jackson, L967)

Conclusions and Future Research

Appendices

A Instrument Packet, Including Directions toSub j ects

B Jackson's Personality Research Form AASocial DesirabilitY Subscale

Histograms of Entropy Itern Frequencies

Rotated Factor Matrix, Varimax Rotation

References r04

D

E Entropy Scale Factor Loadings,Rotation, Pattern Matrix

ObliminL42

F Summary Statistics,Jacksonrs PRF

Responses of Subjects toSocial DesirabilitY

111

L44

Scale ------ 143

c Correlation matrix for Entropy Scale

I

Table

t0

I1

L2

t3

L4

15

Tables

Responses Based on Items Using.."Mother"'"FatTIer " or "Wltole Fami ly" asthe Referrant

Perception of lrlho in Family Has Most Power

Subjects' Evaluations of Some of fheir Actionsby Self and Others

iv

Page

44

45

47

5l

53

57

5B

59

2

3

4 Entropy Scale Test*Retest Product-Momentðôrrelations, Means and StandardDeviations

Entropy Scale Item-Total Statistics

Summary of EntroPY Scale Factors

Factor I: Togetherness and Tranquility

Factor II: "War & Peace" in the FamilY

Factor III: "Transparency" of FamilyMembers

Factor IV: RigiditY and ConformitY

Factor V: ClaritY of Power and Rules

Factor VI: Social APPearance andInterpersonal- En joYment

Factor Correlation Matrix

Relative Contríbution of Each Factor

a Wish

5

6

7

I9 60

6L

61

Entropy Items Most Influenced bYto Seem SociallY Desirable

62

63

64

66

Figure

I

Figure

Eigenvalues for the EntroPY Scale

V

Page

55

Chapter I

Development of an EntroPY Measure

General Introduction

schizophrenia and delinquency are two widespread

phenomena which pose serious problems to society, due to

their effects and their resistance to treatment " For

example, schizophrenics represent approximately 50 per cent

of resident populations of mental institutions, and 20 per

cent of first admissions. High readmission rates

(approximately 50 per cent within two years) contribute to

the former percentage (Mosher & Menn, L978) " As well,

disappointingly low levels of psychosocial functioning are

reached by most discharged schizophrenics. T?lis last fact,

as well as the expense Of caring for so many of these

individuals, Ttas contributed to a heavy financial drain on

socíety" In addition to the costly services rendered'

potentially valuable contributions of these individuals are

lost" Si¡nilarly, the FBI Crime Report states that in L97B

crimes such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery occurred

on the average every 30 seconds, with a disproportionate

percentage of the crimes being committed by teenagers (i'e"

juveníle detinquents) " This delinquency too is costly, in

terms of human suffering as well as the financial burden on

society. Despite the great need to ameliorate the societal

costs of juvenile delinquency and schizophrenia through

2

understanding and prevention this has not occurred, possibly

because ttrere appear to be no single causative agents.

Evidence of a genetic contribution to schizophrenia has

been found by many (Rosenthal, L97L; Gottesman and shields,

1971i Rosenthal, Wender, Kety, Schlusingêt, Wilner & Rieder,

f975). Biological correlates such as abnormal brainwave

patterns (Iti1, L977); left hemispheric dysfunction

(girchsbaum, L977) i and autonomic overarousal (ltednick &

Sclrlusinger), 1968 , Lg73) have also been found- Brain

chemistry has been inplicated, especially the excessive

activation of dopaminergic receptors (Post, Fink, Carpenter

& Goodwin, L975) "

Biological correlates of juvenile delinquency have also

been examined. Both adoption and twin studies of older

criminals .ld psychopaths point toward a genetic

vulnerability for antisocial development in certain

subgroups of adolescents. Abnormal brain wave patterns

(Arthurs & Calhoun, L964) are among the main factors

invest igated .

on the side of psychosocial determinants of

schizophrenia, the intrusive, overprotective, schizophrenic

mother ( ¡,tark, 1953 ) has f igured prorninently in much

research. Bowen ( 1978) described enmeshed, ê9o-fused

families where the transfer of anxiety proceeds from one

member to the patient. Lidz, Fleck and Cornelison (fOeS¡

3

described marital schism and marital skew, which appeared to

be linked to schi zophrenia: via rnarital conf Iict and

alliances between parents and children involved in the

former pattern, and ttre passive acceptance of the

psychopathology of a dominant parent by a submissive one

involved in the latter " Bateson, Jackson, Haley and

lrleakland (fgSe ) found the double bind, in which a chitd can

neither comment or, withdraw from nor ignore two

contradictory messages, to be important in the background of

schizophrenics "

Much of the above-mentioned research on ctinical

populations is observational in nature, lacking control

groups and relíable, blind ratings. Better controlled

research has led only to partial support for many findings.

For example, Jacob (fSZS¡ performed a comprehensive survey

of direct observat.ions of farnii-y interaction, and found

little evidence that farnilies of schizophrenics were

different from control families in the degree of expression

of positive or negative emotion, relative dominance of one

parent by another, or conflict'"

similar difficulties plague researchers of the

psychosocial determinants of delinquency. sociologists have

stressed poverty, unemployment, minimal family controls over

children and reduced social controls as contributing

factors" An abundance of deviant role models, due to high

4

crime rates, has also been implicated. cloward and ohlin

(r960) stress the discrepancy between cultural aspirations

and chances for lower class children to achieve those

goals. McCord, McCord and ZoLa (f 950) emphasize t'he

importance of peers. The famíly is said to promote

delinquency, through such mechanisms as aggression-inducing

frustrations, reinforcement for antisocial behavior ?ttd a

lack of teaching of cognitive control. Johnson and Lobitz

(tgl+) found marital maladjustment significantly correlated

with children's deviancy, and Rutter (fgZf) researched the

importance of the nodelling of aggression in the marriage

relationship. The home environment of delinquents has also

been found to be chaotic and lacking in discipline (Burgess

& Conber, Lg76). As wittr schizophr.enia, possible causes and

effects are confounded-

Thus ¡nany difficulties arise from attempts to isolate

the effects of the above factors on schizophrenia and

delinquency. However, this thesis has been an attempt to

establish a measure for "entropy" which may contríbute

substantially to research involving family interaction

patt,erns which may lead to these disorders" These patterns

can be observed on an ongoing basis, and their effects

gauged.

Haley (tgø+) examined verbal dialogue between family

members and determined that repetitive interaction patterns

5

differentiated "disturbed" fami1ies from "normal" ones'

Faunce and Riskin (fgZO) developed Farnily Interaction Scales

whícþ measured various aspects of commuRication, sucþ as

ctarity and topic continuity. They found that

differentiated patterns of interaction emerged for the

various family groups studied, although a clear distinction

between families wittr delinquent members and families with

schizophrenic members r¡tas not made, thus limiting the useful

cont.ribution of the results-

Delinquents have been used as controls in studies of

schizophrenia (Stabeneau, Tupin, Vterner & Pollin, L964), as

they form part of what is thought of as a similar family

constellation" Both .constellations contain a child with a

behavior disorder that is frequently disruptive, costly and

public " Thus the shame and guilt produced by socially

stigmatízed illnesses is controlled. However, the

symptomatology of delinquency is outward-directed, whereas

ttrat of schizophrenia is usually inward-directed. The

extreme and sometimes opposite nature of the two disorders

has motivated much curiosity regarding the etiology of

each. As a result the two disorders are now being studied

together, each in its own right, in order to glean

ínformation on ttre way each is differentially promoted by

family int.eraction"

6

Present Evaluation Methods

In areas other than patterns of dialogue, evidence

bearing on the various effects of family int'eraction is

sketchy. only in the last three decades has a focus upon

the whole family as a system emerged (Bateson et al", L956;

Haley, Lg64r Stierlin, L973i Beavers, L977). However, Haley

(LgøA) feels that a compilation of individual members'

perceptions may or may not be representative of the

interaction patterns which most affect those members '

Perhaps this wariness of anything but direct observation of

family interaction is partially responsibte for a near-fact

evident in the literature on delinquency and schizophrenia:

In few areas of investigation of famity interaction relying

on techniques other than direct observation, is clinical

impression refined to the point of empirical validation' In

particular, a valid and relíable scale vtrhÍch could be given

to family members to measure aspects of interaction

pertinent to the continuation or fostering of delinquency

and schizophrenia has not been developed. Instruments

devised to assess family interaction must be used by trained

raters and often accomplish nothing more than an assessment

of inter-rater reliabilitlr (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett &

Phillips, Lg76i Faunce and Riskin, f970). Other problems

inherent in this approach include the biases introduced by

non-blind ratings; the prohibitive amount of time necessary

7

for the observation procedure; and the requirement of having

the entire family available for observation" Lastly, there

is little evidence of either reliability or validity for

almost alI of the instruments presently used"

The development of a valid and reliable scale to be

given to family members would elininate some of the above

difficulties, but there is a need for a superirnposition of

order on some of the above findings" In order to separate

fact and fiction, cause and effect, the psychometric

properties of such a scale must be firmly established. This

is the primary purpose of the present study.

The theory that has most clearly differentiated between

family interaction patterns which contribute to the

development of schizophrenia or delinquency has been that of

Stierlin (L973, L974) " This theory tras been further

elaborated by Beavers (tgll ' L9B2). They postulate two

distinguishable patterns of interaction to be present in the

families of delínquents and schizophrenics, these being the

centrifugal and centripetal interaction patterns

respectively, which will be discussed below in greater

detail. The concepts, centripetality and centrifugality, in

turn derive from General Systems Theory.

B

General SYStems Theory

GeneralsystemsTheoryradvancedtoagreatextent.by

von Bertalanffy (1969), involves several notions" To begin

wíth, all reality is regarded as a collection of systems, a

system being defined as a set of elements standing in

interaction. The idea of holism, that neither the system

nor its elements can be understood by examining parts in

isolation, is a second premise. von Bertalanffy ( rg0g)

advanced the notion of a steady state of balanced tension,

whích reflects the interrelationships and dynamism inherent

in life. A certain amount of tension was said to be

necessary with respect to system boundaries, which separate

the system from everything external to it' including

potentially useful resources. The classification of' systems

as open or closed, based on tension or permeability of these

r- -r ^- .c^'r 1^,-,^,:t €rnm > lrndrr rrf fhcorw which pOStulatedfxJUfl(ìdL l- cÞ, !e¿lvwçu

the effects of various degrees of this tension" If the

boundary hras too permeable, the system hras believed to lose

identity and integrity, due to infiltration of the external

environment" On the other hand, .if the boundary was

impermeable integration wìttr the outside world was believed

to be Lost. This would lead to a state of life-threatening

entropy, described as disorganization or chaos. The systen

would grow only with interchange of materials between itself

and

and

9

its surroundings, âllowing for increased differentiation

organization, ox negentropy"

Centrip etality and CentrifuqalitY

The concepts centripetality and centrifugality fít into

General Systens Theory in the following way: a system's

interactions are centrifugal to the extent that tension

holdíng its elements together is lacking" It is centripetal

to the extent that tension precludes a permeable boundary

and thus the interchange of material between the system and

other systems surrounding it. The terms "centrifugal" and

centripetal" have been applied to the realm of family

interactíon" They have been expanded, to include more of

what is known about families to which these two labets

possibly apply.

On the basis of clinical studies, Stierlin, Levi and

savard (rgzr) write that centripetal forces tend to delay

the adolescene's natural attempts at separation from his or

her family. They state that members of "centripetal"

families view their families as holding nore promise for

them and of meeting their needs for relationship than does

the outside world. Anything which extends past the confines

of the family has ninimal perceived impact. Thus

interaction with the environment decreases. These families

are often in social isolation, regardless of apparent

r0

organized activities" Reiss (L975 ) spoke of consensus

sensitivity in these families, which involves a constant

need to achieve overt emotional consensusr êfld often

precludes separation of family members from one another.

The presence of pseudomutual i ty, a f ami l iar condi't ion

st.udied by lrlynne, Ryckof f , Day and Hirsch ( 1955), is

paralleled by this state of affairs; in which true feelings

are thwarted and various problems such as a low level of

marítal happiness, poor sexual relations between parents and

a lack of contentment wíth the family on the part of

individual members provide proof of covert frustration and

hostilit.y"

In many of these families a range of perceptions and

expectations hetd by the parents seem expressly for the

purpose of binding the adolescent to the family" He comes

to view himself as too inept or sick to deveJ'op a separate

identity, and as self ish and cruel should he at'ternpt to do

so" Parents provide rewards for remainíng tied to the

family, and punishment in the form of guilt and lowered self

esteem when this is not done.

For families whose interaction follows the centrifugal

pattern, primary sources of gratification are found outside

the family. The idea that the outer environment holds more

promise than the family environment is held by all, as well

as the idea that most if not all problems can be solved by

1t

moving from the family orbit. Open, often hostile

argumentativeness is usually evident"

Characteristic of parents from centrífugal families is

the abitity to emotionally wíthdraw from an adolescent after

emotionally charged arguments. Although this and other

qualities of these family members seem extreme, Stierlin et

al" (fgZf) point out that centripetal and centrifugal family

patterns fall along a continuum, with most families

experiencing the "symptoms" to a degree" Simple observation

is often insufficient to determine a famíly's pattern of

interaction. Stiertin et aI" (fgZf) describe a family whose

centripetality upon closer inspection seemed transient and

weak, and one whose seemingly centrifugal tendencies

concealed centripetal elements"

Relation t.o Schizophrenia and Delinquency

These two family climates have frequently been linked to

schízophrenia and de1ínquency, for example by Stabeneau,

Tupin, werner and PoIlin ( fO6S ¡ . In the families of

schizophrenícs these authors found overcontrolled affect

discrepant with speech content and behavior. Controlled,

unnatural sweetness was often evident, âs well as a rigid

family organization and distortion of role expectancy and

differentiation" As a result of withdrawal, isolation, and

prevention of assertiveness, some members were left with

L2

littte power. Guilt seemed inst.illed in children, whom

parents thought of aS extensions of themselves and

controlled by expressíng hurt and confusion. Conformity to

outside standards was noticeable.

In tlre families of delinquents, êffect was

'undercontrolled, intense and artificial. conflict occurred

frequently, often between parents, and role confusion bJas

prominent, with role 'comp'etition and wÍthdral¡ral pervading.

Members seemed self-centered and manipulative.

In both family "types", overt and covert affect

differed. In schizophrenics' families affect was seemingly

pathetic and shallow, concealing anxiety and hostirity. In

the families of delinquents it appeared counterfeit, but

depressiveness and self punitiveness 'rr¡ere evident to the

skilled observer. In delinquents' families each member

spoke more and pauses þrere fewer than in t'he families of

schizophrenics. However, the schizophrenic patient

ínterrupted least and was the least effective in

transmitting thoughts when compared to others in the

family. The greater effect of the family's interaction on

the patient was evident" All behavior patterns seemed most

intense in the triad comprised of the parents and the

patient, whereas interaction between parents and control

siblings seemed much more like that between "normal" family

members.

13

It should be noted that the use of the label

n del inquentn creates complexities in research involving

"delinquents'n families. Specifically, delinquency is not

an easily defined disorder or syndrone. There is no one

constetlaLion of behavior which once identified justifies

the use of the term odelinquent.n Labeling depends on many

variables, including whether one is r caughtn for

transgressing and, if caught, whether or not one can procure

a nfavorablen judgement, from others. These variables in

turn are influenced by other factors. Thus any research

involving the accepLance of individuals as ndelinquentsn is

only as'credible as is the labeling process which precedes

ir.To understand how families of delinquents and

schizophrenics may depart from normality, a composite

picture of the nhealthyn family is necessary. Lewis et a1.

(1976) state thatr oh the basis of case studies, a maximally

viable social system perhaps possesses flexible

organization, complex structural relationships observable as

it interacts, intrasystem determinism hlith respect Lo

componentsr behavior and a continual flow of experience and

information into and out of the system.

The flow of information and experience important for

psychological health involves individuation, i.e. becoming

responsible for self expression and being receptive to that

L4

of others. centripetal and centrifugal family members may

fail to profit, from this, for different reasons. Those from

centripetal fanilies .are often too bound to others in their

family to develop autonomy of thought and feeling" They are

prevented from receiving others' experiential input, âs it

would impinge on their dependence on the family. Ttrose from

cent.rifugal families are free to develop their own sense of

self, altlrough tainted by parents' negative attributions"

However, be'cauSe they need to be accepted and valued, they

may often fail to profit from others' experience in their

blind attemPts at self assertion.

The Notion of Entropy

Thus the interchange of "material" necessary to a

healthy system is perhaps lacking in centripetal and

centrifugal families. Much of this material can be thought

of as energy in the form of information and affect'

available to,enhance organization. General Systerns Theory

contains the notion thae a healthy life is made possible

through negative entropy or negentropy (as opposed to

entropy), the use of energy to develop structure and fight

the inexorable downward pulI found in closed systems" This

puII seems t'o best represent the common malady of

dysfunctional centripetal and centrifugal fanilies; other

than the common boundary problems, which are related to a

15

lack of and an overabundance of permeabirity in these two

family types respectively. It may also represent an

important difference between families which appear to have

centripetal or centrifugal characteristics but experience no

difficulties, and "dysfunctional" families, which do

experience diff iculties.

Lewis et al. (L976) note that the more a system

possesses energy to maintain structure and flexibility, the

more negentropy and the less chaos or rigidity is

experienced" Thus both centripetal and centrifugal families

may experience entropy, which perhaps manifests itself more

as chaos in the former and as rigidity in the latter. For

example, entropicr cêrltripetal family systems may ' be

dysfunctional in the sense of being feedback-governed and

error-activated. Rigidit.y may be prornoted by adherence to a

negative feedback loop and disregard of growth-producing

i nformat ion "

Put more simply, the existing energy available to the

family system may be used to prevent change. In the extreme

form, this requires much vigilance of family members with

respect to signs of change in the family system" Evidence

of variation in family proceeditrgs, for example a slight

decrease in the amount of time spent together on weekends,

may be acted upon such that. time and effort (energy) will be

spent to reverse the change; rather than to determine the

t6

reasons behind the change, ot the possible benefits of it,

sucl.t as an increase in an adolescent' s competence in

interacting with peers. Morphostasis or stagnation of

family structure thus occurs, because family members do not

respond sufficiently to signs of the structure's need to

adapt. to members' changing needs.

Incontrast,entropic,centrifugalfamilysystems

experience morphostasis for different reasons. Due to

struggles for self assert,ion, coercion and manipulation, a

positive feedback loop may not occur. It is difficult if

not impossible to attend to cues signalling which actions

are conducive to the emotional health of famity members and

thus the positive growth of the family system itself, if too

much attention is placed on avoiding dominance by others'

The probability of these actions is thus not increased, and

morphogenesis, growth of family structure, rnay not occur'

For example, trow can a son realize that his father would

"loosen" the rules given some signs of maturity from him'

when the son believes that showing these signs would lessen

his independence?

Entr in the Literature

One

a lack

system.

way that entropy Ïras been described in studies is as

of input of information into the disturbed family

tennard and Bernstein (1969) and Riskin and Faunce

L7

( rgzo) found mind-reading statements like "You're not

hungry" were prevalent ín most disturbed families- Trhe

families studied by Riskin and Faunce ( r970) included a

multi-problem group containing both schizophrenic and acting

out children, âs well as a constricted group containing

children tabeled as neurotic and a group which experienced

"officiat" child-labeted problems, . êither delinquency or

underachievement. Entropy was not a sought-after,

operationalized variable ín this study. However, indirect

identifícation of at, least one possible form of entropy in

disturbed families was Provided.

In such families, individuals may not make use of

information as to how other family members are thinking and

feeling, even with respect to important matters " Bruch

(Lg62) found mothers of infants who later became

schizophrenic were insensitive to cues coming from these

children, tor example t,hose involving hunger" Lewis et aI.

(tglø) found many centripetal fanilies had external

scapegoats, such that people outside the family l¡rere scorned

for expressing emotions that "good" families keep hidden,

including joy, anger and sorrow. Thus not only did members

fail to learn from eacþ other, but outside information was

ignored as well. This entropic lack of informational input

into the disturbed family system seems so prevalent that the

necessity for assessing it along with centripetality and

IB

centrif ugality is evident. The studies below make t'he

importance of this assessment even clearer"

tewis et a1. (L976) found that the centrifugal families

in their case study used blame to avoid personal

responsibility" For example, statements in which someone

else r¡ras blamed for the speaker's actions were common. Thus

centrifugal families demonstrated a form of entropy, failing

to extract information and learn from their immediate

environment. Even midrange centrifugal families, which

possessed many of the same characteristics as centrifugal

families but to a lesser degree, nê9lected to make use of

much information available to the family system. For

example, since no-one in these families was seen as

virtuous, attempts to be good or competent urere seen as

fraudulent and were derided or ignored. Thus, in some areas

little information hJas used by the system" This, in turn,

seemed to perpetuate rigid beliefs and attitudes harmful to

family members

In contrast, I{ishler and Waxler (1968) found t'he highest

rate of acknowledgment of members' communications in

"hea1thy" families" Information was introduced into the

existing system and utilized in a manner which promoted

negentropy by adding to the existing resource base. This

then contributed to inforrned decision*making"

19

Beavers (Lg77 ) states that there is a degree of

centripet,ality or centrifugality in alI families, but that

it is within the confines of an entropic family system that

centrifugality or centripetality can lead to dysfunction of

its members. He states that the dramatic expression of need

for self definition found in schizophrenic adolescents is

not surprising, given this entropy" He writes that the most

entropic "style" may occur in centripetal families, when

communication is so obscure that power is neither clai¡ned by

one nor shared by alI. The "y"a"* is So intolerant of

directness that members are punished for uniqueness.

Differentiation of members is nrinimized, because

separateness is terrifying" However, it is evident from

some of the above literat.ure that there are many entropic

"styles", present to a greater or lesser degree in many

forms of dysfunctional families"

Models of Entropv

Unfortunately, the research surrounding entropy in the

famíly systems literature has been sparse. In fact, until

relatively recently ( Speer , L9'7O t Wertheim, L973, L975)

theory did 'not stress the importance of the negentropic

potential for change but rather focused on the tendency of

the family to maintain its status quo. fhe abo.ve theorists

emphasized that it is both stability and change that

20

distinguish "healthy" families and couples from

dysfunctional ones" Trhe Beavers Systerns Model (Beavers &

Voeller, 1983) focuses on the concept of'systemic expansion

rather than systemic change, oñ a continuum from entropy

(system death) to negentropy (system growth)" The recently

constructed circomplex Model (olson, 1983 ) , also using

principles derived from General Systems Theory, stresses the

concept of systen change; oï1 the continuum from morphostasis

(no change) to morphogenesis (constant change)' Chânge is

viewed by this model as a curvilinear dimension with respect

to irealth of the familY sYstem"

From this perspective, negentropy is a balance between

too little change ( teading to rigidity) and too much change

(leading to chaos). Entropy is systen stagnation or death'

resulting from either too litt1e or too much change over

- E .L i -^ ^

1 sl^^rr^rh ÊrÂ5rrârê :n/l \/nal 'l ofvarylng perlocl5 QI trllte. Ar'L¡¡vqYr¡ Desvv&s

(1983) view adaptability as a linear dimension, with more

adaptability associat.ed with greater family system health,

this conception could naively lead to the view that the

centrifugal family (witfr its lack of or very permeable

boundaries) is the least entropic of all famities. Given

this, the need for an empirically validated, reliable scale

to measure entropy becomes apparent. such a scale could be

used to help define one dimension of family health and could

also be of benefit in helping define dysfunctional fainilies,

2T

regardless of their place on the centripetal-centrifugal

cont inuum "

The reader may have noted a parallel between anomie and

entropy, in that both involve an inability to make use of

information in a way beneficial to a system, and both can

lead to chaos. Anomie has been defined in various ways, one

consistent theme being what has been termed a collapse of

values and norms. It has been generally agreed (Pope, L976)

that EmiIe Durkheim's concept of anomie describes conditions

of social deregulation and disintegration. Whether these

conditions are acute or chronic, according to the theory

surrounding anomie the entire social system is affected when

components or sub-systems of a social system fail to

function "appropriately" " In fact , inability of tl.e

subsystems to follow the system's norms reveals pathology of

the system as a whoie. Simiiariy, if entropl" did not

prevaÍ1 subsystems could perhaps adapt to the changing ínner

and outer environment, furthering elaboration and

differentiation. Thus it is the interaction of the whole

social and/or family"system which is problematic and should

be examined, including its adaptive use of information. It

is insufficient to focus only on an individual in that

systen, fot example the schizophrenic or delinquent

adolescent "

22

Need For an Entropy Scale

With the above considerations in mind, âs well as the

compelling evidence from case studies that farnilies of both

delinquents and schizophrenics may be plagued by an entropic

existence, it Seems unfortunate that an empirically

validated, reliable scale to identify forms of entropy in

these and other "types" of families has yet to be

developed. A scale of this sort would allow clinicians to

aSSesS interaction patterns without the time-consuming

training of observers and checking of inter-rater

reliability, or the possibility of experimenter bias through

non-blind ratings. It might eliminate the need to observe a

family for hours or the necessity of having the entire

famíly present in ordet to make an appropriate diagnosis.

Many of these difficulties are inherent in instruments

presently used to assess famify interaction patierns, and

little is known about eittrer their validity or temporal

stabilíty" The precise scoring criteria used also

frequently remains a mystery, so studies cannot be

systematically replicated by others, especially those in

other settings. A questionnaire, however, would allow one

family member to complete the items. Alternatively, alI

family members could give their perceptions of family

interaction, uninfluenced by the reactions of other members,

and both similarities and differences in perception could

23

represent valuable information to the clinician" On the

basis of results more objective and replicable diagnost'ic

Systems might be developed, as well as treatment strategies

to help families overcome problems in interaction" For

example, entropíc, centripetal families could be þelped to

identify and .discard old norms of rigid adherence to rules

of conduct which no one benefits from" fherapy could focus

on enabling them to develop flexibte norms, based on

êverchanging needs and feelings, perhaps promoting

negentropy.

An entropy scale thus could make an important

contribution. Such a scale would allow clinicians to place

families on a continuum not only with respecè to the degree

of openness or closedness of boundaries between them and the

environment but also with respect to the degree to which

-LÎ ^ !^ t: CC ¿'i -T^ ^-,1 a] =laar:{-a {-a môâ+Eney d'Ig dIJ¿e L(J (lIl-!ersrlL¿qus ql¡q s¿qvv¿gss

changÍng needs of farnily members. More specifically, the

ability of family members to develop and maintain individual

identities (dífferentiation) while naintaining some form of

organization which prevents chaos or breakdown of the family

system might be identified"

Such a scale could also be used to check effectiveness

of clinical intervention, by providing pre and

post-treatment comparisons. After treatment the members of

a family could again complete the questionnaire, to assess

24

progress. Significant differences in the amount of entropy,

centripetality, or centrifugality may signal an improvement

in functioning, which can be examined periodically over time

and compared against other objective and subjective measures

of increased family "happiness'r. For example, a decrease in

centrifugality and entropy scores on the questionnaire may

be associated blith the gradual reduction of delinquent

behaviôr.

Longitudinal predictive studies could also 'be made, which

might provide a means of assessing the diagnostic potential

of the scale. SpecificaIIy, adolescents from farnilies whose

members have completed the scale could be followed over

time" It could be determined, for example, whether

signifícantly more adolescents from families operationally

defined as entropic and centripetal (on the basis of the two

scales invotved) oeveiop schizophrenia iira¡: do adol-escents

from families diagnosed only as centripetal, as entropic but

not centripetal, or as "normal". These are simply some of

the more obvious uses to which such a scale might be put"

Ie þJas the aim of this thesís to develop such a scale.

Cornposition of the EntroPY Scale

The Entropy Scale ( See

basis of Stierlin's theorY

with entropy as it relates

A) was developed on the

study research, dealing

Appendix

and case

to family system dYsfunction.

25

The entropy items are underlined in Appendix A" Items from

thescale,whichiscombinedwithandembeddedinan

instrument which also measures centripetality and

centrifugality, deal with various manifestations of entropy

as it has been conieptualized by him"

The respondent'S perceptions of clarity and expression

of ¡is/her family members' t¡oughts, feetings, beliefs and

attitudes are examined, ãS well as his/trer perceptions of

rules, "power" stfucture and rOIeS. PerceptiOns of the

general degree of calmness, unrest or chaos represent

additional aspects of the respondent's farnily tife which t1"

explored. As well, the degree of rigidity in terms of

refusal to change plans, the amount of family togetherness,

the general amount of disagreement and orderliness, family

members' concern for each other, and the overall variety of

family routines are examined" Together, the items represeni

an attempt to assess the respondent's perceptions of his/her

family's ability to make use of information available to the

family system, both from within and from hrithout.

Examples of particular items may help to illustrate

this. Thus itçm number 35 reads: "We always stick to our

plans nO matter what", while it.em number 2L reads: "You can

tell what people in the famity are thinking", and item

number 57 reads: "People in the family consult others they

are making decisions about". Overall the scale attempts to

26

assess the degree, causes and effects of entropy within a

family, as perceived by the respondent"

Trhe form of the Entropy scale is that of a Likert-type

7-point scale, in which a I represents "alh/ays", a 4

fepfeSents "S6metimeS" and. a 7 COffeSpOnds tO "never". FOr

determining response set, some of the items in the scale are

reversed, such that for some itens the more positively an

índividual responds the higher his entropy score will be

whereas fox others the reverse is true" The rationale

behind the use of a 7-point scale concerns the generally

monotonic relationship between the number of steps in a

scale and its repeatability (Nunnally, f970). Reliability

of this typ'e increases very rapÍdty as the number of steps

is increased from two, but. it levels off at approximately

seven steps" Thus, including more than seven steps would

simply have served to complicate the scale and Possibly

confuse subjects. As wellr ârI odd number of steps permits

the inclusíon of a middle, "neutral" step, which may put

subjects at ease by permitting some indecision as they

respond to the scale's items. The scale is composed of 33

items. The scores derived from these entropy items may be

totalled to form an Entropy Scale score, based on perceived

entropy. Subjects' individual perceptions of the presence

of this variable in the family environment are reflected by

this Entropy Scale score, with scores for each item ranging

27

from I to 7. The Entropy scale score is obtained by a

linear combination, í.e. an addition of it'em scores in the

sca.le. The scores of the few items which have reversed

scoring due to their wording hrere reversed and then combined'

Aim of the StudY

The aim of the study was primarily to test the Entropy

ScaIe's psychometric properties. That is, trow reliably does

it measure entropy? How veridicat is the scale, "veridical"

here pertaining to the degree of correspondence between the

factor structure and the aspects of entropy detailed in the

Literature? Tfhe Entropy Scale items were combined with

those of two scales measuring centripetatity and

centrifugality, developed by Loff (1982). The three scales

were administered in one questionnaire. However, they were

analyzed separately as in reality they are separate scales'

specifically, the study represents an attempt to assess

the psychometric properties of the Entropy Scale by:

1" Examining summary statistics, including the means

and standard deviations of the Entropy scale and individual

entropy items.

2. Assessing the content/face validit.y of the scale"

3. Assessing temporal stabírity over a period of time,

i "e" test-retest reliabititY"

4" Assessing internal consistency"

2B

5.Performíngafactoranalysis,todeterminew}rethera

coherent factor structure exist,s which corresponds to some

of the components of entropy documented in the literature"

6" Assessing the relationship of the Entropy Scale to

the socíaI DesirabÍlity subscale of the Personality Research

Form AA (Jackson, L967) "

29

Chapter 2

Method

Subj ects

The study utilized 28L subjects. Forty seven of these

subjects formed an initial group, which completed the

questionnaire twice in order to supply test-retest

relíability data" Trhe remaining 234 subjects were added to

the group of 47 subjects, in order that the total number of

subjects would be sufficient for the factor analyses' The

entire subject group provided data for att but the

test*retest. analyses" AII subjects were selected through

the university of Manitoba Department of Psychotogy subject

pool, and ranged in age from l8 to 20 years' It should be

mentioned that the 18 to 20 year age range was chosen

because it represents an important transition period in the

lifespan of many indíviduals, i.e. it ís the time when many

separate from their families. consequently it is a good age

at wtrich to examine Stierlin's theories of centripetality

lnd centrifugalitY"

subjects were given a packet which consisted of a short

explanation of the purpose of the study, the Entropy scale

( combined wittr the centrifugality and centripetality

Scales), the Social Desirability Scale of Jackson's

personality Research Form AA (L967), and instructions

relati ng

Appendix

feedback

to the comPletion of the

A) " Subjects received either

íf they so desired.

30

questionnaire ( see

group or individual

Tnstruments

The administered questionnaire, consisting of the

Entropy, centripetality and centrifugality scales, is

composed of 82 items, most of which are rated on Likert-Èype

7-point scales" Randomly interspersed in this instrument

are:

l" TTre Entropy scale, consisting of thirty three items

simply worded in order to promote ease of readabirity

f or sub jects. This scale was designed t'o assess f ami ly

members' perceptions of the amount of entropy existing

in the home environment. Examples of entropy items

ínclude such items as: "People in my family express

their anger openly" (item number 74), and "I can tel1

what makes people in my family angry" ( item number 72) "

2" The Centripetal scaler cofisisting of 20 items

designed to measure the degree of perceived

centripetality in the respondent's home environment.

3. Ttre Centrifugal Scale, consisting of 20 items

designed to measure the degree of perceived

centrifugality in the respondent's home environment-

4. A drug control assessment item (item number 69).

31

5" Three items which attempt to specify who in the

family is being predominantly referred to as the subject

responds to the Ítems (item numbers '75, 76 and 77) "

6" One item which asks who has the most power in the

household ( item number 78).

7 " Four items which attempt to ascertain the degree to

whieh each subject perceives that one or more of his/her

behavíors could be considered as " schizophrenic" or

',delinquent',, or could be perceived by others as being

'o schizophrenic" or "delinquent" ( item numbers 79, 80,

81, and 82) "

B" The Social Desirability Scale from Jackson's

Personality Research Form (PRF) AA (Lg67), a scale with

20 true-false items, which was also administered to all

subjects as part of the total packet

Procedure

Each

above "

and/or

address

subject was provided wittt the packet

Those subjects who wished to receive

described

indi vidual

group results þJere encouraged to leave their name and

with the experimenters. As wett, a code name was

written on each individual's questionnaire rather than the

indi vidual ' s name, in order to make it irnpossible to

directly pair subjects with completed questionnaires. In

this way an attempt was made to assure subjects about

32

conf identiality by making them aware t,hat this procedure was

goíng to be followed and that there could be no stigma

attached to any responses they made" This hopefully

encouraged them to respond openly and honestly" Completed

questionnaires were returned to the experimenters"

One month following the administration of the

questionnaires to the group of 47 individuals an identical

procedure was carried out with these individuals again, in

order to assess the temporal stability of the Entropy

Sca1e. The remaining 234 individuals completed the

questionnaire only once. These data were pooled with data

from the first administration of identical materials to the

47 members in the "reliability group"" The pooled data on

the total group of 2BL subjects were then analyzed.

Anal-yses

. The purpose of the analyses was to investigate the

psychometric parameters of the Entropy Scale. fhis r¡ras

accomplished by:

I " Examining summary statistics, including the means

and standard deviations of the Entropy Scale and the

individual EntroPY items.

2" Assessing the content validity of the sca1e"

3" Assessing temporal stability over a period of time,

i"e" test-retest reliabilitY"

33

4" Assessing internal consistency.

5" Performing a factor analysis, to determine whether a

coherent faetor structure existed which corresponded to

some of the components of Entropy documented in the

I i terature "

6" Assessing the relationship of the Entrop)¡ scale to

the Social Desirability Scale of the Personality

Research Form AÀ (Jackson, L967) "

Summary Statistics

Means and standard deviations of the Entropy Scale and

indÍvidual entropy items were calculated for each of the tr¡to

administrations of the scale. The mean sf the Entropy Scale

was calculated as an appropriate measure of central tendency

for the scores, in order to summarize data. Examination of

the histograms, to be descríbed below, determined that the

distributions of most items were approximately normal and

all distributions were unimodal. Hence the mean, median and

mode tended to coincide in these distributions and all brere

good representatives of the central tendency for the data"

It can be shown that if a large number of dat.a sets from an

identical source are taken and all three measures of central

tendency are Calculated for each set, the means will show

less variation than will the medians and modes. Tttus the

mean is the most stable of these measures (Huntsberger and

34

Billingsley, L977) " The standard deviation of the scale was

calculated in order to summarize the spread of the Entropy

Scale scores

Means and standard deviations of individual entropy

items were calculated to províde information on item

consistency. The standard deviations of each item were

examined to determine whettrer the ctrange in an item's score

between the first and second administratiori was greater than

one standard error of estimate, this amount being the

approximate degree of error expected when first

admínistration scores were used to predict second

administration scores. If a change of this magnitude was

found the item was considered to be too subject to change

over time to be reliable (Glass ana Stanley, 1970)" Items

in this category htere not eliminated from the scale but were

E-- -: Ll ^ ^1 .i -.i Fãl-j ^É i - €rrl-rrra

slngleq 9ut f(Jt !,rJÞsrurc Etr!Ir¡r¡qq¿vr¡ ¿¡¡

administratíons "

Frequencies in the form of histograms were also

calculated for each entropy ítem" Histograms were used as

they allow one to discern whether item distributions are

normal or skewed. If distributions were normal and/or were

skewed in the same direction approximately to the same

degree, correlations large enough to allow for a

continuation of the analyses would be possible. Those itens

whose distributions were skewed in the opposite direction

35

from that of most other item distributions would perhaps not

correlate highly with other items, and this would perhaps

lead to deceivingly low factor loadings for the former items.

Content Validity

Content validity was assessed by obtaining judgments

from various members of the Psychology Department who were

familiar with Stíerlin and Beavers's theory Pnd concepts of

Entropy. They were asked to determine whether the scale

ieems could be considered to accurately matctr descriptions

of the concept as given by Stierlin and Beavers. These

individuals included a University of l4anitoba Psychology

professor wlro had studied the literature in the Fanily

Systems area for the last several years ( including that of

Beavers and Stierlin); a graduate student in Psychology who

had spent a number of years stu<ìying this iiteraiure as LÌre

focus of her graduate thesis; and another Psychology

graduate student who had completed an undergraduate thesis

involved in studying the relationship between the Ent,ropy,

Centripetal and Centrifugal Scales and the Family

Environment Scale (Moos and Moos, 1981).

Temporal Stability

Temporal stabilíty of the Entropy Scale was determined

using the Pearson Product-moment correlation coefficient, to

36

determine the degree of relationship between the scores

obtained upon the first completion of the questionnaires and

those obtained from the same subjects one month later when

the same questionnaires were again completed.

Internal Consistency

Homogeneity or internal consistency of the Entropy Scale

performing an item

The rationale forwas examined in the present studY bY

analysis using item-whole correlations.

the analysis, as stated by Nunnall1z (L967) ' hras 3

When items correlate predominantly positively withone another, those with the highest averagecorrelations are the best items. Since the averagecorrelations of items with one another are highlyrelated to the correlations of items with totalscores, the it,ems that correlate most highly withtotal scores are the best items. Compared withítems with relatively low correlations with totalscores, those which have higher correlations withtotal scores have more variance relating to thecommon factor among the items, and they add nore tothe test reliability (p. 215).

To test for homogeneity, the correlation of each item with

the total scale score less the itern score itself was

obtained in order to rank these correlations from highest to

lowest. An r of "7O or above was considered adequate, the

rationale being that approximately half of the variance of

these items would thus relate to a common factor (NunnaLly,

1e67 ) "

37

Cronbach's A}pha was used as the estimate of internal

consistency. This measure is generally used more than any

other internal consistency estimate (Nunnally, 1970). The

SPSS-X, a stat.istical package for t,he Social sciences, was

utilized for this analysis. fhe package provided means and

standard deviations, ôS well as the Cronbach's Alpha values,

wtrich would obt,ain f or the Entropy Scale gi ven the

elimination of each item" Al1 of this information h¡as

cumulatively useful in assessiñg the effects of eliminating

a particular iten upon the scale's internal consistency"

Factor Anal ses

Factor analyses were performed using both an orthogonal

and an oblique rotation, in order to examine the underlying

facltor structure of the Entropy Scale and to determine which

method was most appropriate. The factor analyses were

performed using principle factor solutions, as these

extraction procedures usually account for the most variance

with the fewest factors and yield a correlation matrix with

the greatest accuracy for a given number of factors

(Gorsuch, L974) . For communality estimates squared multiple

correlations were utilized. A PrincÍple Axis Analysis using

squared rnultiple correlations was appropriate because the

factor analyses were performed in order to explore the

factor structure of the concept (entropy). No information

3B

as to the breakdown of the factors, i.e. the combination of

elements in these factors¡ wâs given in the literature.

Gorsuch ( f983 ) writes that factor analyses of this type

justify the use of the Principle Axis Analysis.

. The criterion for the number of factors to be retained

requi red t,he calculat ion of eigenvalues . Eigenvalues are

measures of the relative importance of any function"

Specifically, they are the characteristic roots of the

correlation matrices upon which factor analyses are based,

and represent the amount of variance accounted for by each

factor" A "scree test" (cattell, L966; Cattell and Jaspers,

Lg67) was performed, and this test provided the basis for

determination of the number of factors to retain by the

following procedure. Scree plots were examined, and the

pÕint at which the curves of these plots leveled of f 'rras

l^! ^ø-.: -^l ml^-i ^ {.L^ ^ai n*- r.r'laara +laa erlmd nf cõllîrôc aÍLlgLgl¡llJ"tlgu. tl¡¿Þ wqÞ s¡¡s À/v!¡¡L w¡¡ç¿s

the loadings approached zero, and hence where more

variability due to error or specific factors was represented

by the loadings than was common variance" Factors whose

eigenvalues were found to be at or above this point on the

curve were retained for rotation.

A Varimax rotation was f irst 'attemPted, in order to

determine whether an orthogonal solution was appropriate for

the data" The Varimax procedure distríbutes the common

variance among the factors more evenly than do other

39

procedures, and for this reason it. is often the preferred

procedure. In the present study this procedure yielded

facLors which did not possess simple structure, i "e.

numerous large Ioadings were found on many factors with

respect bo several variables" Thus, it was assumed that

relationships among fact,ors existed" An oblique solution

was therefore considered more appropriate because oblique

solutions account for Some degree of relationship between

factor s "

Various Delta ( 6 I values between +1 and -I were

experimented with for the Oblimin rotat.ions, in order to

obtain simple st.ructure. These different Delta values

varied the angle between the reference axes with respect to

obliqueness in order t,o determine the best angle for these

axes. The best angle would be the one that' would result in

simple structure" Simple strucLure was considered to be

found when the pattern matr íX, and in particular a

simplified algebraic expression containing the Delta value

being experimented with, was found (Nie, Hul1, Jenkins,

Steinbrenner and Bent, 1975) . Thus, if the angle of the

reference axes !,ras relatively more or Less oblique, Lhe

fact.ors being investigated !ì¡ere relatively more or less

related"

40

The following criteria, found in Thurstone (L947, P"

335 ) , were used to determine when a simple solution had been

found (Note that a zero loading was considered here to

include values which approached zero):

',1. Each factor should have at least one zetoloading "2 " gaãh factor should have a set of linearlyindependent variables whose factor loadings arezeto.3.Foreverypairoffactors,thereshouldbeseveral variãUtãs whose loadings are zero for onefactor but not for the other.4" For every pair of factors, a large proportionof the vari.Lfãs should have zeÍo loadings on bothfactors whenever more than about four factors areextracted.5. For every pair of factors, there should only bea small number of varíables with nonzero loadingson both. "

Relationship of the Entropy Scale to the Social Des i rabi 1i t.y

Scale of the Personality Research Form AA (Jackson, 1967)

The social Desirability scale from Jackson's PersonalÍty

Research Form (PRF.) AA (L961 ) was administered to all

subjects as part of the total packet" For all subjects

scores obtained f rom the PRF lvere correlated wi th thei r

total Entropy ScaIe scores using a Pearson Product-Moment

correlation coefficient. As well, after items loading

highly on a particular factor were placed together under the

f actor, the f actor groupings of ttrese items I¡Jere correlated

with each Entropy Scale item. Again, a Pearson r was used.

comparisons between these correlations determined whether

Entropy Scale items correlated more highly with their

4L

respective factors or with socíal desirability. If an item

correlated more highly with its factor grouping, its

variability was considered to be due more to the factor's

content than tO "social desirability". Thus it' was assumed

that the responses to that item generally were more

influenced by respondents' actual perceptions of their home

environments than by "social desirabifity bias"" If an item

correlated more higtrly with the PRF scores its variability

was considered to be more attributable to " social

desirability" than to the content of the factor "

consequently the reverse of the above assumption was to be

made. Lastlyr means, standard deviations and frequencies

urere calculated for the qRF. scores. Jackson's normative PRF

data (tgøl ) were compared to these figures in order to

assess whether the present study's sample was comparable to

the average population with respect to the attempt to appear

socially desirable. If the sample proved to be comparable

in thi s respect " soc ial desi rabi lity bias " would .to! be

expected to unduly influence the responses to the Entropy

Scaler ëIS tþere is no reason to assume that subjects

responded to entropy iterns differently with respect to

social desirability bias than they responded to the items

from Jackson's scale"

42

Chapter 3

Results

Summary Statistics

All of the analyses, with the exception of the

test-retest reliability analyses, made use of the entire

group of 28L subjects. O.rfy th9 first administration scores

of the subgroup of 47 subjects who lvere tested twice with a

one month int,erval intervening were utilized for these

analyses. The means and standard deviations of the Entiopy

Sca1e, utilizíng this sub-sample of 47 individuals, were

calculated for each of the two testing periods" fhese

values for the first testing were 106 " 66 and f6 " 86

respectively. For the second testing the corresponding

values were f08.30 and 15 " 36 " As well, the mean and

standard deviation þtere calculated for the total sample of

2BL subjects who completed the questionnaire" These values

were 103.f6 and L7.52 respectively. A t-test perforrned on

the data determined that no significant difference exists

between the largest and smallest means above, t= "0175,

p > "25"Frequencies of each Entropy' item are depicted in

histograms in Appendix C. The histograms portray either a

normal, approximately normal or positively skewed

distribution for all but three items, these being item 39,

43

"People in my family seem to disagree in their opinions on

most things"î item 65, "My family is afraid to be seen as

different by others"; and item 68, "l^Iith respect to variety,

my family would be considered boring" " If item

distributions are aIl approximately normal or are at least

skewed in the .same direction, correlations based on these

items qre not generally attenuated. Therefore, attenuation

of correlations is not likely to be a problem in the present

study "

one item included in the packet administered to

subjects, a drug control question ( item number 69) , asked

subjects how frequently they take non-prescription drugs to

alter the way they think or feel. Responses on the EntroPy

scale of those subjects who take drugs "always" or

"usually'!, for instance, mêY be confused by drug effects.

ïn the total sample , L76 individuals replied "never" on this

item" only six individuals replied "always" and only six

replíed "usually" "

Results were obtained for the three items ( item numbers

75,76 and 77) which determined the degree to which, when

responding to the qúestionnaire, the subject referred to

his/her mother, father or whole family" Item number 75

reads: "In ans!,reríng the above questions I was thinking of

my mother"; item number 76 reads: "In answering the above

questions I was thinking of my father"; and item number 77

44

reads: "In answering the above questions I was thinking of

my whole f arni ly" . For the total sample ( N = 281 ) the

response breakdown in terms of how many subjects responded

to each of the possible answers. for these three items is

portrayed in Table I.

A very minute proportion of subjects (2 out of 2BI)

"never" referred to the entire family while responding to

the Ítems, and a very small proportion (fO of 2Bf) "rarely"

referred to the entire family. Sirnilarly, very few subjects

referred "always" to their mother or father when responding.

Table I

Re ses Based on ltems Usi "Mother t'

" Fat or T¡Ihole Fam l_ Y ast e Referrant

#7sNof

( ¡¿other )

Subjects#76

Nof( rather )

Subjects#77 (!'Ihole Fanily)

N of Sub'iectsResponse

alwaysusuallyf reqtientlysometimesoccasionallyrarelyneverdon't know

t9364393352925I

N 2AL

L43B4392432L"27_3

\J = 281

44B44774t9l0

2I

N 2AL

45

The responses to each of the three items were well

distributed for most subjects, with the bulk of them

occurring in the middle of the Likert type scale" It cannot

be said that a preponderance of individuals' questionnaires

give information only about one family member.

Item 78, which determined who in a subject's fanily has

the most pov,Jer, was included in order to gain inf ormation

about the perceived Power structure in the families of our

subjects. The results, based on a sample of 273 subjects,

are þortrayed Ín Table 2. These results indicate that most

subjects belong to "prototlpícal" families in which the

father is perceived as being the "most powerful". Mothers

were perceived as having the "most power" in approximately

PerceBtion of

Table 2

lrfho in Family Has Most Power

Item #78 The one with .the most(Describe your

power ln nyrelationship

family iswi th thi smy

person).

Response

fathermotherparentsbrothersísterfami lysel fno onedon't know

N of Subiects

160B7L4

52II30

N 273

46

half this number of families" Virtually no one responded to

this item with "I don't know", although a resPonse of "no

one" may reflect some uncertainty"

The last four items of the questionnaire ( ítem numbers

7g,80, 8r and 82) were also analyzed, ütilizing the entire

sample. Item number 79 reads: "sOme of my actions have

been considered by some to be schizophrenic", item number B0

reads "Some of my actions have been considered by some to be

delinquent", item numbe'r 81 reads: "Some of the actions I

trave engaged in I consider to be schizophreníc", and item

number 82 reads: "Some of the actions I have engaged in I

consider to be delinquent"" As can be seen from Table 3

very few subjects in this sample felt that some of their

actions could be considered "schizophrenic" actions by

others or themselves. Similarly, very few subjects felt

that some of their actions eould be considered as

"delinquent" actions"

Sub-iects' Evai-uations of, Some

Tabl-e 3

of fheir Actions bv Sel-f and Others

BY OTHERS BY SELF

Response

atr-ways

usual-J-y

f requentJ-ysomet imes

occasionai-i-yrarelyneverdon't know

Question #79" Schi zopTrrenic"N of Subiects

I0

7

l_9

2L

69

r595

N 2AL

Question #80t'DeIinquent "N of Subiects

II

T2

28

3B

88

106

7

ril 2AL

Questíon #8Inoschi zophrenic"N of Sub'iects

Io

I16

26

7l_

r47t2

Àï 2Br-

Quest.íon #82" De I i nquent "N of Sub-iects

I0

TO

2A

49

89

97

7

N 28L

+

48

Content ValiditY

The procedure used to assess content validit,y of the

Entropy Scale indicated that ttre items all accurately

describe the concept of entropy as described by Stierlin and

Beavers (Stierlin, Lg7L, L973, L974i Beavers, L977, 1983).

One hundred percent agreement was obtained between the

'oexpert" judges who took part in the content valídity

assessment with respect to which items to include ín the

Entropy Scale. These items were considered to be derived

from particular variables described as correlates of

,,entropy', in the "Family" literature " The variables

included degree of cohesion/togetherness and tranquility of

family members, upset and/or peace in the family

environment, openness of farnily members in terms of

expression of feelings and thoughts, rigidity in planningE--ia-- -^-r---.:!-- ' ^ñ: yrr'Ia ^l-*ì+rr in

lnvorvlng E,ng IilIltIIlr u(Jt¡I(JlrltrçJ, }/vwEI q¡¡u 4q4ç v!qr¡sJ

the family and evaluatíon of family activities in terms of

both social appearance and interpersonal enjoyment" The

factor analyses (fa¡les B to f5) described below indicate

that components of covariation. of the Entropy Scale are

consistent with the Family Systems literature dealing with

entropy" The factors will be described in detail below"

49

Temporal Stabilitv

The test-retest reliability analysis of the 33 entropy

items, performed on the questionnaires of the subgroup of 47

subjects, yielded the Pearson correlation coefficients

listed in Table 4. The table provides Pearson correlations

for each item, ês well as item means and standard deviations

for each administration of the scale" The results of the

procedure indicate that the Entropy Scale is reasonably

stable for the period examined. The Pearson r for the

seale, administered twice with one rnonth intervening, was

"4974, p ( .001. As well, 22 out of 33 items on the scale

have correlations which are significant at different leve1s

( í"e" the .05, "01 or "OO2 'levels), signifying that

subjects' responses to many items remained relati.vely

unchanged over the one-month period.

Examining the significance IeveL of test-retest

correlations for the items reveals that the preponderance of

items with relatively low test-retest correlations are found

near the end of the questionnaire. Reasons for this will be

discussed in the following chapter. However item number 26,

"Ttrings are peacefUl at home" and item number 39, "People in

my family seem to disagree in their opinions on most things"

appear before, or approximately ât, the halfway poínt in the

questionnaire. As well, item number 52, "Members of my

f ami ly don' t care about each other " , item number 54 , " In .my

50

f amily we care about, each other's f eelings n , it'em number 57 ,

nPeople in t.he famity consult others they are making

decisions aboutn and item number 6!, nIn my family we try to

keep Eime for each othern, are not near the end of the

questionnaire. These. six items were found to have

relatively Iow test-retest correlationsr âS did those near

the end of t,he scale, i. e. item number 65, nMy f amily is

afraid to be .seen as different by othersn, item number 68,

'with respect to var iety my family would be considered

boringn, iLem number 7:I, nMy family has a good time when

wer re t,oget,her o , item number 72, n I can tell What makes

people in my family angryn and item number 74, oPeople in my

family express their anger openlyn. In fact, item number 61

obtained a nonsignificant, ' negative correlation when

eorrelated with itself over a one-month period. Reasons for

the low and negative t.est-retest correlations found with the

early*occuring test items may be different from those

applying to the late-occuring items.

51

Table 4

-Retest Product-Moment Correlations,Entr Sca1e Test

Item # t

Means a Stan r Dev at ons

First Administration Second Administration

Mean S.D Mean S.D.

323433333333333434323223344444322

246I9

t0202L222326l9303233353B394547505254575861626365687L7274

" 61 52***.6113***"4443***" 6009***" 4400**5863***

" 5069***q'¿1 ?***

" 3930**.3389*"2339" 3539*"44LL**" 4984***" 6411***" 3463*"3L29*"o392" 3058*"4443**¿qrq***" 1569" 3r86"2L26" 6183***" OBI6"4657**" 5663***" 1957"o954" 2355.27L8"2L57

.0638"9787"1915"4255.0851" B5II.85r1"27 66.0000"L957"L702.9787"5652.239r"2826" 1087" 9565"5532"6170"9L49"6596"0213.9362"2979.4255"2340" 0000.1489"5957

1" 1r.13L.4669L.527LL"4707I " 47r9r " 84r3I " 0628r " r554I " 3I88L"3763L.4494L "32681.5585r " 6081L "6420r"5236L"6727I " 0593L "2947L.42691.3875r " 3i03r " 63391 " 6005L "5428r "402rr " 4891L "64l-6I " 9411r"63281. 398rL.4037I " 4303

3 "04263 "L2773 " 25534.L7023 " 40433 " 53193 " 65963 "29793 " 06383 "27663 "468L3 "7 6603 " 63833 " l9r53 "23404 "40434 " 08514 "04263"61703.085r3 " 6809z " f,Ivo2 "65963 "29792.93624.L4893 "72344 "59575 " 06384 "36L73.319r2.63833.0952

t. 1602L "3L24L.42L4I " 3BBrl. 5695L "5443L "273Lt.r7B0L "3254L.4552r.5583L "402LI " 3285L.296LL.4327I .43951.66591.3015L.2257L.48661.23551 a Â^4L.O+WZ1.3396I " 5311L .4656L "4443L.3465L.4395r"5238L "7L22L"5479r. t3l1r. 3400

"8298

" 8205

.0426" 8298

N.TE. ***p( "OO2, p3".or,*p4.05**

52

Internal ConsistencY

The internal consistency analyses were performed on lhe

responses of 273 rather than 281 subjects, because the dat'a

obtained from eight. subjects vÙas incompleLe, i. e.

insufficient for inclusion in the analyses. These analyses

resulted in. a Cronbach's Alptra measure of .8078. This value

may be considered to reflect a "goodn overall degree of

internal consistency (NunnalIy, I970 ) for the Entropy

Scale. Table 5 gives the it'em-totaI statistics for each

Ent,ropy Scale item. A few items had negative correlations

with t,he rest of t,he Ent,ropy scale, these being: it'em 10,

nïn my family it's clear who has the most powern; item 39,

npeople in my family seem to disagree in their opinions on

most t.hings'; item 63, nIn my home outsiders make social

rriei!-qtr. i!-êm 65, oMV family is afraid tO be Seen aSv ¿Ð¿us , 4ev'r' --, -'!

dif f erent by othersn i item 68, nwith respect t'o var.iety my

f amily would be cons ider ed bor ing n ; and it,em 7 4 , n PeopIe in

my family express their anger openly'. Item-total

correlations for the remaining items range from " 0706 to

"697 4.

53

I t,em

246

I9

10202L22232629303233353839454750525457586t626365687L7274

RELTABTTITY COEFFICIENTS

N OF CASES = 273.0

ALPHA = 0"8078

TABLE 5

Entropy Scale Item-Tot,al Stat,istics

Cor r ectedïtem-Total

Cor r eI at ion

.3036" 3036.4615.5681"4944

-.0895.4355"3322" 3830.5446" 6524" 0706"587 4

" 0969.5495" 2000.4845

* " 2983" 3866"2942.4102"JIOY"6r80.4446"3902.5839.4952

-"3141-.2533- "296r

"6974.3150

-.0323

AlphaIf ItemDeleted

.8031"7979.7 966"7 922.7946"8215"7 986.8023.7 999.7943" 7900

" 7900"7 922.8102.7 925.8068.7944"8251.7 997.8033.7 984.ÕUUY.7 899"797L"7 996"7 909.7935"827 2

.8290

.8259"7876.8026.8152

54

F ctor Anal ses

For the factor analyses Principle Axis Factor solutions

were util ized. The communality estimates consisted of

squared multiple correlations. This procedure produced the

eigenvalues shown in Figure L I plot,ted on a scree chart.

Examining the plot for the Ent,ropy scale reveals that. the

curve formed by the eigenvalues begins to level off at

f act.or 6 ¡ hence the retention of six f actors f or rotat,ion "

Símple structure was not obtained by the Varimax rotations,

as many items loaded on many fact,ors rather than only one.

Indications were that the factors were inter-reIat,ed. They

vüere not independent, and a Varimax rotation to obtain

simple Étructure vtas not a reasonable procedure. The

rotated Factor Matrix obtained with the Varimax rot,ation is

qhnwn ìn Annenriì¡¡ D^--rr :'- -- _-

Consequently Oblimin rotations viere attempted for

various degrees of obliqueness, the purpose of this being to

determine the angle between the two Èeference aXes which

would lead to ttre nbest solution" , i . e. t,hat' which most

satisfied the criteria of simple struct.ure. A solut.ion wit,h

a Delta value of 0.0 most satisfied these criteria. Of

course, beCause the solution v\tas not orthogonal a few items

vüere included in more than one factor due t,o their

relatively high loadings on t,hese factors. Specifically,

item number 26 was included in both Factor I and Factor II,

L 11 )0'o

a 1l'bç.t-'

se8'\

'Eeq' I

¡-s b'l

e

i.

,

ç1cl

1üAN19Í

Ql

z1q)9 hdailN3 ?n'L'd aJ s7n-7U^f\2s tA 'l glY't2tJE

L

s

b))

56

as was item number 30. Item number 7I \¡tas included in bot'h

Factor I and Factor VÏ.

A tot,aI of six factors resulted from Ehe Oblimin

rotation with DeIta value set at 0.0, this being t,he

accepted final solution. Appendix E protrays in a Pattern

Matrix the Entropy Scale factor loadings which were obEained

with this rot,ation. Table 6 relates the content and range

of loadings of each interpretable factor, and Tables 7 to 12

give the item composition of the factors. In t,he case of

most factors only items loading 2 .30 will be presented

here. It is primarily t,hese iEems which will be given

weight, in the int,erpretation of each f act.or r âs Gorsuch

notes that a lower boundary of .3 f or t,he def inition of a

nsalientn Variable may promote nmeaningfulnessn" The fairly

large sample size (N=281) of Lhe present sample may have

rendered even n uninterpretable" factors statisticaify

significant if computations to determine statistical

significance had been performed (Gofsuch' 1983 ' p. 210 ) .

Thus, Lhe simple criterion of meaningfulness ltas deemed to

be the best guideline in the inclusion,/exclusion of items

under each factor.

37

Table 6

Summary of Entropv Scale Factors

Range ofFactor Items Included f,oaainqs

,50,7 1,38,2,30 ,26

I 61, I58, 6

Content Area

"3225 to "7592 Togetherness andtranquílity offamily members

TT 33 ,23 ,9 ,26 ,32,39, 30

" 310f to "6544 Calmness of thefamity environment

rrr 74,6,72,2L

rv 29,35,65

v LA,22

"3053 to "7066 OPenness of familYmembers

"2647 to "754O Sponteneity offamily planning andconformi ty

"4854 to "5820 Power and ruleclar i ty

"2288 to " 6863 Social appearanceand interpersonalenjoyment

vr 68,7L,47

NOTE: Absolut.e values of factOr loadings are given"

5B

Item composition of factors.

Table 7

Factor I: Toqetherness and Tranquility

61 "7592

ï tem_t

B

50

7L

38

5B

62

30

26

.6268

"5844" 5r82

"4348" 3598

" 3585

"3327"3225

Loadinq Ïtem Content

In my family we try and keep time for eachother.We do things together as a familY.My horne is a shelter from the chaotic world"My family has a good time when we're together.People apologize after arguments in my family-Holidays are for the family to be together.I am much like other members of my family"Our family tries to keep things calm"Things are peaceful at home.

Factor I involves cohesion/togetherness

tranquility of family members. It is comprised of nine

with loadings ranging from .3225 to .7592.

and

i tems

Factor II involves uPset

environment" It is comPosed of

ranging from "3f01 to "6544"

and/or peace

seven items

59

in the family

with loadings

Table B

Factor II: "War & Peace" in the Family

Item# Loading

33

23

9

26

32

39

- "6544- " 5463

-.5428

-.4355- .4L36

"3877

Item Content

Argurnents are unending in'my family.My family is in an uproar.Going out is an escape from the disorder in myfami ly "

Things are peaceful at home.

Without rules my family is in chaos.People in ny famiJ-y seem to disagree in Èheiropinions on most things.Our farnily tries to keep things calm.30 -" 310r

Factor III relates to openness of family members in

terms of expression of feelings and thoughts, and includes

four items whose loadings range from .3053 to .7066.

60

Tab1e 9

Factor III: "Transparency" of Fa¡ni Iy Members

Item#

7 4 "7066

6 "4543" 331972

toadinq Item Content

People in my fanily express their angeropenly.People in my family are uP-frontI can tel1 what makes people in my familyangry.You can tell what people in the family arethinking.

2L " 3053

Factor IV involves rigidity in planníng involving the

family, as well as conformity. It has three items, with

loadings of "4812, .754O and "2647. Item number 65, "My

family is afraid to be seen as different by others", has

been included in the interpretation of this factor due t'o

the apparent theoretical importance of "conformity" in the

FamiIy Ent.ropy Iiterature, the lack of other items designed

to "tap" into this variable, and the fairly small numerical

difference between .2647, the item's factor loading, and the

"cut-off point" of "3"

61

Table I0

Factor IV: Ridiq i t.y and Conformity

ïtem# Loading

29

35"7 540

"48L2

It.em Content

My family hates toMy family alwaYsmatter what.My famity is afraid to be seen as differentby others.

change plans "

sticks to its P1ans no

65 "2647

Factor V, which deals

the family, is a doublet"

"4854 and "5820"

with por¡rer and rule

Its two factors have

clarity

loadi ngs

1n

of

Table 11

Factor V: ClaritY of Power and Rules

ïtem# Loading Item Content

10 - " 5820 In my family it's clear who has the mostpower.

22 -"4A54 fhe rules in the family are clear.

62

Factor VI concerns evaluation of family activitíes in

terms of social appearance and interpersonal enjoyment. It

has three items. These ítems range from "2288 to "6863 with

respect to factor loadings. Item number 7Lo "My family has

a gOod time when h¡erre together", and item number 47, "From

outside my family would look orderly", $rere included in the

interpretation of this factor due to the small numerical

difference between their respective factor loadings and the

"3 "cut-off poínt". As weÌI, their inclusion seems tO be

needed in order to interpret the f actor " Ttre f act'or i s

Revertheless difficult to interpret, and seems to overlap

with both Factor I and Factor IV" It has been included for

its possibte heulistic value, but may be deleted in the

future "

Table L2

Factor VI: Social,Appearance and Interpersonal Eniovment

ïtem# Loading

68 - " 6863

Item Content

I/ÀIíth respect to variety, my family would beconsidered boring.My family has a good time when we're together.From outside my famíly would look orderly"

7L

47"2683

* "2288

63

A factor correlation matrix was produced along with the

oblique solution factor extraction" Some of the six factors

extracted correlated quite substantially, as shown in Table

r3.

Table 13

FACTOR CORRELATION MATRTX

Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Factor I

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 5

Factor 6

r " 0000

- "4L29

"L544

" IèJ /IJ

" 0183

"2L67

1 " 0000

* " 0548

^^^ F

" UUðf,

- "L651

- "L526

1 " 0000

^^^^. v4+\J '*

- " 0302

" 0850

r r1^/lr^lI. \J\J\JV

- "L247

-.0239

I " 0000

.0896 1 " 0000

The finat statistics, ütilizing an oblique solution, are

found in Table L4" These statistics include the eigenvalue

of each of the six factors and the communalíty estimates of

each of the variables (Entropy Scale items), the latter of

these two values representing the total variance of a

variable accounted for by all the common factors.

64

In Table L4 the relative contribution of each fact,or can

be seen" For example, it can be seen that Factor I account's

f or 5 .7 times t,he amount of var iance among t.he i t,ems

accounted for by Factor rr. This can be verified by

examining the npercentage of variance" column.

Table 14

Item Communality and Relative ConLribution of Each Factor

Percentage Cumulative CommunalitTtem No. Factor Eiqenvalue of Vàr iance Percentage

246I9

102g2L222326293032333538394547505254575861626365687L7274

I23456

8.00551.40641 " 36401.0947

"7 866.6644

24 "34.34.13"32"42"0

24.328 .532 "736.038.440"4

.37 45

.4l-42" 4439"5447.5136" 3648.4053"2848.4385"57 24

" 6300

"547 5.4796"2357.6339.2544.4052.4005.2963"2698"32t4.5706" 6004"2692.2401.6189.42I2"6250.4770.5564.698s"5416.5330

65

Rel at ionsh ip of the Entropy Scale to the Social DesirabilitY

Scale of the PersonalitY Research Form AA (Jackson, 1967)

Jackson's Personality Research Form AA of L967 (PRF) was

administered to subjects to assess bias due to social

desirability. A Pearson å was calculat.ed to determine the

corretation between PRF scores and the mean Entropy scale

score for aIl subjects. This correlation was .4048, and u¡as

significant at t,he .001 1evel. Thus subjects in the study

received PRF scores which vÍere very comparable to those

obtained by Jackson I s st,anda.rdization sample, the overall

mean and standard deviat.ion of t'he present sample being

15.880 and 2.962 respectively. These results seem t'o imply

that the tendency of t,he present' subject sample Lo respond

wit,h respect to social desirability bias is similar to that

of the general population, âs indicated by Jackson's

normative sample. There is no reason to suspect that t'he

present samplefs social desirability bias was differentially

operative on the entropy items as opposed to the PRF items"

Thus confidence may be placed in Lhe reasonably unbiased

nature of the subjects' responses to the entropy items '

although results of any scale correlabe t'o some degree with

social desirabilitY bias.

In addit,ion, Pearsonrs I's calculated between individual

entropy items and the PRF scale indicate Lhat five entropy

items correlated more highty with social desirability than

66

threy did wit,h their respective factors. These items are

depicted in Table 15.

Table t5

Entro Items Most. Influenced a Wisltto seem socla v es ra e

ïtem#

45

54

2-

4

20

Correlation with PRF score(Pearson correlat,ion coefficients)

People in my family do t,hings to bug each other . "2479

In my family we care about each otherrs

Myof

family has values,/attiEudes similaroth e rs

Times my whole family spends wit'h outsiders areen joyable .

People in Ehe famity have the same opinion onth ings .

feelings. "2722

to t.hose"3966

.3299

.3416

67

Because the responses to these entropy items Ín

particular may reflect a wish to seem socially desirable,

they nay not as accurately reflect entropy as do those iterns

correlating more highly witfr the various factors established

than with the PRF" The PRF descriptive statistics are

portrayed in Appendix E"

6B

Chapter 4

Discussion

This study r¡ras performed to develop a measure of entropy

in the families of respondents obtained from their

perceptions of their families. In order to do this the

psychornetric properties of 33 items relating to entropic

family interact,ion patterns were examined. These items were

generated by a review of the Family Systems literature

dealing with Entropy, and this thesis is an attempt to

ensure that the measure (the Ent.ropy Scale) has content

validity, temporal stability, internal consistency and

factoral consistency. Pretiminary assessments of content

validity and statistical analyses of test-retest

reliability, . homogeneity' and factor structure ?rave revealed

â--r - i- lÀ- :-.:r.:^1 ¡^eÈ .i- r-'^r}.l¡rr nfEnat cne ¿nEroPy Þc¿lJ-e¡ III l" Ls L¡II LIq¿ !v!4r, !Þ wv! u¡¡¿ v!

being retained as a basis for further study of entropic

family interaction patterns. Revisions of the .scale will be

made ín the future, and will proceed in large part from the

results of the Present analYses.

Summary Statistics

As revealed by the t-test, the Entropy scale mean score

obtained with the subsample of 47 subjects was not

significantly different from that obtained with the total

69

sample of 28L subjects " The lack of a significant

difference between these meansr ðs well as the similar

values of the associated standard devíations, implies that

the data obtained from the two groups involved rnay be

pooled. As well, the test-retest relíability results, which

were based on the 47 subjects, ÍlâY be generalized to the

entire sample

Furthermore, as indicated by the histogram distributions

in Appendix C the values of correlations calculated in the

study may be assumed to be uninfluenced by problems wittr

"Skewness" of entropy item distributions. In particular, it

need not be feared that the factor loadings obtained for

some entropy items are deceivingly low due to attenuation of

the correlations involved. All but three items are normal

or positívely skewed, and only a substantial departure from

1ì+'¡ ^Ê ñãñr' a4 +ha Äì e{-rilrrrlinnc ñr .a l-onriênõ\t fr-¡rtÄv! rlrq¿ ¿ u-)' v ¿

many distributions to be skewe'd in opposite directions from

each other, would be suggestive of attenuation.

The drug control item, item 69, was included in the

questionnaire along with the Entropy Scale in order t.o

detect subjects whose behavior and/or emotions may

frequently be influenced by the use of non-prescription

drugs. The item reads: "I , have taken non-prescríption

drugs to change how I feel and think." Because only twelve

subjects replied either "always" or "usually" to this item,

70

the responses of our subject sample can be assumed to a

large degree to be unaffected by drug effects" If the

present non-clinical sample had been compared to samples of

delinquent or schizophrenic adolescents, this item would

perhaps have been even more important than it was in the

present study" That is, the item might have made it

possible to determine whether the use by some "normal"

subjects of LSD or another psychotomimetic drug at the time

of questionnaire administration was confounding the results

by precluding a "elean", accurate comparison of "normals"

and schizophrenics" The item will be administered, along

with the entropy items, to clinical populatÍons in the

future "

Items 75 to 77 read: "In answering the above questions

I was thínking of my mother", "In answering the above

questions I was thinking about my father" and "In answering

the above questions I was thinking of my whole family"

respectively" In the present clinical sample most subjects

(898) referred to their whole family at, least "sometimes"

while responding to these items, and a very minute

þroportion of the subjects (48) referred to their whole

family "never" or "rarely". This seems to suggest that much

of the information obtained from responses to the Entropy

Scale pertains to the whole family" At the same time, many

of the subjects ( 688 ) referred to their mother at least

7L

"sometimês", while 672 of the subjects referred to their

father at least "sometimes"" Thus a variety of responses

were obtained with these three items, and it cannot be Said

that the subjects were homogeneous in their "referral"

choices. This information will be useful in order to

ultimately make normative comparisons. It may be that some

subjects in "clinical" groups t"rill refer differentially to

varíous family members or to their whole family when

responding to the Entropy ScaIe than will those in other

diagnostic or "normal'n groups. Presentíng two of many

possibte examples, "clinical" subjects may predominantly

refer to a family member who they have a close alliance

with, while "normal" subjects might predominantty refer to

the entire family" In the individual case, if the subject

is a delinquent perhaps neither parent but rather a brother

or Sister would be referred to" In these examples it cannot

be assumed, for the purpose of either research or diagnosis,

that the Entropy score obtained relates to the entropic

Ínteraction patterns of all ímmediate family members" Ït

may be that the respondent, and one other family member have

a maladaptive, stifling alliance while all other family

members interact "normally" . In contrast, it may be t'hat

such an alliance is performing some function for other

famíly members, whose "ngrmal" interaction depends on it.

Many further examples of what, a high Entropy Scale score

72

might refer to could be given" In each case it would be

irnportant to plan further assessment and treatment according

to the responses to these three items" Thus the Entropy

Scale score, when interpreted in conjunction with the

responses obtained with these items, ñâY aid in the

detetrmination of wl.o in a particular family is in need of

treatmenti or perhaps what direction treatment could take,

for example loosening "bonds" with one member while

strengthening bonds with another.

Item number 7A reads: "The one with the most power in

my family is (Describe your relationshíp

with this person) " " In the present sample the father was

perceived as having the most power in a majority (598) of

families, with the mother being perceived as having the most

power in approximately half this number (322) of families.

Virtually no-one responded to this item with "I don't know",

although a response of "no-one", which may reflect some

uncertainty or a perceived division of power between

multiple farnily members, was given by a few subjects"

Thus it seems that in these "normal" families a definite

sense of who has the most poüJer, â11 important source of

information, exists. This item provides a means of

ultimately making normative conparisons between the present

subject group and "clinical" groups, and may be of

díagnostic significance if it permits a better descrÍption

73

of "normal" families and/or those of clinical groups. In

all cases it would be important to determine the ways in

which this pol¡rer is wielded in the family" . For example,

informãtion nay be obtained about how partícu1ar situations

are handled by the family, through interviews or direct

observation. This could be contrasted with information

obtained in parallel situations from families with different

power relationships as indicated by this item" If entropy

as measured by this scale conforms to its descriptions in

tire Family Systems literature, subjects from more entropic

families may be more uncertain as to family pobter dynamics;

oEt the most entropic families (on the basis of scores on

the Entropy Scale) may be the most skewed in terms of the

possessíon of power by one family nember" Comparisons of

Entropy Scale scores with responses to this item could help

to determine this"

Another question which could be asked is: "Does a

particular poürer configuration, or a lack of clarity of

po!.rer or rules, seem to be prevalent in the most entropic

families?" Interaction patterns involvíng power/rules are

important processes to be cognizant of in studying,

treating, or, indeed, being a member of an interacting

family" Thus this aspect of entropy, which emerged as

Factor V ( "Clarity of Power and RuIes" ) in the factor

analyses and consísted of items 10, "In my family it's clear

74

who has the most power" and 22, "The rules in the family are

clear", should be given a special focus in future studies"

Additional information should also be obtained through

interviews and direct observation, in order to clarify what

different responses to these items nean" This may involve

determining which situations the power is most and least

evident in, and which situations it is most beneficial

and/or counter*productive in. This information can then be

used in diagnosis and/or the planning of treatment, as well

as in the nosological assignment of entropic families for

research purposes" Of course, other aspects of entropy

might become evident once clinical populations have been

investigated and various "critical" or "diagnostic" iterns

and/or specific configurations of behavior are identified in

particular groups

fhe last four items on the questionnaire are it,ern 79,

'oSome of my actions have been considered by some to be

schizophrenic", item 80, "Some of my actions have been

considered by some to be delinquerlt", item BI, "Some of the

actions I have engaged in I consider to be schizophrenic",

and item 82, "Some of the actions I have engaged in I

consider to be delinquent". In a "normal" Sample such as

this, composed of first year university students, a greater

number of individuals might be expected to feel that they

"misbehave" (i.e. are or act delínquent) than those who feel

75

that they act in ways defined as "schizophrenic", and this

was indeed what bras found" This is perhaps because while

their behaviors often may not be approved of by the "older

generation" and hence might be deemed by the respondents

themselves to be "delinquent", this same behavior often

follows norms set by people their own age and thus would not

be deemed "scltizophrenic" " As well, their knowledge of what

defines "delinquent" would, probably be clearer than their

knowledge of what defines "schizophrenic", whÍch is far more

technical "

It will be important to include these items in the scale

when it is administered to "clinical" groups, âs a means to

increase confidence that thg "normal" subjects being

compared with the "clinical" samples perceive themselves as

'oï1ormal", and tO dif f erentiate between "cIinical" subjects

who pereeíve themselves to various degrees as normal,

delinquent and/or schizophrenic" If it is found that some

"normal" subjects differ from others by perceiving

themselves as detinquent, schizophrenic or both, these

subjects may be interviewed to examine their perceptions n

more dept,h. In this way the characteristics of their

families may be examined and compared with those of "normal"

subjects who feel they are. indeed normal, and the

possibility that treatment is needed may be explored.

Similarly, "clinical" subjects may be interviewed on the

76

basis of their responses to these items, and information

potentially valuable for diagnosis and/or treatment may be

obtained" fhe items will make it possible to compare the

diagnoses or labels applied by others to "clinical"

respondents with their own perceptions of their disorder,

and to examine some of the possible effects of various

"entropic'o famíIy interaction patterns on self perceptions.

The information obtained with these items can be

supplemented by that obtained in interviews. As well, these

items may help to assess the efficacy of treatment. Perhaps

therapy which proc.eeds according to problems which surf ace

wíth the completion of the scale wilI fail to change the

label of many respondents from "delinquent". However, if

many of these respondents feel that they and others can

ríghtIy consider themselves as less delinquent, which can be

indicated by responses to these items, support for the

efficacy of therapy can be obtained"

Of course, one must remember that these items reflect

the perceptions of the individuals completing the

questionnaire, not "reality" " It would be ínformative to

determine, in future research, whether others' opinions of

an individual as delinquent or schizophrenic confirmed the

indívidual's ansu¡ers to these items. More confidence could

then be placed in these items for that individual, and much

information could be obtained from them, such as specific

77

thoughts, behaviors and emotions which the individual feels

are abnormal or would seen by others or ¡rarticularindividuals as abnormal"

Although Entropy Scale scores may correlate

significantly with an individual's score on items requesting

self assessment ( items 8I and 82) , they may correlate

significantly hígher with the indivídual's score on the

items (79 and B0) relating to what he/she perceives as being

others' perceptions. This information may ultimately be

important in the planning of treatment" For instance,

interviews may determine that some respondents over-estimate

family members perceptions of them as schizophrenic or

delinquent. If this is known, it may be possible to focus

therapy to increase the accuracy of their perceptions, in

order that, they may begin to feel less estranged from their

family and others"

Temporal StabilitvThe analyses performed to determine test-retest

reliability indicate that the Entropy Scale is reasonably

stable for the one-month period examined. A correlation of

"4974 is signÍficant, although not as high as one rnight

wish" The low temporal stability of some of the items Ìras

depressed the overall temporal stability of the scaIe.

7B

Future research should also determine the test-retest

reliabitity of the scale using longer intervals"

fhe t,est-retest reliability analyses of individual items

on the scale indicate that 22 out of 33 Entropy items had

significant test-retest coefficients at the.05 level or

better. ThÍs indicates that subjects' responses were fairly

stable over the one-month period wittr respect to many

items" Those 11 items with relatively low tenporal

stability may be badly worded items, or are perhaps unstable

for other reasons. fhey or the scoring of them should thus

perhaps be deleted from the Entropy Scale, in order to see

how this influences stability. Rewording them míght also be

explored "

Many of the items with relatively low test-retest

coefficients are located near the end of the questionnaire"

It is possible that fatígue effects influenced the responses

to some of these last items on the questionnaire" To test

for this possibility, the order of the items on the

questíonnaire caR be reversed and the test-retest analyses

can be performed again with different subjects" The

hypothesis that subjects respond more randomly with

increased fatígue would be supported , if the iterns which

previously had low test-retest coefficients increased the

size of their correlations and the temporal stability

coeff ici ents

decreased "

which might

analyses to

factor "

of

Thi s

be

79

the "new" items placed at the end

would imply a need to shorten the scqle,

done by deleting items found by factor

overlap with similar items loading on the same

A few of the items with relatively low temporal

stability coefficients do not occur near the end of the

questionnaire. Item 26 lacks ternporal stabílity, which mâlr

again, be because of misinterpretations due to its wording

or some other known reason(s). Specifically, responses to

"Things are peaceful at home" may be based on an immediate

temporal framework" Some respondents may feel that the item

refers to the family environment at the time of

admínistration of the scale, which nay differ from the

family environment as perceived at the next administration.

Were respondents to instead respond in terrns of the general

degree of peacefulness in the family, which may be perceived

as relatively constant, this item might attain a higher

temporal stability coeff icient"

Responses to item 39, "People in my famíIy seem to

disagree in their opinions.on most things", may be similarly

influenced by fluctuating environmental condítions, thus

explaining its relative lack of temporal stability. In

particular, the number and severity of disagreements between

family members may be expected to fluctuate somewhat over a

80

one-month period, which might render responses to this item

unstable.

Responses to item 6L, "In my farnily we try to keep time

for each other", may have been influenced by the two tines

at wt¡ich the test-retest data was obtained" The fírst test

administration occured at the beginning of the first term of

university, a time at which it. may understandably be easier

for a university student to keep time for his/her family.

The second administration occured one month into the term, a

time during which increased academic responsibilities may

preclude time being easily available to spend with the

family" Thus the nonsignificant, negative correlation found

between the mean Entropy Sca1e score obtained on item 6l at

Time I and Time 2, one month later, perhaps becomes more

underst,andable" It may instead be that the case study

reports of entropy as involving some degree of

noncommunication among famíly members need revision. Wit,h

future studies the reasons for this as well as other items'

instability may become clearer"

Yet another possible explanation for the relatively low

temporal stability of some items is that the "normal" sample

studied gave different responses to the items than would a

"clinical" group, whose responses may more closely conform

to the clinicatly based Iiterature; especially if the latter

group comes from families more consistently "entropic". of

81

course, some or aII of t,he relatively unstable items may be

useful despite t,heir instability. The very variabilit.y of

the responses of some subjects to these items over time nay

permit, t,he items to aid in the diagnos is of maladapt,ive

interact ion patterns; or ¡ to discr iminate betr¡reen normal and

dysfunctional families. As well, their possible suscept,i-

bility to various changing circumstanees over time may render

Ehem useful in assessing the effects of treatment interven-

tions. Only time and further research can clarify this"

Int,ernal ConsisLency

The internal consistency analyses resulted in a

Cronbach's Alpha of " 8078, which signifies a fairly high

degree of internal consistency" The it,em-total correlations

support. t,his st.atement, as only a f ew items had negative

correlations with the t.otaI Entropy Scale. These it,ems were

item 10r'In my family it's clear who has Lhe most powern,

item 39, rPeople in my family seem to disagree in theiropinions on most, thingsn, item 63, nIn my home outsiders

make social visitsn, item 65, ol4y family is afraid to be

seen as dif f erent by ot,hersn , it,em 68, 'With respect to

variety my family would be considered boriflgn, and item 74,nPeople in my family express their anger openlyn. With the

exception of items I0 and 39, t.hese items occur near the end

of t.he scale" Hence the effects of fatigue may again be

82

responsible for these items' low item-EotaI correlations '

In fut,ure administrat,ions of t,he Entropy scale they will be

placed near the beginning of the questionnaire, in order

that, they may be revised or deleted if the'ir associat'ed

item-tota1 st,at.istics do not improve.

Responses to item 10, 'In my family it's clear who has

the most povrer", may have been influenced by bhe clarity of

porr¡er and rules in subjects' families" The clariLy of po!''er

and rules in the family relates to entropy as viewed in the

Family systems I iterature, as case study descr ipt ions of

'entropicn families often portrai Lhem as lacking

information about who is'the most influential in decision

making" As well, nClar ity of Pov,ter and RuleSn was f ound in

the factor analyses to comprise one of t'he six factors into

which bhe scale items víere grouped. Howeverr responses to

item t0 may also have been influenced by the degree of power

which subjects perceived as being possessed by particular

family members. If this latter variable is not related to

entropy¡ unlike the nclarit,y of Power and Rules" variable,

the relatively low correlation of this item with the rest of

the scale may be explained. Specifically, responses to the

item would then have been inftuenced by an aspect of family

power dynamics, i . e " who in the family is perceived as

having the most povüer and,/or how large a difference is

perceived between the degrees of pov¡er possessed by various

B3

family members, which nay have littIe or no relation to

aspects of entropy covered by other scale items. If a

higher item-total correlation is obtained in the future when

this entropy item is reworded so that only the clarity of

pourer and rules is determined by it, this hypot,hesis would

gain credibility"

Factor AnaL ses

The factor analyses of the Entropy Scale were best

accomplished, i.e" led to the simplest solution, when an

oblique rotation was performed" Some degree of correlation

between the six factors was thus indicated. This

correlation might be expected from both the Famíly Systerns

literature dealing with entropy, which suggests that a

constellation of "entropic" characteristics nay permeate the

interactions of some families rather than a single aspect of

entropy, and from the fact that entropy is a complex,

multifaceted variable.

Tnterpretation of factors

Factorl-Thisfactor, "Togetherness and Tranquility",

is outlined in Table 7 " The greater the score obtained on

the items comprising the factor, the greater the interchange

of information within the boundary of the family system may

exist" An individual scoring high on the factor may

generally describe his/her family as being closer, more

B4

cohesive, relaxing to be with and considerate of its members

tÌ.an would an individual scoring lower" The possible

utility of the factor stems from the potential of its items

to explore the perceived "quality" of relationships among

family members " The general feeling of family members

toward one another is an aspect of family life which, ifdetermined, will aid in both diagnosis and treatment

planning. Scores on other factors' items will be more

understandable if interpreted ín conjunction with scores on

items comprising this factor. The degree to which a lack of

closeness and/or "good feelings" among family members as

opposed to other aspects of family life contributes to

maladaptive behaviors will become cleareri as will the

degree to which closeness and/or "good feelings" may

contribute to problems. The most appropriate diagnoses and

points of intervention wiIl become more evident with

follow-up interview data.

Because most items of Factor I (with the except,ion of

items 26 and 71) contribute highly to both the test-retestrelíability and the internal consístency of the Entropy

Scale, these items are important to it. However, furtherrefinements of the factor may be made on the basis of future

tests with "clinical" groups" One possible means of

refinement may involve rewording item 26, which has been

mentioned abover ërs we1I as item 7L, if placement at the

85

beginning of the scale faits to increase item 71's

stabílity. Again, with a "clinical" group different results

might obtain"

Factor 2 - Factor II, "war and Peace in the Family", is

outlined in Table 8" It is comprised of seven items ( items

33, 23,9,26, 32,39 and 30), six of which have negative

loadings" Upon first inspection the negative versus

positive loadings do not all make sense. Therefore, before

factor II is interpreted it is necessary to describe and

give possible reasons for the direction of its factor

loadings. ftre direction of these loadings seems at first

contra-intuitive, hence the interpretation of the factor nay

make greater sense giverr some comment on them"

Four of the seven items have negative loadings and imply

a "warlike" atmosphere in the famÍly if responded to

positively" However, item 26, "Things are peaceful at

home'0, has a negative loading but implies peacefulness if

positively responded to" A possible reason for the

contraintuitive negatÍve loading of ítem 26 may be that

responses of some subjects to the item have been based on

immediate rather than ongoing conditions in the family

environment. "Things are peaceful at home'o may imply to

many respondents that the degree of peacefulness in the

immediat.e (present ) family environment is in question.

Hence responses given by respondents to the item may not

B6

conform to their responses to those items in the factor

which they perceive as per,taining to longer term, gleneral,

ongoing conditions" This possibility, combined with the low

test-retest reliability coefficient obtained by this item in

the temporal stability analysis, makes the item a príme

candidate for change or elimination"

Item 30, "Our family tries to keep things calm", has

peaceful implications despite its negative loading" This

can perhaps be explained in the following t¡ray: A positive

response to the item, which reads: "Our family tries to

keep things calm", ñêy indicate a perceived need in some

respondents' fanilies to keep things calm because of a

general state of unrest. and being "close to the edge of

blowing up", rather than an actual state of calmness in the

family environment" If this is so the negative loading is

explained as it becomes clear that the item does not have

peaceful implications" This makes it similar to the other

items with negative loadings on this factor. Direct

observation of a family and/or questioning of respondents

should provide information

case" Both thís ltem and item 26 will be scrutinized in

future administrations of the questionnaire to "clinical"groups and wiIl be deleted or reworded if similar

incongruities remain or emerge"

87

Fínally, item 39, "People in my famity seem to disagree

in their opinions on most things", has a positive loading on

this factor, Yet it seems to relate to a warlike

atmosphere, as do the four items which have negative

loadings" Perhaps this incongruity is because a positive

response to this item signifies sornething different from the

state of "rnrar" in the family which the other items

describe" A positive response may instead índicate an

ability or tendency of family members to openly discuss

thoughts and feelings without risking "hrar" " It should be

noted that this item, like item 26, possesses a retatively

low test-retest coefficient. Again, there nay be a need to

reword or elirninate this item in the future" The

possibitity might also exist that with a "clinical" group

both items would be more stable, and would "fit in" to a

greater degree with their respective factors.Thus, Factor II, "War and Peace in the Family", seems to

relate to the degree of peace versus unrest which isperceived in the family environment" Possible reasons for

the direction of the loadings have been speculated upon

above. An individual responding positively to the items of

this factor may generally describe his/her family as less

peaceful, in terms of length of arguments, Ievel of

organization, noise level, need for rules, amount of general

agreement among members and protection from the outer

BB

environment, than an individual scoring lower. Items 92 and

39 seem to have relatively low item-total and test-retest

reliability respectively" Item 26 has relatively low

teét-retest reliability" These items should be flagged for

elimination or future refinement, âs discussed above"

Perhaps the terms "ru1es" and "chaos" in item 32, "Without

rules my family is in chaos", could be more specifically

defined. If the item is understandable to most if not all

subjects the responses to it may conform more to subjects'

eotal Entropy Scale scores. Item clarity may be even more

crucial to stable responses i f a i'"Iinical " group with

limited reading abili.ty is tested. Similarly, in item 39,

"People in the family seem to disagree in their opinions on

most things" , the word "most" could be elirninated. Its

inclusion produces two quantitative terms in the statement

once a subject responds on the Likert scale, these being

"most" and the subject's selection from the Likert

continuum" This may be confusing to the subject. If

similar results are found with "clinical" groups, these

refínements may be advisable.

Factor 3 - This factor, "Transparency of Family

Members", is detailed in Table 9. It relates to the

openness of family members, their tendency to express

thoughts and feelings, êrs well as the clarity of those

thoughts and feelings to others in the family" The aspect

B9

of entropy related to may be the amount of freedorn of

information exchange within the famíly system boundaries,

especially information relating to indÍvidual components

( menbers ) of the system" This factor thué ultimately

relates to an aspect of "metacommunication", the degree to

which members are open about their relationships with each

other¡ ârd goes beyond dealing simply with their own

feelings. As such it is diagnostically important and may

aid in the planning of treatment. The FamiIy Systems

literature dealing with entropy relates that an irnportant

aspect of entropic information loss in the famity involves

statements about relationships among its members, and the

emotions involved

Factor 4 - This factor, "Rigidity and Conformity", is

detailed in Table 10" It seems to relate to the degree of

spontaneity which a family exhibits. Spontaneity in this

sense refers to the family's willingness and tendency to

depart from existing schemes or plans, with or without

apparent reasons for modifying them, and from perceived

social norms as well " The positive or negative affect

associated with changing plans is included in this. fhus an

individual scoring high on this factor may describe his/her

family members as more apt to alter plans, less conforming,

and less concerned about being perceived this way than an

individual scoring relatively lower" Responses to items in

90

this factor, coupled wittr affective information, would be

helpful as an index of the possible difficulties of treatinga particular individual or family. WhiIe positive responses

to item 29, "My family hates to change plans" and item 35,

"My family always sticks to its plans no matter what" may

indicate that promoting change in a family may be difficult,a positive response to item 65, "My famity is afraid to be

seen as different by others," may work to. a therapist'sadvantage" The use of social pressure in treatment may

sometimes be used in a manner beneficial to a family which

is accurately perceived by its members as basically"conformist".

E+ç!er S This factor, "Clarity of Power and Rules", isthe only doublet factor" Only two items loaded on it but itis not "trivial" as Gorsuch (fggs) has written about such

factors, âs both of its loadings are above "30. The factorappears to involve the clarity of power and rules in the

family" The perceived clarity of information regarding

which member hotds the most power, ês well as the perceived

clarity of "rules" to be adhered to by famiì-y members, are

the aspects of fanily interaction dealt wittr by thäse

items" The implications of both high and low scores on the

items comprising this factor are many. To the degree thatboth the cont,ent of f amily rules and who holds the most

pohrer in the family are perceived as being "clear", a family

9l

could range from being flexible and adaptively "organized"

to being destructively and intolerantly rigid in its power

and rule structure. The family could be tyrannized by one

or more members who create irration.lr' inconsiderate rules

of a "black/white" nature, ol it could be eff icientty "run'",

according to members' changing needs" Other possibifities

exist. In contrast, to the extent that power and rule

issues are perceived as unclear, complete confusion and

"chaos" may reign, leaving family members feeling frustrated

and necessary tasks undone; oi:, the family may be perfectly

satisfied with a "democratic" process of negotiation, which

precludes the need for rules or a power structure. The many

interpretations of this factor indicate a need to supplement

information obtained from its items with that obtained by

interviews and/or direct observation. In this way the

interaction of power dynamics with problems experienced will

become clearer. Freedom of information exchange is an

important aspect of entropy as shown in the literature, and

an important, source of information in the family relates to

pou¿er and rules. Thus this factor is an important one.

Factor 6 - This factor, "Social Appearance and

Interpersonal Enjoyment", is outlined in Table L2" Items 7L

and 47 have been included in the description of this factor,

as the corresponding coefficients are only slightty below

" 30 and their inclusion helps to define the factor "

92

ïnterpersonal enjoyment in this context seems to involve the

degree of enjoyment or lack thereof which is experienced by

family members according to the respondent" An individual

responding positively to item 68 or 47 nay describe family

activities as more lacking in excitement or as more orderly

( respectively) than would an individual scoring relatively

lower. Item 7L has a positive loading, which is

understandable because a positive response to this item

signifies interpersonal enjoyment, while a positive response

to items 68 and/or 47 signifies an absence of enjoyrnent"

lfith a "clinical" group respondents from more "entropic"

families may perceive that an orderly socÍaI appearance is

essential to interpersonal enjoyment, if case study reports

in the lit,erature dealing wíth the apparent conformity of

"entropic" families are to some degree accurate" How the

need for "correct" social appearance hinders enjoyment, as

well as which aspects of farnily life are viewed as most and

least enjoyable, can be further explored through

interviehrs " The best means of intervention night then

become more evident"

Factor summarization"

The factors extracted correspond fairly well to many

aspects of entropy as viewed in the Fanily Systems

literature" Those aspects involve the amount of information

exchange within and without the family system boundary,

93

especially as this infornation exchange affects the degree

of enjoyment experiencedr pêrcêived behavioral/at,titudinal

rígidity, the perceived clarity of family norms, knowledge

of individual members' thoughts and feelings, perceived

calmness and peróeived cohesion. The factors which have

emerged from the analyses thus seem to indicate that the

Entropy Scale may in fact allow the gathering of information

on many of the aspects of entropy deemed important in the

literature. Famities nay profit from completÍng the scale'

Their position on various continua relating t'o entropy can

perhaps then be more validly and reliably ascertained, and

both diagnosis and treatment can proceed on the basis of

scores obtained on the items of particular factors. In this

way t,reatment can be "tailored" to fit the need of specific

families and individuals within them. Treatment of this

sort may be much more efficacious than that designed simply

to decrease a hard-tO-interpret, overall "entrgpy" Score, or

that designed to decrease the problems indicated by scores

on individuat ítems whose factor composition is not known.

The former treatment would lack direction due to not having

a firm basis from which to begin, such as the score obtained

on particular factors " fhe latter treatment, based on

problerns perhaps identified by individual item scores, would

lack an integrating theme and thus would also lack direction"

94

Rel aL ionsh ip of bhe Entropy Sca1e to the Social oesirabilitv

Scal e of t,he Personal it Research Form AA (Jackson 1967 )

A significant correlation was found in this study

between t.he mean Entropy Scale Score and the mean score

obtained on Lhe Personality Research Form" A correlation

just as significant or larger may or may not be found when

nclinical" gtoups are tested in the future" The imporLance

of Lhe PRF in Ehe present study is that the responses of the

presenL sample have been found similar to t'hose of Jackson's

original normatiVe sample. Because no significant'

differenceshlerefoundbetweentheseresponsesasocialdesirability nSet" can be assumed to not have been operating

in the present sample" The items of the Entropy Scale thus

do not appear to facilitat,e the development of such a

* seÈ n . Demonstrat ion of t,he f ormat, ion of such a set' woul d

have invalidated the Entropy Sca1e.

Concl us i ons and Future Research

This study has been an attempt to develop a scale

measuring entropic famity interaction patterns as perceived

by the respondents. The items ltere derived from a review of

the Family Systems I iterature on eneropy. The review

revealed that this form of interaction may exist alone or in

conjunction with cenLripetality/centrifugality or other' as

yet unnamed interaction pat,terns, and may promoLe

95

significant pathology in family nembers. Further research

should follow the psychometric validation which has been

performed" This research should be based on the

administration of the questionnaire to a "clinical" groupr

composed of adolescent delinquents and schizophrenics, to

determine which of the reTationships and psychometric

properties found in this study repeat themselves and which

would differentiate between these "cIinical" groups and

"normal" groups. The Entropy Scale has shown itself to be

fairly reliable over time, to have a high degree of internalconsistency, and a factor composition which makes much sense

on the basís of the lit,erature. Knowing its psychometric

properties nakes it possible to refine the scale.

Those entropy items which did not attain a sígnificanttest-retest reliability coefficient will be flagged as

possibly "bad'o or "unreliable", and may be elininated f rorn

the questionnaire" However, the normal subjects who took

part in the study may not be typical of "cIinical" groups of

either sehizophrenic or delÍnquent adolescents, and greater

test-retest reliability may be found with a "clinical"group" As well, even though an individual's response to a

particular iten may vary across a one-month period, the

information thus obtained at both administrations may be

important in the planning of treatment" Both the general

"traits" of individuals and their families and the various

96

"states" experienced across time are important in diagnosis

and the planning of treatment. In particular the revisions

of diagnoses and the ongoing modification of treatment

depends on'knowledge of changing states in the Índividuals

concerned, as well as knowledge of which circumstances these

changing states covary with. However, those items which do

remain relatively constant across time may promote greater

understanding of some of the more stable characteristics of

entropic families than do those which are less stable.

A "clinical" group nay be even more subject to fatigue

than was the sample of university students who took part in

this study. Thus it, may be wort,hwhile to make the scale

more concise by eliminating items which repeat information

already obtained, if subjects' fatigue indeed seems to be

influentíal. Another influential variable may have been the

time at which subjects completed the scale, which no doubt

influenced not only the quality and quantity of experiences

with their families just prior to the scale's administration

but their perception of these experiences as well.

Specifically, with the subgroup of 47 subjects the first

administration of the scale came at the beginning of the

school term, before academic responsibifities may have

greatly affected them" The second administration occurred

one month into the term, ât the time of midterm

examínations " Some iterns with the lowest test*retest

97

reliabilíty, for example items 26, 39, 57 , 68 and 7L,

pertain to disagreements, adequacy of communication, amount

of routine present in family life and enjoyment of family

activíties; all of which may have varied great'ly brith

changes in the amount of respondents' schoolwork. The

non-significant, negative correlation found between Time I

and Time 2 fot item 6L, an item relating to the amount of

time kept by family members for each other, provides a

concrete example of the possible variations in family life

occurring over time. With a "clinical" group time of

questionnaire completion may be important also, although it

may be less so or more so, varying differently with the

calendar" For example, âñ approaching holiday may

positively color respondents' perceptions of their

families. The time elapsed. since admission of an individual

to aR institutíon may also be crucial in determíning his/trer

responses "

Certainly, test-retest reliabitity may not be examined

adequately Íf a variable which has potential to influence

responses is present only at one administration of the

Entropy Scale " Thus, events occurring in the lives of

respondents at the time of administration of the scale

should be carefully explored in the future, in order that

responses at these times t^¡ilI not be misconstrued as being

"typical'u " It should be noted that this applies to most

98

tests and is a variable that should be explored even wit,h

Lhe more widely used and more "standardn tests. Wit,h

respect to t.he Entropy Scale, valuable information may be

gained if the influences on questionnaire responses of

particular happenings can be explored through interviews.

Various other types of validat,ion will eventually be

required if the Entropy Scale is to be most effective, in

terms of directing therapy and aiding in differential

diagnoses. v0ith respect to construct validity¡ ârl

instrument has been developed to assess the degree of

centripetality and centrifugality in families (toff, L982,

1984 ) . Thus with the present measurement of psychometric

prope rties of the Entropy Scale it wilI now be possible t,o

test Olsonrs theoretical model (1983), as well as the models

of Stierlin (L97I, I973, I974) and Beavers (L977t 1982). Itmay be possible to show that cenLripetality, when combined

wit.h entropy, Ieads to the development of schizophrenia in

the offspring of some families; whereas centrifugality, when

combined with entropy, leads to delinquency in the offspringof some families. The degree of entropy, centripetality and

centrifugality which ís necessary for the development of

cert.ain problems¿ âs well as some of the predisposing

conditions which when combined with any or aII of these

three variables increase the Iikelihood of occurrence of

problemsr lnây become more evident. The results of the

99

latest study of the Centripetality/Centrifugality Scale

(Loff, I984.) suggest that centripetality and centrifugality

lie on one contilluum, with extreme centripetality at one end

and extreme centrifugality at the other, âs Olson (fggE)

suggests. This hypothesis, that entropy increases with both

a high degree of centripetality and a high degree of

centrifugality, nay thus be correct" Future correlational

studies of the interaction between these three variables

among "clinical" groups may increase the evidence for this

curvilinear relationshiP"

On this topic, it may be possibte to ultimately

identify, on the basis of responses to the items of the

Entropy, Centripetality and Centrifugality Scales, fanily

interaction patterns which relate adaptive "closeness"

versus those which relate maladaptive centripetality"

Similarly, it may be possible to identify families which may

produce independent, children, versus those which may produce

"delinquents". Specifically, it, may be that a relatively

high score on the Entropy Scale combined with a high

Centripetality Scale score wilI be obtained by respondents

whose families prove through direct observation and

interviews to be "dysfunctional" in some way; whereas a high

score on the Centripetality Scale but a relatively low score

on the Entropy Scale may not be found among respondents of

dysfunctional "centripetal" families, but rather among

100

respondents of nclose" families. Similar research may be

performed with respect to the Centrifugality ScaIe, in order

to ultimately differentiate between the interaction patterns

comprising dysfunctional n centrifugalityn and those

comprising adaptive "independencen in families.

FinalIy, predictive validily of the Entropy Scale can be

explored. It may be found, for example, that particular

scores obtained on the scale lead to specific problems in

the respondents involved. In this wayr it may eventually be

possible to predict future problems on the basis of present

Entropy Scale scores, and thus to plan interventions to

prevent those problems

Presently an attempt is being made to contact future

clinical subjects, in order that the above psychometric

testing may be replicated with these subjects. In addition,

it. is well known that university students do not represent

the average individual, as they generally come from families

of above average socio-economic status, they are generally

of above average intelligence, they are presumed to be more

nliteraten, etc. Thus nnormaln subjecLs in the future wilIbe randomly selected from the general population" An

attempt. can be made to include Native Canadians in futureonormaln groups as wel1" These individuals are often overly

represenLed in groups labeled "delinquent", and it will be

r01

important to compare "delinquents" with nnormaLn individuals

who are culturally as similar to them as possible.

If part,icular it,ems are responded to differenLly by

f ut,ure n cl inical n groups than by the present and,/or f uture

normative samples, these iEems can be used as aids in

treatment planning" For insLance, it may be found Lhat many

nclinicaln respondents find their famil ies [o be

ndisorganizedn in various v¡ays, and for this reason do not

Iook to them for support for personal problems. Determining

Ehe ways in which these respondents wish tLrat their families

would increase in norganizationn, as weIl as the vüays in

which t,hese families can be helped to come closer to the

respondentsr ideals or the ways in which the respondents can

be helped to alter t,heir expectations r Ítay then be the most

effective treatment.

In order to preclude the confounding of ent,ropy with

various characteristics of families such as et,hnicily,

family size , teligion, educational 1eve1, occupational

status and socio-economic status' information should be

obtained from respondents regarding these variables. IL

w iII perhaps then be l ess probable that t,hese

characteristics and their effect,s will go' unnoticed and be

mistaken as indicating dysfunctional interaction patterns.

Tn particular this possible confounding may occur due to

unacknowledged ethnic status. For example, an Ir ish

L02

family's general stoicism in the face of a sick member may

be misconstrued as a sign of an nentropicn Iack of

communication rather than a sign of a ntypical" reaction to

illness in Irish families, which may in fact be perceived as

adaptive among Irish people (ZoIat L966)" A family such as

this can be helped through treatment to deal nstoically'

with the problem, wit,hout hiding all thoughts and feelings

from each oÈher r âs the information on the ethnic Status of

t,he family may permit, a more informed approach t,o treatment.

Qualitative analyses of family interaction patterns,

especially Ehrough direct observation of and/ar intensive

interviews with families who obtain especiatly high or low

entropy scores, may help to attach more concrete, 'clinicaln

pictures to the scores received on Lhe Ent.ropy Scale. It

may be possible to determine whet,her increasing entropy

scores correlate with increasing overt, evidence of various

problems in or dysfunctional aspect,s of family interaction

paLt,erns in the f amil ies st,udied ' which may or may not

conform to Lhe I iterat,ure. Individuals scor ing high on

various entropy items can be asked to complet,e Lhe scale

both before and after treatment, and the effect on future

scores obtained with these items (and these same

individuals ) of various intervention techniques can be

determined. In this way perhaps more effective treatments

foc parLicular ent.ropy-related problems of particular

r03

individuals will be found" The meaning of different members

of the same family having different or similar scores might

also be explored.

Additional knowledge may be gained through retrospective

analyses involving older subjects. Hovüeverr Prospective,

longib,udinal studies, involving young subjects who are

followed after completing the Entropy Scale in order to

examine future problems which are encountered by Lhemr fiìâY

have greater credibilit,y. This is because retrospective

information, being dependent on memoryr maY be subject to

many information processing errors and more fraught with

inaccuracies than is prospective data. As weIl, prospective

data may be used in the prevention of future difficulties in

" entropie n famil ies r âs it may alert treat.ment special ists

to potentially problematic interaction patterns before bhey

become eoo "crysLallizedn for "easyn modification. Thus a

critical, discerning stance wiII be taken with respect to

any data obtained. Only in this v/ay will entroPYr a perhaps

widespread but as yet largely unexplored phenomenon of

individual psychological pathogenesis "or family breakdown,

be more thoroughly explored. Entroy is thought of as

inevitable in the physical sciences, but is perhaps either

preventable or more amenable t.o change in the social realm.

r04

Refer ences

Aftanas, M. S" (1983 ) .psychologY. Manuscri

Anastasi, A . (f976) " Psychological testing, AEh ed. New

York: Macmillan eubÏsEîñg co. ÙÈd.

Standard s stems of measurement, inÞ m Ite or pu cat on.

Arthurs, R. F., and MacCrimmon' D. J. (1978).performance deficit in clinicallylchizophrenics: A marker of schizophrenia.Abnormal PsvcholoqY 87 , 597-608.

& Weakland'Behavioral

Res idualremit,ted

Journal of

J. (r9s6).Bateson, G.,Toward a25L-264 "

Jackson, D. D., Haley, Jtheory of schizoPhrenia, Sc ience r,,

Beavers, w. R. (L977 ) .Brunner Mazel, Inc.

Psychother a & qrowth. New York:

M. N. ( 1983 ) . ramilY Models:the Olson circumplex model with

22, 85-98.

a schizophrenia.

Beavers, W. R" and VoelIer,Comparing & contrasEingBeavers' sYstems model. ramily Process t

Birchsbaum, M" S. (L977.). PsychophysiologySchizophrenia Bulletin, 3, 7-L4.

Fanily therapy in clinical practice. NewBovten, M.York:

(1e78).Jason Aranson.

Cloward, R. A. & Ohlin, L. E

opportunitY. New York: Free(L977 )

and VüiAbnormal Ps chol o

ns on.

(1960 ) .Press. InToront,o:

Essentials of Þ chol oHarper ovü u 1s ers.

DelinquencY &

B. Martin ( Ed. )

Holt, Rinehart

Cronbach, L3rd ed.

Faunce, E.scales.

J" (1970).New York:

ical testin f

E. & Riskin, J. (1970 ) . FamiIYArchives of General Ps 22,ch iat ry

interacLion41-65 "

Gorsuch, R" L.Hillsdale' N.J

(1983).Lawr ence

Factor anal sis,Er aum Assoc ates,

2ndInc.

ed.

Gottesman, I. & Shields, J. (f912) "genetics: A twin van!-age Point.

Press .

Schizophrenia elqXew York: Academic

Haley, J. (1964). Research on f amily patt"erns:Process, 3 t 4l-65.instrumenL measurement . Fam il y

AN

rril,in

r" M" (tott¡ "

schi zophrenia "

,Jackson, D. N. (fOeZ¡"Goshen, New York:

Lewis,V"in

Un

Loff,

Mark, J" C. ( f953 ) . The attitudesschizophrenics toward childAbnormal and Social Psychology,

r05

Quatitative & quantitative EEG findingsSchizophrenia Bulletin, 3, 6L-79"

Personalit research form manual.Researc

personal andto observedJournal of

Fami Iyfami 1y3-L2

"

syc o sts Press, Inc"

Jacob, T" ( fgZS) " Family interaction in disturbed andnormal families: A methodological and subst,antivereview. Psychology Bulletin, 82,33-65"

Johnson, S. M. and Lobit.z, G. K. (tol+¡ " .Themarital adjustment of parents as relatedchild deviance and parenting behaviors "Abnormal Child Psvchiatry , 2, L92-2O7 "

Kelsey-Smith, M. , and Beave.rs, W. R" ( f 98f ) .assessment: Centripetal and centrifugalsystems. Arnerican Journal of Family Therapy, 2(4) ,

Lennard, H. L. and Bernstein, A.interaction. San Francisco:

(f969) " Patterns in humanJossey-Bass Inc.

J. M., Beavers,A. (tølø¡ . No

!rl" i R., Gossett, J. T. and Phitlips,single thread. Psychological health

nerfMazel-, Inc.family systems" New York: Brun

Lídz, T., Fleck, S. and& the family. New

cornelison, A (fOAS¡. schizophreniaYork: International Universities

Press.

Loff, C"D. (f982). Development of an instrument t,o agF€tterc tions of fam centr I etá1it and centrifu a1i t

s members" Unpu S pre-Master es s,vers r- tyo Man itoba, Winnipeg.

st

C"D. (1984)" Development of an instrumen! to eÊteteerc tions of fam centr 1 etal i t and centrif ali t

s members. Unpu s Master s es s, vers vô n nnÍpeg "

of the mothers of rnalebehavior. Journal of48, 185-189 "

Martin, B. (L977). Abnormal psychology: clinical andscientific perspectives , 2nd ed. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston"

McCord, hI., McCord' J" and Jola, I. K. (1959)"crime. New York: Columbia University PresEãffin (Ed.), (1977). Abnormal PsychologY.

106

Origins ofs. In B.

ToronLo:HoIt,, Rinehart and Winston.

Mednick, s. A. and schlusinger, F' (1968) ' "some premorbidcharacteristics related to breakdown in children withschizophrenic mothers. rn D. Rosenthal and S. S. KetY

of schizophrenia. New York:(nds.¡, The transmissionPergamon.

Mednick, S. A. and Schlusinger' F.theory of schizoPhrenia: ThirteenHammer, K. Slazinger, and

(1973)" A learningyears later" In M.

E. Sutton (Eds. ) ,PS cho atholo Contr ibut,ions from bhe social

e AV ora & o og ca Ðv

Mishler, E. G. and Waxler, N. E"families. New York: John WileY

(r968)"& Sons.

Interaction in

Family env i !enlnen!__eç 31 s

ences. evJ Yor w ey.

Moos, R.H.,manual.Press.

and Moos, B.SPal o Al t.o ,

(r98r).Cal. : consutting PsYchologists

Mosher, L" Rtr eatmentHospital

. and Menn, A. ( 1978 ) .f or sch i zophr enia: Tvio

Community residentialyear f oIIo\,r-up data.

29, , 7L5-723.

K.,the

and Community Psvch iat ry

. H., Jenkins, J. G.' Steinbrenner'Nie, N. H.' Hul1, C

and Bent ' D. H

social sciencesStat is t ical cka e for( r975 ) .

(2nd Ed.).ComPanY.

Nunnally, J. c. ( 1967 ) .McGraw-HiIl Book co.

New or McGraw- oo

Psychometric theory" New York:

Introduction to chol o icaLr avr- H Boo Co.

NunnalIy, J. C

measurement.(1970).

New York:

Olson, D. H., Russel1,Circumplex Modeltheoretical uPdate.

Pope, W. ( 1976 ) .Chicago: Uni

C. s., and Sprenkle, D. H. (1983) "

of mar iEal and famiIY sYstems: VIpamily Process , 22' 69-83.

Durkheim's suicide: A classic anal zed "

ver s Yo .c cago press "

F. K.acute

32,

Post , R. M., Fink | 8", Carpenter, W. T. and Goodwin,(f975). Cerebrospinal fluid amine metaboliIes insch i zophr enia .

1063-r069.Archives of General Psvch iat rv

thenet.

r07

etiology ofSchi zophreni a

Reiss, D" ( f975 ) " Families andschizophrenia: Fishing withòut aBulletin, L4, 8-lI"

Rutter, M. ( 197I ) .effects on theand Psychiatry,

Rosenthal, D" (197I)"York: McGraw-Hi11.

Genetics of psychopathology" New

Rosenthal, D., Wender, P. H., Kety, S" S", Schlusinger, F.,Wilner, J" and Rieder, R. (f975). Parent-chifdrelationship & psychopathological disorder in thechild" Archives of General Psychiatry , 32, 466-476.

Parent-child separation: Psychologicalchildren. Journal of Child Psychology

12, 233-256"

Speer, I. F. ( 1970) .morphogenesis, orProcess, 9, 259-278"

Family systems:'Is homeostasis

morphostasis andenough?'" Family

Stabenau, J. R., Tupin, J., Werner, M., and( f965 ) . A comparative study ofschizophrenics, socÍopaths and normals"45-59

Pol1in, W"fani Ii es

Ps chiat

A.of

28,

Stierlin, J"runaways.

(re73).Archives

Aof

on29,

family perspectiveGeneral Psychiatry,

adolescent56-62.

Stierlín, H. (tOl+¡ " Separating parents & adolescents. NewYork: QuadrangLe/ The New York Times Book Co.

Stierlin, H., Levi , L. D" and Savard, R. J.Parental perceptions of separating children.Practice, I0, 4LI-427 "

(1e7r)"Fami ly

Stierlin, H., Levi , L. D" and Savard, R. J. ( fOZa¡ .Centrifugal vs. centripetal separation in adolescence:Two patterns and some of their implications. In S.Feinstein and P. Giovacchine (Eds. ) , Annals of theAmerican Societ for Adolescent Ps hiat , 2, 2LL-239"

Thurstone, L.L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Ctricago:Universit,y of Chicago Press.

Von Bertalanffy, L. ( I969) . General systems theory Anoverview. In w" Gray, F.S. Duhl and N"D Fti-zzo (Eds. ),General systems theory 6. pgy . Boston: LittIeErown.-

lvertheim, E. (rgzs)"and typology of361-376

"

unit therapy .andsystems. Fami I

IOB

the scienceProcess , 12,

Familyfami ly

Werthein, E. (IOZS¡" The science and typologysystems II " Further theoretical andconsiderations. Family Process, 14, 285-308"

of familypract ical

Wynne, L" C., , Ryckoff, I" M",(fSSS1 " Pseudomutuality in

Daf, J" and Hirsch, Sthe family relations

2r, 205-220"

L"of

schi zophrenics " Psychiatry,

Zola, I.K. ( feee¡ " Culture and symptoms AnAmerican

analysis ofSoc i olog ica Ipatients' presenting complaints "Revíew, 3I, 615-630"

r09

Appendix A

On the following pages we are going to ask you to answer

some questions. Some are about your family; some are about

yourself. The reason we are asking you to do this is to

find out how members of differ'ent families get along with

each ot.her. We'd like to f ind out whether dif f erent kinds

of families produce different kinds of individuals" Since

some of these individr¡als experience problems, $Je' re doing

this in order to See how general these problems are among

people. We hope this information witl help us to find the

best way to help people in families with problems.

This survey has four parts to it". Two have been

combined in one questionnaire so some of the questions may

appear to be similar, if not the same. Be sure to ansþJer

all the questions, even if they seem to be the same as other

questions. We would appreciate your cooperation in filling

this out the best You can"

l{e are passing out a sheet on which we are asking you to

put your name and also a code name, whích you will use on

your questionnaires. The reasons for using the code name

are So no one you don't want to wi11 have access to your

results, and also, in a monèh or sor bre will be asking you

to filf out these questionnaires again. This is so we can

see how similar the answers are from one time to another,

110

because '¡¡e would like to better understand these

questionnaires. If people answer a question differently at

different times, then the question is may be no good and we

need to know this so we can get rid of it.

we would be glad to come back and talk to you about the

general findings of the study. Although we are more

interested in group results, if any of you are interested in

your scores, we wilI also be glad to talk to you about

them. These scores will not be used individually and no one

will be able to find out about your individual scores unless

you want them to. If you do, check the box at the bottom of

thi s sheet "

Yes, ï

give my

1"

want others to know my scores- The people you may

scores to are:

2"

3"

4

5

6

Your code name:

111

This questionnaire concerns your feelings and attitudes

about yoü, and your family" Read each statement carefutly.

The Statements are answered with the terms "Always",

"Usua1ly", "Frequently" , "Sometimes", "occasionally",

"Rarely", Or "Never". When yOU have decided which answer

best fit,s the statement, underline the word that most

accurately describes your situation"

Example:

My famíly thinks I'm "tTte black sheep".

Always Usually Frequentlv Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

The.statements begín on the next page. Answer all the statements,

underlining the word which best fits the stat,ement for you. For

example the word "Frequently" is underlined above.

Thank you for your cooperation"

Check here if you would like your institution to

know your scores.

LT2

I lfhen I feel down, I go out and do something about it.

AIways

?" My

Usually

family has

RareIy

of others "

NeverFrequently Sometimes Occas ionally

values/attitudes similar to those

Always UsuaIIY Frequen tly Sometimes Occasiona IIy Rarely Never

3 I value members of my family more than I value anyone else"

Always UsualIY Frequent y Sometimes Occas ionally RareIy

enjoyable "

Never

9" Times my whole family spends with outsiders are

Always Usually

5 " In order to

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RarelY

out "

Never

have fun I have to go

Always Usually

6 " People in my

Frequent Y

family are

Sometimes

up-front "

Occasionally RareIy Never

Always Usually

7" I hate being away from home.

Frequently Some times Occasional ly Rarely Never

Always

g We

Usually

do things

Frequently

together as a family.

Some times OccasionallY Rare1y Never

A1ways Usually

2" Going out is

Frequen tIy Sometimes Occasionally Rare ly Never

an escape from the disorder in my family.

Always Usually

LO" In my family

Frequently

it's clear

Sometimes

who has the most power.

Occasiona Ity RareÌy Never

Always Usually FrequentlY Some times OccasLona

Note¡ Entropy items are underlined.

IIy Rarely Never

II3

11. It's hard to trust Your familY.

AIways

L2" When

Usually Frequent y Sometimes Occas ionalJ-y Rarely Never

the chips are down I can count on my familY"

AIways Usually

t3 " It is easiermy family"

Frequently

to discuss

Sometimes

emotional

Occas ionally

problems with

Never

outside

RareIy

people

Always UsuaIIy Frequent ly Sometimes occas ionalJ-y RareJ-y

make

Never

childL4" Talking andbehave.

understanding is the best way to a

AIways

l5 " You

Usually

have to

Frequent v

scare a kid

Sometimes

to make him

Occasionally RareIY

behave "

Never

A].ways

16" My

UsuaIIy Frequent y Sometimes Occas ionally RareIy Never

family views me as a pain in the neck"

Always UsuallY FrequentlY Some times Occas j-onally

only be talked

RareIy Never

about with ny17" I believe personal problems shouldf amíly"

AIways Usually FrequentlY

18" I daydream about being

Sometimes

independent

Occas iondll-y

of my family"

Rarely Never

AÌways

19" rrUsually Frequently Some

seems to me my family witl

times Occaslonally

stay together"

RareIy Never

AIways Usually FrequentlY Sometimes occasionallY Rarely Never

lr4

20- People in the family have'the same opinion on things.

Always

2L" You

UsuaIly

can tell

Frequently

what people

Sometimes Occasionally Rare ly Never

in the family are thinking"

AIways

22" The

Usually Frequently

rules in the family

Occas ionally RareIy NeverSomet imes

are clear"

AIways

23" My

UsuaIJ.y

family is

Frequently Sometimes Oceasionally Rarely Never

in an uproar"

Always Usually

24; People in my

Frequently Sometimes Occasionqlly Rare1y Never

family want to get away"

Always

25" The

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

sooner people leave home the better off they

RareIy

will be.

Never

Always UsuaIJ-y

26 " Things are

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RareIy Never

peaeeful at home"

AIways

27" My

Usually

family is

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

not very close "

Rarely Never

AIways

28" My

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

family reatty sticks together"

AIways Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

farnily hates to change plans.29. My

Always Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RareIy Never

115

30" Our famlly tries to keep things calm"

AIways UsuaIIy

31" People in my

Frequently

family have

Sometimes Occasionally

the same opinions on most

Rarely

things.

Never

Always UsuaIIy

32 " lVithout rules

Frequently

my family

Sometimes Occasionally

is disorganized"

Rarely Never

Always Usually

33" Arguments are

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

unending in my family"

Rarely Never

Always Usua-tly

34" What peoplefamily thinks "

Frequently Sometimes

I know think of me is

Occas ionally

more important

Rarely Never

than what my

AIways

3ã" Mv

Usually Frequently

family always sticks

Occas i ona ll-y Rarely NeverSometimes

to its plans no matter what"

AIways

36" r

UsuaIIy

can count

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

on my friends when I can't count on my family.

Never

Always Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

37 " People outside my family or rnyself províde for mostemotíonal needs.

Never

of my

Always Usually Frequently

3_8" People apologize after

Occasionally RareIy

my family.

Sometimes Never

arguments in

Always Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

tr6

in my family seem to disagree in their opinions on mostæ. Peoplethings "

,cl-hrays

40" My

u sua lly Frequent Iy

family provides for

Sometimes

my emotional

Occasrona lly Rarely Never

needs.

Always Usually

4L" Tf I get inconcerned.

Sometimes Occasiona tly Rarely Never

my famity is

Frequently

trouble, I 'm on my own as far AS

AIways

42" My

Usually Frequently Sometimes OccasionaÌIy

family views me as incompetent"

Rarely Never

A1ways Usually Frequently

43" I think children shouldposs ible "

Occas iona 1ly Rarely NeverSometimes

live with their families as long as

Always UsuaIly

44 " Opportunity

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

lies in staying close with one's ohrn

Rarely

fami ly "

Never

Always UsualIy Frequently

1Þ" People in my family do

Sometimes Occasiona lly Rare1y Never

things to bug each other.

Always

46" To

Usually

succeed,

FrequentJ-y Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

one has to rely on oneself.

A1ways Usually

47 " From outside

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

my family would look orderly.

RareIy Never

Always UsuaIIy Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

LL7

48" I don't let my family know what I am feeling"

AIways UsuaIIy Frequently

49 " I guard my feelings from

Sometimes Occasionally RareIy

people outside my family.

Never

ÃIwats Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RareIy Never

50. My home is a shelter from the chaotic world"

AIways

51. My

Usually Frequently Sometimes

family sees me as very much like

Occasionally Rarely

them "

Never

Always UsuaIIy

52" Members of

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RareIy

my family don't care about each other"

Never

Always

53" rrUsualLy

is easier

Frequently

to discuss

Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

emotional problens with my family.

Never

AIways

54" In

UsuaIIy

my family

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally RareIy

we care about each other's feelings.

Never

Always

55 " Wtrenpasses "

UsuaIIy

I feel

Frequently'down, the

Sometimes

best thing

Occasionally

to do is to

Rarely Never

wait until it

Always

56" You

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasibnally Rarely Never

can't trust people outside my famíIy"

Always Usually Frequently Sornetimes Occasionally RareIy Never

2L. PeopIe in the family consult others they are making decisionsabout "

Always Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

118

58" HolÍdays are for the fanily to be together"

Always Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

me is more important t,han what59" What my familyI know think"

thinks of

Never

people

AIways

60" My

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

friends are more reliâble than my family.

Never

Always

61" InUsually Frequently Sometímes Occasionally RareIy

my familli we try to keep time for each other.

Never

AIways

ç.2" r

Usually Frequently Sometimes

am much like other members of my

Occasionally RareIy

fami ly.

Never

AIways

63" In

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely ñèver

my home outsiders make social visits.

Always

64" Sex

Usually

is best

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

when you have no emotional ties.

Never

AIways

qq" Mv

UsuaIIy

family is

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

afraid to be seen as different by others"

Never

Always UsuaIly Frequently

get to know

Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

someone very well before you have sex66" You shouldwíth them"

Always

67 " IrUsuaIIy Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

is easy to meet new people"

AIways Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

68 " tvi rh

119

respect to variety, my family would be considered boring"

AIways

69" rthink "

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally

have taken non-prescription drugs to change

Rarely Never

how I feel and

Always

70. IUsuaIIy Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely

ny life"

Never

feel frustrated and angry about

AIways

7!" Mv

Usually Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Nevei

family has a good time when we're together.

AIways Usually

72" I can telt

Frequently SometÍmes

what makes people in my

Occasionally Rarely

family angry"

Never

AIways UsuaIIy

73" T feel down

Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

about my tife"

AIways Usually

74" People in my

Frequently Sometimes Occasional-ly Rarely Never

family express their anger openly"

AIways

75" InUsuaI Iy

answering

-b'requently Sometimes

the above questions I

Occasionally Rarely Never

was thinking of my mother"

Always

76" In

Usually

answering

Frequently Sonetimes

the above questions I

OccasionalJ-y Rarely Never

was thinking of my father.

AIways Usually

answering

Frequently

the above

Sometimes

ques t i ons

Occasionally Rarely

I was thinking of my

Never

whol-e77" Infami ly

"

Always UsuaIIy Frequently Sometimes Occasionally Rarely Never

L20

78" The one with the most poþter in my(Describe your relat,ionship with this

79 " Some of my actionsschizophrenic "

family is myperson).

have been considered by some to be

Always UsuaIIy

80. Some of mydelinquent.

Sometimes Occasionalry Rarely Never

some to be

Frequently

act ions have been considered by

Always Usually

81. Some of theschi zophrenic.

Sometimes Occasionally

have engaged in I

Rarely Never

consider to be

Frequently

actions I

Always UsuaIly

82" Some of thedelinquent "

Frequently

actions I

Somet imes Occasionally Rare1y Never

have engaged in I consider to be

Always Usually FrequentlY Somet imes Occasionally Rarely Never

Parents' Copy"

I hereby consent to allow

to participate in a study toconducted by graduate students andof Manitoba, Psychology Department"

L2L

(Name of Child)test this questionnaire,faculty of the University

Date:

ChÍldren's Copy"

ro(Name)

in a study to test this

students and facultyPsychology Department "

Date:

Signature:(Parent or Guardian)

Witness:.

, hereby agree to participatequestionnaire, conducted by graduate

of the University of Manitoba,

Signature:

Wítness:

( Name )

L22

Appendix B

On the following pages you will find a series of statementswhich a person might use to describe himself/herself. Readeach statement and decide whether or not it describes you"Then indicate youf answer by circling either rtTrr or "F""

If you agree with a statement or decide that it doesdescríbe yoü, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statementor feel that it is not descriptive of you, answer FALSE"

ANSWER EVERY STATEMENT either t,rue or false, even if you arenot completely sure of your answer"

1" ï always try to beof my friends.

considerate of the feelings

In the long run humanity will owe a lot moreto the teacher than to the salesman"

I am seldom ill"

My memory is as good as other people's"

Nothíng that happens to me makes much differenceone way or the other"

I have a number of health problems.

Most of my teachers were helpful "

I often have the feeling I am doing something evil"

I almost always feel sleepy and Lazy"

I am not willing to give up my own privacy orpleasure in order to help other people.

My life is full of interesting activities.

We ought to let the rest of the world solve theirown problems and just look after ourselves.

I often question whether life is worthwhile"

I am able to make correct decisions on difficultquestíons.

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

TF

2

3

4

5

6

L2"

13 "

L4"

r5"

7"

B"

o

10"

tl"

I often take some responsibility for lookÍng out T Ffor neeJcomers in a group.

TF

16"

L7"

18.

t9"

24.

L23

Rarely, if ever, has the sight of food made me ifl. T F

I believe people teII lies any time it is to T Ftheir advantage"

I find it very difficult to concentrate" T F

Many things make me feel uneasy T F

ï am always prepared to do what is expected of me" T F

APPENDIX C L24

ENTROPY SCALE FREQUENCY HISTOGRAMS

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 4"OO OCCURRENCES

ITEM 2

COUNT

5

t1867

63

t6l0

2

I2B

107

4B

53

22

19

3

r"002 "OO

3"004"005"006.007.00

"oo1.002"003"004.005"006"007 "OO

***********************************************Je

** * ******* ** ************

ï ï ï40 80 120

HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY

**** * ****************************** ******** ******** * * ******************

I

I0

ï160 200

ï0

VALTD CASES 281 MTSSING CASES 0

ITEM 4

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL ESUALS APPROXTMATELY 4.OO OCCURRENCES

ï ï I T ï40 B0 L20

HTSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

VATTD CASES zBL MTSSING CASES 0

r60 200

TTEM 6

COUNT

3

37

65

58

69

26

2L

2

VALUE

.001.002 "003.004.005.006.007"00

ï0 15

HISTOGRAM3 45 60 7\

REQUENCY

VALTD CASES 28I MISSING CASES 0

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

********************************************************************************************************************************************** *

*********************************************

1"002"003.004.005.006. 00

7.00

L25

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

****************************************************************************************************************************.******************* ***********************************

ï0F

I ï...., T

TTEM 8

COUNT

13

30

51

70

50

6l6

ï0

]STOGRAM

I5H

,ï30

I ï ï1

FREQUENCY

0VALID CASES 281 MISSING CASES

45 60 75

ITEM 9

COUNT

4L

78

61

47

2L

20

I3

TTEM 1O

1

59

67

28

51

29

34

L2

VALUE

1.002 .003 " 00

4.00s " 99

6"007.00

L26

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

ï

ï0

.ï20

ï0F

T ï ï0 4 60

HISTOGRAM REQUENCY

VALTD CASES 281 MISSING CASES 0

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

*

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

.00t. 00

2 .043"004.00s"006.007.00

80

T

100

Tï I ït5 30

HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY

VALTD CASES 2BI MISSING CASES 0

45 60 75

TTEM 20

COUNT

43

59

90

56

27

6

I65

88

77

35

6

2

VALUE

2"003.004.005"006.007.00

1.002 "003 " 00

4"00s.006.007.00

L27

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 2.OO OCCURRENCES

**.**** ***** ********** *

************************************************************************************************************************

ï0

.ï.". .r..."....,720 40 60

HÏSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

ï80

T

60

100ï

T

VALTD CASES zBL MTSSING CASES 0

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 2.OO OCCURRENCES

****************************************************************************** ******************************************

ITEM 2L

COUNT VALUE

****

ï0

,I15

,T30

ï45 75

HÏSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

0VALTD CÃ.SES 281 MISSING CASES

L2B

VATUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 4 " OO OCCURRENCES

TTEM 22

COUNT

I61

118

37

31

20

L2

I

I34

LL256

42

25

7

3

"001.002"003.004"005.006 " 00

7.00

"001.002 .003.004.005.006.007"00

**********************************************************************

ï0

ï0

ïBO

, 'ÏL204

ï40 80 r20

HTSTOGRAM FRESUENCY

ï160

,,r,160

20n

..ï200

T

HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY

VALTD CASES 281 MTSSING CASES 0

TTEM 23

couNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 4.00 OCCURRENCES

************************************ *

**********************************

ï ï,",,, T

0

VALTD CASES 28O MTSSTNG CASES 1

TTEM 26

COUNT

19

r2550

49

19

16

3

Ï TEM

COUNT

6

55

29

101

54

30

6

29

VALUE

1"002 .003 " 00

4 " 00

5.006.007.00

VALUE

r.002"003 " 00

4"00

L29

ONE SYMBOT EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 4. OO OCCURRENCES

*********************rk** ***** *******

***********************************

I0H

I0

ï0F

..ï120

I160

T

2Dn4 IISTOGRAM REQUENCY

0VALID CASES zBL MISSTNG CASES

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 4 " OO OCCURRENCES

5.00

**************************************************************

**6".00

7"00r..... " "..ï0 40 r20

REQUENCYB

I0F

ï..., T

160,.ï20n

HTSTOGRAM

VALTD CASES 28I MISSING CASES 0

r30

ITEM 30

COUNT

22

107

62

43

22

2I3

TTEM 32

COUNT

2L

97

57

63

20

20

2

VALUE

1.002"003.004. 00

5.006.007"00

1"002.003.004"005.006"007 " 00

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY .4

" OO OCCURRENCES

ï0

*************************************************

************

***********

.ï" "

40I0F

,,ÏL20

I160

ï200I

HISTOGRAM REQUENCY

IVALTD CASES 28O MTSSTNG CASES

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

**********************************************************************************

ï ï00 2HÏSTOGRAM

ï0F

I4 69

T

80ï

100REQUENCY

IVALID CASES 28O MISSTNG CASES

13r

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 4 " OO OCCURRENCES

TTEM 33

COUNT

37

103

61

31

20

18.10

TTEM 35

5

48

42

68

61

49

7

1"002.003.004 " 00

s.006"007 " 00

1.002.003.004"005.006.007.00

*********************************#*

************************************

I0

r.. " ". ".. ï0F

T ï160

I20040

HTSTOGRAMI20

REQUENCY

I45

REQUENCY

1

I

VALTD CASES 280 MISSING CÀSES I

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1 " 5O OCCURRENCES

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

,ï15

HISTOGRAM

I0

I0F

ï ï3 60 75

VALTD CASES 280 MISSING CASES

L32

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATETY 4.00 OCCURRENCES

TTEM 38

COUNT

I29

60

33

49

35

54

t9

ITEM 39

COUNT

3

L2

22

66

97

76

5

.001.002.003"004 " 00

5"006.007.00

*

*****************************************************************Ji********

* ** *** * Tk * * * * rt * rk* * * * * * * * *** **

***********************************************************************************************************************************

ï0

ï2

T ï ï

ï

T".1 24 36

FREQUENCY48 60

HISTOGRAM

VALTD CASES 280 MISSTNG CASES I

VALUE

1"002"003"004"005"006.007"00

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

ï ï ï ï ï0 20 40

HTSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

VALTD CASES 28I MTSSTNG CASES 0

60 80 100

TTEM 45

COUNT VALUE

133

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

*************************************************************ìb******************************************* *

********************************************************************************

2

23

65

7I69

28

15

I

I39

r2744

31

13

1B

I

.001" 00

2.003.004.005.006"007.00

" 00

1.002.003. CIo

4.00s.006"007.00

I0

ï

ï5

T Tï. "

T

IHÏSTOGRAM

30 45FREQUENCY

60 75

VALTD CASES 281 MTSSING CASES 0

TTEM 47

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 4. OO OCCURRENCES

***********************************************************************

ï0

ï,, r0 120FREQUENCY

T

0 4HÏSTOGRAM

VALID CASES 28T MISSING CASES

I

0

',Ï160 200

ITEM 50

COUNT

2

2T

33

44

79

53

36

13

TTEM 52

COUNT

I151

B1

19

19

4

3

3

VALUE

.001.002 .003.004.00s. 00

6.007.00

134

ONE SYMBOT EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

*

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

ï0 2 40 60

]STOGRAM FREQUENCY80

VATID CASES 28L MTSSING CASES 0

VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUATS APPROXTMATELY 4. OO OCCURRENCES

T

0H

ï..... f

100I T

"001.002 .403.004.005.006.007"00

***********************************************************************

ï0

ï ï ï ,ï20n40 80 r20

HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY

VALTD CASES zBL MTSSTNG CASES 0

..ïI60

TTEM 54

COUNT.

2

77

86

39

41

r9t3

4

VALUE

.001.002 "003"004.005.006.007.00

135

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATETY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

*

**********************************************************************************************************************************************

ï ïï ï0F

ï0

I1000 80

VALTD CASES 28T MTSSING CASES 0

VALUE

.001" 00

2.003.004. 00

5.006 " 00

7"00

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

*

*************************************************************************** *

******************************************************************

204HTSTOGRAM

6

REQUENCY

TTEM 57

COUNT

I25

79

46

67

29

2B

6

ï0 20

HISTOGRAM

ï...".... ï T

REQUENCY

0VALTD CASES 2BT MISSING CASES

4ï0F

60 80T

100

ITEM 58

COUNT

43

87

38

74

25

11

3

VALUE

1"002"003.004"005"006"007"00

r36

ONE SYMBOT EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

******************************************************************************************************************************************

I .I20

,ï40

ï T I1000 60 80

HTSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

0VALTD CASES 28T MISSING CASES

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

*

**********************************************************************t*********************************************

*********************************************************************

TTEM 61

)

L7

47

37

74

51

47

6

.001.002.003.004 " 00

5.006.007. 00

ï ï.. .

5HTSTOGRAM

I30

I ï ï0 1

FREQUENCY

0VALTD CASES 2BL MTSSTNG CASES

45 60 75

TTEM 62

COUNT

2

16

57

59

68

40

28

11

ITEM 63

VALUE

.001.002 " 00

3.004. 00

5"006"007"00

.001.002.003.004.00s.006.007. 00

137

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATETY 1 " 5O OCCURRENCES

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

T I5

I ï I ï0 30 45

FREQUENCY60

HÏSTOGRAM

VALID CASES 28L MISSTNG CASES 0

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

1 75

3

14

20

38

6¿

7L

51

22

I0 15

HTSTOGRAM

ï.,,, ï. r30 45

FREQUENCY

T ï57

VAL]D CASES 28L MISSTNG CASES 0

60

TTEM 65

COUNT VALUE

r3g

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 2. OO OCCURRENCES

***********************************************************************************************************************************************

5

18

2La1¿¿

3B

33

97

47

.00r " 00

2 "003.004.00s.006.007 " 00

.001.002 "A03.004.00s.006.007.00

ï ï ï40 60

FREQUENCY80

*

********************** ** * * *** *** ** * * * * * * * * *.* * ************************************************************************************************

I I ,I I In 20 40 60 80

HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY

2BT MTSSTNG CASES O

I0

ï T

0 2HISTOGRAM

VALTD CASES 28T MTSSING CASES 0

TTEM 68

COUNT VALUE ONE SYMBOT EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 2.50 OCCURRENCES

100

2

3

16

22

49

6L

76

52

I

VALÏD CASES

100

r39

VALUE ONE SYMBOT EQUALS APPROXTMATELY 4. OO OCCURRENCES

ITEM 7L

COUNT

2

36

107

53

42

23

t62

.00r" " 00

2 "003.004.005.006.007 " 00

*

*********************************** *

***********************************

ï ï0

ïïBO I2O

FREQUENCY

I160

ï20t0 4

HÏSTOGRAM

VALTD CASES 28T MTSSTNG CASES 0

.001.002 " 00

3.004.005.006.007.00

ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 4. OO OCCURRENCES

********************************************* *

**************************

ï..." T.".....,,ï, r0 40 80 120

HÏSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

ITEM 72

COUNT

2

46

131

35

4T

16

I2

VALUE

I20n

VATID CASES 28T MTSSTNG CASES 0

."ï160

TTEM 7 4

COUNT

16

31

87

54

53

27

VALUE

.001.002 " 00

3.004.00s.006"00

140

ONE SYMBOT EQUATS APPROXTMATETY 2 " OO OCCURRENCES

*********************************************************************************************************************************************

r""" .ï,", .ï.....""".r0204060

HTSTOGRAM FREQUENCY

ï80

..ïr00

VALTD CASES 275 MTSSING CASES 6

APPENDTX D

ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX, VARIMAX ROTATION

Factor l- Fact.or 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6Item No"

6lB

7T38503054

4582A57

3323

9265¿45

72632I65

.7 5897

.68634" 66504. 5r8r_ 2.49485.466LA.4660r.452LA.42439.4L460.28394.30r63.27054.30966.5LO7 4

-. 01067" 23503

.07510- "17 407

.t9445- "16278

"r2285.L7 3t_9

-.0r300.0693r

-. 07559.37 466

" 18395"IO944" 36138.2L499. I 5486" 42038.30905.o8222" 08037. IBB9O" 19650

.670r 3

.66688

.58653

.54L57

.36772

.34795

.r2250- . 09239

.o4a7 4- .25652

.2r868

.l-2255

-"02072.05645

-.12236. r1908

.01134"09259" l_ 10r_ 5

" 08469. OOBBB.07465.r9764.09207"20534.L7 448.06468. 06633" 09514

-.00309.07797. I 5405.194L2.7L556

- .47 22V.44IO9

-. 3B8r 7

.18273

. 07 22L

.a2246

.00840

.2LL65

.o6602

-. o2L87

.oL692

.1 52Br

. 05562

-.0182r_. 05960" l_6839.L4287. 06100" 09109.39061.08305. 0991 3.TI7T6.L7032.L4332.l-797 4.o5629" 20608.03182.25489

" I 5BBO- "1,5467

.02430-.2AA2B

.77 258

.36427

.a2614

. oooo4

-. 0565r.LO27B

-.00990-.058t2

.L6094-.03041_

-.aL377.roo22. ott63

-.06692.02255.r70r9

-. 04424.03518.02051.06433" oB3B3

.oo47r

. o9823

.02897-.01975-.24077-.00975-.aI712'.l-6922

. r7895"3324L.oo426"0257 4

.7L64r

.48344

-. a3947.03034

"oL232.46526

"r2944. 05596

-.01663" or614. rBB06.16375.0323r

-.r3782.o977L.0208r

-. oL796.05086.22925

-.ooa24-. 0Br 0B

" 14316" 11806

- " 03492-.04380

.r637L" 0576r_.1BBO4

-.03369" 02626

- "oL296-. o429l-

" 03037

" 66399.49183

" 1601_B

-.08173

" 2L943

-.15242

5247

2935

746

2

10

22

68

.L4782 .r9058-.06276 -.11683

" 23382 . 08018

-.28243 -.L7766 HÀts

APPENDÏX E

ENTROPY SCALE FACTOR LOADTNGS, OBLTMTN ROTATïON, PATTERN MATRTX

It.em No" Factor I Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 FacLor 6 Communalit.y

6l_I

50VL3858623020

4

3323

9263239

v46

2L

293565

1022

68

257

"75924.62689.5s440.51-823.43483.35986.3s850.3327 2.32324" 29683

" a4709- .007 42

.08393

.32257- "a6277- "24246-.140s6

.2527 6

.r2663- "0927A-.00444- "o7 255

.02854

. r6036

-.13389- " 05135

.092r0

.03125-.07884-.L2427

.2r063" 09164.03 49 4

- "02498" 061_83

-"0911_r-.19010-"08598

.o4647-.21940-.31016-.L2639

.LL7 44

- .65447-.54639-.54284-.43550-.4I361

.3877 L

.07 693-.01544-.0t132

.03545- "03737

" 239 44

" 04 711-. û2018

"071-l_5

- "09242- " 05043

-.0030r-. Ir0lt- " 03694-.05243

.00511_-.24262

- "04226-.00294

" 00 567

" 16415"14606.00366

-.0I 65s-. I 5889

.0374r-.04773-.05628- .11 018

" 0877s"0827 4

"oL757"09916"70665.4s433.30531

- "02082.01 736

-. t 2318

-"07390" 2r1 65

-.09r78"a657 2"L7 97 4

.0r58r" 33193

-.0087r.0sI63

-"04520- "03729

- . 041_ 70.o9822

-.03562.03652

-.06486.02551.03249"r77 32

"L2466"03170.07334. r_ 4523.06334.00821

-.r7398-"03338-.04246

. 003 66

. r8938

.75400" 4BI2A" 2647 s

"o2557.08651

"aL629- "02696

,07815.L27 7 A

" 03235

.04137-.04826

"000r4.o2209

- "05822- " 001_03- "Ls707

.o2435"1651r"0s603.02997

-.07528" 24667"L3236

- " 00952-.00042

.03935-.00s40

.09r98-.160s3- "0L7 67

. 0 6700

.00248

"02375-.06037

"03570-.58205- " 48549

" 0r 435

.0101_7"04432"47 L9 4

- " 14074

.09341

.0r675-"0s008-.06323

.06393"t7 862.0086s" 26833

-. 04 538.00123.L5477

-.08054-.0s705

.r9907

"Lr57 2. r 3209.08556.02420

-.04096.00132.L4L7 2

-"01234-.18738

.02588- "0257 2

- " 02380

-"0r348.o37 32

-.68635-.03874

"L269L-"06062-"r_0697

.r2950

. 0r 208- " 22888

.07 286

.6189

.5447" 32L4"6985" 4052.240L" 42L2.4796" 4053" 4142

.6339"5724.5136.6300.2357.4005.5330" 4439"2848"547 5

"2544"4770"3648"438s.5564

"37 45.2692

"6250" 5416

.5706" 6004"2698"2963

6372

52544745

FÞ¡\)

143APPENDIX F

SUMMARY STATISTICS

RESPONSES OF SUBJECTS TO JACKSONIS PRF

SOCTAL DESIRABILITY SCALE

FREQUENCY PERCENTVALID

PERCENTTOTAL PRF

SCORE

5.008.009 " 00

10.00I1.0012"0013"0014.00r5.00I6.0017"0018 " 0019"0020 " 00

TOTAL

IT

49I

t1161825204038222L47

"4.4

L"73.83"44"76.87"7

10 " 78.5I7"IL6,29.49.0

4442I9749I25I57

1.3.2"3.5.6.8"7.

r4.13.7.7"

16"

CUMPERCENT

L4.2r.29"39.48.65.81.91.

100 .

1

6"9"

4964I54I734600

281

MI.SS ING

100"0 100.0

Standard Deviation

2 "962

Mean

r5 " 880

APPENDIX G

CORRELATTON MATRTX F'OR ENTROPY SCALE

9 l_0 2A 23, 22 23 26I

z46I9

IO20

ïtems

2L222326293032333538394547505254575B6I6263656B7T7274

2

" 6L52.L297" 0680" 3060

-. 081 5-. II09

.227L

.2008- " 1894

.LO67-" 0845

. r_004

.0600

.0073" o2B4.o602.1852" l-690.0035

-.L29L-.0676- " o73r

.1806

.2299

.3666

.0846

.3071-.o973

.2L67

.t238

.0388-.0056

. o555

4

-.l-392"61_13.L628.27 67"0220.01_50.397 9.t647.LIg4.L248.4928.1884.0553

- " 053r-" 0251-.1_630-.o783-"1_846-. o716.I454.1803.3523.27 5L. TB2B

" 3281-.0544

.37 04-.2831- .2A62- .2\37

.2339

.47 7A

.0729

6

- " l_l-80" l_o7r_

" 4443" 15r1. oo83

- " o9r-0.3019.37 52.2446

- " 0949" 3646

-"0r_16.0911

- " 0927-. o23 5

. r3B4

.r733-.l_552

.1r45"L7T6.l-862.2665. r_ 357"L37 2.0299.0014.r267.oo76

-. r 934-. 0078

.2L42

.32LT

.1846

-.L6L2.4947"l-320.6009.2666

- . o97L" 3640.22IL.1 751.284A.t626.2027"2824

-. oo8t"I3BB"oL26. OBB4

- .2602.IO94

- . 0594.4585.2262.27 20" 2BO3.4404.2848.3624

-.0463-. oo90-. 331 3

.3565

.3541-. 2111

- " 2IL2.240r" 0899.L282" 4400

- .267 0" 3103.28TO.2028.5006"4156. r683" 2183.1-648.27 47

- "2622-.1028- " 2089

.l-458

. 0347

.3928

.24L7

.3r08

.257 3

.37 02

.T228

.3220-.1625-.o6L2-.3258

.3098

.3638-.0646

- "a523- .4l-76-" o58B- " toBT-.286L

.5863-.264A

.0426

.L765- .4409-"0762

.064L" 14BO

-.3199- " 4435

" 5000.0703.2635

-.t618-. 0tB0=.0336- .27 48-.1342-.0582j. 2BO5

.o657-. r 566

.2202

.2930

.3460-. 1017-.1731_-.0123

"2L2I"IOI3.3556.32A9"r379

- .2599.5068"28L6

- "r42A.27 52.2168.0130" I9OB

-.oo22.38I4

-.l_048" 3BB2

" 0529-. 0830

.0924

.0591" 0435.324L"2375"1664. TB3B

"4702-.3108-. 1 606-.r154

.2407" 1r15

-. ooo8

" o24L.o92A"422A"2477" 0226. 0449"2963.5413"1812

- " 0966" 2954

-.0843.2063

-.oo47-" 0512-"0323

.2646" 0783" 3388.0796

- " 0598.1 233.0048. r830"o6L4. l_ 681

-"0215-" 3368-.L206-" 0539

.0323

.l-669" 3Br_ 3

-. o92L- "1258-"1_01_3

.1326

. o356

.2964-.2L1,L

" 0692.3930

-.1493.o44A.r529. IOB2

- " 2632-. 0790

" 1665.r953. oo67" 1106.307 2"TOI2. o254

-. oo93-"0772-" 0r60

" 2266-.045r-

" 2793-. o4B4

.2142" o235

-.1424-.3182

-,1-993" 0128

- " 0789- " 0987

.1485-.1985

.T2L2

.r073-.1 598

.3389

.0139

.0806-.1087

.2595

.2596-.3433-. 32Br

.0227- . 0648- " l- 2Bt--" 1552- "o375

.0870

.1069" 0792

- " 2060.156I

- " 0394. o5r2

-.1328-" 0052

"o452.07r5

- " 0367.3022.1345" 2857"T76L

-.2543" 2635" 1935

-. to02.3493.2339.2246.1733.r705.3366

- . 1919-. 0117

" o036. o5B0

-.11I 3. l_ 013.0922.2L24.3997.27 57

-.0428.2444

-.o7r2" IIB2

- .2220.27 37"1307.0536

HÞ,Þ

Iterns 29 30

-" 0493" 2243.030CI"r97 2

-.0310-.L241,

.1804"1454

-.t473.2530" 2554" ATL4" 44Il_

- " I018.2450. t252.0527

-"0097- " 2L36

.0301

.254I

.067r

.Is63" 2307.l-431.0375.I848.1091.r050

-.0598.23L6.L637

-. I s9I

32

-"2494-"1007-.i-715- " 236V

"t692- " 23t6-.I965- " 2822-.3083

.0038-. 0r 59- .267 2- "L929

" 4984-" 055i_-.3157-"I593

.a766-.0037-.0378-.0831

. 1511

.0520-"1205-.056r-" 2818- "0s44-.0412

.0494-.II7 2

- .0s27.02r2.0149

33 35 38

-.2861_-, 09 7r_

-.023r."L7 2A

-.2050- "L97 6

.0055- "057 2

- " 2624" 0837.139t.0099"I450.0220

- " 0I29-.0908

" 3129-"0170

,0067-" 0334

.04r3"0191.0606.0244.2406

-.I882"0977.2062.2264

-.0543-. 0tl 0

.07 29-.I427

39

- "0464-. 0570-"0792

"01_82.447 5

-.0082-"40v6

.01_08

. Is75-.2662.I379

- "L27 4

-.0496-.0418-"L777

.3011

.29L6" 0392"2552.l_89s.Ì618

-. 01 31-. i_874- .226L-.0930

.2628-.0565

.248L

.0036

.I823

.0956-.0218-.2137

45

-"1_17I" 3229"1163" 41,22.Ig 44

-" 3502" 2799.2077

-,0379.4398" 2043" 2023

-.0136.2088" 2842

-.29 40-" 0189

.0168

.3058

.0439

.0396

.2358" 3120" 4439" 3348

- " t71,2"27L7

-.2105" 1006

-. 4l_ s5.327 5.2002.0961

47

.L967-.I98s

.1566" 0234.227 9

" 0758.1344.2029,L27 2. ao24" 2369

- . 0111.3269.1816.1098

-.0039"I077

-. 0049.0875.4443.2678.02I 4

" 0860"I106. OII2.1363

-.0r89.0413,0200.0875"r760

-" 0653.0352

50 52

246I9

t02A2I2223262930323335383945475CI

52s4575B616263656B777274

" 2437- "L4A2

" zLL9"1285"I462"2727

-.0316.0082.l_401.0996.3396.3539" 3256

-. l7 s8.3056" 4345" 3606

-.0321.0836.2I95.1,629.0619.L737.0552.026L" 3202.1 552

-.0s68-.1,77 4

.L964

.2608

.0117- "I782

-.0060.rs79.3!27" 5l_ 70.36s6

-.3170.4314" 2963

- "0422.7050" 3423.3s78" 2357" 2524.6411

-. tI 7s.l_25I

-. 0570. L325

-.1934.0L62.19s0.3423.33I3" 3032.2124.3413

- " 2124-.0696-.3562

.3546

.3055

.0s76

-,1_366" 0149

- "2254-. 34s8- "L7 84

"2278-.4436-, 3081-"0015-.22I4- " 02L6

.I505-,0393-. 17 s8- "17 48

" 3463.0360

- " 2029- " 0924

.0935" 0986.0415

- "1,22A- " 3209

.0486-" 2330

.025r" 3002

-.0373" 3888

-" 07s0-"01r9- "2692

- " 1014" 2002" 0186" 3022"I543

-.0254.1093.07 52.0322"4076"1863.3205.368t.L232. t19r.0568" 0046

-.I226-.0165-.0161

" 4925. 179i-" 3l-I3"3779" ¿oro.0242" 4596. L592" 2342

- .2566" 3861" 2L57.

-.0656

-. I 685.2487" 026L

-" 0136.I085

-. 19 3r"L487.2653.2066.2235.0046.1710.0075.1349.0819

-. 150 2-.1624

" 0834-.1_194-.0279

.0191"L569.16T2.3190"LL7 2

- "L521" 0493

- " 0697" 0444

- " 2902"0759" 2048.r0s0

PÞ(Jl

ILems 54 57 61 62 63 65 7T t¿

-.I67 6.387 4. 1181"2797" 2260

-.3412.2423.4199.0800" 4045.2908.1618.2099.LL7 2. 1310

- .2554.1148.0790.1538.1900.261 4.2I75.3I86.4L99.40s5

-.0067.3836

-.1537-.0932-"2377

" 23r7.4203

-.0368

-.2526" 1580

- "2268-.0424- "L547-.1609

.0057-.0420-. 0t s9

.IO5B-"0786-.0324-.L662

.07 82-.0832-.2629-.297 2

.07 39-.0738

.04L2

.0772

.0078

. 18I0

.2126

.L77 6

-.2600.0988. tBlL.2008

-.068s.0146.IA77

- .0626

58

.0305" 2L6T

-.1607.207 3

- "07 43.0038.0215.0436.1510.1480

-.0340.10 35.0840

-.0370.II98.0591.r083

- .22LI.0467.0804.2217.I170" 2501.0413.6183.0I 42.2958.0520.0308

-.0245.0783" 1418

-.1933

- " 2295. I915" 0247.297 4

" 0308-.1443

.1049

.0893-.1635

.0088

.1350

.1639

.2892-.0433-. I069

.4237

.0319-.3029

.0s70-.0r32

.2018

.0448

.0190

.0845

.1 201-. 081 6

.1896

.1528

.11 71

.r270

.1503

.2190-.2I55

" t229.3493"I407" 52r l-.0607

-.2077"2768.202I

-. 0 071;0591.I340.0I22.L524

-. 0556.097r.0619.I506

- .02I 4.0080.0438.3434

-.0951.237 4" 4435.2847.37 64.4657

-. 04 58.1884

-.I988.3531,I097

- .037 9

"2464- " 28s7- "17L4-.2501- .07 22

.1 695- .296r-. 3004-.I99s-.237 5-. I52B-. 1161- .037 4

.1096-.0981

.2677

.0583

.07 37-.084r-.0803

.034r-.1s9 3

-.0653- .0442-.3231-,0833-.2209

.5663" 2L29.380Ì.0190

-.4323-" 0s0B

"2878-" 3465-. i.2 3l- .2487-.239 4

.2L24-. 3 6I3-. 3584-.2243-. 2831-.0985-.1546

.0 432

.0355-.L962

" 2662.I795.r137

-.0220.0453.r128

- . t457.0140

-.0s81-.1838-.0451-.1366

.3102

.I957

.3652-.0856-.293r-" 0560

68

" 3948-.1613

.0087-.01_75

. 114I

.2929-.0r43-"0r58

.0963-.0604-. 0 316-.067 4

"1773- .07 28

.0601

.0734

.r243

.0863

.0002

.2357

.2282-.1005

.0305

.0287- .0562

" 3616.0803.0247.L704,0954.1387

- .3254.0580

-" 30r4" 3579.L347" 2226.0670

- "LI97.2129.151I.0043.1 559.L449.2775.IL97

-.0019" 0343

-.0435-.0926-" 0983-.1455-"1064

.1103

.1364

.101I" 2347.0517

-.1_484.2404

-.0480" 4347.1,827" 2355.300s

- .057 2

-.23L4.047 6.44r8.t051" 3197.0227.134I.34r8" 4832.0794.4608.0438.2790.027r.0788

-.0112.3535. OTB2

" 2556" 4520.4592.299L.L457.2636" 2362.3659.1r21

-"4494- " 2283-" 2055

" 2854" 27r8"0724

74

-. I 553- .2452

.2327- .07 64

.2255

.0397- .0367

.L704" 2351

-.1378"L592

-.0399-.0r85

. 1410-. 0349

.047 5

.0321-. 0r 21

.2227- .0242

"0727" 0102

- .0297.0355.0348.00r9

-.1930.1366

-. 01 3l_

" 249r.047 6.1595.2157

246I9

l_0202I22232629303233353839454750525457586I6263656B7L7274

tsÈOr