Adolescent Separation Anxiety

ADOLESCENT
SEPARATION
ANXIETY
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2018 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/adolescentseparaOOOOhans
ADOLESCENT
SEPARATION
ANXIETY
ADOLESCENT
SEPARATION
ANXIETY
A Method for the Study of
Adolescent Separation Problems
By
HENRY G. HANSBURG, Ph.D.

Consultant in Psychotherapy and Research
Jewish Child Care Association
New York City
Formerly Assistant Professor of Psychology and
Chief Psychologist of the Educational Clinic
Brooklyn College
ROBERT E. KRIEGER PUBLISHING COMPANY

HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK
1980
Originally published in hardcover form 1972
Reprinted as part of paperback set 1980
Printed and Published by

ROBERT E. KRIEGER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC.
645 NEW YORK AVENUE
HUNTINGTON, NEW YORK 11743
Copyright © 1972 by
Charles C. Thomas
Transferred to
Dr. Henry G. Hansburg 2/6/79
Reprinted by Arrangement
All rights reserved. No reproduction in any form of this

book, in whole or in part (except for brief quotation in
critical articles or reviews), may be made without written
authorization from the publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Hansburg, Henry G 1910-

A method for the study of adolescent separation problems.
(His Adolescent separation anxiety ; v. 1)
First published under title: Adolescent separation anxiety;
a method for the study of adolescent separation problems.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
1. Separation anxiety in children. 2. Separation
(Psychology) 3. Adolescent psychology. I. Title.
[BF724.3.S38H35 1980] 616.8’522s [616.8’522]
ISBN 0-89874-042-8 (vol. 1) 79-21797
This book is dedicated to my wife, Rose, who
tolerated my interest in this work for many years;
to my daughter, Norma, who worked so assiduous¬
ly on the drawings; and to my father, George B.
Hansburg, whose inventive genius in developing
the pogo stick, the baby toddler, and the baby-den
set an example in fortitude and creativity.
PREFACE TO REPRINT EDITION
This second printing is termed Volume I because it initiates

a three volume series on separation problems based on the use of
the Separation Anxiety Test. The second Volume which is to be
entitled SEPARATION DISORDERS has already been prepared
for publication and will follow soon after the appearance of this
Volume. The third Volume is to be called RESEARCHES ON
SEPARATION and is to include a series of studies on children,
adolescents, adults and the elderly which either have already been
accomplished or are at this time in progress in various institutes
and University graduate centers throughout the United States.
Since the first printing of this work, the Separation Anxiety
Test has come into use both clinically and in research in the study
of human problems of separation. I am indebted to all those
University faculty members and psychologists in various agencies
and research centers for their work with this instrument. As time
progresses it is likely that continuous improvement both in tech¬
nique and interpretation will take place and be made available to
the psychological profession. I am grateful to Dr. Karl Pottharst,
Professor of Psychology at the California Institute for Professional
Psychology, for his efforts in stimulating research with this instru¬
ment. To Dr. John Bowlby of the Tavistock Institute in London
I extend my deepest appreciation for his continued support of
this work.
Henry G. Hansburg 1979
Vll
FOREWORD
In august 1970 the author began a considerable correspondence

with Dr. John Bowlby, Chairman of the Staff Committee of the
School of Family Psychiatry and Community Mental Health, Tavi¬
stock Institute of Human Relations, London, England. The purpose
of this interaction was to discuss the material of this research. Sub¬
sequently, Dr. Bowlby was kind enough to arrange to meet with the
author, and the meeting took place in March 1971 at Tavistock in
London. The meeting consisted of hours of theoretical and research
discussions during which it became apparent that there was a con¬
siderable affinity of ideas concerning the problems of separation as
a phenomenon of the life cycle. The author was also invited to pre¬
sent the highlights of the present study to a research group chaired
by Dr. Bowlby.
In a subsequent personal communication to the author, Dr. Bowlby
had the following to say:
I am very grateful to you for drawing my attention to your Sepa¬
ration Anxiety Test and find your preliminary results of the greatest
interest. The test is evidently well designed to elicit a wide range of
responses to situations that are now known can play a crucial role in
personality development. As a result it seems to me that you have
provided us with an instrument that shows great promise both for
clinical evaluation and also for research.
Hitherto we have had no reliable way of determining how separa¬
tion experiences of differing lengths occurring at different ages and in
differing circumstances affect a developing personality. This has been
a great handicap in furthering our knowledge of the problem. Were
your test to be used in future research, as I much hope it will, there is
good prospect that many gaps in our knowledge will be filled. I hope
also that the test’s potential for clinical evaluation of patients will be
systematically explored since it looks as though in skilled hands it will
prove a most valuable instrument for diagnostic and prognostic work
with children and adolescents.
Vlll
PREFACE
X he present study is an outgrowth of discussions on a research proj¬

ect proposed by Dr. Wilbert Sykes and begun in Dr. Leonard Hol¬
lander’s office at the Jewish Child Care Association in 1965. These
research discussions dealt with children’s awareness of the reasons for
placement in group residence homes. In the course of these discus¬
sions, I proposed the development of test materials which would be
of assistance in diagnosing adolescents’ attitudes towards separation
and placement. Subsequently, I developed a test of placement atti¬
tudes which is not included in the present study. The Separation
Anxiety Test, which was developed secondarily, proved to be so
intriguing that I neglected my work with the other tests and pro¬
ceeded to develop my knowledge of separation problems in early
adolescence.
Actually, I have been interested in separation problems in children
since the 1930’s, when I was a psychologist with the Bureau of Child
Guidance, Board of Education, New York City (Hansburg41,42). At
that time, I collected many cases of school phobia, a syndrome which
had not had too much attention from the mental hygiene profession.
I was struck by the degree of dependency ties that existed in these
children, and I felt strongly that they suffered from excessively con¬
cerned mothers who, through their concern, dominated the lives of
their children. It appeared to me that while there was merit to the
theory of repressed hostility, more attention was needed in the area
of the symbiotic problems.
When I left the Bureau of Child Guidance to continue my work
at Brooklyn College, I maintained my interest in school phobia and
planned a book on this subject, which never came to fruition. In my
years of private practice, I saw numbers of youngsters of all ages
who suffered from severe separation problems and who often could
not attend school. My opportunity for continued investigation of
IX
X Adolescent Separation Anxiety
separation problems came in the research discussions at the Jewish

Child Care Association, where I realized that all children in child care
agencies experience separation in severe form. I therefore began the
research with a population of children under the care of that agency
and with the hope of developing an instrument that would describe
and predict young people’s reactions to separation. This monograph,
involving the use of this new instrument, is the result of these efforts.
I began the research without any definitive hypothesis, except that
I was interested in determining what mechanisms would show domi¬
nance. As I proceeded and began working with the data, I developed
some tentative ideas about the relationship between the intensity of
separation and various other emotional reactions. Further, I became
interested in the differences between children who are placed and
those who live in their own homes. Other interesting problems be¬
came meaningful as the study proceeded, and these developed my
concepts of what I would find and look for further. They are pre¬
sented in the introductory chapter, which was written after I had
concluded my evaluation of the data. My enlightenment proceeded
as a constant interaction between theory, impression, and data as
experiences with the test unfolded.
This study is not intended as definitive or comprehensive research
on adolescent separation problems. It is largely an exploratory at¬
tempt to develop a method for the study of such problems. The
reader is therefore cautioned at the outset not to expect a report
which would meet exacting standards of experimental design, test
method, or statistical validation.
My own criticisms are embodied in several chapters of this report,
especially in the concluding section. I would therefore suggest that
the reader concentrate on studying the test method itself, the con¬
ceptual framework for its analysis, the tentative formulations which
have been derived from the impressions of the data, the interesting
information on individual personality reactions in adolescence, and
finally, the manner in which the findings may be utilized in the held
of adolescent placement for displaced youngsters.
Henry G. Hansburg
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 owe a debt of gratitude to the many people who stimulated, as¬

sisted, and administratively enabled me to pursue this study. First and
foremost, I owe the original stimulus to Dr. Wilbert Sykes, psychi¬
atrist, whose generous understanding and calm suggestions were of
inestimable value to me. To Dr. Leonard Hollander, psychiatrist, and
then Director of the Jewish Child Care Association’s Psychiatric
Clinic, I owe a debt of gratitude for taking an interest in this pursuit
and provoking discussions of the details of the study. The imposition
on my daughter Norma’s time in creating the drawings over a period
of several months was considerable, and I am deeply grateful to her
for withstanding my continual insistence on particular details in the
drawings.
My research assistants in the study bore the burden over the years
of the experimental testing with the instrument: Mr. Paul Feinberg
during 1967 and 1968, Mr. Steve Levinson during the summer of
1969, and Mr. Isaac Pinter, who did the testing of the normative
population in the public junior high and parochial schools of Brook¬
lyn from the fall of 1969 to the spring of 1970. All three made valu¬
able contributions to both the clinical and data-gathering aspects of
the study and made many useful suggestions.
During the course of my work, many clinic staff members gave of
their time to assist me in my thinking on separation problems. These
included Dr. Elizabeth Herman, psychiatrist, Dr. Dorothy Krugman,
specialist in early childhood psychology, Dr. Michael Selzer, psychi¬
atrist, Dr. Ned Marcus, psychiatrist, Dr. Don Heacock, psychiatrist,
Dr. Jolan Blass, psychiatrist, and Dr. Murray Kofkin, psychiatrist.
Mrs. Ada Slawson, Executive Clinic Director and psychiatric social
worker, permitted me to give a considerable part of my clinic time to
this research. I am greatly indebted to her for the continuous oppor¬
tunity of discussing the problems of the research with her. Donah
xi
xii Adolescent Separation Anxiety
Lithauer, psychologist, constantly encouraged me with her interest.

Dr. Frank Goldberg and Miss Christine Duplak, psychologists,
showed an interest in developing the test for clinic use and for further
research. Miss Ruth Tannenbaum, clinic secretary, did the typing
and re-typing of the test phrases and made suggestions.
Members of other departments of the Jewish Child Care Associ¬
ation were very supportive. These included Dr. Jack Adler of the
Training Division and Marie Laufer with her group of social worker
members of the Joint Planning Staff. I was appreciative of the Per¬
sonnel Department’s (especially Mr. David Roth’s) willingness to go
along with me in the study by supporting the research assistants. I
found Mr. Sidney Smith extremely helpful in supplying materials,
obtaining photographs for the pictures, and making other equipment
available to me. Miss Jennie S. Fierman was extremely gracious and
cooperative in permitting me continuous use of typing and copying
services. I should like to thank Miss Elinor Williams and Mrs. Mollie
Itzkowitz, who aided so much in handling and arranging the typing
work for much of the original manuscript and papers which were
written in connection with this study.
Thanks are due to Mr. Paul Steinfeld, Director of the Pleasantville
Cottage School, Mr. Richard Moss, Director of the Far Rockaway
Residence of the Jewish Child Care Association, and Mr. Paul Goli-
boff of the Mount Vernon Residence. I am very grateful to Mr.
Irving Rabinow, formerly Director of Group Residences and now
Associate Director of the Jewish Child Care Association, for his con¬
tinued interest in and encouragement of my work on this study.
He was convinced that the material of this study would in the long
run be useful to the Jewish Child Care Association. Thanks are due to
Mrs. Gudes and Mrs. Plung, librarians of the Jewish Child Care As¬
sociation, who graciously assisted me with reference material.
I am indebted to Dr. Richard d’Ambrosio, Director of the Psycho¬
logical Services for Catholic Charities, for permitting my assistant Mr.
Levinson, to test the youth at various facilities. Gratitude goes to Dr.
J. Wayne Wrightstone, Director of Educational Research of the
Board of Education, Dr. Sidney Glassman, Principal of Junior High
School 6 2, Dr. Morris Pinkus, Principal of Public School 194, and
Mrs. Cohen, Assistant Principal of Junior High School 223, Brooklyn.
My thanks go to Dr. Aryeh Rohn, Director of the East Midwood
Acknowledgments xiii
Day School, Brooklyn, and Mr. Byrd Drucker of Camp Lou Emma.
I wish to thank Dr. Sue Hirschhorn, child analyst, Dr. George Lap-
idus, clinical psychologist, Dr. Alice Korobow, clinical psychologist,
and Dr. James Sachs, clinical psychologist and group therapist, for
their assistance in evaluating some of the material in the Separation
Anxiety Test.
Finally, I am indebted to Mr. Jacob L. Trobe, Director of the
Jewish Child Care Association, for his acceptance and interest in this
project and for his willingness to cooperate in the program of testing.
H. G. H.
Note-. Since this book has been in the hands of the publisher, the new Director of the
Psychiatric Clinic, Dr. Sul Nichtern, has been kind enough to encourage the use
of the Separation Anxiety Test by the staff of the clinic and to allow time at staff
meetings for presentation of interesting findings.
H.G.H.
V
*
CONTENTS
Page
Preface to Reprint Edition.vii
Foreword.viii
Preface.ix
Acknowledgments .xi
Chapter
1. Introduction.3
2. The Separation Anxiety Test.11
Part I—Preparatory Statement.11
Part II—Test Creation.13
Part III—Administration of Test and Pictures.20
Part IV—Further Considerations.47
3. Some General Findings in the First Experiment ... 49
4. The Attachment Complex and Separation.55
5. Separation FIostility.66
6. Separation Pain.74
7. Separation Denial.81
8. Separation Identity Stress.88
9. Separation, Self-Love, and Self-Esteem.94
10. A Study of Various Separation Pictures.102
11. Clinical Applications of the Separation Anxiety Test . . 113
12. Where Has This Study Led Us?.134
References.141
Appendix
I. Individual Case Charts and Record Forms.147
II. Statistical Tables on Test.162
Index.187
xv
\
ADOLESCENT
SEPARATION
ANXIETY
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Separation is a universally necessary experience, for without it, no

individual can be free to make choices and to develop his personality.
It is the stage and the manner of its accomplishment that are of pro¬
found human significance. Natural growth, family unity, and family
availability provide the necessary equipment for setting the stage.
Disturbances in these created by traumatic events of an internal or
external nature, especially at critical stages, may disrupt the usual
course of separation. Many of us have been sufficiently fortunate to
have had normal, natural growth and supportive, undisrupted family
settings in which to make developmental separations. Others have
been beset by all manner of seriously disturbed conditions, including
family illness, divorce, severe dissensions, death, and so forth. For
them, particularly the younger ones, separation and individuation
have been hampered and distorted, resulting in serious problems in
giving up infantile attachments, difficulties in controlling hostility,
abnormal anxiety, self-imposed loss of self-esteem, stress in identity,
and so on. This is not to say that all youngsters do not have some
struggle with separation, but it is the quantity and quality of the
problems surrounding separation which are of importance.
For several years I considered the possibility of a test which would
expose an adolescent to varied representations of separation experi¬
ences. The purpose of such a test would be to elicit the patterns of
response with which young adolescents handle separation. Experi¬
ence with test situations has shown that feelings are more readily
elicited when the child is less personally threatened, especially by
direct questions in an interview. In projective methods we have found
a way of eliciting such responses in a less threatening manner by using
situations in which other human beings are involved but with which
3
4 Adolescent Separation Anxiety
the subject is familiar. The question remains whether responses to

such a test in the area of separation would reflect how the child
would really feel and react when separation occurred.
We know too that any test situation is only a sample of behavior.
It provides stimuli which in some way simulate some aspects of life’s
tasks and suggests a variety of opportunities to respond to these stim¬
uli. Obviously, no test can provide a complete picture of a person¬
ality; it can only explicate clues which have implications for the ex¬
perienced clinician. I have selected those separation tasks which are
almost universally experienced by children with a child care agency
as well as by many others. Often the emotional and mental inte¬
grators or organizers which run through the developing life style
of a youngster may readily be inferred from clinical clues in a test.
As a result, the focused material of a test may provide patterns which
are related to fundamental techniques of adjustment as well as de¬
velopmental stages rather than purely superficial characteristics. One
of the assumptions of this study therefore is that we can make use
of pictured separation situations to understand how a child wifi react
to real separation.
Aside from the assumptions that I have made in developing the
Separation Anxiety Test as a test instrument, I have had to consider
its relation to personality development at different stages of life and
the characteristics of separation experiences. It is obvious that various
kinds of separation between child and mother must take place in the
process of growth if the child is eventually to be able to function as
an individual. The drive for individuation is an .essential characteristic
of normal psychological development. Every psychotherapist knows
how important it is to help an individual develop his own sense of
self and that only through this relative autonomy is he able to func¬
tion in group living as well as family life.
Pathological attachments between parents and children, whether
of an intensely needful, succoring nature or hostile character, re¬
duce individuation and encourage fusion reactions. It is also obvious
that no human being is an island unto himself and that even as an
autonomous individual he must be able to relate to others in a great
many different ways. The capacity to interact with other people
and to need other people as sources of supply not only for nar¬
cissistic gratification but also for ego development has survival value.
Introduction 5
While separation is essential, interactional and interdependency ex¬
periences are also required for survival in a civilized community.
We are dealing with two sides of a very important aspect of life:
separation-individuation on the one hand and attachment, interdepen¬
dency, and interaction on the other. This balanced aspect of develop¬
ment is an important subject for the study of separation problems of
displaced youngsters. The question then arises, How does one sepa¬
rate and develop individuality and at the same time maintain relation¬
ships and attachments? An interesting description of a conflict around
this area in early childhood is provided by Margaret Mahler64 in a
study of how the young child separates from the mother. She re¬
ported that during one phase of the separation-individuation period,
which is at 18 months, there is an unusual degree of conflict in the
child. The conflict refers to the continuous need for individuation
and yet the fear of loss of the emotional support of the mother.
Individuation proceeds rapidly, but separation is resisted strongly . . .
The less emotionally available the mother has become, the more in¬
sistently and even desperately the toddler attempts to woo her. He
won’t accept comforting from anyone else. He can’t lose himself in
play. If emotional supplies are not forthcoming, he seeks substitutes
in eating and sucking. He also turns to such aggressive behavior as
throwing things and hitting people. All this may draw so much of the
energy available for development as to hamper psychological growth.
Theoretically, it seems possible that this kind of interactional

process appears throughout life in a number of ways. In the process
of growth this balance may be upset many times by traumatic situ¬
ations, unfortunate developmental experiences, as well as by certain
positive opportunities for development which may appear to upset
the balance. Roy Schaffer82 in a recent book expressed it in the fol¬
lowing way:
Those identifications that attempt to dispense altogether with the ex¬
ternal tie to persons on whom one is greatly dependent can only be
partially and intermittently successful; and even their success, being
based on much repression and denial, will be superficial and unstable.
In this latter regard the optimum toward general personal develop¬
ment appears to be a balance (within wide limits) between identifi¬
cation and continuing object relations. This is so, because, despite all
the hazards of external dependence on other persons, all temptations
to develop a splendid and objectively productive self sufficiency, the
ultimate pleasure possibilities are greater, the ultimate mastery more
secure, and the ultimate growth more luxuriant, when object relations
are combined with identifications. Carried too far, defensive self suffi¬
ciency intensifies the loneliness and deprivation that slowed its devel¬
opment in the first place, and it retards and restricts the growth of
new experience and relations with the surrounding world.
In studying the problem of what occurs as a result of separation

experiences one must therefore consider what disturbs the balance
described above and what mechanisms of behavior are adopted to
ward off such disturbance. By adolescence there are already layers
of traumatic experiences built one upon another which have produced
variations in the capacity for separateness and in the capacity for
relatedness.
In the course of the development of this test I recognized that
defenses against the stress on this balance were patterned, ramified,
and often complicated, but there were a number of universal char¬
acteristics which were available for study. We are all familiar with
the defensive hostility that develops in connection with deprivation
of a love object. It has been described very well by a number of
writers, including Lindemann,59 Laufer,57 Wolfenstein,102,103 and
others. Further, at earlier ages, such as 5, 6, and 7, we have often
seen the violent struggle that children make in their efforts to get to
the mother when there is a fear that the mother will be lost to them.
Every first grade or kindergarten teacher has seen not only crying
at the time of the mother’s leaving the child in school, but also vio¬
lent refusals to remain, kicking and screaming, and even running out
of the school building. In many children the hostility is not overt,
but may easily be stored up for later neurotic reactivity or other
forms of external violence in other situations. We may consider
such violent feelings then as a defense against disturbing the attach¬
ment-individuation balance through some severe separation or to what
the youngster considers to be a threat of loss.
Painful tensions also occur as reactions to the interference with
this balance. This may consist of overt anxiety reactions, phobic
responses, and other forms of bodily tension resulting in physical
pain. Observations of anxiety-ridden adolescents often expose these
symptoms. Sometimes the youngster sits quietly, distraught and look¬
ing at his surroundings in a very threatened manner, and sometimes
Introduction 7
he complains of severe stomach upset, headaches, and the like. This is
not to imply that these kinds of reactions occur only in the upset of
the attachment-individuation balance, but they are especially keen
under such circumstances.
Another defensive maneuver with regard to this balance is an
avoidance of the reality of the separating experience. The youngster
may avoid the issue by simply acting as if the separation has not oc¬
curred or is not occurring. Further, he may react by imagining that
he does not really care whether or not the separation takes place.
Lastly, he may withdraw completely from social relationships as a
result of the loss of, or threatened loss of, a love object or its symbol.
There are many different ways in which an adolescent may avoid
facing the reality of separation, and these avoidances may be re¬
gressive in nature or they may be simply forms of sidestepping the
issue.
Loss of self-esteem may be a common result of a separation ex¬
perience or its threat. I am reminded at this point of a young psy¬
chologist who was in analytic therapy with me for several years and
whose problem often related to difficulties with the opposite sex.
Anxiety in relation to separation experiences was quite common with
this patient. It frequently happened that, after an experience in which
there was a potential threat of rejection by her boyfriend, she would
have dreams of inadequacy. In the dreams she would fail to succeed
in some particular endeavor in which she was involved. Frequently,
she would report a loss of confidence in her work, feelings of in¬
adequacy, and a general sense that there must be something seriously
wrong with her if she could not secure the boy’s love. The feeling
of loss of competency in the face of a separation or a threat of sepa¬
ration often appears along with depressed reactions and these feelings
may be accompanied by self-flagellation and feelings of rejection.
Somewhat apart from this latter phenomenon and yet consider¬
ably related to it is the crisis of identity. This crisis is often expressed
in a feeling of being a different person, a threat of change in one’s
personality, or a loss of feeling as one had in the past. Such crises in
identity occur anyway in periods of early childhood as well as in
adolescence. Thus, not only is self-actualization threatened, but the
nature of who the self is appears to undergo some disorganization.
The threat may be stated as follows: An important part of the
person (love object) is felt to be needed and is now threatened with

loss. Losing it surfaces a very vulnerable part of the self, endanger¬
ing its integrity. This is essentially the identity stress which is set up
in connection with separation experiences. Much no doubt depends
on what there is in the potentially lost object with which the young¬
ster consciously and unconsciously identifies or which the youngster
considers essential to his sense of identity. (See further discussion in
Ch. 9.)
Lastly, I would like to suggest that impairment of intellectual func¬
tioning can be one of the elements of the complex defensive system
which operates during a separation experience. This is often shown in
children by their inability to function in school or even to attend
school during a separation crisis. Even in adult life when separations in
families occur, such as divorce and so on, the breadwinner may find it
very difficult to concentrate on his work or may absent himself from
work. Many individuals appear to have the capacity to sublimate
through a medium of finding surrogate figures as well as through
finding inward a source of channelization which reduces the stress of
separation. Thus, one child may plunge into his schoolwork very
strongly, study very hard, and try to make high grades. Such an
ability to sublimate in this way requires a strong identification with
the desires and motives of the lost love object. But we can see that in
some children an alternation between impairment of concentration
and sublimation would occur.
In summary, it seems likely that to restore the attachment-individu¬
ation balance, the most universal forms of reaction are (1) hostility,
(2) painful tension, (3) reality avoidance, (4) loss of self-esteem, (5)
identity crises, and (6) imbalances in intellectual functioning.
Failure to adapt to a normal separation experience in adolescence
without serious pathology is often evidence of an earlier failure to
solve the problem of disentanglement from parental figures. Much has
been learned about the traumas which occur at stages when the ego is
insufficiently prepared. The work of Bowlby in his analysis of pro¬
test, despair, and detachment has served to provide a fundamental
orientation. Yarrow’s,104 Goldfarb’s,38 and Spitz’87 studies in early
childhood deprivation have provided important areas of knowledge.
Freud and Burlingham’s famous wartime studies30 of enforced parental
separation brought home the pathological consequences to child men-
Introduction 9
tal health. The earlier the traumatic separation experience, the more
damaging to child development.
Yet it has been shown that even in generally intact children devas¬
tating results can arise from separations at later ages. Martha Eliot’s
report22 on the evacuation from London in World War II of children
in latency and adolescence indicated the extent of the traumatic symp¬
tomatology. School phobia studies have been singularly helpful in
our understanding of the problems occurring at later ages. Coolidge
and his colleagues15 have been generally helpful in this regard although
they were preceded by a long line of professional students of the
subject (see References). The characterological deficits which have
been observed in adolescents in these studies are further proof of the
survival of ramified effects of early separation traumas. The effects of
separation traumas in adults have been observed under various con¬
ditions (see Niederland73).
My readings in the literature and my own clinical experience over
three and a half decades have convinced me of the importance of the
separation phenomenon in understanding human behavior. For this
reason I have come to regard the analysis of this phenomenon in
children and adolescents who are to be displaced as a step forward
in the understanding of normal separations in human growth.
In this book I shall give considerable attention to the theoretical
and clinical implications of the results of studies of the above phe¬
nomena with the Separation Anxiety Test. The studies were con¬
ducted at a number of child care centers as well as in relatively normal
school settings in the community. The first study was conducted at
the Pleasantville Cottage School and the Far Rockaway and Mount
Vernon Group Residences of the Jewish Child Care Association
during the summer of 1967. At the same time many experimental
evaluations of children in intake and therapy at the Psychiatric Clinic
of the Jewish Child Care Association were done with the test. A girl’s
form of the test was developed in 1968, and in 1969 the test was
repeated at the Pleasantville Cottage School. Subsequently it was ad¬
ministered at Camp Lou Emma, New Jersey, and at several centers
of the Catholic Charities child care facilities, including St. John’s
Home for Boys and the Far Rockaway and Richmond Hill Group
Residences.
In the fall of 1969 and the spring of 1970 samples of nonseparated
children were obtained from the East Midwood Day School (a pri¬
vate Jewish parochial school), a group of n-year-olds at Public
School 194, a group of 13- and 14-year-olds at Junior High School
62, and finally a group of 12- and 13-year-olds at Junior High School
223, all in Brooklyn. During this period a number of children were
seen in the Psychiatric Clinic of the Jewish Child Care Association
and a number of analyses of test protocols were done without the
benefit of background material for experimental clinical purposes.
Thus, in the three-year period from 1967 to 1970 approximately
250 children were seen with the test. The analysis, interpretation,
and theoretical ideas concerning this material will form the bulk of
the chapters of this book.
Chapter 2
THE SEPARATION ANXIET1 TEST

PART I
Tests dealing with the problem of separation anxiety directly have
not appeared in the literature, so far as is known to me. There have
been efforts in allied areas, such as dependence-independence scales.
The latter have consisted largely of group tests involving multiple
choice, completion, and true-false techniques. Witkin’s studies100 in
psychological differentiation have been of most interest to me because
of his development of specific instruments to study field independence
and articulation in children. These studies have been basic and most
penetrating. Using the rotating room, the rod and frame test, the
articulation measurement of drawings, and certain patterns of the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Witkin was able to develop
the above concepts, which bear a relationship to separation reactions.
Thus, strongly field-independent children tend to use isolation and
withdrawal techniques, remember dreams better, and if mobile, do
better in therapy. Globally cognitive (field-dependent) children are
less well articulated, tend to make quick improvement in therapy and
then lapse, and tend to repress dreams more strongly. Further, field-
independent or well-articulated individuals separate more readily
whereas the globally cognitive have more difficulties in this area.
Witkin raised the question of genetic determination of these char¬
acteristics.
These concepts developed by Witkin are no doubt related to the
concepts of attachment and separation. The entire notion of degrees
of separateness of an individual vcould appear to be a useful concept in
understanding separation anxiety and its concomitants. Witkin101
(dp 32 0-32D paseci pjs approach to the problem of separateness on per¬
il
ception—how the child perceived his own body in reference to the

external environment. He stated:
Sense of separate identity implies experience of the self as segregated.
It also implies experiences of the self as structured; internal forms of
reference have been found and are available as guides for definition
of the self. The less developed sense of separate identity of persons
with a global cognitive style manifests itself in reliance on external
sources for definition of their attitudes, judgments, sentiments and of
their views of themselves.
This method of evaluation of separateness influenced my thinking on

the development of the Separation Anxiety Test, as will be seen later
in dealing with the notion of individuation and of identity stress.
The creation of a psychological test is a singularly difficult problem
because of the many factors to be considered. These include (i) ob¬
jectives and assumptions, (2) the medium and method through which
the objectives are to be accomplished, (3) the statistical method of
measurement to be used in the medium, (4) the validity of the
medium and the statistical method which becomes an integral part
of the medium, (5) the selection of the criteria for the validation of
the integrated medium and measurement complex, (6) the deter¬
mination of its clinical usefulness in terms of diagnostic and predictive
value in relationship to the behavior studied, (7) the population
sampling to be obtained for its validation and reliability, including
the factors of sex, age, intelligence, socioeconomic condition, type of
family and living experience, and so forth, and (8) the usefulness of
the test in research and in drawing conclusions about complex psycho¬
logical phenomena.
I have used psychological tests which have ostensibly met all of
these conditions adequately and yet in administration have been un¬
satisfactory in specific cases. Various reasons exist for such occur¬
rences, including specificity of the youngster’s life experience and so
on. Further, the test method itself has often been called into ques¬
tion by members of the mental health professions. Such objections
have often been raised despite the most scientifically accurate experi¬
mental design and statistical calculation.
Projective tests have attempted to circumvent many of these prob¬
lems. Often experimental design and statistical methods have been
eschewed and a high degree of latitude permitted in interpretation,
The Separation Anxiety Test 13
based upon clinical judgment and related to the theoretical framework

and orientation of the psychologist. The validity of such practice has
been questioned and in fact researchers in experimental clinical psy¬
chology have rejected many clinical instruments (such as the Ror¬
schach) on the ground that they cannot be adequately validated nor
relied upon for prediction.
Such a state of affairs might cast some doubt on the present under¬
taking but there is another side to the issue. We are constantly in
need of methods for diagnosis and prediction, especially when a young
adolescent’s future life is at stake. Youngsters arriving at the door
of a child care agency must be placed in the most suitable facility or
it would defeat the very purpose of the placement. The suitability
involves many considerations with which we cannot trifle. One of the
most significant factors lies in the youngster’s capacity to separate
from his environment and adapt to a new one. In this process many
facets of his personality will be revealed. The lengthy process of
interviews and clinical evaluation must often be utilized to aid in the
separation and placement.
The test method is uniquely adapted to such a procedure, not only
as a screening device but also as a diagnostic and predictive measure.
The saving of time and human energy which might well be devoted
to other youngsters or to therapeutic procedures for the same indi¬
viduals is surely a worthwhile objective.
I have approached this problem by creating an instrument which
at present meets but a few of the statistical and experimental standards
for the test method and which would lean heavily on clinical practice.
Further, the medium was so well considered and thought through
on the basis of theoretical formulation as well as child care practice
that the test’s usefulness could be empirically determined. Obviously,
many flaws would be found in such a procedure, but the method
can be improved and corrected through continuous experience with
varied youngsters in differing child care settings.
PART II
Certain assumptions were made in developing the Separation Anxi¬
ety Test. These were as follows: (1) that pictures of separation ex¬
periences can stimulate children sufficiently to be able to project
their reactions, (2) that children can select and report reactions to
separation which genuinely reflect how they feel, (3) that these re-
ported reactions will show patterns which can be useful in diagnosis

and treatment of separation problems, (4) that it will help to reveal
what mechanisms of defense against separation anxiety are mobilized,
(5) that the nature of object relations, whether symbiotic on one end
or isolated on the other end, will be revealed, and (6) that aspects
of the capacity for autonomy will be shown which can be useful
in treatment.
I shall discuss the creation of the test by delineating the various
areas of its development: (1) the selection of the separation situations
to be depicted, (2) the basic ideas used in the drawings, (3) the selec¬
tion of the method of administration and response to the pictures,
(4) the manner of recording and of scoring the responses, (5) the
organization of the mechanisms into meaningful groupings for inter¬
pretive purposes, and (6) the division of the test into mild and strong
stimuli.
Recognizing that separation situations could vary in extent, inten¬
sity, and significance to different children, I decided to select those
situations which were both mild and usual in childhood experience,
those which were less frequent but somewhat fraught with stress, and
those which were more commonly associated with severe trauma and
sometimes resulted in complete displacement for the child. There was
little doubt that only a few samples of the myriads of separation situa¬
tions could be represented since any attempt at complete coverage
could only result in an unpractically long and involved instrument.
Most important would be a sampling which would be quite varied,
not repetitious, and of differing intensity. Selection of the situations
was achieved solely through discussions with clinic staff and was never
put to any outside evaluations. It was my feeling that the resultant
situations were fairly representative of those experienced in childhood
and adolescence.
After three months of work during which some situations were
discussed and abandoned and others selected, the following were
utilized:
1. The child will live permanently with his grandmother and with¬
out his parents.
2. The child is being transferred to a new class.
3. The family is moving to a new neighborhood.
4. The child is leaving his mother to go to school.
5. The child is leaving his parents to go to camp.
6. After an argument with the mother, the father is leaving.

7. The child’s brother is a sailor leaving on a voyage.
8. The judge is placing the child in an institution.
9. The mother has just put this child to bed.
10. The child’s mother is being taken to the hospital.
11. The child and the father are standing at the mother’s coffin.
12. The child is running away from home.
The basic ideas used in the drawings consisted mainly in avoiding

emotionally expressive conditions which would prejudice the re¬
sponses. The effort to avoid facial expression was fairly successful but
this cannot be said for the positions and stances of the figures, which
may readily have provided clues to emotional reactions. Thus, a child
in a bent position could easily result in a response, “depressed” or
“lonely,” and a figure in a strong position could result in a response,
“happy” or “contented.” Such influences could hardly be eliminated
if one were to comply with humanistic and reality considerations.
Colors of the spectrum were studiously avoided in order to remove
the spurious influence that color exercises on affect. The use of India
ink may have provided a possible dysphoric tone, but it was hoped
that contrasting white backgrounds would offset this influence.
In order to focus the child’s feelings on the situation, considerable
effort was given to setting the child in the foreground, where it was
hoped that the subject would be immediately influenced by the cen¬
tral figure. Further, it was deemed desirable to present figures in
motion wherever possible, but this was not always feasible. Pictures
of both large and small size were eschewed in order to avoid prob¬
lems in perception. This resulted in pictures which were about six
inches square. Another problem not too successfully struggled with
was complete clarity of the pictorial situation. A number of pictures
proved to be not quite situationally focused and it was decided to
put the title of the separation situation at the bottom so there could
be no doubt of the central theme. This deliberate effort to focus
the separation situation was in some ways unavoidable, but as will
be seen later, made misinterpretation practically impossible. Avoidance
would therefore have to be accomplished through other means.
The order of presentation of the pictures was decided by consid¬
ering the intensity of the stimulation, although it was thought desir¬
able to mix the stimuli in the hope that the influence of the affect
of one picture on another would be somewhat reduced. Thus, four of
the least stimulating pictures appear near the beginning and three of
the most stimulating at the end. Without a separate experimental
study of the effect of the order of presentation on the responses, it
is not possible to judge this aspect of the test.
The original construction of the Separation Anxiety Test was based
on the assumption that the selection of specific responses on many
pictures would represent a tendency to respond with particular mech¬
anisms. If I could successfully select those fundamental reactions
which characterize the adolescent response to separation, I could,
perhaps, describe the dominant modes or patterns in specific young¬
sters. With this consideration in mind, I began by selecting those
which were dominant in the literature: generalized anxiety, specific
fears, anger, grief or loneliness, regression, rationalization, projection,
intellectual dysfunction, feeling of abandonment (unloved or re¬
jected), and denial. Some of these were emphasized by Bowlby in
his study of grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood; others
were of greatest significance to Anna Freud, and still others to Roch-
lin and Bios.
In order to make possible a construction which would suit these
concepts, I thought first of a multiple choice technique which would
represent them by single words, such as “sad” for grief, “unloved”
for abandonment, “worried” for anxiety, and so on. Secondly I con¬
sidered a sentence describing the feeling, such as, “The child feels—
[fill in the space].” Lastly, I considered statements which would
describe the feelings of all of the people in the pictures. After thorough
discussion and consultation with my colleagues, I selected the second
alternative, with the proviso that I would also experiment with a
story-telling technique similar to that used in thematic apperception
tests. The preparation of sentences for each feeling would require
careful construction and time to work out.
The difficulty in the sentence-building procedure was quite ap¬
parent. It was possible that many different constructions would be
devised for the same mechanism of reaction and so I was involved in
the problem of selecting the best possible construction. Further, it
seemed likely that I would neglect some important items in the pro¬
cess. Thus, misrepresentation and neglect were two serious possible
sources of error. In an effort to ensure against these two eventualities,
full discussion was initiated with my colleagues and some additional
possibilities were selected, raising the original ten to 32. Each of the
32 was paired with a concept so that I had 32 sentences, each repre¬
senting a concept of separation reaction. These were experimented
with clinically and some were dropped.
Subsequently, after many discussions and changes, the concepts
and sentences were submitted to four highly experienced clinical psy¬
chologists, who made a critical analysis of the pairs. Only 16 of these
showed sufficient agreement to be retained. These 16 statements were
then set up as the experimental test in the first experiment.
In 1967, after the first experiment resulted in elimination of some
items and the addition of others, the final total consisted of 17 state¬
ments. The actual wording of these was necessarily varied to suit the
reality demands of the different pictures. Each of the 17 statements
was juxtaposed to each picture but in varied order. Following is an
example of each phrase and the mechanism or reaction which it os¬
tensibly represented:
The child feels—
1. that he will be much happier now. (well-being)
2. that his parents don’t love him any more, (rejection)
3. like curling up in a corner by himself, (withdrawal)
4. a terrible pain in his chest, (somatic)
5. alone and miserable, (grief or loneliness)
6. that he doesn’t care what happens, (evasive denial)
7. that he will do his best to get along, (adaptation)
8. that his house will be a scary place to live in now. (phobic)
9. that something bad is going to happen to him now. (anxiety)
10. that it is all the fault of his neighbors, (projection)
11. angry at somebody, (anger)
12. that he won’t be the same person any more, (identity stress)
13. that if he had been a good child, this wouldn’t have happened, (in-
trapunitive)
14. that it’s only a dream—it isn’t really happening, (fantasy denial)
15. like reading a book, watching TV or playing games, (sublimation)
16. sorry for his parents, (empathy)
17. that he won’t be able to concentrate on his schoolwork any more.
(intellectual dysfunction)
At the end of these phrases an opportunity to bring in other reactions

was provided but this was rarely utilized.
One further important element was introduced into the handling
of the test. To facilitate the mental set (Einstellung) to the mood of
the picture, the child was asked to answer several pertinent questions:
Did this ever happen to you? Yes_ No_
If it never happened to you, can you imagine how it would feel if it
did happen? Yes_ No_
Occasionally, the child would be asked to imagine how the child in

the picture feels. These mental set statements were varied somewhat
with each picture but the intent and effect were the same.
Once having established a modus operandi for the test, the problem
of recording and scoring the responses required attention. How was
the test to measure the reactions to the depicted separation experi¬
ences? What seemed most logical to me was to obtain a measure of
the frequency of each of the 17 reactions for all 12 pictures. Second¬
ly, it would be of interest to see how many items would be selected
for each picture and which items would be most or least emphasized
for each picture. To obtain an adequate scanning device for a total
protocol, I decided to create a chart which could be used for both
recording and scoring purposes. (See chart following test.) To facil¬
itate recording I utilized a number for the items of each picture and
during testing the child was told to give the numbers of the items he
was selecting. The examiner simply encircled the appropriate number
under each picture.
Quantitative scores on the test would consist of (1) the number of
responses for each of the 17 selected reactions, (2) the number of
responses for each picture, (3) the total number of reactions for 12
pictures, (4) the percentage of the item responses over the total
number of responses, and (5) the percentage of the picture responses
over the total responses. In this way I had quantitative measures for
each item and each picture and in addition the percentages of total
responsiveness. Further, I was able to measure the frequency of spe¬
cific items for each picture, thus providing quantitative differentiators
for each picture.
Initially, I was interested in the relative frequency of each item
and a comparative study of these frequencies for different children.
Later, after studying the data, I determined on a study of patterns
based on the conceptions discussed in Chapter 1. These were largely
those which could be conceptualized as ego functions, including ob¬
ject relations, regulation and control of drives, adaptation to reality,
thought processes, defenses, and synthetic functions. Certain super-
The Separation Anxiety Ten 19
ego functions were considered of special importance. Thus, the pat¬

terns selected consisted of problems of attachment need (object need
relations), individuation (autonomy), hostility (regulation of aggres¬
sive drive), painful tension (anxiety tolerance), reality avoidance and
reality testing affects, and identity stress. Superego problems centered
around patterns of self-love and self-esteem.
Items included in the attachment pattern were loneliness, rejection,
and empathy. Those included under individuation were adaptation,
well-being, and sublimation. The hostility pattern included outright
aggression, projection, and intrapunitiveness. Painful tension included
generalized anxiety, phobic or specific fear reaction, and somatic pain.
Reality avoidance was measured by the three items of withdrawal,
evasion, and fantasy. A special selection of 26 responses for all 12
pictures in the test was considered a measure of reality testing—items
which were considered very inappropriate for a picture. Further, one
item was selected to represent stress on identity, while the pattern of
the effect on self-love was represented by rejection and intrapuni¬
tiveness. Self-esteem was related largely to the ability to handle
thought processes, as represented by impaired concentration and sub¬
limation.
These patterns were organized by my research assistant, Mr. Steve
Levinson, and myself in the summer of 1969 and were subsequently
added to and revised while working with my assistant, Adr. Isaac
Pinter, in the fall of 1969 and winter of 1970. I leaned heavily on as¬
pects of psychoanalytical theory, on my own early work in school
phobia, and on the writings of John Bowlby, Robert White, Roy
Schaffer, Peter Bios, Anna Freud, Moses Laufer, Eric Lindemann,
Eric Erikson, Gregory Rochlin, Plerman Witkin, and Martha Wolf-
enstein. At the time of the writing of this monograph, no attempt
was made at factor analysis for the purpose of validating patterns.
Validation was derived largely from clinical appraisal.
Quantitative approaches to the study of patterns were made
through percentage techniques. Thus, the total number of responses
in a given pattern was taken as a percentage of the total responsive¬
ness. Raw data as well as percentage data have been utilized through¬
out the study, as may be seen by examining the tables in Appendix II.
The division of the test into two parts, mild and strong separation
pictures, is discussed in detail on page 50.
On the following pages appear the directions for administration,

the test pictures, the mental set statements, and the phrases to be se¬
lected by the child. The material appears in exactly the order in which
the test is administered. Following the test is the chart which the ex¬
aminer uses during recording and scoring of the responses.
PART III
THE SEPARATION ANXIETY TEST
Directions to the Examiner
Be sure to have a room that is undisturbed by outsiders. Have the child
sit opposite to you. The book containing the pictures and the statements
should be placed directly in front of the child while you have the in¬
structions for the child in front of you. In addition, you should have the
recording chart in front of you.
On the chart write the name of the child, the child’s age, boy or girl,
date of the test, and the name of the facility in which the child is living.
It would also be useful to have the number of years in which the child has
been living in this facility written on the chart.
Read the instructions to the child and then have the youngster open
the book and to the first picture. Tell him (her) to read the title under
the first picture and to study the picture. Then call his attention to the
printed page opposite the picture. Tell him to read the title at the top of
the page. Then ask him to read the questions aloud as follows:
If it didn’t, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes_ No_
Record “Y” for “Yes” and “N” for “No” directly over the Roman
numeral. Then say,
The child feels-
and repeat to him to select as many statements below which tell how the
child feels. Now indicate that he can read the statements to himself and
tell you the number of the statements which he has selected. Encircle
these numbers under the appropriate Roman numeral for the picture.
Proceed in this same manner for each picture and for each page of state¬
ments.
During the examination it is important not to prompt the child in any
way. You must, however, remind him that for each picture he should be
sure to start out reading the statements at the top and read them in order
down the page. It is important that you encircle the numbers under the
proper picture, otherwise the test will be invalidated. If the child asks
any questions, simply reassure him to use his own judgment and to in¬
dicate which statement or statements he thinks apply to the child’s feel¬
ings. If the child selects only one statement on a particular picture, remind
him that he mav select as many of the phrases he may wish. Should the
child be unable to find any applicable statement, ask him to explain in
his own words how the child feels and record this on the back of the chart
with the appropriate number for the picture. Our experience has shown
that this will rarely ever happen.
When you have completed the administration of the test and dismissed
the child, it would be helpful to record your observations of the child’s
behavior on the back of the chart.
Directions to the Child

This is not a test. It is an experiment to find out what young people
feel about some pictures that we have. There are no right or wrong an¬
swers. We are only interested in the way you feel about the pictures.
I am going to show you the pictures one at a time. For each picture
there will be a number of statements about the child in the picture. You
will be asked to pick out as many statements as you wish that tell how
the child feels.
Now let’s begin with the first picture.
PICTURE 1
THE BOY WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HIS GRAND¬

MOTHER AND WITHOUT HIS PARENTS
Picture 1. The boy will live permanently with his grandmother and
without his parents.

If it never happened to you, can you imagine how this child feels? Yes_
No_
Check off below as many statements as you think will tell how the boy
feels.
The boy feels-
1. that he will be much happier now.
2. that his parents don’t love him any more.
3. like curling up in a comer by himself.
4. a terrible pain in his chest.
5. alone and miserable.
6. that he doesn’t care what happens.
7. that he will do his best to get along.
8. that this house will be a scary place to live in.
9. that something bad is going to happen to him now.
10. that it’s all the fault of his neighbors.
11. angry at somebody.
12. that he won’t be the same person any more.
13. that if he had been a good boy, this wouldn’t have happened.
14. that it’s only a dream—it isn’t really happening.
15. like reading a book, watching TV or playing games.
16. sorry for his parents.
17. that he won’t be able to concentrate on his schoolwork any more.
If there is anything else which you think this boy feels, write it down
here.
PICTURE 2
■■
A BOY IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS

Picture 2. A boy is being transferred to a neve class.
Can you remember when this last happened to you? Yes_ No_
Can you imagine how this child feels about it? Yes_No_
Check as many of the statements below which you think would tell how
this child feels.
This child feels-
2. that the new class is a scary place to be.
3. sorry for his past teacher.
4. that if he had been a good boy, this wouldn’t have happened.
5. like playing games with other children.
6. that something is happening to change him.
7. that he will make the best of the situation.
8. that nobody really likes him.
9. that now he is going to have a good time.
10. that it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.
11. that he won’t be able to concentrate on his schoolwork.
12. like sitting alone in the corner of the room.
13. very angry at somebody.
14. like he’s getting a stomach ache.
16. that something terrible is going to happen.
17. that somebody bad is responsible for doing this to him.
If you have anything more to say about how this child feels, write down
here what you think.
26 Adolesce?it Separation Anxiety
PICTURE .3
THE FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD

Picture 3. The family is moving to a nevo neighborhood.
Did this ever happen to you? Yes_No_

If it didn’t, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes_ No_
Now try to imagine how the child in this picture feels. Check off as many
statements below which say what you think the child feels. You may
check as many statements as you wish.
The child feels-
1. afraid to leave.
2. a pain in the stomach.
3. that the neighbors made them move.
4. glad to get away from this bad neighborhood.
7. that it’s only a dream.
8. like hiding somewhere.
9. that the new house will be a scary place to live in.
10. that now he will be a different person.
14. like punching somebody in the face.
15. that nobody likes him any more.
16. that now he can make some new friends.
17. that if he had behaved in the neighborhood, he wouldn’t have to
move.
If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child!
feels, write it down here.
PICTURE 4
THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS MOTHER TO GO TO SCHOOL

Picture 4. The child is leaving his mother to go to school.
You have done what this boy is doing many times. You no doubt have
some idea about his feelings, don’t you ? Yes_No_
Check as many statements below which you think tell how this boy
feels.
The boy feels—
2. afraid to leave.
3. that school is a scary place to be.
4. that his mother doesn’t like him.
6. angry at having to go to school.
7. like joining his friends and going to school.
8. glad to get away from his house.
9. sorry for his mother.
10. like he’s going to be sick.
12. that if he had been a good boy, his mother would let him stay home.
13. like staying home in bed.
17. that somebody else is causing all this trouble.
If there is anything more that you think this boy feels, write down here
what you think.
PICTURE 5
THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP

Picture 5. The child is leaving his parents to go to camp.
Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes_No_

Can you imagine how it felt when it did happen? Yes_No_
If it didn’t happen to you, can you imagine how it would feel if it did?
Yes_No_
Now check off as many of the statements below which you think tell
what this boy feels.
The boy feels-
2. angry about going.
3. that this is a scary place to be.
6. that his mind can’t think straight.
7. like sitting alone in the back of the bus.
8. that someone else made this happen to him.
9. like reading a book and playing games.
11. that something terrible is going to happen to him.
12. that a bad headache is coming on.
13. that nobody really loves him.
15. that if he had been a good boy, his parents wouldn’t send him away.
16. that now he is really free to enjoy himself.
If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down here.
PICTURE 6
AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER, THE FATHER

IS LEAVING
Picture 6. After an argument with the mother, the father is leaving.
Did this ever happen in your family? Yes_No_

If not, can you imagine how you would feel if it did? Yes_No__
Now check off as many of the statements below which tell what you
think the boy in the picture feels. Check as many statements as you
wish.
The boy feels-
1. very angry at the father.
2. that now he is free to do anything he wants to.
3. that his home will now be a scary place.
5. that something terrible is going to happen to him now.
6. that someone else has been causing all of this trouble.
7. like reading a book, fixing something or watching TV.
9. lonely and unhappy.
11. that he is going to be very sick.
12. like hiding away in his parents’ bedroom.
15. that he will try hard to work things out.
16. that he, himself, caused his father to leave.
17. that it’s only a dream—it really isn’t happening.
If there is anything else that you think this child feels, write it down
here.
PICTURE 7
THE BOY’S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR LEAVING ON A

VOYAGE
Picture 7. The boy's older brother is a sailor leaving on a voyage.
Did this ever happen to you? Yes__ No_

Can you imagine how you would feel if this happened to you? Yes_
No_
Now try to imagine how the child in this picture feels.
Check off as many statements below which say what you think the child
feels.
The child feels-
1. sorry for his brother.
2. that if he had behaved better, his brother wouldn't have left him.
4. that this is a very scary thing.
5. very angry.
6. lonely and miserable.
7. that he will not be the same person any more.
8. like sitting alone in his room at home.
9. that someone else caused all this trouble.
10. like playing a game with his friend.
12. that he will try hard to work things out.
13. that something terrible is going to happen to him.
15. that a bad stomach ache is coming on.
17. that now he is free to enjoy himself in any way he likes.
If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child
PICTURE ■ 8
THE JUDGE IS PLACING THE CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION

Picture 8. The judge is placing this child in an institution.
Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes_No_

If it never happened to you, can you imagine how you would feel if it
did? Yes_No_
Now check as many statements below which tell what you think this
child feels. Check as many statements as you wish.
The child feels—
1. that the world is full of bad people who did this to him.
2. that it’s only a dream and he will wake up soon.
3. like committing suicide.
4. that he will go and make the best of it.
6. that the courtroom is a frightening place.
7. like curling up in a corner.
8. dizzy and faint.
10. happy to get to the institution as soon as possible.
11. that he is not very well liked.
12. terrified at what will happen to him.
13. like reading a book or watching TV.
14. angry at the judge.
15. that now he won’t be able to learn schoolwork.
16. all alone and unhappy.
If there is anything else which you think this child feels, write it down
here.
PICTURE 9
vAtti
4|f< ft
• ? • 7, "ft
ii > ki
mMim!
|yE:|o|
THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED

Picture 9. The mother has just put this child to bed.
This has probably happened to you many times. Can you imagine in
your mind that it is happening right now? Yes._No_
Now check off those statements below which you think tell how the
child feels. Check as many statements as you wish.
The boy feels-—
1. angry at his mother.
2. that it’s scary to be alone here.
3. like hiding under the covers.
6. that someone in the family made the mother leave.
7. that now he’s free to enjoy himself any way he likes.
8. that his mother doesn’t stay with him because he’s a bad boy.
9. it’s not really happening—it’s only a dream.
11. like reading a book, watching TV or making clay models.
12. that something bad is going to happen to him.
14. that he is getting sick.
15. that his mother doesn’t reallv like him.
16. that he won’t be able to studv J
in school tomorrow.
17. very lonely.
If there is anything else which you would like to say about how this boy
PICTURE 10
THE BOY’S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL

Picture 10. The boy's mother is being taken to the hospital.
Did anything like this ever happen in your family? Yes_No_

If it didn’t, can you imagine how you would feel if it did happen?
Yes_No_
Now check off as many statements below which tell what you think
this child feels. Check as many statements as you wish.
The boy feels—
1. very angry at somebody.
2. that he will not be the same person any more.
3. glad that his mother is leaving.
4. like hiding in his room.
7. that he’s going to have a bad headache.
9. scared about what is going to happen to him.
11. that nobody likes him any more.
12. like watching TV.
13. that his mother became sick because he was bad.
14. that somebody else caused all this trouble.
15. that his room is going to be a scary place to stay in now.
If there is anything else which you would like to sav about how this
child feels, write it down here.
PICTURE 11
THE BOY AND HIS FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE

MOTHER’S COFFIN
The Separation Atixiety Test 43
Picture 11. The boy and his father are standing at the mother's coffin.
Did this ever happen to you? Yes___. No__

If it didn’t, can you imagine how it would feel if it did? Yes_. No_™
Now try to imagine how the child in the picture feels. Check off as
many statements below which say what you think the child feels. You
may check as many statements as you wish.
The child feels-
1. that he won’t be the same person any more.
2. frightened about what will happen to him.
3. that if he had been a good boy, it wouldn’t have happened,
4. that now he is free to do what he wants.
5. angry about what happened.
6. that nobody will love him any more.
8. that his home will now be a scary place to live in.
9. like sitting in a corner by himself.
10. that other people are to blame for this.
12. that it is only a dream.
13. a bad pain in his head.
14. sorrvJ
for his father.
16. that now he won’t be able to study any more.
17. like reading a book or watching TV.
If there is anything else which you wish to say about the way this child
THE BOY IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME

Picture 12. The boy is running away from home.
Did you ever do anything like this? Yes_No_

If you didn’t, did you ever think of doing something like this? Yes_
No_
Can you understand why this child would want to do this? Yes_No_
Now check as many of the statements below which you think tell how
this child feels.
The child feels-
1. that he is just going away to have some fun.
2. angry at his parents.
3. afraid that he will be punished for something he did.
5. that his parents don’t want him around any more.
6. that the neighbors have been stirring up his parents against him.
7. terrible stomach cramps coming on.
9. that he is only dreaming about this and it’s not happening.
10. that something very bad is going to happen to him.
11. that it is awfully scary outside.
13. like watching TV or reading a book.
14. like going to his hideout.
15. that he won’t be able to study schoolwork any more.
17. lonely and miserable.
If there is anything else which you wish to say about how this child
CHART FOR CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION RESPONSES
NAME_ BIRTHDATE_ DATE OF TEST_ AGE

Picture Number
Feelings and
Reactions I 11 III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII TOTAL
Rejection 2 8 15 4* 13 10* 14* 11 15 11* 6 5
Impaired
17 11 11 1 6 4 11 15 16 17 16 15
Concentration
Phobic Feeling 8 2 9 3 3 3 4 6 2 15 8 11
Generalized Dread
9* 16 1 2 11 -v 5 13 12 12* 9 2 10
or Anxiety
Loneliness 5 15 5 16 17 9 6 16 17 16 15 17
Withdrawal
3 12 8 13 7 12 8 7 3 4 9 14
Reaction
Somatic 2
4 14 10 12 11 15 8 14 7 13 7
Reaction
Adaptive
7 7 13 14 14 15 12 4 10 8 11 8
Reaction
Anger 11 13 14 6 2 1 5 14 1 1 5 2
Projection 10 17 3* 17* 8 6 9* 1 6 14 10 6
Empathy 16 3* 12 9* 1* 13 1 5 13* 10 14 12*
Evasion 6 1 6 5* 10 14 16 9 4 5 7 4
Phantasy 14 10 7 15* 5* 17 3 2 9 6 12 9
Well-being 1 9 4 8 16 2 17 10* 7 3 4 1
Sublimation 15* 5 16 7 9 7 10 13 11 12 17* 13
Intrapunitive
13 4 17 12* 15 16* 2* 3* 8 13 3* 3
Reaction
Identity
12 6 10 11 4 8 7 17 5* 2 1 16
Stress
TOTAL
STATUS: Intake.- Foster Home - Group Residence PleasantviUe-Hawthorne

Other _
PART IV
It is obvious that experiences of being separated from maternal or
paternal figures, when that separation is surrounded by morbid, un¬
pleasant, or cataclysmic circumstances, have to be contrasted with
pleasant forms of separation in which the child can accept and recog¬
nize the gain to be derived. Thus, going to school or to camp have
some compensatory value, the situations are more predictable, and the
family figures are there to return to. Further, guilt is not likely to be
attached to them, and fear and hostility are ostensibly minimal. On
the other hand, separations which involve a complete change—such as
being forced to live permanently with a relative or in a foster home
because the parents have been divorced, dead, quarrelsome, disturbed,
or ill—are another matter.
For some children, however, heightened sensitivity to separation
has arisen at an early age and the slightest evidence of separation, such
as simply going to bed, may produce considerable emotional dis¬
turbances (such as, for example, in the reactions to Picture 9 in the
test). Being alone is apparently highly disturbing for some children
and they are unable to utilize their inner resources without the con¬
stant stimulation of a symbiotic object or its substitute, such as dolls,
objects, TV, and so on.
Theoretically it seemed likely that the degree to which the young¬
ster would tolerate anxiety would be particularly characteristic of that
child, especially in the methods the youngster used to deal with the
anxiety. It was obvious that the stronger ego would tolerate the anx¬
iety better and with less pathological symptomatology, so that the
child would not feel overwhelmed, inundated, or lost. He would
recognize the limits of the situation and permit the anxiety to be felt,
faced, accepted, and dealt with until it was dissipated. The analogy
to tolerance of physical pain should not be overlooked, which is not
to say that a masochistic involvement with anxiety and pain represents
maturity but rather that the honest facing of anxiety presents greater
potential for solutions of problems.
As I moved along with the test I recognized that certain types of
responses would be more frequent than others. I expected that loneli¬
ness, anxiety, and hostility would be quite frequent, especially in chil¬
dren who had not experienced seriously traumatic separation experi¬
ences. I did not expect too great a degree of reality avoidance, im-
pairment of concentration, or feelings of well-being, nor did I ex¬

pect that projection would be particularly strong except for patho¬
logical individuals.
Actually I did not form any specific hypothesis as to what the test
would reveal other than my foregoing comments. I began in the hope
that the test would reveal the mechanisms and patterns of response
which would be predictable with regard to separating experiences,
and I did not pretend to feel that everything about the child’s atti¬
tudes towards separation would be revealed by the test. There was no
doubt in my mind that the test would provide further leads which
would be useful clinically as well as in further research.
There were a number of aspects of the pictures and of the test
which might readily be subjected to criticism. These were, for ex¬
ample, variations in content, color of the drawings, types of state¬
ments used, inclusion of mental set queries, and the techniques for
eliciting responses. Efforts to cope with some of these problems were
made during construction as well as during administration. For in¬
stance, in an additional experiment, 35 youngsters were requested to
answer yes or no to each of the 17 statements for each picture, instead
of simply reading through and selecting the ones to which they
wished to respond. This method yielded so many responses that the
test was voided. The explanations provided in the second part of this
chapter should be sufficient to deal with criticisms of construction
and administration. Since the test method in this area has its limita¬
tions, drawbacks, and disadvantages, it is hoped that there will be
some compensation derived from the interesting results as well as the
clinical material obtained with this instrument.
Chapter 3
SOME GENERAL FINDINGS IN

THE FIRST EXPERIMENT
An unrevised version of the present Separation Anxiety Test was

given at the Pleasantville Cottage School and the Far Rockaway and
Mount Vernon Group Residences of the Jewish Child Care Associa¬
tion to more than 64 boys by my then research assistant, Mr. Paul
Feinberg. The original group ranged in age from 8l/2 through 18 but
data was narrowed down to age 11 through 15, with most of the
children at age 11 through 14. At that time I was so involved in
studying the stories which the children told about the pictures that I
was somewhat neglectful of the data obtained on the association chart.
I was quite disappointed with the stories as many of them were either
purely descriptive of the pictures, tangential to the central theme, or
lacking in meaningful content. After some discussion with the staff,
I decided to abandon this method and concentrate on the data ob¬
tained from the association charts.
I found that some of my earlier predictions were correct and others
were startlingly incorrect. For example, I noted that certain responses
were given more often by children whose psychiatric diagnoses were
less serious than by more pathological individuals. Responses of gen¬
eralized anxiety, feelings of loneliness, and empathic reactions domi¬
nated the scene. Among the more severely disturbed children, evasion
and well-being were rather prominent.
A study of eight boys at the Far Rockaway and Mount Vernon
Residences indicated that the two most disturbed boys had higher
response scores on the latter items than they did in reports of anxiety,
empathy, and loneliness. One ambivalent boy showed an ambi-equal
set of responses in these two group categories. The other five, who
were considered to be among the most amenable to group placement,
49
showed much higher score levels in anxiety, empathy, and loneliness

than in evasion, fantasy and well-being. The boy who in the record
was considered to be the healthiest personality showed contrasting
percentage scores of 29.1 percent in the anxiety, loneliness, and em¬
pathy area and 4.8 percent in the evasion, fantasy, and well-being
area. A study of the relationship between these two groups of reac¬
tions yielded a negative correlation of 0.486. This suggested that
those children who were used to facing anxiety, loneliness, and con¬
tact need reactions would tend to be less evasive, less denying, and
less comfortable in the face of separation. I also noted in this initial
study that whenever hostility was quite strong, especially when the
evasion responses were high, we were dealing with more pathological
personality traits and with the greater probability of acting out.
In this initial exploration I found some internal consistency correla¬
tions by the split half method (App. II, Table 1). The total consis¬
tency coefficient for odd and even cards was 0.885, a fairly reasonable
level of reliability for material of this kind. Most of the individual-
item consistency correlations were in the 0.50 through 0.70 range.
Certain patterns showed fair consistency coefficients. For example,
items of anxiety, loneliness, sublimation, and empathy were 0.74 and
those of evasion, fantasy, and well-being were 0.76. From this data I
began to see rather early in the experiment that the test was showing
a reasonable degree of consistency and there was some indication that
selection of the items by the children bore significant relationships to
their personality structures.
As noted previously, I divided the test into two parts—those pic¬
tures which were generally mild in separation stimulation and those
which were emotionally intense in their implications. The mild pic¬
tures were as follows: (2) “A child is being transferred to a new
class,” (3) “The family is moving to a new neighborhood,” (4) “The
child is leaving the mother to go to school,” (5) “The child is leaving
the parents to go to camp,” (7) “The child’s older brother is a sailor
leaving on a voyage,” and (9) “The mother has just put the child to
bed.”
The pictures which were considered to be the most stimulating
emotionally were (1) “The child will live permanently with the
grandmother and without the parents,” (6) “After an argument with
the mother, the father is leaving,” (8) “The judge is placing the child
Some General Findings in the First Experiment 51
in an institution,” (10) “The child’s mother is being taken to the

hospital,” (i i) “The child and the father are standing at the mother’s
coffin,” and (12) “The child is running away from home.”
I found, as one might expect, that the number of responses to the
pictures containing strong stimulation were generally higher than
those containing mild separation stimuli (App. II, Table II). How¬
ever, this was not true of all the responses. For example, those re¬
sponses which were of a strong emotional nature were more frequent
on strongly stimulating pictures whereas the milder reactions, such
as sublimation, were largely confined to the milder pictures. The re¬
lationship between the strength of the separation stimulus and the
quantity and nature of the response indicated that the youngsters were
responding qualitatively and quantitatively to the strength of the
separation stimulus. This was heartening in terms of the potential of
the test instrument.
Working along these lines I took the data from the first study,
which had been conducted in the summer of 1967, and selected for
comparison two opposite reactions—the empathic reaction toward the
adult (the child is “sorry for the parent”), which suggested a desire
for contact with the adult, and the feeling of anger (“very angry at
somebody”) toward the separating adult or significant person. Among
the various pictures these responses were worded somewhat differ¬
ently so that the extent of the empathic need and the extent of the
anger reaction varied somewhat. I found that the empathic reactions
were nearly equal to the anger reactions on the mild stimulation pic¬
tures (App. II, Table III). When I compared these responses on the
strong stimulation pictures, I found that the empathic reaction had
multiplied three times while the response of anger had multiplied only
twice. I had not expected this reaction.
In an effort to study this further, 1 combined three reactions which
I thought would represent a contact need and these were rejection,
loneliness, and empathy. Under hostility I combined the three items
of anger, projection, and intrapunitiveness. To the 64 cases I added
II from some of the clinic data I obtained, yielding a total of 75
(App. II, Table IV). To my surprise I found nearly the same pro¬
portion and the same relationship of the data as I had found in the
single response of empathy on the one hand and anger on the other.
On the mild stimulation pictures the total number of responses in all
cases was slightly higher in the contact need area than in the hostility
area. On the strong stimulation pictures the contact need was con¬
siderably beyond the hostility reaction.
This evidence suggested to me that attachment need or desire for
contact was more primary and that strong contact reactions to separa¬
tion were to be expected in adolescence, at least in this particular
population. I began to formulate the concept that more intense separa¬
tion experiences resulted in a greater intensification of the contact
need and that hostility intensified to a much smaller degree. When I
examined the above 75 cases individually (App. II, Table V), I
found that three times as many children were dominated by an at¬
tachment need as by a hostile need in the face of separation. I found
later that where hostility predominated over the attachment need
there was greater pathology.
In an effort to determine whether the increased contact need was
related to parentally induced separation, I made a comparison be¬
tween those pictures in which separation was induced by parents and
those which were induced by other circumstances (App. II, Table
VI) . The differential here was small and unreliable, suggesting that
it is the intensity of separation rather than who induces the separa¬
tion that produces the contact need, and produces it at a greater rate
than hostility except in more pathological cases. These results were
exploratory and it would be necessary to verify them on other pop¬
ulations and with more intensive study.
Another interesting finding in this preliminary study was that ado¬
lescents would not readily admit oral distress. One of the responses
in the original test related to the intensification of the need to eat. The
children paid very little attention to this response. (App. II, Table
VII) . Forty-two of the 64 children did not use the response. I
wondered whether this had something to do with the fact that these
children were in group residences where meals were highly scheduled
and excessive eating of any kind was discouraged. Subsequently, I
eliminated this response from the test.
Other forms of regression, however, were more readily utilized
than the oral response. These included withdrawal, evasion, and fan¬
tasy. (App. II, Table VIII). All three of these items showed equal
median responses. Further studies of reality avoidance are presented
in Chapter 8.
Some General Findings in the First Experiment 53
There was considerable variation in the total number of responses.

A few children gave no more than one or two responses to each pic¬
ture, resulting in a total score of approximately 20 reactions or less.
Other children overflowed in their responsiveness to the test and gave
as many as 100 or more responses. It was found necessary to utilize
percentage scores in relation to total responsiveness in order to equate
the responses from child to child. On the unrevised form of the test
the median number of responses was approximately 50.
There was no evidence that responsiveness varied in terms of age
level, but the number of children at each age level was too small to
make any definitive judgments. I was not able to evaluate the differ¬
ences between the sexes because the original study included only
boys.
In the original study I had found a strong suggestion that the pat¬
terns in the test could be used to diagnose children’s reactions to sepa¬
ration. There appeared to be a definite indication that children would
select those patterns which dominated their own emotional reactions,
but this was found only where the children were sufficiently expres¬
sive to reveal them. As on every test, some children are so unrespon¬
sive as to avoid revealing things about themselves, but this was in a
small percentage of cases.
In the case of a Negro girl whom I was seeing for therapy at the
time of this experiment and to whom I gave the test experimentally, I
found patterns of compulsivity, neurotic patterning with strong pho¬
bic reactions, and considerable anxiety, in addition to the fact that
she selected a large number of somatic distress responses. The psy¬
chiatric report indicated that this girl was compulsive and phobic and
suffered from severe headaches. The girl was living in a foster home
and had a black father and a white mother, both of whom were blind.
I was quite surprised that the test would be so definitive in its capacity
to bring out these patterns.
A Puerto Rican child was referred to me privately by a child care
agency for evaluation. She lived in a foster home in which there were
three female children. She was showing a great deal of acting-out be¬
havior, stealing and so on, and the caseworker was unable to get any
adequate material from this girl through interviews. A thorough eval¬
uation with available tests, including many of the usual clinical in¬
struments, failed to give adequate clues as to what was bothering this
girl. Oat of curiosity I administered the Separation Anxiety Test.

The test was so revealing as to provide clues of what was bothering
this child; she showed very powerful attachment need and hostility
patterns, and there were many other indicators which suggested this
girl’s intense need for sole possession of the maternal figure. This
revelation alone was of considerable value to' the caseworker in her
future work with this girl and her family, (More clinical material on
other cases will be presented in a later chapter.)
All these interesting results in the initial experiment suggested that
further work with the test would be fruitful. My research assistant,
Adr. Feinberg, and I therefore spent some timeduring the year 1967 to
1968 revising the test, making some minor changes in administration,
eliminating certain responses, adding others, and developing the girl’s
form of the test, although I had previously used the boy’s form with
some girls. Subsequently, I explored the use of the new instrument in
the clinic to determine its feasibility and its ability to reveal patterns.
Unfortunately, during the year 1968 to 1969 I was diverted from
this work by other demands on my time, so that it was not until the
summer of 1969 that I was able to pick up the research again. In the
year 1969 through 1970 a total of 187 children were tested by my re¬
search assistants, Mr. Steve Levenson and Mr. Isaac Pinter. Of these I
found 157 who were useful for study. I was now able to include many
girls in the study, to specifically select groups of children 11, 12, 13,
and 14 years old, and to see other types of populations. In addition,
blind studies of clinic cases were done.
The following chapters will consist of discussions of various com¬
plexes noted in the test. The findings were obtained in the testing
program carried on at the centers previously alluded to from the
summer of 1969 through June 1970. (See Ch. 1.) In the next chapter
I shall consider the responses to the attachment complex.
Chapter 4
THE ATTACHMENT COMPLEX AND SEPARATION
T he phenomenon of attachment need is a significant concern in this

study. In a previous paper43 I have referred to this need as a develop¬
ment out of the original symbiotic state of infancy and as a residual
symbiotic phenomenon. I have suggested the possibility that all at¬
tachments are built on early symbiotic experience, but various organ¬
izational systems of the ego and superego structure result in ramified
matrices as development proceeds. Thus, I have used the term “sym¬
biotic complex” in a way quite different from the original definition
of symbiosis. I am substituting the term “attachment need” because
it is a more mutually acceptable term professionally and more readily
differentiated from the specificity of the symbiotic stage.
In some ways the use of the term “symbiotic” retains the flavor of
the unconscious mood and need in the same manner as the Freudian
terminology “oral” and “anal” are used to refer to early experiences
in relation to later personality development. Bowlby used the term
“clinging” behavior to refer to an instinctive early infantile need
which is no doubt the forerunner of the symbiotic period (discussed
by Mahler65). Although real fusion in the biological and/or psycho¬
logical sense may not be accomplished through attachment behavior,
it seems likely that true attachment behavior is a later development of
this experience. (See Fierman25 on Helmuth Kaiser.) In many in¬
dividuals real symbiotic need is evident in their attachment behavior
and in their symbolic actions and may be interpreted as a serious fix¬
ation in personality development. (See Norbert Friedman.33)
Attachment behavior is an important aspect of object relations and
as such needs to be given considerable attention in any study of sepa¬
ration stress. It is this need for contact which seems to permeate the
life of man as a species, as he has a strong need to congregate where
55
other human beings are. This is not to deny the need for privacy, for
individuation, and for self-actualization, but rather to indicate that
man’s contact need is powerful, demanding, and persistent. Mo-
dell70(p61-62} states:
We wish to emphasize that the acceptance of separateness, as is true
for the establishment of one’s identity, is never absolute or final. Even
if one has established the capacity for mature love, established a sense
of identity, and accepted the uniqueness of his beloved—there is a
wish to merge, to fuse, to lose one’s separateness. . . . Despite the ac¬
ceptance of the separateness of his beloved, the process of loving al¬
ways contains an element of connectedness.
Studies of isolation have indicated rather dramatically the patho¬

logical results of the deprivation of contact need. This was shown in
studies of monkeys, in the studies of sensory deprivation44 which
have been conducted in this country and in England, and in large
numbers of studies in the social psychology field.
All of those who have studied early adolescence report the struggle
with loneliness, the need for contact, the need to break away from
the infantile relationship to the mother but nevertheless the need to
gratify contact through displacement to surrogate figures and to other
individuals in peer groups. The phenomenon of loneliness has found its
place in the writings of adolescence, especially its poetry. The fol¬
lowing is an excerpt from a poem by one of my 14-year-old patients:
Did you see the searching hand?
Or hear the silent tear?
Or sense the loneliness
You must have
You took the hand,
You stilled the tears
You are a good friend
And I love you for it.
Harry Stack Sullivan90 (p 320 ) suggested that contact need is the pre¬
cursor of loneliness, which becomes an intense emotion of pre- and
early adolescence. He states:
In pre-adolescence we come to the final component of the really
intimidating experience of loneliness—the need for intimate exchange
with a fellow being . . . the need for the most intimate type of ex¬
change with respect to satisfactions and security . . . Loneliness
reaches its full significance in the pre-adolescent era, and goes on rela-
The Attachment Complex and Separation 57
lively unchanged from thenceforth throughout life . . . the fact that

loneliness will lead to integrations in the face of severe anxiety auto¬
matically means that loneliness is more terrible than anxiety.
In my first experiment loneliness was checked more frequently

than any response. I suspect that such loneliness is a manifestation of
the second separation-individuation process described by Bios, a repe¬
tition of the primary separation-individuation process of infancy, and
a perpetuation of the clinging instinct described by Bowlby. This in¬
trapsychic development is a necessary break in the fusion of mother
and child even at the adolescent level.
The strength of the attachment need was strikingly demonstrated
on a vast scale by the behavior of the evacuated children of London
in World War II as described by Martha Elliot.22 Despite the pro¬
vision of excellent quarters in suburbs outside of London, thousands
of youngsters ran back to London to sleep in the tube stations with
their parents even though the bombs were falling all around them.
Attachment need was stronger than the fear of destruction.
In the Separation Anxiety Test the particular phrases which best
describe this feeling in the face of separation are as follows: in Picture
i, the phrase “alone and miserable,” in Picture 6, “lonely and un¬
happy,” in Picture 8, “all alone and unhappy,” in Picture 9, “very
lonely,” and so on. The implication in these phrases is that aloneness is
a very unpleasant, disturbing, and probably depressive feeling. It is
therefore quite different from the withdrawal response which ap¬
pears in the test in such a way that it is a preferred reaction, whereas
the loneliness reaction is obviously an unwanted one.
The second test factor of attachment or contact need is shown in
the feeling of rejection response. Generally, the phrase which ap¬
pears most often for the different pictures is “that nobody likes him
any more.” This problem of feeling unloved in the face of separation
obviously represents a considerable hunger for contact and a feeling
of being denied this gratification. Lastly, an important contact feeling
in the test is derived from the empathic response which was discussed
in greater detail in the first experiment. Here there is a reverse feeling
in which the child feels badly for the parents or for other significant
adults. The separation is then interpreted as a deprivation for the
adult: the adult has lost the child’s companionship. All of these re¬
sponses are of a strong contact nature, and as previously indicated, I
have described these three responses as an attachment pattern.

If we examine the data (App. II, Table IX) on the attachment
need for all of the eight groups of children who were studied from
1969 through 1970, we see that the three responses included in this
pattern account for approximately one fifth to one fourth of the
total number of responses. Specifically, 15 boys from Pleasantville
showed a median percentage of 20.2 percent attachment reactions;
St. John’s Home For Boys, 18 boys, 20.9 percent; Richmond Hill-
Far Rockaway, 18 boys, 23.1 percent; Camp Lou Emma, 15 mixed
boys and girls, 23.3 percent; East Midwood Day School, 15 mixed
boys and girls, 22.1 percent; Public School 194, Brooklyn, 32 eleven-
year-old boys and girls, 21.4 percent; Junior High School 223,
Brooklyn, 27 mixed boys and girls, 26.3 percent. The median per¬
centage for 157 children, mixed boys and girls, was 22.1 percent. No
other complex within this test gave such a percentage with such a de¬
gree of consistency. Further, the dominant factor within the complex
was the response “loneliness” and this was true in every group.
According to the obtained data, there did not appear to be any
specific differences in attachment reactions between the various age
groups from 11 through 15 years which were studied. Slight differ¬
ences between boys and girls were noted, in which girls tended on
the whole to show somewhat stronger attachment reactions, but the
difference was not very significant. Slightly lower levels were shown
by the institutional children but not to any serious degree, and Jewish
children on the whole seemed to have a somewhat higher attachment
level than Catholic children. There is some suggestion that children
in more nuclear-type families in neighborhoods and in types of schools
where this type of family abounded showed somewhat stronger at¬
tachment reactions than others.
If we now consider the struggle for separation and individuation,
what factors in the test demonstrate trends in the direction of self-
actualization and self-development in the face of separating experi¬
ences? How well does a youngster maintain his individuality and
maintain his movement forward during crises occasioned by sepa¬
ration experiences? In the revised form of the test, one of the re¬
sponses included was an adaptive reaction; for example, that “he
will do his best to get along” “he will make the best of the situa¬
tion.” “he will try hard to work things out” and so forth. These
responses represent a willingness to adapt to the situation and ac¬

cept the separation. Secondly, a feeling of well-being in the face of
a separation situation would additionally represent a capacity to main¬
tain individuation. Thus, responses such as that uhe will be much
happier now” unow he is going to have a good time” unow he is real¬
ly jree to enjoy himself” and so on would indicate such a feeling of
well-being and would be included here with capacity to maintain in¬
dividuation in the face of separation. Third, the ability to sublimate
into some activity during the process of separation would be another
such indication. In this category would be such responses as ureading
a book, watching TV or playing games” “playing a game with a
friend” “ fixing things and making clay models” and such. If we com¬
bine the adaptive, the well-being, and the sublimation responses, we
will get a picture on this test of an ability to maintain individuation in
the presence of separation.
As had been pointed out before, we would normally expect that
in separation situations the attachment reaction would be somewhat
stronger than the individuation reaction. This would depend of
course on the strength of the separation stimulus. It will be recalled
that Schaffer82 pointed out that excessive self-sufficiency would be a
limiting and constricting factor in the personality and would be likely
to intensify the inner loneliness from which it originally sprang. If
we now compare the individuation indexes for the various groups,
we see that the lowest indexes were among the children living in
more nuclear family situations and the highest indexes tended to be
found among those in the institutional settings and in children whose
attachments to families were not strong (App. II, Table IX.)
To be specific, the lowest individuation indexes were shown by
the children at Camp Lou Emma (15.4%), East Midwood Day
School (17.0%), Public School 194, Brooklyn (17.0%), and also in
the Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway Group Residences of Catholic
Charities, where children have been recently placed from their own
homes (17.7%). The highest indexes were found at Pleasantville
(22.0%), St. John’s (20.0%), and in Junior High School 62, Brook¬
lyn (20.2%). While the children at Junior High School 223 in
Brooklyn showed a high individuation percentage, (21.3%) it was
nevertheless about five points below their attachment index, which in¬
dicated that the relationship between these tv/o was important. The
only case in which the individuation index was higher than the attach¬
ment index was at the Pleasantville Cottage School.
It has been my experience that on the whole, better-adjusted chil¬
dren showed lower individuation than attachment indexes on the
Separation Anxiety Test. An excessive individuation percentage over
the attachment percentage as we have found in individual clinic cases
is usually an unhealthy sign in the direction of excessive self-suffici¬
ency and therefore increasing difficulties in object relations. The in¬
stitutional settings contain more underprivileged children and among
this group there is considerable evidence for greater self-sufficiency
in the face of separation, although the attachment need may be just as
strong. Obviously, one must conclude that the attachment needs of
these children were not adequately met, with the consequence of the
intensification of emotional disturbance.
There is an opposite relationship that exists between the attachment
and individuation indexes (App. II, Table XI). If one studies the
differences between these two areas in both the mild separation pic¬
tures and the strong separation pictures, there is evidence of a strong
negative correlation in the healthier personality structures. Thus, on
the mild separation pictures the attachment need is less and the in¬
dividuation reaction is stronger. On the strong separation pictures,
the attachment reaction tends to be high and the individuation reac¬
tion low. The differences between the totals of each should be slightly
in the direction of the attachment reaction and we may refer to this
entire relationship as the attachment-individuation balance. One might
use different terminology here and speak of the attachment-separa¬
tion needs balance or the contact need-self power capacity balance.
The semantics are less important than the implication of the balance
between the attachment need and the separation need.
To recapitulate, in addition to the attachment need percentage
(which was obtained by dividing the total number of responses on
the test into the total number of rejection, loneliness, and empathy
reactions) and the individuation percentage (which was obtained by
dividing the total number of responses into the sum of adaptation,
well-being, and sublimation reactions), I have developed the attach¬
ment-individuation balance percentage, which appears to have some
meaningfulness and which also has some qualitative value (App. I).
When we obtained these balance percentages for all of the eight
The Attachme?it Complex and Separation 61
groups studied (App. II, Table IX), we found the lowest percentage
among the 11-year-olds at Public School 194 and the 12, 13, and 14-
year-olds at Junior High School 62. These were 15.9 percent and 9.9
percent, respectively, which gave a median balance of this pubilc
school group of 12.9 percent, which I consider to be quite low. The
institutional and group residence settings consisting of Pleasantville,
St. John’s, and Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway showed a median at¬
tachment-individuation balance of 33.15 percent, which was much
better than the public school group. The best scores were made by
the children at Camp Lou Emma and the East Midwood Day School,
yielding a median balance of 38.7 percent. I was interested in the fact
that the new group of 27 children selected at Junior High School 223
showed a median balance of 38.4 percent, which indicated that they
were essentially a far better group, as far as balances between attach¬
ment need and individuation capacity is concerned, than the other
public school groups. An original discussion with the assistant prin¬
cipal at Junior High School 223 strongly suggested that we were
dealing with closer family ties and more nuclear families in this neigh¬
borhood. This was true of the children at both the East Midwood
Day School and Camp Lou Emma.
From this material I began to formulate the theory that more defini¬
tive structure in the environment but not excessive structure, as well
as a degree of permissiveness but not excessive permissiveness, pro¬
duces the best kind of attachment-individuation balance (App. II,
Table XII). The next best is produced by the most structure and the
least permissiveness, and the poorest is produced in those environ¬
ments in which there is the least structure and the most permissiveness.
We might say that in the best of these groups, reactions to separation
are strong but capacity to recover is also strong—not so self-sufficient
as to exclude attachment potential. Even strong structure does not
destroy the balance, but it does tend to increase self-sufficiency at the
expense of object relations.
There is some suggestion here that a loose environment tends to
disturb the relationship between the attachment and individuation
needs and results in difficulties in discrimination between these needs
where relationships of young people to adults is concerned. From this
material*it would seem that many children in our society are living in
rather loose environments in which their relationships to adults have
been impaired by lack of structure and excessive permissiveness. The

result has been a lack of leadership and a loss of integration and in¬
creasing alienation. This is my own theoretical assumption which I
have inferred from this data but which the data themselves do not
produce directly: they are only suggestive.
There appears to have been some demonstration of the truth of
this assumption from material compiled by Bronfenbrenner10 in Two
Worlds of Childhood. In this study Bronfenbrenner concluded that
there is considerable evidence for a looseness in the American en¬
vironment which has resulted in generally inadequate relationships
between children and adults. He concluded from his investigations of
studies of American children and of Soviet children that in the more
structured type of environment of the Soviet system but with a great
deal of early indulgence from adults and considerable attachment ex¬
periences, the Soviet child has a much better relationship with adults.
Young people in the Soviet Union are considered to be more adult
oriented than peer oriented, whereas American children are consid¬
ered to be more peer oriented. It was Bronfenbrenner’s opinion (in
a chapter called “The Unmaking of the American Child”) that
we can anticipate increased alienation, indifference, antagonism and
violence on the part of the younger generation in all segments of our
society, middle class children as well as the disadvantaged.
What concerned me very much was the fact that when I studied
the 49 children at Public School 194 and Junior High School 62 in
Brooklyn, I found that they were the least stimulated by the strong
separation pictures. The difference in percentage of responses to
the mild separation pictures and the strong separation pictures (16%
and 6%, respectively) was very small in comparison to the other
groups (20% to 26%) (see App. II, Table IX). Actually, the group
which showed the greatest sensitivity to the separation pictures was
the group in the East Midwood Day School (26%), where there is a
rather close family relationship between the children and the parents
largely because of the religious factor.
At this writing (summer 1970), I have just received Vrolume 1
(1969) of John Bowlby’s new study, Attachment and Loss.6 The
first volume contains a study of attachment which is a highly scholar¬
ly attempt to present evidence from animal and human life with
regard to the significance of the attachment need in the life cycle of
The Attachmejit Complex and Separation 63
the child. The overwhelming evidence for the significance of the

attachment need in determining the future capacity for object re¬
lations as well as the capacity for separation would appear to cor¬
roborate the material of this study. Bowlby presented for discussion
four theories with regard to the most primary object relations and is
definitely partial to the theory which deals with the innate behavioral
systems which regardless of nutriment move the child to make con¬
tact—and contact is an essential aspect of survival. As he points out
in his material, the need goes through periods of decrease and in¬
crease depending on stages of development and the superimposition
of other needs. It seems likely that in early adolescence there is an
intensification of this need and youngsters who are unable to fulfill
it in a relatively direct way are definitely in difficulty.
Although Bowlby spends the largest amount of his time on attach¬
ment behavior in early childhood, he does at certain points refer to the
continuity of attachment behavior into adolescence and adult life. He
recognizes that more sophisticated organizational systems develop
and that the individual becomes more capable and more effective in
using these systems to gratify the attachment need. Bowlby6(p 207 )
states:
During adolescence a child’s attachment to his parents grows weaker.
Other adults may come to assume an importance equal to or greater
than that of the parents and sexual attraction to age mates begins to
extend the picture. As a result individual variation, already great, be¬
comes even greater. At one extreme are adolescents who cut them¬
selves off from parents; at the other are those who remain intenselv
attached and are unable or unwilling to direct their attachment be¬
havior to others; between the extremes lie the great majority of ado¬
lescents whose attachments to parents remain strong but whose ties to
others are of much importance also. For most individuals the bond
to parents continues into adult life and affects behavior in countless
ways. In many societies the attachment of daughter to mother con¬
tinues more strongly than that of son to mother . . . finally in old
age, when attachment behavior can no longer be directed toward
members of an older generation, or even the same generation, it may
come instead to be directed towards members of a younger one.
During adolescence and adult life a measure of attachment behavior
is commonly directed not only towards persons outside the family
but also towards groups and institutions other than the family. A
school or college, a work group, a religious group or a political group
can come to constitute for many people a subordinate attachment
figure and for some people a principal attachment figure. In such
cases, it seems probable that the development of attachment to a
group is mediated at least initially, by attachment to a person holding
a prominent position within that group. Thus, for many a citizen at¬
tachment to his state is a derivative oTand initially dependent on, his
attachment to its sovereign or president.
That attachment behavior in adult life is a straightforward continu¬
ation of attachment behavior in childhood is shown by the circum¬
stances that lead an adult’s attachment behavior to become more
readily elicited. In sickness and calamity, adults often become de¬
manding of others; in conditions of sudden danger or disaster, a per¬
son will almost certainly seek proximity to another known and trust¬
ed person. In such circumstances an increase of attachment behavior
is recognized by all as natural. It is therefore extremely misleading for
the epithet ‘regressive’ to be applied to every manifestation of attach¬
ment behavior in adult life, as is so often done in psychoanalytic writ¬
ing where the term carried the connotation pathological or at least
undesirable. To dub attachment behavior in adult life regressive is
indeed to overlook the vital role that it plays in the life of man from
the cradle to the grave.
He6(p 209 ) also has the following to say:

No form of behavior is accompanied by stronger feeling than is at¬
tachment behavior. The figures towards whom it is directed are loved;
their advent is greeted with joy. So long as a child is in the unchal¬
lenged presence of a principal attachment figure, or within easy
reach, he feels secure. A threat of loss creates anxiety, and actual loss,
sorrow; both, moreover are likely to arouse anger.
The foregoing material provides increasing evidence that in early

adolescence we must give considerable attention to the attachment
need. Evidence in psychoanalytic work as well as social-psychological
observations of early adolescence indicate that despite success with
peer groups, the need for adult contact is still retained. It must be
emphasized that this contact does not have to be in the same category
as early infantile experiences and obviously cannot be. What is sig¬
nificant at this point is the whole question of availability of contact.
Perhaps one might borrow a phrase from the business world and say
that contact availability with significant adults in early adolescence
is better to have and not need than to need and not have. It seems
likely that when contact is available and can be utilized at moments
of crises when the adolescent feels moved towards it, then growth
to maturity is facilitated.
On the other hand, we see the necessity for privacy which develops
in the face of separation and this will be discussed further in consider¬
ing the reality avoidance techniques available to adolescents. As has
been pointed out in much of the literature, the availability of surro¬
gate figures to provide contact need is essential to maintain the bal¬
ance of individuation. In a number of my cases, contact need has
been so overwhelming that individuation drives have been blocked
and pathological behavior has ensued. In the test, the balance seems
largely to be maintained between the two responses of loneliness on
the one hand and adaptation on the other hand.
Much of the energy among progressive thinkers and psychologists
in modern society has been given to the relationship between the in¬
dividual and the group. This has been due to the recognition of the
basic need for human contact and human interaction. Witness the
efforts of humanistic psychology in the area of group dynamics. But
it is obvious that contact need itself is not sufficient as a gratifier.
People have a constant need to withdraw for privacy and self-develop¬
ment. It is of course possible, to some degree, to do this within a
group situation, but at the same time we recognize that there are
limitations in the group’s capacity to fulfill both the contact needs
and the individuation needs. Many times contact gratification can be
derived only from one other person, or mainly from that person.
The evidence from my study indicates that there is a kind of seesaw
relationship or a balance of activity between the drive for contact and
the drive for individuation, alternating and depending upon the degree
to which the individual feels separation. The test also demonstrates
that increased intensity of emotional reaction to separation reduces
the capacity for adaptation and individuation and increases attach¬
ment need.
Chapter 5
SEPARATION HOSTILITY
The literature on separation and loss has been replete with studies
indicating degrees of hostility and resentment which are developed
as a result of separation experiences. This has been just as true of
clinical and research studies of early childhood as of adolescence and
adult life. Hostility is obviously not a simple phenomenon. Psycholo¬
gists have long known that it may be a response to frustration of a
major drive, which is probably the most commonly held concept of
hostility, the concept of frustration-aggression. Further, hostility has
been thought of as an unprovoked, indigenous expression of an in¬
stinctive nature. In addition, hostility is often conceived as a response
to threat or fear of deprivation. It has also been noted that hostility
can be an expression of a desire for dominance or control or an
identification with a dominant figure. In all of these, it appears that
hostility is an effort to deal with some kind of pain or threatened
pain or fear of pain. Hurt obviously may come from many different
sources, some overt and environmental and others intrapsychic.
There is also overwhelming evidence that hostility is expressed
in many different ways. It may regularly be expressed as a part of
the assertive need just as other emotional reactions are expressed
through assertion. On the other hand, hostility may be expressed in
an intrapunitive manner in which self-blame, self-castigation, and
self-flagellation may play important roles. Further, hostility may be
expressed indirectly or furtively in such a way that the object of
hostility is not aware that the hostility is directed towards him.
Psychologists also know that hostility is often expressed in symbolic
forms so that the individual himself is unaware that he is expressing
hostility. A significant way in which hostility is expressed is through
66
Separation Hostility 67
fantasy and dreams, which often provide a highly therapeutic outlet

for strong emotional feelings.
In view of the foregoing, it seems likely that hostility in its various
forms will be expressed in separation situations. I have previously
alluded to the classic hostility reactions of young children to periods
of separation from the mother, which have been described so well
by Heinecke45 in his studies of brief separations. In young children
the manner in which strangers become symbolic of the fear of sepa¬
ration from the mother and therefore partake of resentment and
hostility from the child is well known. As I have pointed out previ¬
ously, the violent reaction that some children with school phobic
behavior show (see Talbot92) when efforts are made to separate them
from their mothers in school or at home is a common phenomenon.
Bowlby6 states:
. . . externally directed aggression in separated children is common and
often intense; Could it not be due simply and solely to the rupture
of a key relationship and the consequent pain of yearning occurring
in a young child?
Studies in mourning have produced a number of articles and

books dealing with the rage and the discontent as well as self-destruc¬
tive reactions in children, adolescents, and adults. Martha Wolren-
stein102(p 432 ) has been the most persistent advocate of the concept that
“instead of grief the most common reaction to the loss of a parent
which we find in children and adults is rage.” She refers to the
“decomposition of ambivalence which constitutes regression leaving
the individual poorly equipped to deal with large amounts of un¬
neutralized hostility.” Lindemann59 was quite struck by the loss of
warmth towards other people which was shown by relatives of
people who were killed in a fire at Coconut Grove, Florida.
An interesting report of the development of acting-out and aggres¬
sive behavior in adolescent boys when threatened with separation is
given by Stoefflerss in i960 in a discussion of the separation phenom¬
enon in residential treatment. The study included five boys, 12 to 14
years of age, all of whom had been receiving intensive treatment in
a residential program for a period of five years. Towards the end
of the long period of stay, when the boys were told that in a number
of months they would be leaving the residence, many different forms
of separation stress were noted. Stoeffler says:
The reaction to the separation was by no means limited to sadness
and remorse. The boys manifested much bitter hostility towards staff
members and engaged in suspicious testing of them. It seemed to
them that we had taken away all the security they derived from the
treatment milieu and that we would not continue to help them con¬
trol their impulses. In response, they manifested behavior that had
been characteristic of them before their admission to NIH or during
their early treatment days. All the boys had been fire-setters before
they came to the hospital, but this behavior had subsided consider¬
ably. Shortly after the announcement all but one of the boys became
involved in episodic fire setting and in playing with matches . . . Also
there was a great deal of aggression at the Residence. [Two boys]
fought at their schools to the extent that we had to intervene and
work with the schools on this problem. The boys were often verbally
aggressive toward staff members and sometimes struck out at them
physically. [One boy] began to steal and spent many hours returning
articles he had stolen and talking with staff about why he was doing
this.
As pointed out by Kestenberg55 in 1943 in an article on separation

from parents, many adolescents have a need to retaliate when sepa¬
rated from parents. Retaliation may take the form of acting out or
may very well be displaced upon others.
In recent years I dealt with a preadolescent boy who had been in
a foster home for approximately six and a half years. He had been
abandoned in a rather abrupt manner by his mother at the age of 4,
and he never saw her again. At that time there was no evidence of
grief over the loss of his mother but there was considerable acting
out of emotional conflict, displaced to the foster mother with in¬
creasing intensity over the years. Stealing was also a feature. Finally,
he was rejected by the foster mother and it was at that time that
he was referred for treatment while transfer to a group residence
was under way.
He showed great distress at the transfer and was hostile to case¬
workers and to the psychiatrist. He defied treatment; nevertheless,
he was gently pushed into it. After several sessions I took up the
problem of his displacement from the foster home by suggesting that
he think of a previous displacement in his life. He immediately began
to talk of the experience of being left by his mother at age 4 and
sobbed deeply. He breathed very heavily, gasped, had difficulty in
talking, showed resentment, guilt, and so forth, many of the classical
symptoms which had been described by Lindemann.

For three sessions I raised the problem of his own mother’s de¬
parture and each time there was a repetition of the emotional scene.
Finally, having talked it out, he said he could not talk about it any
more. Once he had drained himself of the emotional stress in relation
to the attachment feelings for his mother, the hostility was consider¬
ably reduced. He himself once told me while smiling, “I got her off
my chest.” There seemed to be no doubt that the long years of
acting out had been in response to repressed resentment about the
loss of his mother. The literature on this subject is filled with case
material illustrating the manner in which repressed resentments about
the loss of a parent are acted out and displaced.
The long-known effort to recapitulate a situation in order to react
more fully to it is as well illustrated in this area as any other. So
many children who have experienced the loss of a parent or who have
been abandoned or displaced from their homes attempt in their be¬
havior to force surrogate parents or caretakers to repeat the situation
in order that they might react to it and change the past. Of course,
this effort is rarely successful in terms of giving them an opportunity
to work it out. Thus, youngsters in foster homes may try to stimu¬
late a foster parent to abandon them or to push them out. This may
even occur in residences and institutional settings.
The displacement and/or projection of resentment at separation
upon other people is a common form of hostility. Sometimes justified
but more often a misinterpretation of the problem, it can result in
severe emotional disturbance if carried too far. Such a$ extreme is
considered paranoid. This form of hostility is common among acting-
out youngsters and is not necessarily confined to psychotics.
It is not unusual for normal assertiveness to be confused with ag¬
gression in a child’s mind, and when this happens, assertive wishes
may very well produce guilt. Such an intrapsychic reaction may
commonly accompany the feelings aroused by separation. In separa¬
tion the child’s normal assertive wishes toward the parent in his effort
to individuate will more than likely be interfered with and result in
difficulties in working through normal assertive needs, which may
then become confused with the resentments felt about the separation.
These guilt feelings are often self-destructive in nature and cause a
variety of intrapunitive reactions, death wishes, and such; suicidal

feelings are at times in the picture.
If we examine the results of the responses to the Separation Anxi¬
ety Test in the area of hostility (App. II, Table IX) using a sum¬
mation of the three responses, anger, projection, and intrapunitive
feelings, we find that the group showing the highest percentage of
hostility was that of the 18 boys at St. John’s and the 18 boys in the
Richmond Hill and Far Rockaway Residences of Catholic Charities.
It is interesting that the lowest hostility responses were shown by the
children at Camp Lou Emma. Generally speaking, the median range
of hostility responses was between 13 percent and 14 percent. This
is definitely below the percentage of the attachment as well as the in¬
dividuation reactions. No group of children showed a higher hostility
than attachment percentage, nor did any group show any higher
hostility than individuation reactions. However, the Richmond Hill
and Far Rockaway groups had almost identical percentages in hostil¬
ity and individuation areas. I was frankly surprised that hostility was
not reported more frequently.
However, in my studies of individual cases I soon learned that
where hostility reactions were higher than attachment reactions, we
were dealing with more severe emotional pathology. The dominant
emphases in the hostility pattern were generally in the anger and
the intrapunitive areas, with projection being third. The material we
find here in the study of hostility is a complete corroboration of the
material found in the first experiment with the unrevised test at
Pleasantville and the Far Rockaway and Afount Vernon Group Resi¬
dences of the Jewish Child Care Association. There was no indication
that hostility was reported more frequently by any age group but
there was a suggestion that cultural factors were of significance. The
children at the Catholic agencies and centers reported higher hostil¬
ity levels than children in all of the other groups (App. II, Table IX).
There was no significant difference between boys and girls in the
expression of hostility, although a sample of girls from the public
schools showed slightly less hostility levels than the boys in the
same schools.
Generally speaking, in all of the groups the outright expression of
anger was preferred to all other methods of expressing hostility
(App. II, Table XIII). In all the groups, intrapunitive reactions were
second to the outright expression of anger and projection was third.
Apparently, projection is the least attractive to the majority of
youngsters. Further, it is of interest to note that the group in which
the percentages in all three areas of hostility expression were closest
to each other was the East Midwood Day School group. This was
also the group in which the outright expression of anger had the
smallest percentage of responses. I came to two conclusions about
this material: On the whole, Jewish children tended to show less
hostility than Catholic children. Secondly, children in nuclear family
situations showed less separation hostility than children in institutional
settings.
It is interesting that Rronfenbrenner10 has been impressed by the
extent to which children who are stronger in peer relationships and
who are more divorced from adults in their activities, interests, and
relationships tend to show more hostility and destructive and sadistic
behavior than children who are closer to adults and have better re¬
lationships with them. In addition to citing considerable data from
experimental material, he was impressed with Lord of the Flies, by
William Golding, a story about a group of preadolescent boys ma¬
rooned on an island. It seems that young people, when left on their
own without adults, soon fall to quarreling, destructive behavior, and
even murder. He10(Dll8) quotes from the Soviet educator Makarenko
as follows:
The very concept of children’s collective is to some degree qualified
since in the life and activity of any children’s collective, one always
assumes the participation of adults. A collective which forms without
adult involvement is not likely to endure. In those instances where it
continues to exist for a prolonged period, then as a rule it gets into
a blind alley. The life experience of its leaders turns out to be inade¬
quate to hold the collective to a right course even if the goal which
the children themselves have set is a proper one.
Bronfenbrenner10 (pll6'117) feels that there is serious danger to Ameri¬

can society because of the phenomenon of segregation by age and
the reduced contact with adult influences. He says:
As we read the evidence, both from our own research and that of
others, we cannot escape the conclusion that, if the current trend per¬
sists, if the institutions of our society continue to remove parents,
other adults, and all the youth from active participation in the lives
of children and if the resulting vacuum is filled by the age segregated
peer group, we can anticipate increased alienation, indifference, an¬
tagonism and violence on the part of the younger generation in all
segments of our society, middle-class 'children as well as the dis¬
advantaged.
He continues with the following statement:

Why should age segregation bring social disruption in its wake? The
dynamics of the process are not difficult to see. However important
genetic factors may be in the determination of human behavior, it is
quite clear that such qualities as mutual trust, kindness, cooperation,
and social responsibility, cannot be insured through selective breed¬
ing; they are learned from other human beings who in some measure
exhibit these qualities, value them and strive to develop them in their
children; if children have contact only with their age-mates, there
is no possibility for learning culturally established patterns of cooper¬
ation and mutual concern.
From my own data, I would raise the question as to whether the

problem is as much a matter of direct education as it is availability
of nurturance from adults, which produces the inner security neces¬
sary to avoid serious outbreaks of violence and hostility. It seems
likely that young people feel the absence of adult availability and
sense the fact that adults want them to seek their own counsel and
be independent. This excessive self-sufficiency produces the anger
and hostility which we see here. It has been seen in adults who experi¬
enced considerable abandonment in childhood and who, as parents,
resent children’s demands and needs.
A group of scientists who have written extensively on the subject
of violence, including Konrad Lorenz,61 Anthony Storr,89 and Hans
Toch,94 among others, have placed great emphasis on the destructive
nature of man, his paranoid quality, his difficulty in living at peace
with his neighbors, and the readiness with which man kills his own
kind. In addition, there has been considerable discussion about man’s
nature and its relationship to his tendency to make war. Yet on the
other hand, it seems likely that peaceful coexistence is a possibility
mainly when there is an absence of fear of deprivation of support.
An individual or a community or a country does not have to make
war when its needs are adequately met and when it has no need to
fear a deprivation of safety.
In summary, it would appear from the present experiment that
hostility is not a primary derivative of separation experiences but is

secondary to the fear of deprivation of contact or attachment. It
is definitely a mechanism of reaction in most children but continues
to remain a secondary phenomenon. In those cases in which the
hostility especially projection as well as intrapunitiveness become
very severe wider separation experience and then exceed in intensity
the attachment need, we have to consider the probability that we
are dealing with serious pathology. To say it another way, when
hostility exceeds the attachment need as seen in this test, it is not
typical for children separated from significant adults but is pathologi¬
cal.
Chapter 6
SEPARATION PAIN
I have selected three responses in the Separation Anxiety Test

which in my opinion are representative of manifestations of painful
tension: phobic reactions, generalized anxiety feelings, and somatic
pain. It seems to me that these would be the major ways in which
tension would be expressed intrapsychically and be definitely painful
and upsetting to a youngster. It is fairly obvious that efforts would be
made to either live with the stress until it is dissipated, to avoid it, to
act it out, or to understand it.
Separation from a significant adult which includes the denial of
positive availability as well as the necessity for increased self-suffici¬
ency, especially when the ego is not ready, obviously must produce
pain which is either bodily or intrapsychic in nature. Tolerance for
pain varies considerably from one child to another. As I have pointed
out earlier, the ability to tolerate degrees of pain within limits is
definitely evidence of maturation and of a relatively better adjust¬
ment.
Much of our literature in clinical pathology has demonstrated
beyond a doubt that emotional disorders are often a response to
inability to tolerate the stress and the pain which are derived from
unhappy experiences. This is more true when the experiences are felt
at a time of life when the individual’s ego is not strong enough to
tolerate it. When as a result of this, pathological defenses are de¬
veloped, the avoidance of expression of pain under stress becomes
extremely essential because it is a recapitulation or reminder of
earlier traumas.
The term “separation anxiety” has been in long-standing use since
scientific observers noted the behavior of children in infancy and
early childhood when they have been removed from their parents
74
Separation Pain 75
either temporarily or permanently. The term has been used in this

form and in variations of this form in much of the literature, as can
be seen by sampling the titles of the references in this study. Some¬
times the term “anxiety” is used, sometimes the term “fear,” and
sometimes “phobia.” Differential use of these terms is found in
psychoanalytic literature. The intensity of the painful experience is
manifested in so many different ways when it is overt. Crying, out¬
bursts of grief, vomiting, headaches, and fears of all kinds are in¬
volved.
Most mental health professionals have felt that these overt symp¬
tom reactions to separation have a strong typical and normal quality
to them and can be dealt with more readily in psychotherapeutic,
educational, or other adaptive procedures than other forms of emo¬
tional reactions to separation. Because these reactions are signs of the
general helplessness which children may feel in the absence of adult
availability at essential moments, it is recognized that the support of
surrogate figures is assuaging and eventually can relieve much of the
pain involved. This is not so simple when we are dealing with patho¬
logical forms of painful tension. We can see the desirability for de¬
veloping a technique to determine the degree of pathological tension
and the limits of normal tension which are present in relation to any
separation experience.
We may well ask the question, When is a phobic reaction exces¬
sive and pathological, or when is a somatic reaction excessive and
pathological, and so on? It is possible that the degree and frequency
of these reactions to separation can be determined in advance by us¬
ing the pictures of the Separation Anxiety Test and comparing the
relative percentage of painful tension responses to what is usually seen
in the general population and in separated children. It is also im¬
portant to determine the relationship of painful tension to attach¬
ment, individuation, and hostility as well as to other patterns to be
discussed later.
Since tension is such a common phenomenon and is expected in
cases of traumatic stress such as separation, we would necessarily ex¬
pect that various forms of tension would be reported in separation
experiences. If such tensions are not reported or reported quite mini¬
mally, one would suspect that there is something wrong with the
mechanism of response to trauma and stress. It would have a similar-
ity to a failure to show a relatively normal reaction to any severe

physical pain, such as being stabbed with a needle or hit on the hand
with a hammer and so forth. It is of course possible that for some
human beings there has been a deadening of the capacity to respond
to pain. We would then have to say that such a person is insensitive,
cold, lacking in responsiveness, drugged, or in some kind of a stupor
as a result of continuous severity of life experiences.
Thus, for example, several investigators, particularly Niederland,73
have reported this kind of loss of sensitivity in individuals who were
in concentration camps for long periods of time. Similar insensitivities
in institutionalized children who were placed in infancy were reported
in 1945 by Goldfarb.38 It is obvious that this kind of insensitivity is
a defense against further pain and at the same time reduces the
capacity for pleasure. Both from clinical material, research, and
theoretical formulations, the evidence seems to indicate that the abil¬
ity to experience and deal with pain and anxiety will indicate a capac¬
ity for development. Obviously, excessive painful tension reactions
are also indications of disorder, whether due to temporary situational
conditions or to long-standing pathology. Severe outbreaks of anxiety
in a teen-ager in relation to school attendance, going to camp, or
moving to a new neighborhood represent a strong vulnerability to
pain at separation. This type of overt reaction is often associated with
school phobia, a phenomenon which has already been so well dis¬
cussed in the literature. (For example, see Coolidge et tf/.13'16)
One would therefore assume that on the Separation Anxiety Test,
the ability to report anxiety, fears, and/or somatic reactions to sepa¬
ration in a reasonable percentage would suggest a degree of health
and a potential for development. A low level of such reporting in
the face of sufficient responsiveness in other areas would suggest a
degree of repression and difficulties in dealing with tension and pain.
It will be recalled that in the first experiment, when I originally
lumped together the responses of anxiety, loneliness, and empathy, I
found high percentages of this to be more characteristic of healthier
youngsters (that is, those who had a better psychiatric diagnosis and
prognosis) than of the less healthy youngsters, who had low levels in
this area.
In the present study of 157 cases, the highest percentage of tension
(App. II, Table IX), as measured by the three responses of anxiety,
Separation Fain 77
phobic reaction, and somatic reaction, appeared in the 15 youngsters

at Camp Lou Emma, that is, 22.6 percent, which was almost equiva¬
lent to the median attachment reaction. The second highest score was
obtained by the Pleasantville children, where painful tension was
20.4 percent, which was equal to the attachment reaction. Addition¬
ally, we found the East Midwood group to have a high tension index
of 19.3 percent.
Generally speaking, groups in which Jewish children predominated
showed painful tension levels very close to the attachment levels,
whereas a few non-Jewish groups showed painful tension levels con¬
siderably below the attachment areas. For example, the attachment
median was 20.9 percent at St. John’s and the tension median was
15.9 percent. In the Richmond Hill and Far Rockaway Residences
of Catholic Charities, tension was 16.4 percent and attachment was
23.1 percent. I was surprised at the considerable difference between
the tension response and the median attachment response at Junior
High School 223, where tension was 14.7 percent and attachment
26.3 percent. Generally speaking, though, there seemed to be a very
high correlation between painful tension and attachment reactions
(+0.94) (App. II, Table X).
In comparing painful tension and hostility reactions, there seems
to be a low negative relationship. However, in differing settings the
negative relationships increase (App. II, Table IX). For example,
at Pleasantville the tension was 20.4 percent and hostility 14.3 per¬
cent. At Camp Lou Emma tension was 22.6 percent and hostility
11.8 percent. At East Midwood, tension was 19.3 percent and hostil¬
ity 13.2 percent. At Public School 194, tension was 17.9 percent and
hostility 14.5 percent. On the other hand, at St. John’s, hostility was
17.4 percent and tension 15.9 percent. At Richmond Hill-Far Rock¬
away, hostility was 17.4 percent and tension 16.4 percent. It would
seem that in some cultural situations tension appears more readily and
is apparently more acceptable. In other cultures hostility appears
more flagrantly.
In all this material I have been impressed with the fact that where
we have evidence of considerable attachment capacity and attach¬
ment need, we find the highest degree of tension in relation to separa¬
tion. This seems to make a considerable amount of sense. The only
group in which this did not seem to hold was at Junior High School
78 Adolescetit Separation Anxiety
223. This may be related to the fact that the median number of re¬
sponses in 223 was only 41, in comparison with the total median of
57 for all of the groups.
We note that of the three available types of responses in the area
of painful tension (App. II, Table XIV), the dominant response of
fear, or phobic reaction, appeared in the East Midwood, Public
School 194, and Camp Lou Emma groups as well as Pleasantville and
these are predominantly Jewish groups with high attachment levels.
The four other groups showed generalized anxiety to be somewhat
higher; the differences, however, were not great. Throughout, the
somatic responses were given the least number of reactions, suggesting
some tendency to tone down the degree of bodily pain. A summary
for all age groups in comparing the relative degree of generalized
anxiety and phobic responses shows that they were practically equal
in their frequency.
Generally speaking, as we study the reactions to the mild separa¬
tion pictures and the strong separation pictures, we note that as with
other mechanisms, painful tension responses increase with the more
stimulating pictures (App. II, Table XV). Nevertheless, one inter¬
esting thing that struck me was the fact that the first picture (with
the grandmother) showed the least amount of tension response in
practically every group (see Ch. 10 on Picture 1), and there was a
strong suggestion here that the availability of a surrogate figure re¬
duced the amount of tension reported. Thus, by and large, although
this first picture is recorded as being one of those with strong separa¬
tion stimulation, it is generally least tension-producing although it
elicits a strong attachment reaction in practically all of the groups.
This tends to support Martha Wolfenstein’s point of view as well as
many other observers’, that in the presence of a surrogate figure, the
reaction to separation is not as seriously anxiety-producing.
I noticed some very interesting data on the relationship between
the tension phenomenon and the hostility reactions (App. II, Table
XV). It appeared that the extent of the tension response was greater
than the extent of the hostility response mainly because of a large
degree of tension which was manifested on the mild separation pic¬
tures. In all of the eight groups the median percentage of tension on
the mild pictures was consistently higher than the median hostility.
On the strong separation pictures, the median hostility was higher
Separation Pain 79
than the median tension response in six out of the eight groups. This
indicated that when separation reached more intense proportions,
hostility tended to be stronger than painful tension reactions.
This relationship would suggest that as separation experiences move
from milder to stronger and more serious meaningfulness, a shift takes
place from tension to hostility. It would appear therefore that ten¬
sion bears a different relationship to hostility than attachment need.
This result suggests that painful tension is an intermediary between
attachment need and hostility. Thus, it might be put in the following
way: As the intensity of separation increases, attachment need is
heightened while painful tension resulting from the attachment need
gradually shifts into hostility. For some children, however, the in¬
termediary would be strongly repressed and there would be no
awareness that tension had preceded hostility. In some children and
under certain conditions it is possible to feel and report both tension
and hostility at the same time.
The latter point can be seen very readily and clearly when we
examine individual case records to see those pictures in which both
painful tension and hostility are expressed at the same time (App. II,
Fable XVI). I found this true in every group that I studied. The
picture that produced both of these reactions most consistently was
Picture 8, in which the judge is sentencing the child to an institution.
Other strongly stimulating pictures producing this effect included
those of the death of the mother, running away from home, and the
hospitalization of the mother. (I will have more to say about the in¬
dividual pictures in a later chapter). In a few groups some mild pic¬
tures tended to produce both tension and hostility, especially the pic¬
ture of the child going to school. Among the mild pictures the St.
John’s group appeared to be especially vulnerable to this picture in
terms of reporting both tension and hostility. This same reaction
was noted in the sample of the group at Junior High School 223. In
general, however, it was much more common for tension and hos¬
tility to be reported at the same time when the pictures were seriously
stimulating.
Up to this point a theoretical fornndation of the role of painful
tension in separation situations suggests that it acts as an intermediary
between the. aroused attachment need and the impulse towards resti¬
tution of the lost object. The healthier pattern would thus be repre-
sented by a good attachment percentage, a somewhat lower but
obviously strong painful tension percentage, and under more severe
separation threat, a somewhat lesser percentage of aggressive hostility
or feelings of resentment, with a smaller percentage in the milder
tests and a higher percentage in the stronger pictures, representing a
movement towards restitution. Insufficient reports of painful tension
in the presence of a significant amount of attachment need and a
heightened hostility reaction 'would therefore represent an insuffi¬
ciency of an intermediary with the likelihood of a heightened ten¬
dency toward impulsive action in an aggressive, hostile way toward
retaliation for failure of restitution. Intrapsychically, however, restitu¬
tion is not achieved and the hostility and resentment take the place
of restitution.
Chapter 7
SEPARATION DENIAL
Up to this point I have indicated some of the difficulties in dealing

with attachment need in relation to separation. The effort to achieve
some kind of balance or homeostasis between the attachment need
and the processes of individuation continues to be an important prob¬
lem during separation. The manifestations of painful tension and hos¬
tility which the ego must deal with during this period show up in
our data and provide us with a theoretical formulation as noted in
the preceding chapter. At the same time it is evident that the ego is
not always prepared for the realities of separation, the ensuing painful
tension, and hostility. Pain is sometimes unbearable and the ego may
find hostility unacceptable. In such a case, especially in early adoles¬
cence, the ego makes many maneuvers to avoid reality.
In a discussion of adolescence in 1958 Anna Freud27 had the fol¬
lowing to say:
The disdnction between the external and internal world, (that is,
reality testing) becomes temporarily negligible a lapse in ego func¬
tioning which manifests itself in the clinical picture as a state of con¬
fusion. Regression of this kind may bring transitory relief to the ego,
by emptying the oedipal (and many of the preoedipal) fantasies of
their libidinal cathexis. But this lessening of anxiety will not be long
lived. Another and deeper anxiety will soon take its place which I
have characterized on a former occasion as the fear of emotional
surrender with the accompanying fear of loss of identity.
Rochlin79 (pl31) states:
The denial of reality, the negation of a loss, fantasies of loss without

recompense, or the turning from despair to elation are common signs
which signify that an anxious process to settle accounts with oneself
is in full operation. Such reactions find their most important expres¬
sion in the alteration of reality. On countless occasions, many of
81
which in themselves may seem trivial, they indicate that escape from
the burden of a sense of loss is imperative. It appears, therefore, that
acceptance of a loss in emotional life is but a philosophic and aca¬
demic concept. It is probably neither a clinical fact nor a human
characteristic.
Further, Model!70 (,p 88 } has this to say:

The problem of the acceptance of painful reality can then be reduced
to the problem of accepting the separateness of objects . . . that they
can be lost. For as I have noted . . . the fundamental aim of magical
thinking is to create the illusion that the symbol and the object sym¬
bolized are inseparable . . . separation, death and castration are
negated . . . the acceptance of painful reality rests upon the same
ego structure that permits the acceptance of separateness of objects.
For a number of generations adolescence has been considered to be

a period when regression and problems of reality testing are common.
When the stress of giving up the infantile object and the search for
new objects become very intense, the ego seeks ways of avoiding the
situation through many maneuvers. This has been pointed out fre¬
quently by Bios.5 It is true that adolescence is not the only period of
life when facing realities of separation is too painful to bear. This is
frequently a problem for adults facing the death of a close relative or
of a loved person. In early childhood the death of a parent is not un¬
derstood by children and it is simply equated with abandonment.78
What then are some of the usual maneuvers to avoid the impact
of the reality of a separation? One of the most frequent is with¬
drawal. This technique is often seen in grief situations—in children
placed in institutional settings,, in group boarding homes, and the
like. Periods of self-isolation seem to be of considerable help to the
ego and appear to increase the individual’s strength until he has be¬
gun to adapt to the new situation. This may be especially true with
children who are exposed to a massive form of separation. A young¬
ster who is plucked from his home, his neighborhood, and his school
into an entirely different situation where the contacts are completely
new in every area of life may well go through a period of withdrawal
in an intrapsychic way. A cautious approach to relationships may
characterize his behavior. Grown-ups during periods of grief may
cover their faces with handerkerchiefs or with their hands when
crying. Sometimes comfort cannot be achieved from others at such
Separation Denial 83
moments but only in a kind of internal restitution of the object

through self-preoccupation. In 1958 Winnicott" considered the ca¬
pacity to be alone for periods of time as a sign of emotional maturity.
Being forced to be alone without this capacity is painful indeed.
Reality may also be avoided to some degree through fantasy and
dreams. These fantasies restore the situation to its former status and
deny the present reality. In his dreams or fantasies the adolescent has
not left his home or his neighborhood nor has there been a death in
the family nor has the separation occurred at all. In the Separation
Anxiety Test, the statement that “it didn’t really happen—if s only a
dream” represents such a reaction. At the same time there appears to
be evidence from the psychoanalytic literature that dreams and fan¬
tasies have therapeutic value in the sense that restitution in fantasy
does bring some support to the ego even if later the harsh aspects of
the separation come to view. The joy which is experienced in restitu¬
tion through a dream or fantasy is recognized as a universal phe¬
nomenon.
Another technique of reality avoidance which is seen especially in
adolescence is an evasion of one’s real feeling. This evasion may often
be expressed as “that he doesn’t care what happens.” Consciously, of
course, the feeling of not-caring may provide a sense of well-being, a
feeling of identity, and a sense of self-sufficiency. It is obvious, how¬
ever, that such a statement covers up the real need for relationships
except in the most seriously pathological cases. It is an especially com¬
mon method of expression in youngsters who act out their problems
and who act as if they are not concerned about what any adult in
their environment may think of their behavior. Therefore to some
youngsters separation may appear to be a welcome relief from their
unhappiness in their present environment. But again this sense of re¬
lief is likely to be short-lived.
The three reactions of withdrawal, fantasy (denial), and evasion
as they appear in the Separation Anxiety Test have been combined
to form an index of reality avoidance. On the whole, approximately
13 percent (App. II, Table IX) of the total responses of a record
would be likely to be in this area. In the eight-groups studied, the
reality avoidance percentages were as follows: Pleasantville, 9.4 per¬
cent, St. John’s, 13.5 percent, Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway, 13.7
percent, Camp Lou Emma, 13.7 percent, East Midwood, 15.3 per-
cent, Public School 194, 12.6 percent, Junior High Schools 62, 12.0
percent and 223, 10.1 percent.
An examination of this data indicated that the high reality avoid¬
ance index at the East Midwood Day School was due in large mea¬
sure to the strong fantasy level found in this group. This suggested
that children from nuclear families find that fantasy is an especially
acceptable technique of reality avoidance in dealing with separation.
In all of the groups, the most acceptable method of reality avoidance
was withdrawal (App. II, Table XVII). In the institutional settings,
evasion was the second most preferred and fantasy third. In the more
normative groups, fantasy was stronger than evasion.
The suggestion from this material is that children in institutional
settings tend to prefer acting-out methods to fantasy in dealing with
separation. This would suggest that the fantasy method is normally
preferred over the evasion technique and, within limits, a healthier
technique of reality avoidance.
What is most significant is that the data in this study verifies the
often repeated theoretical formulation that a certain degree of avoid¬
ance of reality is common in adolescence and is especially true in re¬
lation to separation experiences. As in every other area of human re¬
action, we would expect that extremes on either end would be un¬
desirable. Thus, a very high percentage of reality avoidance on the
Separation Anxiety Test, as I have seen in occasional cases, would be
likely to represent a serious disturbance in reality awareness. On the
other hand, a very low level of reality avoidance would suggest an
individual who is strongly reality-oriented.
I have made a study of the data which deal with reality avoidance
on the mild and strong separation pictures. The highest levels of
reality avoidance appeared with the strong separation pictures, as
might have been expected (App. II, Table XVIII). This was true
of all the groups. The youngsters at the East Midwood Day School
and Camp Lou Emma showed the strongest increase in reality avoid¬
ance from the mild to the strong separation pictures. Further, all the
groups showed strong differences between the mild and strong sepa¬
ration pictures, mainly in fantasy, whereas differences in withdrawal
and evasion techniques were only somewhat increased. The least in¬
tensification of reality avoidance was shown at St. John’s, Richmond
Elill-Far Rockaway, and Junior High School 62. These are also the
Separation Denial 85
very groups which showed the preference for evasion over fantasy.
Another technique which I used to study reality problems was an
evaluation of each of the 17 responses for each of the pictures in
terms of its relative absurdity in relation to the pictorial situation. In
doing so we found some 26 responses for all 12 pictures which could
be placed in this category. It was assumed that a study of these
absurd responses would give a measure of reality testing. On the
average it was found that the children of all eight groups tended to
select between two and three of these absurd reactions. However,
when we compared all of the eight groups on the basis of the per¬
centage of such responses in relation to the total number of responses
given, the lowest percentage ratings were obtained by the children
at East Midwood and Camp Lou Emma (App. II, Table XIX),
averaging 4.25 percent. The three public school groups were slightly
higher, with 4.8 percent and the highest was in the institutional
groups, where the percentage was 5.6. These percentage differences
are rather slight but suggest that the children from nuclear families
with a medium amount of structure and a medium amount of per¬
missiveness showed the lowest absurd emotional reactions to separa¬
tion. We would, of course, expect that a greater number of absurd
reactions would be found in the institutions, which include many
seriously disturbed children.
The reality testing approach as noted in the previous paragraph is,
of course, of a different nature than reality avoidance. It represents
a more extreme loss of ego contact than reality avoidance. I would
suspect that these absurd reactions indicate more severe ego regres¬
sive problems than those found in the reality avoidance area of with¬
drawal, denial, and evasion. The methods and techniques of reality
avoidance may be described as aspects of the character structure. The
absurd reactions are apparently reflections of a disturbed ego struc¬
ture.
The avoidance of facing separation experience through withdrawal,
fantasy, and evasion bears some relationship to other emotional com¬
plexes. Strong attachment reactions in the face of separation threat
are definitely accompanied by reality avoidance measures, whereas
weak attachment reactions tend not to require as strong reality avoid¬
ance maneuvers (+0.58 correlation) (App. II, Table X). In fact, if
the individuation index is strong, the reality avoidance measures are
less in evidence (-—0.38 correlation). This is understandable, since

attachment and individuation reactions correlate negatively (—-0.59
correlation). Further, children who would have adequate attachment
needs but who show greater need for self-sufficiency will use evasion
more often than fantasy as a method of reality avoidance. At this
time, the data show that the increase in painful tension due to sepa¬
ration threat occasions greater reality avoidance measures (correlation
+0.67). A low relationship exists between hostility and reality avoid¬
ance (+0.36 correlation).
It would appear that reality avoidance is more related to painful
tension and attachment need than to hostility or individuation. The
significance of this appears to lie in the nature of reality avoidance and
what it accomplishes. If the child is unable to bear the extent of his
attachment need or the pain of the break in attachment, he will avoid
reality to a greater degree than others. Thus, during periods when
there is heightened intrapsychic stress due to efforts to break away
from infantile objects or if real separation is taking place, we would
expect that reality avoidance techniques would be strong. When ag¬
gressive and individuation reactions are stronger, reality avoidance
techniques are less prominent. This definitely accords with experience
in adolescent growth, although the areas of emphasis will depend
upon the youngster’s individual character structure.
I did not make a study of the relationship between sex and reality
avoidance but it would be interesting to see whether there is a differ¬
ence between the way in which girls and boys react in this particular
area. A study of the various age groups did not reveal any relation¬
ship between reality avoidance and age levels.
The most significant factor in reality avoidance appears to be the
method, technique, and extent of doing so. The differentiator seems
to lie in either evasion or fantasy. When evasion is stronger, we are
dealing with a greater tendency towards acting out. When the fan¬
tasy technique is stronger, we are dealing with a safety feature which
is more therapeutic, more useful in object relations, and more amen¬
able to interactional operations. One would expect that there would
be approximately 7 percent withdrawal responses. These are not
especially differentiating unless they are excessive. It is also true that
excess percentages of either evasion or fantasy, or excess of a total
reality avoidance percentage, would raise a serious question with re-
Separatio?i Denial 87
gard to the character structure. There seems to be some indication

that when high levels of attachment reactions combine with very
high levels of fantasy reactions in the reality avoidance area, we
would be dealing with a symbiotic, psychotic phenomenon. Further
studies of the relationship between reality avoidance and other factors
will be provided in the study of specific pictures and in individual
case analyses in Chapters i o and 11.
Chapter 8
SEPARATION IDENTITY STRESS
In a recent book entitled Between Two Ages, by Brazenski, funda¬

mental philosophical questions were raised as to where society is
heading, who and what we are, and so forth. These same questions
have been raised by a large group of alienated youth in our country,
a group in which there has been a strong desire for closer contact
with each other, a more tribal existence, reduction of the pressures and
tensions of life, and more opportunity to participate in making de¬
cisions with regard to their own future. In the course of all of this,
we see evidences of the tremendous struggle for some kind of identity
and a wish for more meaning to existence. This struggle has been ac¬
centuated by many factors in society, including the gradual diminu¬
tion of the influence of religion, the increase of tension in the en¬
vironment due to such factors as the atomic and hydrogen bombs,
the increased specialization of an industrial and technological society,
and so on. The individual has been lost in the maelstrom of this vast
complexity.
The struggle for identity in youth has not gone unnoticed by
psychologists and has been the subject of a considerable body of
literature. In 1955 Gordon Alport,2 summarizing his ideas on de¬
velopment, spent some time discussing what he called the uPro-
prium ” in which he included the bodily sense, self-identity, ego en¬
hancement, ego extension, rational agent, self-image, appropriate
striving, and lastly, the knower. The whole question of the impor¬
tance of the self or the sense of self was recognized as essential to psy¬
chology. Karen Horney48 spoke of self-realization, Maslow67 of self-
actualization, and White98 of identification process, the incorporation
of imitative experiences, and self-esteem. In Identity, Youth and Crisis,
Erikson23 asked the question:
88
Separation Identity Stress 89
Is identity, then, the mere sum of early identifications, or it it merely

an additional set of identifications? The fact is that identification as
a mechanism is of limited usefulness. Children at different stages of
their development identify those part aspects of people by which
they themselves are most immediately affected, whether in reality or
fantasy. Their identifications with parents, for example, center in
certain overvalued and ill understood body parts, capacities and role
appearances. These part aspects furthermore, are favored not because
of their social acceptability (they often are everything but the par¬
ents’ most adjusted attributes) but by the nature of infantile fantasy
which only gradually gives way to more realistic judgment. In later
childhood the individual is faced with a comprehensive hierarchy of
rules, from the youngest siblings to the grandparents and whoever
else belongs to the wider family. All through childhood this gives
him some kind of a set of expectations as to what he is going to be
when he grows older. Very small children identify with a number of
people in a number of respects and establish a kind of hierarchy of
expectations which then seeks verification later on in life. That is
why cultural and historical change can prove so traumatic to identity
formation as it can break up the inner consistency of a child’s hier¬
archy of expectations.
Erikson continues with the following:
Identity formation finally begins where the usefulness of identification

ends. It arises from the selective repudiation and mutual assimilation
of childhood identifications and their absorption in a new configura¬
tion, which, in turn, is dependent on the process by which a society
does this, often through sub-societies, identifies the young individual
recognizing him as somebody who had to become the way he is and
who, being the way he is, is taken for granted. The community, often
not without some initial mistrust, gives such recognition with a dis¬
play of surprise and pleasure in making the acquaintance of a newly
emerging individual.
We can see here how much influence Erikson ascribes to the role of
community in relation to recognition of the individual for what he is.
He continues as follows:
The final identity, then, as fixed at the end of adolescence, is super-
ordinated to any identification with individuals of the past: it includes
all significant identifications, but it also alters them in order to make
a unique and reasonable coherent whole of them.
The evidence indicates that the sense of identity is not a unitary

process but is a complex of many factors. Psychoanalysts differ among
themselves in definition and formulation, while other psychologists

have their own theories. We seem to know much more whenever a
person loses or is threatened with the loss of his sense of identity such
as in amnesia, psychosis, drug stimulation, and alcoholism. Yet all in¬
dividuals from childhood on appear to suffer at times from a threat
to a sense of identity. A child leaving home for school or camp to be
in a group, the loss or disappearance of a close relative, a move to an
entirely different environment, the loss of a vocation, illness, place¬
ment in a concentration camp, prison, institution, or the approach of
death—all seem to be associated with all the contacts which place a
person in a particular style of life, in a particular milieu, in a par¬
ticular physical body. (See also discussion of Witkin in Ch. 2.)
Whatever disrupts this state of being provides a threat to identity.
But throughout all this, there is no doubt that the maintenance of
some kind of object constancy in the intrapsychic life is an important
factor in maintaining one’s identity.
The ability to maintain this sense of one’s actual style and basic
bodily sense during the above-mentioned crises indicates the strength
of self-identity. In early adolescence it is almost impossible to avoid the
threat to identity precisely because of bodily change and necessary
external reality changes. In the midst of this threat, our data has thus
far demonstrated how necessary the availability of adult contact is to
maintain self-identity.
Confusions in identity are no doubt actually confusions in con-
flictive environmental and relational experiences. The pathological
nature of such confusions are of course of considerable importance
to psychologists working clinically. The resultant confusion of roles,
confusion of direction, and confusion of thought processes no doubt
immobilize the ego in its struggles with the environment. Nowhere
is this opportunity for confusion of roles demonstrated more clearly
than in adolescence. As has been pointed out previously, the struggle
which the adolescent makes to break with infantile object relations
and to displace these relations both on peers and other adults suggest
that identity crises would be likely to occur at this stage. Sometimes
these crises are of such a nature as to alter the entire course of de¬
velopment.
We can see that the struggle with identity does have a relationship
to attachment needs, to individuation capacity, to levels of painful
anxiety, to struggles with aggression and hostility, and to maintain¬

ing sufficient reality contact for ego functioning. For those who ac¬
cept separation from close persons too readily or for traumatic rea¬
sons appear to eschew or be suspicious of close contact, the self-iden¬
tity appears to be constricted and barren. We must ask the question,
Does the recognition of identity stress indicate both the fear of loss
and the search for a more mature style of life? Further, does the lack
of such recognition in early adolescence indicate immaturity or alien¬
ation or both?
Bios 5(pl67) says:
. . . physical separateness from the parent or the polarization with the

past through change in social role, style of dress and grooming,
special interests and moral choices often represent the only means
by which the adolescent can maintain his psychological integrity
during some critical stages of individuation process.
The greatest threat to identity in adolescence comes from what

Bios has described as the “regressive pull,” which obviously is re¬
lated to the intensity of infantile attachments. The maintenance of
identity must come through all the techniques used to defend against
internal regressive pull. This same concept appears in Erikson’s work.
It is for the foregoing reasons that I have included an identity stress
response in the Separation Anxiety Test. It is of course too much to
expect that a single response will have that much significance in
terms of the totality of the problem of identity. I have attempted,
however, to relate this particular response to many other patterns
within the framework of the test to determine its usefulness and
validity in understanding the crisis of separation.
In the test, the response appears as follows: “that he won’t be the
same person anymore,” “that something is happening to change him,”
“that now he will be a different person,” and so on. I have taken this
response by itself as it is baldly and obviously a sense of change in
It was rather surprising to see the degree to which this response

was reported by all of the eight groups studied in the 1969-70 ex¬
periment. The median frequency for the selection of this response on
12 pictures for 157 children was 8.5 percent (App. II, Table IX).
Generally speaking, the response was given with as much frequency
as the single response anger, generalized anxiety, or empathy. An-
other interesting phenomenon with regard to the frequency of the

identity stress response was the fact that the older children in the
group tended to show a heightened frequency in this area, which
suggested that identity stress increases at least through the age of 14.
My normative data are not sufficient to trace this beyond that point. It
is also interesting that the greatest amount of identity stress on the
whole was shown on Picture 11, the death of the mother. (Com¬
pare App. II, Tables XXV through XXXVI.) This situation was
found to be true for six out of the eight groups, and the lowest iden¬
tity stress reaction appeared on Picture 9, which dealt with the mother
leaving the child to go to sleep. Generally speaking, identity stress
responses were much greater on the strong stimulation pictures than
on the mild pictures.
A study of the shift in identity stress responses from the mild to
the strong pictures indicated that the nuclear family groups showed
a much stronger shift in identity stress (median difference between
mild and strong stimulation 40 percent) than the institutional groups
(median difference between mild and strong stimulation 24 percent)
(App. II, Table XX). There is a strong indication that the best
groups in terms of general adjustment show the greatest shift in
identity stress from mild to strong pictures. The institutional groups
are next lowest in sensitivity and the groups at Public School 194 and
Junior High School 62 were least sensitive. This sensitivity to shift in
identity stress is quite similar in a number of respects to the shift in
painful tension noted in Chapter 7. Since areas of disturbed emotion¬
ality tend to increase or be transformed when separation is more in¬
tense, it becomes of interest to know where the greatest emphasis in
the shift lies—whether in painful tension, hostility, identity stress, in¬
tellectual functioning, or combinations of these.
Correlations between identity stress responses and the other signif¬
icant complexes previously discussed were interesting in the sense
that identity stress seemed more closely related to the reality avoid¬
ance complex than to any of the others, having a correlation of +0.69
(App. II, Table X). Positive correlations of a somewhat lower nature
also existed between identity stress and hostility (+0.52), identity
stress and tension (+0.47), and identity stress and attachment need
(+0.45). The correlation between identity stress and individuation
was in the low minus area (—0.22), but is to be noted that the in-
dividuation responses generally correlated negatively with most of

the other complexes.
The fact that identity stress is so closely related to reality avoid¬
ance should not come as a surprise. There is no doubt from clinical
material and from reports in the literature (Buxbaum,12 Meier,69
Speigel86) that a sense of internal change in one’s personality produces
a sense of unreality. This feeling of unreality may then be easily dis¬
placed. One would therefore have to consider this to be more of a
confusion in identity, which creates a wish to temporarily withdraw
from reality or to avoid it in some other way, through dreams or eva¬
sion. There did not appear to be any strong evidence of cultural dif¬
ferences in identity stress or of differences between boys and girls.
The only interesting phenomenon was the rather excessive identity
stress shown by the Junior High School 62 group. In general, it ap¬
peared that this group seemed severely threatened, as was noted by
the very low attachment-individuation balance.
The evidence of identity stress in this study strongly suggests that
children of all ages and in all kinds of groups show strong feelings of
concern about internal personality change which takes place in the
face of separation. Since this is found in normative data as well, it is
a strong indication that in the process of giving up the infantile love
object, the majority of youngsters experience a disruption in the self-
image and a confusion of identity. This seems to be strongly associ¬
ated with reality avoidance and to a lesser degree with other emotional
complexes including attachment need, tension, and hostility.
Chapter 9
SEPARATION, SELF-LOVE, AND SELF-ESTEEM
I n Chapter i , I alluded to the loss of self-esteem I have seen in many

patients undergoing separation experiences or the threat of depriva¬
tion of a love object. Ordinarily one would expect that the effects of
separation experiences would be largely related to the loss of love
objects, the loss of narcissistic supplies, the loss of attachment con¬
tact, and an intensification of a considerable complexity of feelings.
The question as to why self-esteem should be affected is an interesting
one. It requires that we deal with the question of ego strength rather
than purely the question of identity and self-image. Yet we know
from experience in clinical cases the frequency with which young
people lose interest in their work and have their feelings of adequacy
threatened, resulting in a diffusion of identity.
In the fourth edition of the Psychiatric Dictionary edited by
Hinsey, Leland, and Campbell (1970), the following definition of
self-esteem is given:
A state in which narcissistic supplies emanating from the superego
are maintained so that the person does not fear punishment or aban¬
donment by the superego. In other words, self esteem is a state of
being on good terms with one’s superego. Pathological loss of self
esteem is characteristic of clinical depression.
Actually, this definition relates largely to Freud’s earlier consider¬

ations dealing with narcissism.32 Freud, in his concern with develop¬
ing the libido theory, developed distinctions between narcissistic and
object libido. Now this idea that self-esteem is a function of nar¬
cissistic libido or of self-love was countered by Adler,3 who was
concerned with mastery as an important phenomenon of self-esteem
and self-respect. (See also Murphy,72 Ch. 1-4 and 13-15.) Further, Sil-
verberg85 took an important step in the direction of pointing out that
94
Separation, Self-Love, and Self-Esteem 95
self-esteem is related to the experience of assertiveness. The idea that

self-assertive qualities which achieve constructive values in the envi¬
ronment are an important characteristic of self-esteem has been devel¬
oped theoretically by Robert White.98 His theory of independent ego
energies as something different from aggressive instinctual energy is an
expansion of Silverberg’s original ideas. White98 (pl30) points out that
self-love and self-esteem are partly independent variables, although
they often manifest themselves in close relation. He states:
A person may at once love himself for his beauty and respect himself
for his competence, in which case the attitudes will reinforce one
another and be difficult to separate. In similar fashion there may be a
concurrence of sense of incompetence and feeble self love, with each
new manifestation of inefficiency tending to block any increase of
narcissistic cathexis. I should suppose that self love and self esteem,
both involving positive objects towards oneself would go together
more often than not, but correlation, unless it is perfect does not
signify identity. If we can point to types of personality in which self
esteem is definitely stronger than self love, or the reverse, we are
establishing at least a partial independence between the two variables.
White98 (pl34'136) proceeded to demonstrate this point by case pre¬

sentations from various monographs. He came to the conclusion that
self esteem, then, has its taproot in the experience of efficacy. It is not
built merely upon what others do or what the environment provides.
From the very start it is based on what one can make the environ¬
ment provide, even if it is only through more vigorous sucking or
loudly sustained cries. In the infant’s actuality, the feeling of efficacy
is regulated bv the success or failure of his efforts, for he has no
knowledge of what else may be affecting the environment’s response.
From this point onward self esteem is closely tied to feelings of effi¬
cacy, and, as it develops, to the more general cumulative sense of
competence. It is constantly undergoing modification as the child
directs his efforts toward manipulative activity, locomotor accom¬
plishments, mastery of language, and assertion of his desires with
respect to others. It moves up or down as social roles are tried out
and as identifications are attempted . . . understanding self esteem
means understanding the history of action and its consequences.
White goes on to point out that

self esteem is then influenced bv the evaluations received from others;
through their acts and attitudes he learns how they perceive him and
is influenced to perceive himself in the same way.
Further,
it is a virtue of this point of view, I think, that we can recognize the
formative importance of external sources of self esteem without los¬
ing sight of the child’s part in regulating their flow. For this oddly
one sided notion that self esteem is regulated by the income of nar¬
cissistic supplies we can substitute the more realistic image of mutual
regulation.
And finally, White points out that

by anchoring self esteem to experiences of efficacy and competence
it allows us to maintain the distinction between self esteem and self
love. By directing attention to the actual history of the growth of
competence through transactions with the environment, it permits
us to detect various stages of the child's fantasies of omnipotence, thus
freeing us from the difficulty of referring all later interest in power to
the earliest months of life when power could be experienced only
dimly.
In this area, we are therefore dealing on one hand with the prob¬
lem of self-love, which is related to the superego structure and is de¬
scribed in the definition mentioned earlier and which was developed
from Freudian psychoanalytic theory, and on the other hand with
the problem of the whole history of the experience of efficacy and
competence. In the Separation Anxiety Test, these two character¬
istics appear in some of our responses. On the one hand that concept
which deals with self-love is reflected in the responses of rejection and
intrapunitiveness, in the sense that experiences of separation would
produce such reduction in self-love. On the other hand, those re¬
sponses dealing with intellectual output in relation to separation and
which would reflect White’s concept of competency are those which
deal with either the impairment of concentration or a capacity for sub¬
limation. I shall attempt to cover both of these areas in relation to the
children studied as related aspects to the effects of separation on
superego, self-evaluation, and self-esteem.
The rejection response which has been discussed before in con¬
nection with the attachment need appears in the test as “his parents
don’t love him anymore,” or one of a similar nature. The intrapuni-
tive experience utilizes such responses as “if she had been a good girl,
this would not have happened” and so on. Both of these responses
have a strong self-deprecating tone and suggest a reduction in self-
love. When these two responses are taken together as a percentage of
the total number of responses, we find that the children in some of the
institutions showed very strong losses in self-love: Richmond Hill-
Far Rockaway, 10.4 percent and St. John’s, 9.0 percent. The group
at Junior High School 223 showed a loss of 5.9 percent. Mild trends
indicated that self-love loss was somewhat greater in the groups
forced into stronger self-sufficiency. (App. II, Table XXI)
Children in more normative settings and those in nuclear family
and tribal settings show somewhat less self-love loss. The group show¬
ing the highest attachment-individuation balance demonstrated the
lowest loss of self-love. The group showing the lowest attachment-
individuation balance indicated the highest percentage of self-love
loss. The correlation between these two factors in the eight groups
was —0.76. This suggests that children with good capacity to main¬
tain a balance between object relations and personal individuation
tend to feel less self-depreciation during separation experiences.
Whether or not it is this balance which acts as protector is something
to study further, but it appears as a definite possibility.
When a study was made of the mild and strong pictures separately,
the same result was obtained as on the total number of pictures in the
area of self-love loss. All groups showed a stronger self-love loss on
the strong pictures than on the mild pictures, but the shift did not
show any definitive trend. However, there was evidence that the
more acting-out youngsters showed more preoccupation with self-
love loss than the more normative ones (App. II, Table XXI).
We may now turn to the question of self-esteem or feelings of
competence as demonstrated in the test by impairment of concentra¬
tion or by sublimation. The former response consisted of the phrases,
‘‘that he won’t be able to concentrate on his schoolwork,” “that his
mind can’t think straight,” “that now he won’t be able to learn school-
work,” “that now he won’t be able to study anymore,” and so forth.
Such a response indicates the sensitivity of the intellect to operating
within the framework of an important setting of the child’s life, that
is, the school. On the other hand the sublimation response, which has
been discussed in terms of the individuation pattern in a previous
chapter, would represent a more positive approach and would sug¬
gest an increase in self-esteem or its maintenance. We would expect
that both‘of these responses would alternate in a balanced relation¬
ship. Impaired concentration would increase with the intensity of
the separation pictures and sublimation would decrease with such

intensity. In such a case, we would be dealing with a balance of self¬
esteem.
The balance between the impaired concentration response and the
sublimation response is an interesting construction. I have termed
this balance in the test “intellectual sensitivity to separation.” The
notion behind this lies in the interest a child may show in these re¬
sponses. There are two aspects to this test relationship: (i) the
total number of responses in these categories and (2) the balance on
mild and strong pictures. When the balance is disturbed in relation to
the strength of the stimulus, then we can see improper intellectual
functioning even in slight separation situations. A high level of pre¬
occupation with the intellectual functions on the test would suggest
intellectual sensitivity, that is, the extent to which separation affects
intellectual activity.
The data (App. II, Table XXII) for all age groups indicate that
the impairment of concentration definitely increases from the mild
to the strong pictures, with the increase being generally greater in
several of the public school groups, that is, 194 and 223, as well as in
the Camp Lou Emma group. Generally speaking, then, the loss of
self-esteem or sense of competence as stimulation increases is greatest
in the public school children and in the better-selected children. The
children on the other hand who have been placed in institutional set¬
tings, in contrast, show a definitely lessened increase, at a rate of one-
half that of the others. This greater reduction in self-esteem or sense
of competence due to separation in the nonplaced children suggests
that the normal children depend for support on the parental figures
for self-esteem. The placed children apparently have to some degree
learned to depend more on self-sufficiency. We see that in this area
there is a considerable difference between the self-esteem and the
self-love reactions. Self-esteem seems to move along with the sense of
self-sufficiency and the lack of apparent interest in adult support.
In Appendix II, Table XXII, it is quite evident that there is a strong
negative relationship between impairment of concentration and sub¬
limation, resulting in the balance described above. The main data in¬
dicate that on the mild separation pictures, the number of sublima¬
tion responses for the 157 youngsters is slightly more than twice the
impaired concentration responses. On the strong separation pictures
the number of impaired concentration responses is almost six times

the number of sublimation responses. There appears to be little dif¬
ference among the various groups in the use of the sublimation re¬
sponse when we examine the frequency' per child, except for the 11 -
year-olds at Public School 194. In this group there was a greater ten¬
dency to both sublimation and impaired concentration. Thus, in¬
tellectual sensitivity to separation appears greater in relation to other
reactions in the younger children.
It was previously noted that a strong correlation exists between
attachment need and impairment of concentration. This suggests that
those youngsters who indicate strong difficulties in concentration and
thinking in relation to separation are also likely to feel more serious
frustrations of attachment need, especially loneliness. At the same time
reality avoidance is likely to be strong. From clinical experience we
know that it is likely to occasion restless behavior, with impatience
and lack of interest when alone.
The intellectual sensitivity balance which was derived from the
data of Table XXII and appears in Table XXIII of Appendix II in¬
dicates that the institutional groups tend to be slightly less sensitive to
concern about competency than the normative population, except
for the sample at junior High School 6 2. This trend is the opposite
to that of the self-love loss.
Our total data suggest that there is a decrease of both self-love and
self-esteem in the presence of separation, especially as the separation
becomes more intense. The extent of such shifts in self-evaluation
vary from group to group. Self-love seems to shift much more readily
with the placed and disturbed children than with the normative
group. Self-esteem and intellectual sensitivity to separation shift more
readily in the normative group than in the more pathological group.
From this one would have to conclude that in displaced children
separation has been more damaging to their capacity for self-love
than it has to their feelings of self-esteem or self-regard.
Apparently the placed children tend to be more concerned with
self-love than with self-regard, with the obvious probability that
self-love is the area which has been fed least in these children and
therefore the area in which they are most needful. It is also important
to note that for such children there is apparently less preoccupation
with intellectual achievement. To say it in another way, the placed
children are generally not on as good terms with their superegos as

the normative group. Their lessened concern with intellectual func¬
tioning and their greater concern with both inner and outer love ex¬
periences is no doubt one of the fundamental aspects that led to place¬
ment for many of them.
Unfortunately at this point, I do not have differentiating data for
different groups of placed children in terms of the reasons for place¬
ment. From the aforegoing data, however, I would strongly suspect
that those children whose placement has been necessitated by factors
external to their behavior and to their own intrapsychic problems
would show reactions more similar to those who have not been sepa¬
rated from their homes. It remains a moot question, however, to what
degree situational factors have influenced the test results.
I am now impressed with the concept that separation experiences
at the adolescent level which are largely intrapsychic and not geo¬
graphical in nature are generally likely to have more effect on self¬
esteem than on self-love. This may be due to the degree of object
constancy which is maintained during the period of intrapsychic
separation from the infantile object and displacement toward others.
This definitely helps to maintain the capacity for self-love. The many
attacks on self-love which occur during this period are more likely to
be related to changes in bodily appearance, experiences with peers,
and so on than to the intrapsychic separation, which is a necessary
occurrence for maturation. Self-esteem on the other hand seems to
be much more vulnerable to separation experiences. Therefore, there
may be considerable fluctuation in successes in schoolwork—as well
as in social communication and general feelings of competency and
effectiveness.
At the same time it seems likely that individuals with more patho¬
logical damage, as a result of inadequate narcissistic supplies in family
life and of some severe separation experiences, will be strongly in¬
volved with the problem of self-love. While it is true that self-esteem
is also damaged, it is of lesser preoccupation. Thus it is that greater
narcissistic as well as regressive involvement with more primitive
love needs is characteristic of displaced adolescents. This distinction
may be useful in dealing with adolescents who come to the attention
of child care agencies.
Another facet of this material relates to White’s theories.98 There
Separation, Self-Love, #72<i Self-Esteem 101
seems to be some indication here that White’s differentiation between

self-esteem, which he describes as a feeling of efficacy and compe¬
tence, and self-love, which has usually been described as self-esteem
in terms of superego factors, has validity. I have considered following
up this entire question by making a more intensive study of feelings
of efficacy. I have made a beginning in this area by constructing a
test of feelings of effectiveness. This test consists of a series of
statements which the adolescent is able to accept or reject in various
ways and which relate to the degree of effectiveness which he feels
in three areas: social communication, manipulation of activities, and
lastly, control of inner impulses. The effort is made to evaluate feel¬
ings about his own ability to be effective in these three areas. Further
studies with this evaluation instrument may provide us with increased
understanding of self-esteem in young adolescents.
Chapter 10
A STUDY OF VARIOUS SEPARATION PICTURES
A study of each of the pictures which comprise the separation eval¬

uation method is of interest here because some of them seem to have
both interesting quantitative results and rather suggestive diagnostic
implications. I shall examine the results which were obtained for each
picture in the various areas indicated in the preceding chapters.
These would include attachment-individuation, hostility, painful ten¬
sion, reality avoidance, identity stress, self-love, and self-esteem
reactions. 1 shall take each picture in the order in which it is presented
to the child and indicate the extent to which different factors are
emphasized. (For data of all pictures, see App, II, Table XXIV".)
Picture 1. The child will live permanently with the grandmother

and without his parents. This picture results in a strong attachment
response for the group of 157 children (App. II, Table XXV). The
attachment percentage is 33.9 percent but there are, of course, four
other pictures which exceed this picture in attachment response. A
comparison of the different groups indicated that only at the St.
John’s Home for Boys was the attachment percentage equaled by
any other complex, that is, hostility. We conclude that Picture 1
is a highly attachment-mood—inducing picture. Secondarily, Picture
1 shows strong reality avoidance reactions, but in four groups, this
is exceeded by other factors. Generally, reality avoidance on this
picture shows up secondarily in normative groups more often than
in institutionalized settings. The secondary area in the institutional
groups on Picture 1 is more likely to be individuation or hostility.
In every group studied this picture produced the least amount of
painful tension reactions of all the pictures, and as has been pointed
out in Chapter 7, this may be related to the presence of the grand™
102
A Study of Various Separation Pictures 103
mother in the picture. It is interesting that in the other pictures in

which supportive figures are present during separation, such as the
argument between the parents, or the death of the mother in Picture
11, the painful tension level is higher than for Picture i. One might
readily indulge in speculation about the role of the grandmother as
an important supportive figure.
It is of interest to note that the percentage of sublimation is i .8 per¬
cent, which is the lowest area of all for all groups. This picture is
not especially productive of individuation responses and among all
the pictures ranks about seventh in frequency. Plowever, identity
stress is strong and represents 14.5 percent of the responses. In view
of the fact that this is a single response and not a complex with other
responses it must be considered veiy significant and ranks third
among all of the pictures. Certainly it is as strong as the attachment
pattern, which consists of three responses. Impairment of concentra¬
tion ranks fourth among all the pictures, and because it is a single
response, should be considered as strong as the individuation reaction,
which is composed of a pattern of three responses.
Picture 2. The child is being transferred to another class. This

picture is considered to be one of the milder separation pictures. Of
the complexes studied within the setting of this one picture, the pain¬
ful tension response is the highest (App. II, Table XXVI). That is,
it tends to produce more painful stress reaction than any of the other
factors that were studied. Hostility and individuation reactions are
close but not quite as strong in the totality of the groups. Impairment
of concentration is only minimally reported on this picture. Reality
avoidance tends to be fairly low, and identity stress is strong. It is
interesting that the painful tension response is strong in this picture
in all groups except the Far Rockaway-Richmond Hill, and Junior
High School 223 groups but is especially low in the Junior High
School 62 group. The highest amount of painful tension was shown
by Camp Lou Emma on this picture. Thus, we see that the signifi¬
cance of school motivation which is related to tension in transfer
from one class to another was greatest among the adolescent groups
at Camp Lou Emma and least at J.H.S. 62.
This is definitely a low attachment picture in comparison to most
of the pictures, registering a median percentage of 16.9. It was sur¬
prising to see that both junior high school groups were the highest
in attachment level in this picture, whereas the lowest was found in

the East Midwood group. This accords with the high confidence
level shown by the East Midwood group in the classroom transfer.
It had the highest percentage of individuation response of all the
groups on Picture 2. The lowest confidence level in adapting to this
situation was in the 11 -year-old group of Public School 194. It is
important to note that responsiveness on this picture generally drops
after Picture 1, which indicates that it is a less stimulating picture than
the first one. It generally shows very few sublimation responses, and
while the impaired concentration level, as I pointed out previously,
is fairly low on this picture, it occasions a strong level of response at
the St. John’s Home for Boys.
Picture 3. The family is moving to a nevo neighborhood. This

picture produces the highest degree of individuation of all the pic¬
tures, that is, 44.6 percent responsiveness (App. II, Table XXVII).
The group which shows a tremendous amount of individuation in
this picture is the St. John’s group, with a percentage of 75.4. The
lowest feeling of acceptance and adaptation is produced by the
Junior High School 62 group, with a percentage of 26.7. East Mid¬
wood is strong, with a percentage of 52.0. On the other hand, this
picture produces the least amount of hostility of all the 12 pictures,
providing a percentage of 5.0. Not one child at East Midwood re¬
ported a hostile response on this picture. As low as the hostility was
on this picture, the institutional groups at Catholic Charities still
showed the highest hostility: St. John’s with 11.3 percent and Far
Rockaway-Richmond Hill with 12.9 percent.
The second strongest reaction by all the eight groups on this
picture was in the painful tension area, led by the group at Camp Lou
Emma, with strong levels appearing in the institutional groups. This
picture is neither strong nor weak in the reality avoidance area, but
the St. John’s group tended to have a very low reality avoidance
level on this picture, 1.8 percent, while the highest reality avoidance
appeared in the Far Rockaway-Richmond Hill group and in the East
Midwood group. Thus, I would say that the only significant reality
avoidance percentage on this picture appeared at St. John’s. Identity
stress reactions are not especially variable on this picture, but there
is a fair degree of strength in this response area. This picture occasions
the lowest degree of impairment in concentration and a very high de¬

gree of sublimation. Thus, we see in this picture that stress tends to be
considerably minimized, and individuation comes strongly to the
fore. But it is important to note that of all the stress reactions, painful
tension, and identity stress were fairly strong.
Picture 4. The child is leaving his mother to go to school. This

picture is considered to be among the more mildly stimulating pic¬
tures. As noted with Picture 2, it is again very strong in individua¬
tion reactions and acceptance of separation, yielding 37.5 percent
in this area (App. II, Table XXVIII). It outdistances by far all of
the other complexes and reactions. The second area is that of painful
tension, which runs on the average 14.5 percent. The St. John’s group
showed a very high score in painful tension, obtaining 26.4 percent
on this picture. Reality avoidance tended to be within fair limits
on this picture, but again the St. John’s group showed a high per¬
centage of reality avoidance reaction.
There was very little identity stress or impairment of concentra¬
tion on this picture, with the exception of Junior Eligh School 62,
which showed a rather strong reaction in both of these areas. This is
definitely a very low attachment picture, providing the lowest per¬
centage in this area of all 12 pictures, that is, 8.9 percent. The lowest
attachment reactions were shown by the Pleasantville and East Mid¬
wood Day School groups.
It is interesting to see that there is a tremendous variability in sub¬
limation in this picture, with the strongest sublimations being shown
by the East Midwood and Far Rockaway groups, with 2*0.8 percent
and 22.5 percent, respectively. On the other hand, Camp Lou Emma
and St. John’s showed no sublimation reactions on this picture. Thus,
variability in sublimation reaction to this picture is considerable and
is therefore not very diagnostic in value.
Fairly low hostility levels are shown on this picture except that
the St. John’s group again shows a strong hostility feeling. This is
the same thing that occurred on Picture 2, but the St. John’s group
had a tendency to show strong percentages of hostility on many of
the pictures.
Picture 5. The child is leaving his parents to go to camp. This

picture also occasions a high degree of individuation, averaging 32.1

percent (App. II, Table XXIX), and led by the St. John's group,
which was at 52.8 percent. The lowest level of acceptance or in¬
dividuation in this picture appeared at Junior High School 223, with
6.0 percent. Nevertheless, we have to consider this picture as a mild
separation picture and one which occasions the greatest amount of
acceptance. We see also that the painful tension reaction is still strong
enough to be in evidence, with a median of 22.5 percent. For a mild
separation picture, this picture is somewhat more strongly attach¬
ment oriented than Pictures 2,3, and 4, yielding a median percentage
of 17.4. It also produces an increase in reality avoidance to 16.3 per¬
cent.
Thus, this picture occasions a somewhat lesser individuation re¬
action than Pictures 3 and 4, but with a definite increase in painful
tension, attachment need, and reality avoidance. Going to camp
appears to provide a stronger stress situation than Pictures 2, 3, and
4, although it is still a relatively mild separation picture. An inter¬
esting sidelight is the fact that for an institutional group, Pleasantville
showed the lowest reality avoidance level on this picture. In line
with the strong acceptance, we do see a good level of sublimation on
this picture, although it is far less than on Pictures 3 and 4.
The groups showing the highest painful stress reactions to the
camp picture were the Camp Lou Emma and East Midwood groups,
although the latter also showed the strongest reality avoidance level
of all the groups on this picture. This suggests that children from
more nuclear-type families tend to find going to camp somewhat
more stressful than some of the other situations presented in this
milder area.
Picture 6. After an argument with the mother, the father is leaving.

This picture provides a strong separation stimulation and occasions
a strong attachment reaction (App. II, Table XXX). In fact, it is
the third highest among the 12 pictures in this area. It shows a con¬
siderable drop in individuation or acceptance, a definite increase in
hostility, and the continued presence of painful tension. Thus, hos¬
tility is at 27.1 percent, painful tension at 27.9 percent, and individua¬
tion at 19.6 percent. Identity stress does not seem to shift very much,
nor does reality avoidance come into very strong play.
Despite the very strong hostility level which is presented by seven

of the groups on this picture, the junior High School 62 sample shows
only 4.6 percent hostility in this area. This interesting result suggests
that this group of youngsters may very well have experienced many
of these parental arguments and separations and therefore expect
them. Since there was a goodly percentage of lower-class children
in this group, this would be understandable in terms of cultural in¬
fluence.
It is most interesting that at the St. John’s Home for Boys, a very
powerful attachment reaction of 62.2 percent was presented on this
picture, and as usual, a strong hostility reaction, in which it had the
highest score of all of the groups. Surprisingly enough, even the in¬
dividuation responses were strong in this picture. It is also of interest
to see that the groups at Camp Lou Emma and East Mid wood showed
strong levels of impairment of concentration, scoring 19.6 percent
and 16.6 percent, respectively. These are rather high scores, since
the general level of impairment of concentration on this picture is
about 10.4 percent. This is tentative evidence that adolescents in
close-knit families would find schoolwork more difficult to cope
with because of parental arguments and separations than those chil¬
dren more experienced in family disturbance.
Picture 7. The child'’s older brother is a sailor leaving on a voyage.

On this picture attachment reactions are stronger than any of the
other complexes or responses. The St. John’s and Junior High School
223 groups were quite strong in this area, with percentages of 39.6
and 36.0, respectively. The individuation response was fairly close
to the attachment reaction, with a percentage of 21.4. It is interesting
that the groups showing the lowest acceptance of this adjustment
were at Camp Lou Emma and Public School 194, with 10.7 percent
and 12.5 percent, respectively. Junior High School 62 was the
strongest of all of the groups in acceptance of this picture, having a
percentage of 25.5 in individuation. It may be that traveling and
joining the service is something which these children look forward
to as a source of personal security.
This picture was one of the Last productive in the area of hostility,
showing 8.1 percent, and was also low in painful tension. Reality
avoidance was only fair. While identity stress continued to be within
normative range, this picture occasioned a very low identity stress

response from the Camp Lou Emma group, showing that they re¬
mained relatively unaffected by this picture in terms of their sense
of identity. However, the J.H.S. 62 group found this to be extra¬
ordinarily important, registering an 18.5 percent identity stress re¬
action. The sublimation level was low, and not particularly significant
in any way. For a mild stimulation picture, this one appears to have
some attachment strength in it.
Picture 8. The judge is placing the child in an institution. This

picture generally provides the largest number of responses of any of
the 12 pictures (App. II, Table XXXII). It is an extremely demand¬
ing picture emotionally, and very threatening. It is very high in
hostility, 41 percent: in fact, the second highest of all of the 12 pic¬
tures, and is fairly uniform in all of the groups in producing such
high hostility. As mentioned in the previous chapter, it produces a
considerable amount of painful tension, registering 38.4 percent, and
there is considerable uniformity among the groups in this area. The
attachment reaction is also quite strong at 35.2 percent. We can con¬
clude that this picture produces an enormous amount of resentment,
painful tension, and strong attachment need reactions.
It is one of the few pictures in which the hostility rises above
attachment need. A similarly patterned reaction between hostility
and attachment occurs on Picture 12, but is also seen at a much lower
percentage level on Picture 2. For these reasons, Picture 8 has con¬
siderable diagnostic value. Because of the strong stress of this picture,
it also occasions a high degree of reality avoidance, 19.6 percent.
This picture is emotionally least acceptable to all of the groups, with
the median individuation level being at 11.6 percent, which is the
lowest for all 12 pictures. The group at Camp Lou Emma provides
the lowest acceptance level of this separation, whereas the St. John’s
group provides the highest level of separation acceptance here. A
strong rise in the identity stress level occurs, showing 16.2 percent.
All of the groups show strong identity stress on this picture.
Picture 9. The mother has just put this child to bed. This is one of
the mild stimulation pictures which tends to produce a small number
of responses (App. II, Table XXXIII), but in terms of percentages,
it is strongest in attachment. The youngster is seen as being needful

of the mother to a greater degree than in any other type of emotional
complex or reaction. The second strongest element is the painful ten¬
sion that is felt, although here the tension percentage is somewhat
less than the tensions experienced in other mild pictures, except
Picture i. Hostility, individuation, and reality avoidance are low, and
identity stress and impairment of concentration are very low. This is,
therefore, one of the mildest pictures in the group and is not likely
to be the subject of highly emotional reactions.
A number of the children do not respond to this picture at all,
but simply state that they see no reason for discomfiture in this pic¬
ture and do not accept any of the 17 reactions presented. Some simply
will say there is nothing happening—the child is just going to sleep.
Since we are dealing with early adolescence in this study, we would
not expect that they would be so regressed as to react to this picture
in strong terms. However, the usefulness of this picture seems to be
in the possibility of picking up unusual reactions which would suggest
a strong regressive pull in the face of separation.
The percentage of identity stress responses is very low at 1.6 per¬
cent. It is also interesting that the Junior High School 62 group,
which on the whole made such a poor showing on the Separation
Anxiety Test, showed an extremely low painful tension index, 5.8
percent, and a very high individuation index, 19.7 percent, on this
picture. We see in this group therefore, a definite effort at suppres¬
sion of attachment stress in comparison to the other groups.
Picture 10. The child’s mother is being taken to the hospital.

Picture 1 o is highlighted by a tremendous increase in separation stress
(App. II, Table XXXIV). It produces the second highest attach¬
ment reaction, 38.4 percent, and a strong painful tension reaction,
25.6 percent. Reality avoidance becomes quite strong at 20.8 percent.
Hostility drops to 12.6 percent and individuation to 16.2 percent.
Identity stress still remains within normal limits at 10.8 percent, but
impairment of concentration is the highest of all the pictures at 12.7
percent. Thus, we see on this picture a very strong attachment dis¬
turbance with considerable painful tension, strong efforts to avoid
reality, as well as a strong identity stress. Sublimation is at 0.0 per¬
cent.
The highest attachment reaction in this picture is produced by the
group at East Midwood, where the percentage soared to 52.5 percent,

while the painful tension index was 29.4 percent. This is a definite in¬
dication of the degree to which children from nuclear families will
react to an intense separation experience from a maternal figure. The
group which showed the most sluggish reaction to this picture was
junior High School 62, in which the hostility reaction was definitely
higher than the painful tension reaction. This was the only group in
which the hostility was higher than painful tension on this picture,
although the Far Rockaway-Richmond Hill group had equal per¬
centages in these two areas. Even at St. John’s the painful tension re¬
action was higher than hostility, although the hostility reaction was,
as usual with St. John’s, far higher than any other group’s.
The East Midwood group showed the strongest avoidance of
reality, especially in terms of the fantasy form, using the response,
“it’s only a dream—it didn’t really happen.” It is interesting that the
Pleasantville group preferred impairment of concentration to reality
avoidance, as they had the lowest reality avoidance score of all the
groups on this picture. It is important to note that impairment of con¬
centration on this picture was practically equal to the hostility reac¬
tion, and in the junior High School 223 group these 27 children
showed nearly twice as much impairment of concentration as hostility.
Picture 11. The boy and his father are standing at the mother'’s
coffin. This picture is as powerful a separation picture as Picture 8.
In fact, it occasions the highest degree of attachment reaction of all
the pictures, a percentage of 39.6. It also occasions the highest reality
avoidance, 30.6 percent, the highest identity stress, 18.5 percent,
and the amount of painful tension is almost equivalent to that seen in
Picture 8, 36.0 percent. The extraordinary extent to which efforts
are made to avoid the reality in this picture, 30.6 percent, is very
strong verification of the difficulty the ego has in dealing with this
crushing separation blow.
Further, we can see that a powerful separation force, such as the
death of the mother, can bring about a strong identity crisis. The
rise in identity stress was quite overwhelming; for example, at St.
John’s, at least 25.2 percent, at Pleasantville, 18.0 percent, at Camp
Lou Emma, 21.6 percent, at East Midwood, 25.2 percent, and so on.
Even the most difficult group at Junior High School 62 showed an
identity stress reaction of 18.5 percent.
A Study of Various Separation Pictures Ill
In no group was the hostility greater than the attachment reaction

or the painful tension reaction on this picture. In five out of the
eight groups the reality avoidance reaction was far greater than the
hostility reaction, and in practically all of the groups, reality avoid¬
ance was greater than the acceptance or individuation reactions. Thus,
we see how the intensification of the separation stimulus reacts on
early adolescents. The intensifications seem .to reach greater propor¬
tions in reality avoidance and identity stress in comparison to less
intense separations, although it is true that there is a strong rise in
the attachment and painful tension areas. There is a suggestion in this
picture that mourning evokes powerful attachment, painful tension,
identity stress, and reality avoidance reactions, while hostility and
acceptance of separation play lesser roles.
Picture 12. The child is running away from home. In this picture,
it is natural that the hostility reaction should be the highest one, as
it makes sense that this would provide the reason for the separation
initiated by the child (App. II, Table XXXVI). Thus, the median
hostility percentage is 41.4, while the median attachment is 32.4
percent. It is interesting that reality avoidance is still quite strong,
27.3 percent, which is the second highest reality avoidance of all the
pictures. This is an interesting highlight and suggests that running
away is actually part of the avoidance of important reality relation¬
ships in the home.
Painful tension is actually reduced to fourth position on this picture
at 21.6 percent, and identity stress still retains a degree of strength
at 12.6 percent. As usual, the group showing the strongest hostility
is at St. John’s, and the percentage is extremely high, 66.6. Reality
avoidance is also quite high in this group at 43.2 percent. In actuality
this picture is suggestive of a degree of temporary pathology in the
child. The running away itself apparently represents a strong degree
of hostility and reality avoidance, even though attachment reaction is
within normal limits.
It is an interesting sidelight on these pictures that when I showed
them to professional mental hygiene workers and to research workers,
they were quite shocked by the intensity of many of them. They
had the feeling that these pictures would have a very strong re¬
action on young adolescents and cause a good deal of upset. On the
whole, our experience in using these pictures with adolescent groups
does not bear out this feeling. They are able to report and select
certain of the emotional reactions, and some very intense ones on the
most severe pictures, but in my experience, very few of them actually
go to pieces in the presence of any of the severe pictures.
I did see a 14-year-old girl burst into tears and become speechless
for a time when she was exposed to the death-of-the-mother picture.
Later on, however, she was able to abreact to this by describing the
death of her father, which had taken place approximately eight
months prior to the presentation of these pictures. On occasion, it is
possible to see that certain pictures have very specific meanings to
some adolescents because of the intensity of the resurgence of a
meaningful experience in their lives that is associated with the pic¬
ture.
At this writing, I do not have data with regard to the reactions to
self-love and self-esteem in the various pictures. This data may be
published as an addendum to this study. Further, I do not have
differential data with regard to each picture for age groups or for
sex groups.
Studying the patterned reactions to individual pictures is of con¬
siderable clinical usefulness in a dynamic and diagnostic sense. A
careful study of each picture will be very rewarding and add valuable
clues to the understanding of an adolescent’s separation reactions.
Nevertheless, it is by no means a substitute for an evaluation of the
entire test. It is important to evaluate the total protocol, make com¬
parisons between the least stimulating and the most stimulating
pictures, and in this way, obtain a more balanced view of the child’s
reactions.
Chapter 11
CLINICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE SEPARATION

ANXIETY TEST
This study would not be complete without a presentation of case

illustrations which demonstrate the manner in which the test may be
used clinically. The theoretical material and the summarization of the
data as it has appeared in various chapters can now be seen to be
quite useful in clinical practice, especially in dealing with young
adolescents referred to child care agencies for placement. (See App.
I for case profiles.)
CASE 1—ARTHUR
First, I should like to present a case from my own private practice
which would illustrate a more normative situation. This was the case
of a boy 14 years of age, whom we shall call Arthur, who was
brought to me because he had occasional depressed feelings and the
mother was concerned about this. After interviews with the boy,
I had the impression of a youngster who was within normal limits
in personality development but who had some problems related
actively to a family situation.
Out of curiosity I administered the Separation Anxiety Test. He
gave a total of 63 responses, which is within normal limits for total
responsiveness in adolescence. Approximately two thirds of the
responses were on the strong separation pictures, which was a fairly
good record. The attachment index, consisting of the responses of
rejection, loneliness, and empathy, was 23.8 percent, which is defi¬
nitely a strong percentage. The individuation index was 28.6 percent,
which, while somewhat high and strong, is still good in the sense that
it is an effort to adapt to separation experiences. Taking the five-
point scale on the attachment-individuation balance indicating the
capacity to move from attachment feeling to individuation on mild
tests and from individuation to attachment need on strong tests, a

total balance percentage of 38.1 was obtained. This is an excellent
score and indicated that the inner capacity to respond adequately to
object relations and human attachment needs was very good and
further that this would balance off quite adequately with individua¬
tion needs.
There was some repression of both tension and hostility reactions,
as he scored 9.5 percent in both of these areas. I had noted that there
tends to be such repression at the age of 14, when the emphasis seems
to move into the area of identity stress. The identity stress percentage
was 12.7, which is a little high and indicated some trouble in this
area. The reality avoidance level was 7.9 percent, which is low.
There were no unusual preferences in the area of evasion or fantasy,
and he showed the usual amount of withdrawal reaction. There was
some suggestion here of a tendency to alternate to some degree
between acting out identity stress problems and at the same time using
fantasy in a therapeutic manner.
There was a strong balance between impaired concentration and
sublimation, which is quite good. However, it did indicate that there
was an intellectual sensitivity to separation in the sense that less
separation stress induced good intellectual functioning and strong
separation stress induced difficulty in intellectual functioning. Self¬
esteem seemed more affected than self-love, which according to my
data is more normative in adolescence for children in their own
families. The general patterning on the Separation Anxiety Test in
this case was within normal limits and indicated a relatively good,
balanced reaction experience and one which was not too unusual
for this age level.
It was my opinion, based on the material of the Separation Anxiety
Test, that this boy would handle the intrapsychic separation problems
of adolescence fairly well with a certain amount of therapeutic in¬
tervention. It was my opinion that the depressive feelings were
temporary and that there was no doubt that this boy had the capacity
to respond to emotional ties as well as to move in an autonomous
direction.
I should like now to present several cases in which I examined the
adolescents without any knowledge of background material. In the
interest of objectivity with regard to the use of the test, the informa¬
tion on these children which was already available to the Jewish
Clinical Applications of the Separation Anxiety Test 115
Child Care Association was withheld pending my report. It was

hoped that by comparing the results of the Separation Anxiety Test
with the material available on the youngster, there would be some
opportunity for validation as well as further elucidation of attach¬
ment and separation problems.
CASE 2—JAMES
This is a case of a 12 -year-old boy who demonstrated some
pathological features to his patterning on the Separation Anxiety
Test. He seemed a little on the sleepy side when he came in. He said
that he had not slept very much on the previous night. He was
handing out bank cards which he had apparently picked up on the
way to the office. He spoke in a somewhat tremulous voice and
appeared to have some overt tension or anxiety. Otherwise, he spoke
normally and was quite ready to take the examination.
It was noted that the general pattern was constricted and the num¬
ber of responses was below the average. Secondly, he gave not one
single loneliness response to the entire series of 12 pictures. This was
a serious deficiency and when compared to the fact that he showed
no feeling-of-rejection responses, demonstrated some diminution in
conscious awareness of attachment need; it suggested a severe effort
to repress attachment need. Further, although he had only 34 re¬
sponses, almost one third of them were adaptive reactions, that is,
that he would make the best of his situation. Ten out of the 12 pic¬
tures were responded to in this manner. The average adaptation
response from children living in their own homes or even institu¬
tionalized children is far less than this and in terms of percentage,
usually runs around 12.
The hostility complex, while low, was equivalent to the attach¬
ment index. This indicated there was some disturbance of attach¬
ment need and an intensification of hostility even though it was low.
The protocol suggested that there was an insufficient feeling of roots
in this boy and that the real family roots were extremely tenuous.
It was also noted that he had a total of five sublimation and two well¬
being responses, which when added together provided seven,
slightly more than one fifth of the total number of responses. When
this was combined with his readiness for adaptation to the separation,
it was a further indication of a strong denial of any kind of feelings in
connection with separation, especially attachment need feelings.
While there was evidence of some painful tension this appeared

to be superseded by his readiness to adapt to any separation or place¬
ment. The painful tension index was about 15 percent. It was impor¬
tant that there was availability of painful tension, and this fact may
indicate that in the future the boy’s feelings could be reached, once
the attachment problems were dealt with. At this particular age and
stage of his life he did not show too high a level of identity stress
response, although it was available.
While some recognition of feelings was present it was over¬
shadowed by a strong suppressive mechanism which did not permit
him to feel the full extent of separation stress. There was also a
pathological denial of the loss of self-love, since there were no feeling-
of-rejection responses and only one intrapunitive reaction. Even
self-esteem loss was denied.
The pattern strongly suggested the type of youngster who would
take off and run away or do certain things out of impulse in order
to escape from intolerable feelings. A further evidence of his in¬
sufficient responsiveness to separation stress was provided by the fact
that he had only a few more responses on the strongly stimulating
pictures than on the mildly stimulating pictures. It was also in¬
teresting that on the picture involving a move to a new neighborhood
he had more responses than on any other with the exception of the
picture of the child running away from home. This would suggest
that there was strong environmental influence playing a role in this
boy’s reactions and that he was making strong efforts to change the
environmental setting.
My own diagnostic impression of this boy, based on the Separation
Anxiety Test, was that of a characterological disorder with strong
efforts to repress attachment feelings and probably not too much
control over impulses to move from one place to another, and that
his response to tension was more likely to be an acting out rather
than an accepting of tension or its verbalization. It was my feeling
based upon this material that the boy would best be placed in that
type of institutional setting which would not permit too much free
contact with a community setting and where external controls would
be available.
A study of James’ background indicated that he had been with
his mother from birth to 2 years of age and then with his grand¬
parents from age 2 to 7, while his mother came for weekends. He
was then with his mother from about age 7 to 9 and back with
grandparents until he was about 10, when they could not control
him and therefore sent him back to live with his mother. The mother
complained that there had been problems since James had been with
her. Specifically, he did not listen to her, did not go to school, and
stole money from her. There was evidence in psychiatric interview
with both the boy and the mother that the mother herself practiced
sociopathic behavior. The psychiatrist felt that one of the major
themes was that of deprivation. James felt deprived by his mother,
that she did not treat him fairly, and that she favored his siblings over
him. There was evidence that the mother herself had come from a de¬
prived background.
The mother had taken James to court on a petition with the com¬
plaints of truancy, stealing from her pocketbook, and using abusive
language. The boy’s father had died in an automobile accident when
the mother was pregnant with him. James, who is of average intelli¬
gence, was considered by the psychologist who examined him as quite
jealous of the mother’s boyfriend. It appeared that he attempted to
fill his father’s place and to handle too much responsibility in the
family, which was displaced upon him by his mother. It seemed that
he had adopted a strong sense of self-sufficiency superficially but that
this defense did not work for him. The recommendation made by the
psychiatrist was placement at the Hawthorne Cedarknolls School, an
institutional setting. There was no doubt that there was extraordinary
corroboration between the Separation Anxiety Test, the material in
the history, and the evaluation conducted by the clinic.
CASE 3—JANICE
Janice, aged 14%, was given the Separation Anxiety Test by my
research assistant, who reported to me that she was cooperative and
showed no unusual behavior during the examination. She gave a total
of 72 responses on the test, which is somewhat above average.
There was not too great a variation in the number of responses
which she gave to each picture, the range being from four through
eight. There were 31 responses on the mild pictures and 41 on the
strong pictures, which is also within the average range in terms of
percentages. The pictures receiving the most responses were of the
father arguing with the mother and the child being sentenced by the
judge. Those responded to least were the camp and the sleep scenes.
From this material, there appeared to be a suggestion of excessive

sensitivity to the strength of separation. It is interesting however
that she showed twice as many painful tension responses to the mild
as to the strong pictures. This suggested a more intense attachment
disturbance.
The latter was validated by the fact that we found a poor attach¬
ment-individuation balance. Thus, on the mild pictures she had five
attachment and five individuation responses, which is definitely a poor
balance. The balance was somewhat better on the strong separation
pictures. The attachment-individuation balance percentage was 20.7,
which is below average. Further, it is noteworthy that the individua¬
tion percentage was only 12.5, which is lower than the lowest stan¬
dardization group I have examined. All of this was considerable proof
of the high degree of attachment need of this child and the difficulties
in developing a suitable autonomy.
What was quite enlightening was the way she responded to the
picture of a child going to sleep and the mother leaving the room.
She indicated the reactions of loneliness, generalized anxiety, phobic
feeling, and withdrawal. Such a combination of responses to a simple
separation picture for a girl of her age indicated the intensity of sym¬
biotic attachment in this girl. Something similar occurred in the pic¬
ture of the child being transferred from one class to another. Flere,
as a matter of fact, the emotional reactions were even stronger and
included the reaction of projection. It appeared that separation experi¬
ences produced an intensity of panicky feelings in this girl which
was far out of proportion to the situation.
How would this girl handle the problem of attachment when
faced with separation? When we studied the indexes we saw two
definitive tendencies. One was the extremely high reality avoidance
index, which was 23.6 percent of the responses. In comparison to
various groups studied, this is practically twice the reality avoidance
index. Actually, the index she showed was even higher than the at¬
tachment reaction. We would therefore expect that this girl would
handle separation with some delusional reactions, indicating that she
could not take the break in the symbiotic ties. It would suggest also
that this would be the trend when she moved towards separation from
infantile objects within her own intrapsychic structure.
The hostility index was 15.3 percent, which was a little more than
might be expected from a child of Jewish background. What was
more important, however, was that within the hostility triad, pro¬
jection played too large a role, representing 36 percent of the hostility
responses. This was far out of line with that of any of the cultural
groups studied. When we brought together the intense symbiotic
problem, the powerful reality avoidance index, and the excess pro¬
jection level, we were forced to conclude that there was a suspicion
of a psychotic reaction with mild paranoid feelings in relation to
separation experiences. It was also interesting that for a child of this
age the identity stress reading was entirely too low and in addition
there were more identity stress responses on the mild pictures than
on the strong.
Like those of so many children living in their own homes, Janice’s
response patterns were more attachment oriented than individuated,
more likely to be involved with fantasy, and had a higher anxiety and
tension level than hostility. However, the four serious problems noted
above, including the very poor attachment-individuation balance on
the mild tests, the high and unusual reality avoidance percentage, the
high hostility level with increasing projection, and the low identity
stress reaction, indicated the severity of the emotional disturbance. It
also seemed likely that a degree of acting out of delusional reactions
could easily take place.
I was therefore moved to suggest that this girl’s placement be in a
residential treatment center. I did not believe that the usual group
residence or institutional setting would be the proper placement for
this girl. In my opinion, she needed treatment for intrapsychic prob¬
lems while she was away from home. The needed improvements in¬
cluded a greater degree of object constancy, improved individuation
process and the sense of identity, and reduction of the degree of pro¬
jection and the tendency to denial of reality.
After this report, I went to the record. The report of the social
worker, which had been presented for psychiatric conference two
months prior to this test, read as follows:
Initially I saw Janice and her grandmother together and asked that
they tell me how things were going in the home. The grandmother
would not say one word about Janice’s illness however and instead
she turned to Janice and asked her to describe the problems in the
home. When Janice was alone with me, she told me of her nervous
breakdown in the early part of 1969. She stated that she had been
hospitalized from April to July: she described some of her sympto-
matology such as her religious delusions, her handwashing, her fears
of the dark, her feeling that if men and women got together, bad
things would happen. All these things, however, had now disappeared
except for some free floating anxiety and compulsive moving of her
feet or playing with her sweater. As she described the present state of
her symptomatology, Janice indicated a healthier degree of insight
into her emotional life. She stated in her opinion that the reasons for
her breakdown were: (1) the father’s increasingly bizarre paranoid
and silly behavior, (2) the pressures of home in which she had to
shop, help her little sisters do their homework, help around the apart¬
ment and do her own homework too, and (3) her sisters’ excessive
preoccupation with sexual matters. She went on to say that her two
sisters still have this preoccupation with sexual material and it still
bothers her but not nearly as much as before.
Further, the caseworker described Janice as an attractive, red-

haired girl with a half-closed right eyelid, which she said had been
operated on in the past but had not been completely cleared up.
Janice felt that she would like to try living at a residential treatment
center to get away from some of the pressures at home and to help
her in her social life. She also described herself as being picked on by
other children in the school. One could not be completely sure how
much of this was a residual of paranoid thinking or how much was
reality. Janice also admitted to thoughts of committing suicide during
her nervous collapse but said that she never actually tried it and would
never do so now. She had had hallucinations of a visual type at times
but again she had no such experiences lately. Her affect was described
as slightly flattened but she came over as reasonably bright. She had
obviously been under tremendous stress in her home situation.
The psychiatrist diagnosed this girl as having a schizophrenic re¬
action, chronic undifferentiated type in remission. The psychologist
who examined Janice felt that in personality organization, the girl
coped with a sensitivity to bodily handicap by repressive mechanisms,
denial, and intellectualization. Her breaks in thinking suggested dis¬
ordered coping mechanisms from which she had recovered. The
recommendation for a residential treatment center was unanimous
and this girl was placed at Linden Hill. The degree of corroboration
between the psychiatric, social, and psychological testing material
was again quite manifest. What was important, however, was how
accurately the Separation Anxiety Test was able to reveal the prob¬
lem of the attachment disorder.
CASE 4—MARTIN
This boy of nearly 15 years of age, whom we shall call Martin,
was referred to me in January 1970 and again no clinical material
was provided in order to obtain complete objectivity in handling the
test. He gave a total of 89 responses, which indicated that he was
strongly motivated by the separation pictures. There were 32 re¬
sponses to the mild pictures and 57 to the strong pictures. He showed
an abnormal interest in the twelfth picture, of the boy running away
from home. Here, he gave 13 out of a possible 17 responses. Martin
did not give any spontaneous explanation as to why he was so im¬
pressed with this last picture.
In studying the indexes to the test, it was noted that the hostility
index was 18.0 percent, in comparison with a 13.5 percent attachment
index. This was a serious condition, especially in view of the increas¬
ing amount of projection which was found on the strong separation
pictures. Considerable anger was also present on the mild separation
pictures. The strength of the attachment factor was shown mainly in
the strong separation pictures, for the attachment-individuation bal¬
ance was quite intact, with the trend towards the individuation side.
The reality avoidance percentage was quite high and the emphasis
was in the evasive area.
These characteristics, when combined with the type of attachment-
individuation balance and the increase in hostility, were a strong in¬
dication of a paranoid development. The strong symbiotic need was
combined with strong hostility, and one would therefore interpret
this as hostile dependency. There was present a very strong identity
stress, which is not too unusual at this age in the general population.
It was interesting that the attachment factor in this case was made up
largely of loneliness and rejection responses rather than empathic re¬
sponses. This failure in the empathic area strongly indicated the sym¬
biotic quality of his personality.
The evident concern with intellect was rather strong, as he had
five impaired-concentration responses. This suggested a considerable
amount of intellectual sensitivity to separation, something which I
found much more characteristic of the normative population than of
those children who were placed.
Thus, I saw in this examination a very strong current in the direc¬
tion of a paranoid reaction to separation, which would then be acted
out. His need for contact was manifested largely through heightened
aggression. It was my feeling that there would be a considerable prob¬
lem when placement was effected, as therapy with paranoid person¬
alities is always problematical. I saw no alternative to a residential
treatment center, as it was unlikely that he could be retained in the
community without gradually becoming isolated, which would, of
course, put a tremendous strain on the family.
In checking the intake on this case, I found that Martin was a boy
with serious visual limitations who was living in a family in which the
mother was suffering from a terminal illness. He had always shown
physical stigmata, and there had been relatively minor neurological
impairment of the central nervous system, which was considered to
have been based possibly on an early attempted abortion. There had
been serious difficulties in this boy’s upbringing, and an enormous
amount of attention had been given to help him develop physiologi¬
cally, in terms of hearing, seeing, swallowing, and so on. The extent
of dependence and attachment was extraordinary owing to the kind
of care he had had from his mother. In fact, at the time of referral
for placement, the mother was still bathing him. The referral men¬
tioned that Martin’s deteriorating emotional state represented what
was soon likely to be a full-blown family crisis situation.
A memo from the Pleasantville Cottage School, which the boy
visited, stated as follows:
The combination of visual problems, bizarre appearance, brain dam¬
age, serious limitation and inability to relate to peers, infantile speech
and behavior, plus recent aggressive acting-out behavior and seeming
deterioration, would make it impossible to contain him.
It was also reported that Hawthorne Cedar Knolls could not handle
this degree of physical handicap. Martin was then considered for
Linden Hill, which is for more severely disturbed children.
There appeared to be general agreement among social work, psy¬
chiatric, and psychological staff that Martin was showing an increas¬
ing amount of hostility and acting out aggressiveness. There was an
indication, however, that he had a great fear of being separated from
his parents, but that he could accept it on the basis of the fact that the
mother was being hospitalized. The psychologist who examined this
boy the previous year had reported that he showed severe anxiety
and hostility toward peers and authoritative adults. This often crum-
bled his defenses and his fantasy of adequacy, and at these times
he became dependent in a childlike but also hostile manner, which
fairly accurately described his relationship with his mother.
The psychologist had said that placement in a residential treat¬
ment center would be extremely traumatic and perhaps would pre¬
cipitate a self-destructive ideology, which had recently emerged on
a verbal level. Such placement, barring hospitalization, was inevitable,
however. The psychiatric diagnosis was chronic behavior disorder
occurring in a brain-damaged child. As in the other cases previously
mentioned, the material of the Separation Anxiety Test appeared to
have been amazingly accurate in suggesting the separation problems
of this boy.
CASE 5—MARY
We shall call this the case of Mary, a 15-year-old girl whom I saw
in January 1970 without any case material. Therefore I had no
awareness of Mary’s background or present situation. Mary came
to the examination smoking a cigarette and looking as though she
were prepared to cooperate. She sat down, appeared thoughtful, and
offered no spontaneous conversation. Generally speaking, she was
quiet and cooperative throughout, and only rarely asked a question.
There was occasional evidence of blocking on several pictures of the
Separation Anxiety Test. During such blocking, there were long
pauses in which there was no response.
She gave a total of 46 responses to the test. It was my impression
that her handling of the test was cautious and guarded. Further,
there was an instability present, which occurred in the second half
of the examination. Thus, when she came to Picture 7, she gave two
responses, which is not unusual, but on Picture 8, the picture of the
judge sentencing the child, she gave ten responses, and it was as
though she had been released from a pent-up situation. Then en¬
countering Picture 9, which was that of a child going to sleep, she
blocked for a long time, gave no response, and finally selected a
well-being response, giving no others. This blocking then carried
over to Pictures 1 o and 11, on which I would consider the blocking
to be more serious. Picture 1 o is the one of the mother being taken to
the hospital, and Picture 11, the death of the mother. On both pic¬
tures, she gave only two responses. It was my impression from this
that the girl had strong feelings related to the mother, probably of
hostility, was unable to deal adequately with them, and thus blocked
on these pictures. At the same time, she gave a total of six responses
to Picture 2, which contained a simple situation of a child being trans¬
ferred from one class to another.
This unstable performance should be considered in the light of
other factors which appear in the patterning. There were as many
responses to the mild pictures as there were to the strong ones, if one
does not take Picture 8 into account, in which she had shown a large
number, percentagewise. A further unusual condition was noted in
the fact that she gave three identity stress responses to the mild pic¬
tures, and only one to the strong. Certainly, one would expect
greater identity stress on the strong separation situations. Another un¬
usual response was a rejection reaction to Picture 4, in which the child
was pictured as leaving the mother to go to school. Such a severe re¬
sponse to a mild picture is somewhat peculiar.
Thus, there were a number of peculiarities in this girl’s test pat¬
terning, which suggested an unstable reaction to separation experi¬
ences. There was a strong suggestion that this girl tended to repress
feelings in connection with strong separation situations, and that she
could not face such feelings. The result apparently was a strong am¬
bivalent reaction.
What then did she do with her feelings in separation situations,
once she had repressed feelings, or consciously suppressed them, or
both? This was seen in some of the indexes which I had developed
for the test. First, we noted that the attachment-individuation index
was strongly out of balance. She had twice as many individuation
responses as attachment responses, which indicated a severe effort at
individuation or self-sufficiency without adequate emotional ties. Her
attachment-individuation index of 9.2 percent was extremely low in
comparison to the general population. Along with this, she repressed
painful tension and achieved only an 11 percent tension index, which
was quite low.
From this it seemed likely that this girl circumvented normal anx¬
ieties, fear reactions, and somatic reactions in favor of strong drives
toward self-sufficiency and in favor of aggressive hostile reactions.
It is also noteworthy that her method of reality avoidance was to use
a combination of withdrawal and evasion and to avoid fantasy. Fan¬
tasy is the kind of response found more often as a form of reality
avoidance in attachment-oriented children and children with family

contact feeling.
What was also important was a serious increase in hostility on the
strongly stimulating pictures in comparison to the attachment in¬
crease, which would definitely suggest an increasing acting-out re¬
action. It must be taken into account that separation stress occurs
intrapsychically as well as geographically and that under intrapsychic
stress of separation, there would be an increasing acting out.
We see evidence that there has been some impairment of object
relations, excessive self-sufficiency, a lowering of tension stress, an
increase of hostility, and an unusual kind of identity stress in relation
to mild separation situations. The emphasis in reality avoidance is on
evasion and withdrawal, which is often found in individuals with
alienation tendencies. There is a strong undercurrent of conflict be¬
tween attachment need and self-sufficiency wishes, which drives this
girl to act out. We do see in this examination a definite condition of
ambivalence with regard to both separation and placement.
The pattern of response on the Separation Anxiety Test would
suggest that if placement were effected and this girl strongly desired
it, the area of controls would be an essential factor. For this reason,
an institutional setting Would be more desirable than any boarding
school arrangement. However, there were conflictive elements in
this case which suggested that no decision could be a good solution
because of the mixed pattern involved. Therefore, placement would
have to be exploratory. I also suggested that psychiatric exploration
be made in this case because of the number of unstable factors in the
Separation Anxiety Test.
Subsequent to this report, I received the social background ma¬
terial and found that Mary had been referred to the agency by the
court, where she had been brought by the parents because of tru¬
ancy, lying, and associating with undesirable companions. The evi¬
dence indicated that the mother was a strongly controlling person
who felt that she was losing control of this girl during early adoles¬
cence and was struggling to gain back this control. The caseworker
had evaluated this girl as being in conflict between her dependency
and her healthy adolescent drive towards separation from her parents
and home-centered life. The mother had responded inconsistently
with rigidity and giving in and what followed was that Mary had
asserted herself in more and more deviant ways.

Mary’s early childhood had been replete with high degrees of con¬
trol by the mother and apparently she broke loose during adolescence.
Mary’s greatest complaint was the continuous pressure on the part of
the mother to keep her from carrying on her outside activities. Many
of these activities appeared to be quite questionable and were probably
rebellion against the mother. The degree of instability in Mary was
seen by several psychiatrists. Mary had never had many friends be¬
cause she had been kept close to home by the mother during her
latency. The psychiatrist indicated that this girl was desperate for
freedom and would do anything to get it. Mary was quite insistent
that she did not do any wrong things in her outside behavior. Yet it
was known that she associated with questionable characters, that she
had done some shoplifting, and that she indulged promiscuously in
sexual activities.
A report from the New York City Youth Board had shown that
her behavior as a counselor in a summer camp in 1969 was so erratic
and inappropriate that she had to be offered counseling. Generally
speaking, most agencies that had worked with the family had found
the parents ambivalent and difficult to work with. The youth worker
said, “What is clear to me is that the family is volatile and inflammable
and Mary has her parents in a corner.” The agencies which had dealt
with her were generally convinced that placement was essential and
agreed that it would have to be institutional placement.
Again we found in this case an extraordinary degree of corrobora¬
tion between the available psychiatric and social work material and
the results of the Separation Anxiety Test.
CASES 6 AND 7—JOHN AND ANTHONY

I should like now to present the cases of two brothers, aged ap¬
proximately 11 and 14, whom we shall call John and Anthony.
Again, for validation purposes no material was seen prior to the ex¬
amination or to the writing of the report. The reports on both of
these boys follows.
John, who was the younger of the brothers, was a smiling, pleasant
boy who came readily to the examination and had a degree of personal
charm. He did not offer any spontaneous conversation, except for the
fact that during the course of the examination he seemed to become
tired, asked when it would be over, and did not seem too anxious to
continue. Reassurance about this was necessary.

John selected a total of 42 responses for the 12 pictures. In terms
of general averages this was somewhat below the mean; thus, we
could say that there was some tendency towards constriction. The
patterning of responses to the various pictures was somewhat atypical.
Thus, for exarrtple, the largest number of responses was given to a
mild separation picture, whereas the number of responses given to
one of the most intense pictures, the death of the mother, was com¬
paratively low for that picture.
Further, there was one picture in which the responses were totally
rejected, that is, the picture showing the mother leaving the room
while the child is going to sleep. He could not find any response
which would suit his particular reaction. When I asked him to make
up his own response, he said, “The child is going to run away.” This
response was totally out of line with a picture of this kind, and repre¬
sented a considerable degree of avoidance of the mother-child rela¬
tionship. This was especially significant when we considered the fact
that he gave less than the expected number of responses to the death
of the mother. Further, his reactions to the death of the mother were
very confhctive. For example, he reported an empathic feeling, an
angry feeling, an adaptive feeling, and a withdrawal reaction. These
reactions certainly had a degree of incongruity.
It was also significant that he gave only one loneliness response to
the entire series of 12 pictures. This was definitely atypical and was
rarely found in any of my own records. The only response of loneli¬
ness was given to the picture in which the judge was sentencing the
boy to an institution in the presence of his parents. Another peculi¬
arity was the fact that there was only one indentity stress response,
and this was given to the picture in which the child was being trans¬
ferred from one class to another. This is a relatively mild separation
situation and generally speaking, identity stress response would be
stronger on the strong stimulation pictures. All of these areas of
atypicality suggest that personality reaction to separation in this boy
would show a degree of instability and unpredictability.
A study of the patterns of response showed a normal quantity of
attachment but there was a lack of a sense of loneliness in the face of
separation. This was highly significant and indicated some lack of
contact with more basic human feelings. The attachment needs ap-
parently were felt more strongly through a feeling of rejection and

empathy. Further, the painful tension index, which consisted of gen¬
eralized anxiety, phobic and somatic responses, was in this case
extremely low, representing only 5 percent of his total responses.
This further corroborated the fact that the boy was not responding
adequately in terms of his basic feelings. At the same time, we did not
see a high degree of responsiveness in the reality avoidance area. When
this was combined with the fact that we did not see much projection
on the test, it suggested that we were not dealing with any paranoid
pathology but rather with some characterological disorder.
Pursuing this further, it was noted that his hostility pattern was
definitely higher than the attachment pattern, and much higher than
would be expected for children of this age. Such a pattern is more
often found in institutionalized children and it demonstrated the like¬
lihood of an acting-out type of reactivity rather than a verbalized
statement of feeling.
It seemed likely that in this case we were dealing with a consider
able trauma to relatedness, something which must have occurred in
an earlier stage of development. We saw that hostility was strong
and when this is combined with the area of adaptation, there is a sug¬
gestion of external conformity with the continuous possibility of
sudden onsets of unverbalized and indirect resistiveness. Thus, we
saw that this boy utilized characterological techniques in response to
separation so that adaptation would be likely to be seen on the sur¬
face, with indirect forms of resistence appearing with a consistent
frequency. Further, it was likely that the separation-individuation
process in this boy was achieved at the expense of basic relatedness
capacity.
A study of the case record on John indicated considerable corrobo¬
rative material. Thus, for example, this boy, who had been for a
period of time in the children’s shelter, had been reported to be a
restless youngster who frequently wandered away from his group.
In school he was reported to have been apathetic and generally
showed no effort. At times, he was considered to be slightly belliger¬
ent. In dress, he was untidy. He had generally been marked unsatis¬
factory in obeying school rules and regulations, in carrying out re¬
sponsibilities, and in being satisfied with a reasonable amount of at¬
tention. His achievement in schoolwork was generally rated unsatis-
In camp, although he was not very talkative, he used quite a bit of

vulgarity, slurred words, and spoke in incomplete sentences. When
he was reprimanded even slightly, he would retreat into a sullen
mood. He would not perform designated duties but would instead
act impulsively. His attention span was reported extremely limited.
He was looked upon as a rebel by the other children and they re¬
sented having to be connected with his mischief by dint of the fact
that they were treated not as individuals but as a bunk. They also
considered him rather babyish and hard to get along with. He was
often trying to get attention by cutting up. He was not really at any
time part of the group and was generally a negative influence upon
them.
In psychological testing, John had been considered to be of bright
normal intelligence, with the projective data showing an impulsively
reacting and manipulating child who was nonetheless attempting to
sustain controls in his behavior. He showed pervasive, aggressive at¬
tention-getting of a long-standing nature. He was an emotionally
susceptible but also socially withdrawn child who experienced chronic
frustration, which handicapped him in developing social controls.
He was considered to have developed a defense of evasion. Thus,
he either evaded any interpersonal contact which would arouse ag¬
gression, or he evoked an adult-imposed social value which operated
as a restraint. He was reported to show no preoccupation with sepa¬
ration fantasy, but was evasive and struggling to utilize such evasion
for purposes of defense. The psychologist diagnosed him as a be¬
havior disorder of childhood, with a developing character structure
of a passive-aggressive nature.
The mother died when this boy was approximately 7 V2 to 8 years
old, and subsequently the father tried to keep the family together,
since he obviously cared for his children. However, he seemed to be
a man who avoided facing unpleasant facts, and preferred to let
things slide. The father did quite a bit of gambling in the hope that
magical success would be his. At the time the referral was made, the
family was on the verge of financial and emotional ruin. It was neces¬
sary that they vacate the apartment, and placement for the children
became essential. There was an older sister who carried the major
burden for a while in taking care of both boys. At one point, how¬
ever, the sister ran away and the family had lived in the most dis¬
organized and chaotic way in every area of life. The caseworker also
noted that John was a hyperactive, infantile, and somewhat manipu¬
lative boy, although engaging and emotionally responsive. There
seemed to have been some evidence that John had been infantilized
by the mother, who would keep him in bed with her during her years
of illness.
There was no doubt of the corroboration of the behavior of this
boy and the patterns of reaction on the Separation Anxiety Test as
one compares the various reports. The history did explain some of
the reactions on the test. What was interesting was the way in which
the test picked up this boy’s attachment need and also his difficulty
in making it known in his relations with other persons. Also interest¬
ing was the difficulty that John had in terms of expressing in a ver¬
balized way the painful tensions experienced as a result of separation
and the fact that he had to learn to act them out. There was complete
corroboration in the diagnostic impression.
Anthony, John’s brother, was three years older, and 14 at the time
he was tested by my research assistant. He behaved quite well during
the examination and showed no unusual reactions. He gave a total of
82 responses to the Separation Anxiety Test, which is somewhat
above average, but is more in line with the kind of responsiveness
shown by children who live in their own homes than that of institu¬
tionalized children. He gave twice as many responses as his brother,
John. According to our normative statistics, the number of responses
is not related to age as we go from age 11 through 14.
The only two areas of unusual responsiveness were withdrawal
and adaptation. Thus, he had an adaptive response on every picture,
and also had ten withdrawal responses. When these two approaches
are combined, we see a tendency to adapt by a degree of withdrawal.
When this was combined with the fact that on the judge picture, one
of his responses was “to commit suicide,” there was a suggestion of
a degree of depression. There was no doubt, from the various re¬
sponses given by this boy, that he was considerably responsive to
separation experiences and definitely threatened by them.
When looking at some of the indexes to the test, we saw that the
attachment pattern was within normal limits and the hostility pattern
was definitely much lower and also fairly normal. This relationship
was also found in children living in their own homes. The tension
pattern was slightly lower than for children living in their own homes,
but was slightly compensated by the identity stress reactions, which

were higher. It seemed likely, therefore, that more of the separation
stress was flowing into the identity stress area, which was not unusual
for early adolescence. Reality avoidance was within the expected
range, and since this boy had the capacity to be close to his own
feelings, as demonstrated by the other patterns, one would say that at
this time, Anthony was definitely being exposed to emotional bom¬
bardment related to painful tension at separation.
Anthony seemed to show far more of a tension disturbance in re¬
lationship to separation than did his brother, John. He appeared to
have a greater conscious needfulness in terms of affectional ties, but
at the same time, a strong tendency towards withdrawal. Consider¬
able difficulties in the area of identity were occurring. There was
evidence of overpowering concern about loneliness and yet a strong
wish to make the best of the situation.
I felt that Anthony would need therapeutic help at this time. I was
especially impressed with the fact that his responses indicated poten¬
tial for adaptation in a group residence because he had family loyalties
and needs and had identity crisis problems for which he needed help.
The problem was complicated by the fact that he had a younger
brother and that both children needed to be placed in the same fa¬
cility. On the basis of my studies of both boys, it was my feeling that
these boys needed different kinds of placement because of their per¬
sonality structures. Nevertheless, this did not appear to be feasible.
There was no doubt that the two brothers showed marked per¬
sonality differences in their reaction to separation experiences. An¬
thony showed a far greater capacity to face his real feelings, but was
depressed and disturbed by separation and felt his attachment needs
more intensely. iVnthony was likely to be less devious, more related,
and much more concerned than his brother John, and thus Anthony’s
profile was more on the neurotic side.
I found the report by the clinical psychologist who saw him two
weeks prior to my contact to be most interesting. In the report, the
psychologist emphasized the effects of withdrawal and motivational
handicap on this boy. She used the expression that he is “emotionally
and socially impoverished and is struggling with an acute proneness
for withdrawal.” She said that Anthony’s thinking was basically
reality-determined, but the effects of the pressure for mental retreat
was handicapping his objectivity and thinking. She also indicated

that he showed considerable preoccupation with separation fantasy.
She suggested that there was a definite underlying depression. These
characteristics were obviously the same ones emphasized in the Sepa¬
ration Anxiety Test and indicated considerable correlation.
Anthony was described by the caseworker as a tall, slim, good-
looking boy, with brown-gold curly hair and golden-brown eyes.
His affect moved from some depression and sadness to more open
anger about his current predicament. On both occasions, when he
was seen by the caseworker, Anthony was able to speak with feeling
about his mother’s death and missing the home atmosphere that she
had provided. He spoke of his father as having fallen apart after his
mother died. He was against placement of any kind and felt that he
could manage on his own. Both he and his brother had been at the
children’s shelter, and he indicated that he had protested rules and
regulations there. He assumed a somewhat protective, paternal atti¬
tude towards his younger brother.
It was obvious that Anthony was not ready for and accepting of
any placement, while his brother was. The caseworker felt that An¬
thony was showing many more problems with rebelliousness in the
sense of resistance to placement and was far more sensitive to the loss
of the mother. Further, Anthony was particularly concerned about
the father’s desertion and the uncle and family’s inability to continue
to look after them. There was no doubt that in both of these cases,
neglect played a very important role in the children’s reactions.
The psychiatrist at the Jewish Child Care Association found An¬
thony to be sad, bitter, and bored. For the most part, he thought that
the boy managed to function and to develop fairly well, but his
needfulness and bitterness were expressed in provocation and re¬
bellion. The psychiatrist felt that despite the boy’s provocativeness,
he would probably respond to casework attention, especially from a
man. It appeared that in this case we were dealing with both depressed
and rebellious reactions, but that Anthony, because of his responsive¬
ness, was capable of being managed and could accept help. In these
respects, there appeared to be a fairly good correlation between the
material in the case history, the examinations, and the results of the
Separation Anxiety Test.
The evidence from case material suggests that the Separation
Anxiety Test has many clinical values. The test appears to stimulate
children’s reactions to separation and provide some insights into
mechanisms of defense which are being used to protect themselves
against the stress of separation. There seems to be some indication
that the handling of attachment needs and of individuation processes
is quite strongly revealed through the medium of this test. In addi¬
tion, we are provided with indications of the way in which adoles¬
cents utilize reality avoidance and the extent to which these reality
avoidance experiences affect their behavior. The significance of hos¬
tility and painful tension reactions in the test are useful in indicating
personality traits as well as current defenses. Severe ambivalence also
manifests itself very readily in this test, which is a useful diagnostic
indicator.
We can see that normative data both in the institutional settings
and from the nonseparated population are extremely helpful in eval¬
uating the personality protocol. We are definitely able to pick up
exaggerated or extreme trends in relation to separation experiences.
We are also able to see the interaction of the various entities studied
in the test. In this way, we are able to make not only personality
diagnoses, but also to see some of the major characteristics of person¬
ality in relation to the social structure.
Lastly, there seems to be some value in this test in terms of recom¬
mendations for kinds of placement or for therapeutic intervention.
In most of the cases, there is strong corroboration between the test
and the opinions of other workers. For this reason, the test may be
strongly supportive and corroborative in terms of casework planning.
Thus, if a decision on placement is arrived at, the Separation Anxiety
Test could then be used to determine whether it is supportive of the
decision. Failure of support from the test might throw some doubt
on the decision to be made, in which case a reevaluation could be
considered. Further clinical studies in the use of this test will con¬
tinue to be a feature of intake procedures for adolescents at the Jewish
Child Care Association.
Chapter 12
WHERE HAS THIS STUDY LED US?
This study cannot have conclusions. It is a preliminary step in the

process of studying separation behavior in early adolescence and its
clinical evaluation. It is my hope that further studies with this or
similar tests will be made to understand age, sex, intelligence, cultural,
and personality differences, as well as give greater insight into the
process of adolescent separation. The material of this study is prepara¬
tory and suggestive rather than conclusive. The essential purpose has
been to present the Separation Anxiety Test in experimental form
for use in adolescence. I have obtained some impressions about separa¬
tion in early adolescence from the use of the test and I have obtained
these with theoretical material derived from the best-informed sources
in the field. The result has been a tentatively diagnostic and predictive
instrument, with some reinforcement from preliminary normative
data. However, we can set forth some highlighted impressions of this
experiment, which have implications of a theoretical, experimental,
clinical, and therapeutic nature.
There is strongly suggestive evidence in this study which corrobo¬
rates Bowlby’s concept of attachment need and its fundamental na¬
ture. There appears to be a primary quality to this need—it has sur¬
vival value, it seems to express itself constantly in the area of separa¬
tion experiences, and it is universal in extent. During separation, grati¬
fication of this need seems to sustain self-love and/or self-esteem, re¬
duce hostility, make possible the expression and tolerance of painful
tension, and minimize abnormal forms of reality avoidance. Attach¬
ment need is obviously present in most adolescents, varying in inten¬
sity from youths in nuclear families, where it is strong, to adolescents
living in group residential settings, where it tends to be equaled by
strong drives for self-sufficiency.
134
Where Has This Study Led Us? 135
While this concept appears to be at variance with the psycho¬

analytic interpretation of oral dependency, it is likely that affectional
and attachment needs represent a distinctive function in object rela¬
tions. It seems likely that the development of the individuation pro¬
cess is enhanced by the availability of attachment gratification even
in adolescence.
Generally speaking, healthy youngsters tended to show a stronger
or equal attachment than individuation reaction on the test as a whole,
with some variations. Further, there is a measurable pattern for the
relationship between the attachment phenomenon and the movement
towards self-development or individuation, which I have called the
attachment-individuation balance. This pattern strongly suggests that
a real balance exists between the capacity for attachment and the
ability for self-realization and self-development, and this is an im¬
portant aspect of adolescent mental health. There is clinical evidence
that exaggerations exist on both sides of this balance, and when they
do, pathology is generally present.
I have also noted that during intense separation experiences, with¬
drawal and/or hostility are not primary factors but responses to the
pain of deprivation of attachment need. Further, there is an indica¬
tion that increasing the intensity or threat of separation gradually
reduces tolerance for painful tension and shifts the tension into either
more intense hostility and/or stress on self-identity. This appears to
occur in normative populations during early adolescence as a response
to the increased need for breaking with old attachments, mainly the
parents, and setting up new ones. This is as much a response to intra¬
psychic stress as it is to real or geographical separation.
However, when hostility increases to the extent of overshadowing
the attachment need, pathology is evident. This is more true if pro¬
jection or intrapunitiveness is the major factor in the hostility. If pro¬
jection is major, then we are dealing with a paranoid development. If
intrapunitiveness is major, then we are involved with a masochistic
reaction. The paranoid or masochistic reactions are more pathological
than outright anger. If outright anger dominates the hostility pattern
when total hostility exceeds attachment need, we may then be dealing
with a delinquent or characterological development. From my data
and from some degree of theorizing I have come to the conclusion
that hostility due to separation experiences is largely temporized and
controlled by the strength of the attachment need, the ability to feel

and at the same time to tolerate painful tension, the capacity for self-
love, and the facility to utilize forms of reality avoidance, particularly
withdrawal and fantasy.
Theoretically, it seems likely that hostility may be a major tech¬
nique for handling the attachment need when separation is too over¬
whelming and attachment need cannot be assuaged, such as in rela¬
tion to the death of a parent. This method of expressing mourning
may be symptomatic of a disturbed character structure. On the mourn¬
ing picture (11) the attachment reaction was very strong, and iden¬
tity stress and painful tension were overpowering. Hostility was
definitely played down in all groups. Therefore, if hostility domi¬
nates mourning, we have to consider the condition pathological. Per¬
haps the story of Hamlet is a case in point, but we do not have to go
to this famous play for an example. Wolfenstein’s case material103 has
demonstrated this quite well.
We see that changes, especially of a traumatic nature, tend to stimu¬
late attachment need in normal individuals and that the ability to
move into constructive channels is often hampered for periods of
time. Energy flows more readily at such times, not only into painful
tension and hostility, but further, into methods of avoiding reality.
The most common and persistent is withdrawal, which is so clearly
demonstrated on the test. Among displaced children, various forms
of evasion and fantasy are added to withdrawal, which results in a
strong denial of need. Among normative populations, withdrawal is
more often accompanied by fantasy forms of denial, in the sense that
the existence of the situation is denied. I suspect that this form of
denial has therapeutic value and helps the ego to tolerate the pain of
separation. When it goes too far, especially if there is a high level of
attachment need, it represents a severe withdrawal from reality. The
more evasive method of denial has safety features and provides char-
acterological ways of acting out. However, this form damages object
relations and forms the background for increased masosadistic inter¬
actions.
We recognize that children living in typical home settings have
not experienced strong separation in reality, but are experiencing in¬
trapsychic forms of separation. For this reason, strong separation of
a geographic nature is for them comparatively unreal and they are
therefore likely to select a fantasy response. Nevertheless, it does sug¬

gest that in the normative population, evasion as a form of denial,
such as “I don’t care what happens,” is less preferred than it is among
children who have experienced real separations and losses. Thus, in¬
stitutionalized children have often arrived at the stage of detachment
or alienation. It would appear that children in different settings re¬
spond to these pictures in terms of their experiences with separation
and must therefore find a defense which is more tolerable for their
particular situation. However, at the same time, displaced children
suffer in personality structure, as was pointed out above.
I have been impressed with the fact that many children in our
normative population as well as among our displaced children show
such a strong preference for the identity stress response. It also ap¬
pears that the older group tends to refer to this response more fre¬
quently and in greater percentages than younger adolescents. This
increased awareness of a change in oneself is something that has been
stressed many times in studies of adolescence. Our study in separa¬
tion appears to bring this out more clearly, indicating that adolescence
and separation are actually strongly related phenomena, that is, ado¬
lescence is a time of separation and poses many separation problems
which did not exist before.
Thus, separation must be strongly associated with the whole prob¬
lem of identity. It is likely that the acceptance or rejection of this
type of response in the test has diagnostic implications. Thus, for
example, at age 14, youngsters who avoid the identity stress response
are no doubt having difficulties in facing the break with more in¬
fantile attachment needs. This would be especially true in cases
where this is combined with a very low individuation level and where
there are difficulties in the attachment-individuation balance, espe¬
cially on the mild separation pictures.
Another interesting highlight is derived from our data on self-love
and self-esteem. I was quite surprised at the extent of the correlation
between the loss of self-love and the low level of attachment-individu¬
ation balance. Children with high attachment-individuation balances
tended on the whole to show low levels of feelings of rejection and
intrapunitiveness. It was found that displaced children tended to show
somewhat greater preoccupation with self-love problems than those
in their own homes, and therefore less involvement with problems of
self-esteem. There was a strong suggestion from the data that our
problem children and our displaced children suffer more from being
on poor terms with .their superego structures and are less involved
with problems of self-esteem as a result of separation than children
in more normative populations, especially children in nuclear-type
families. It would appear that where children feel adequately loved,
separation produces more concern with problems of self-esteem than
with problems of self-love, although both are involved and there is
considerable overlap. Additionally, it is seen here that such children
would be more concerned with their operations in school and their
activities outside of school in terms of success.
In this study I have used the term “intellectual sensitivity” in relation
to separation. There is no doubt that in some children, the capacity
of the ego to function intellectually is highly dependent upon grati¬
fication of contact needs. Such children are more readily disrupted
in the area of intellectual functioning by separation experiences. The
data suggest that there is some validity to the distinction between
self-love and self-esteem as indicated by Robert White.
Clinical insights on this test are numerous and become greater with
increasing use. For this reason it is impossible to describe here all the
nuances of these insights. However, I may suggest a reasonably ade¬
quate profile on the test, which should be helpful in understanding
the variations.
A strong percentage of attachment reactions coupled with a strong
individuation pattern and a good attachment-individuation balance
should be a prerequisite. But other patterns are necessary and de¬
sirable. These include an adequate amount of tension and hostility,
minimal projection and intrapunitiveness, adequate identity stress,
and satisfactory degrees of reality avoidance. Fantasy should be
somewhat stronger than evasion. Self-esteem loss should be somewhat
stronger than self-love loss. Generally the protocol should show a
capacity to take separation, tolerate pain, retain individuation, keep
hostility to a minimum, feel a degree of stress to identity, deal with
losses of self-love and self-esteem, and show ability to use reality
avoidance to reduce the stress.
On the average one should expect approximately 57 responses,
while there are wide variations from this expectation. The percentage
of responses to mild and strong pictures should approximate a ratio
of 40 percent to 60 percent. Very strong pictures, such as Pictures

8 and 11, should produce a goodly percentage of responses, while
very mild pictures, such as Pictures 4 and 9, should generally provide
a low percentage. As with every test there are many personality
variations with adequate reactions to separation stress. With increas¬
ing experience it may be possible to delineate these.
In this study I have been strongly cognizant of the weaknesses in
the test method, of the research design, and of the resultant impres¬
sions derived from these weaknesses. I have already presented some
criticisms of and alternatives to the test in Chapter 2. Obviously, such
changes in the test would require a new set of experiments. However,
one of the ideas is of interest. Can we expect the verbal selections of
responses as an adequate measure of emotional patternings, especially
when we are dealing with profound mechanisms? Would not a re¬
quest for the child’s spontaneous reactions have been more meaning¬
ful? Obviously, this question cannot be answered by the present data.
It would have been an interesting experiment simply to say, “Tell
me how the child in this picture feels.” Elaborations might then fol¬
low, in terms of telling how each of the other individuals in the pic¬
tures feels. However, it is my impression that a youngster is often
unable at the testing time to get involved in all alternatives. Presenting
the alternatives has the advantage of facing the child with them and,
through selection of these, forcing the issue.
Further, the manner in which the various items were presented as
alternatives may have predisposed youngsters to particular reactions
which caused spurious results. Such prejudicing of the data, if it oc¬
curred, would have been unintentional, since I had few preconceived
notions as to what to expect. Nevertheless, some of the results were
a complete surprise to me.
Samples of populations used in this study were not large and prob¬
ably not adequately representative of similar populations. Witness the
sharp difference between the samples of Junior High Schools 62 and
223 in Brooklyn. Further, even samples from various institutional
settings differed in various areas. In addition, samples were not ade¬
quately differentiated for age, sex, and intelligence. Corrections for
socioeconomic levels, size of families, frequencies of separation ex¬
periences, and so on would definitely need to be considered in future
population sampling.
It is also noteworthy that statistical techniques used in the study

were simple and unsophisticated. No effort was made to obtain re¬
liability of differences through use of standard deviation or probable
error techniques. Percentage of responsiveness was generally used as
a standard score technique, although more sophisticated methods are
available. This is a fairly obvious weakness of the statistical end of
the study and will need correction in future work with the test.
Thus, it is apparent that I have relied largely on my impressions
of the data. Using these reactions and digging into theory have pro¬
vided me with some of the conclusions, being mindful that more
intensive work on population sampling, clinic studies, and statistical
evaluations will be necessary for corroboration.
From my clinical experience and from the normative testing con¬
ducted by my research assistants with the Separation Anxiety Test,
I am convinced that exposure to separation experience via a series
of pictures stimulates the expression of important personality char¬
acteristics. This seems to be true because separation experiences are
crucial phenomena throughout the life cycle and therefore elicit sig¬
nificant and fundamental facets of individual personality. The method
of response which I have devised focuses the youngster’s attention
and enforces the necessity for revealing reactions. The resultant pat¬
terns produce protocols which are amazingly correlative with known
personality traits in the adolescent. The interpretations which may be
made from these protocols are strongly suggestive of predictions for
future behavior in separation situations.
Perhaps it is not surprising that the test can perform in this man¬
ner. The adolescent’s capacity for separateness as well as his ability
to become attached to others indicates the nature of the balance be¬
tween object relations and personal development which he can main¬
tain. Further, the traits which are required to maintain such a bal¬
ance and the emotional cost involved in the disturbance of the balance
are laid bare by the test. What is surprising is that the test produces
such results in the absence of more exacting experimental and statisti¬
cal corroboration. No doubt more intensive scientific investigation
with this instrument, with consequent revisions and adjustments,
would elaborate further on many of the concepts involved and im¬
prove its diagnostic, dynamic, and predictive value.
REFERENCES
1. Adler, J.: Separation—A crucial issue in foster care. / Jew Com Serv,
46:305-313, 1970.
2. Alport, G.: Becoming. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1955.
3. Ansbacher, H. and R.: The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler.
New York, Basic Books, 1956.
4. Beres, D., and Obers, S.: The effects of extreme deprivation in infancy
on psychic structure in adolescence. Psychoanal Stud Child, 5:212-
235, 1950.
5. Bios, P.: Second individuation in adolescence. Psy choanal Stud Child,
22:162-186, 1967.
6. Bowlby, J.: Attachment and Loss. New York, Basic Books, 1969, Vol. I.
7. Bowlby, J.: Grief and mourning in infancy. Psy choanal Stud Child, 15:
9-52, 1960.
8. Bowlby, J.: Separation anxiety: A critical review of the literature. /
Child Psychol Psychiat, 7:251-269, 1961.
9. Bondel, G.: Some sane conceptions of school phobia. Pathways in Child
Guidance, Bureau of Child Guidance, Board of Education, New
York City, 3:5-7, 1961.
10. Bronfenbrenner, U.: Two Worlds of Childhood. New York, Russell
Sage, 1970.
11. Burnham, D.L.: Separation anxiety—A factor in the object relations of
schizophrenic patients. Arch Gen Psychiat, 75:346-358, 1965.
12. Buxbaum, E.: The problem of separation and the feeling of identity.
Child Welfare, 54:8-15, 1955.
13. Coolidge, J., Hahn, P., and Peck, A.: School phobia: Neurotic crisis or
way of life. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 27:296-306.
14. Coolidge, J., Hahn, P., and Waldfogel, S.: The development, meaning
and management of school phobia. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 27:754-
780, 1957.
15. Coolidge, J., Tessman, E., Wilier, M.L., and Waldfogel, S.: School
phobia in adolescence: A manifestation of severe character distur¬
bance. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 59:599-607, 1960.
16. Coolidge, J., Tessman, E., Wilier, M.L., and Waldfogel, S.: Patterns of
aggression in school phobia. Psy choanal Stud Child, 77:319-333,
1962.
17. De Fries, Z., Jenkins, S., and Williams, E.: Treatment of disturbed chil¬
dren in foster care. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 54:615-624, 1964.
142 Adolescetit Separation Anxiety
18. Dizmang, L.H.: Self-Destructive Behavior in Children. Paper presented

at the American Association of Psychiatric Clinics for Children,
Mar. 20, 1967.
19. Eisenberg, L.: School phobia: A study in the communication of anx¬
iety. Amer J Psychiat, 144:112-718, 1958.
20. Eisenberg, L.: School phobia: Diagnosis, genesis and clinical manage¬
ment. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 18:645-666, 1958.
21. Eisenbud, R.J.: Masochism revisited. Psychoanal Rev, 54:561-582, 1967.
22. Eliot, M.: Civil Defense Measures for the Protection of Children. Wash¬
ington, D.C., U.S. Children’s Bureau, 1941.
23. Erikson, E.H.: Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York, Norton, 1968.
24. Estes, H., Hazlett, C., and Johnson, A.: Separation anxiety. Amer J
Psychother, 10:682-695, 1956.
25. Fierman, L.B.: Effective Psychotherapy—The Contribution of Helmuth
Kaiser. New York, Free Press, 1965.
26. Fliegel, M.: Separation—Preparing a child for entering an institution
and returning to the community. In O’Neill, J. (Ed.): Serving Chil¬
dren Through Institutional Care. Madison, University of Wiscon¬
sin, 1964.
27. Freud, A.: Adolescence. Psy choanal Stud Child, 25:255-278, 1958.
28. Freud, A.: Normality and Pathology in Childhood, New York, Inter¬
national Universities Press, 1965.
29. Freud, A., and Burlingham, D.: Infants Without Families. New York,
International Universities Press, 1947.
30. Freud, A., and Burlingham, D.: War and the Children. New York, In¬
ternational Universities Press, 1943.
31. Freud, C: Meaning of separation to parents and children as seen in
child placement. Public Welfare, 70:13-25, 1955.
32. Freud, S.: On Narcissis?n: An Introduction. C.P. 4:30, standard ed.
14, 1914.
33. Friedman, N.: Varieties of symbiotic manifestations. Inst Psy choanal
Res Train, New York, Oct. 1967.
34. Gardner, G.E.: The Child with School Phobia. Paper presented at the
38th Annual Convention of the National League to Promote School
Attendance, Boston, Oct. 27, 1952.
35. Gerard, ALW., and Dukette, R.: Technique for preventing separation
trauma in child placement. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 24:46-61, 1954.
36. Gerstel, A.R.: Freud Und Adler. Dresden, Otto Ruhle, 1924.
37. Goldberg, J.: Factors in the development of school phobia. Smith Col¬
lege Studies in Social Work, 25:227-248, 1952.
38. Goldfarb, W.: Effects of psychological deprivation in infancy and sub¬
sequent stimulation. Amer J Psychiat, 102:18-55, 1945.
39. Gottsegen, M. and G.: “School Phobia.” Chapter 15 in Professiotial
School Psychology. New York, Grune and Stratton, 1960.
References 143
40. Gregory, L.: Anterospective data following childhood loss of a parent.

Arch Gen Psychiat, 75:99-120, 1965.
41. Hansburg, H.G.: Case of Daniel. Childhood Education, 22:37-40, 1945.
42. Hansburg, H.G.: Factors in the School Contributing to School Phobia.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National League to
Promote School Attendance, 1948.
43. Hansburg, H.G.: Separation problems of displaced children. In Parker,
R. (Ed.): The Emotional Stress'of War, Viole?ice and Peace. Pitts¬
burgh, Stanwyx House, 1972.
44. Harvard Medical School: Sensory Deprivation, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1961.
45. Heinecke, C.M., and Westheimer, I.: Brief Separations. London, Inter¬
national Universities Press, 1965.
46. Hersov, L.A.: Refusal to go to school. / Child Psychol Psychiat, 1:137-
143, 1960.
47. Hitchcock, A.: Symbolic and actual flight from school. Smith College
Studies in Social Work, 27:1-33, 1956.
48. Horney, K.: The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New York, Nor¬
ton, 1937.
49. Jacobsen, V.: Influential factors in the outcome of treatment of
school phobia. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 7#: 182-202,
1948.
50. Johnson, A., Falstein, E., Szurek, S.A., and Svendsen, M.: School pho¬
bia. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 77:702-711, 1941.
51. Johnson, A.: School phobia workshop, 1955. Amer J Orthopsychiat,
27:307-309, 1957.
52. Kadushin, A.: Reversibility of Trauma: A Follow-Up Study of Chil¬
dren Adopted When Older. Paper presented at the 6th International
Congress of Child Psychiatry, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 1966.
(Mimeographed report by Community Council of Greater New
York.)
53. Kaplan, R.: School Phobia, a Descriptive Study of the Dynamics and
Treatment in Fifty-four Cases. Thesis, New York School of Social
Work, Columbia University, 1951.
54. Kessler, J.W., Ablon, G., and Smith, E.: Separation reactions in young,
mildly retarded children. Children, 16:3-7, 1969.
55. Kestenberg, J.S.: Separation from parents. Nervous Child, 5:20-35,
1943-44.
56. Klein, E.: The reluctance to go to school. Psychoanal Stud Child,
7:263-279, 1945.
57. Laufer, M.: Object loss and mourning during adolescence. Psy choanal
Stud Child, 27:269-293, 1966.
58. Levy, D.: Maternal Overprotection. New York, Columbia University
Press, 1943.
59. Lindemann, E.: Symptomatology and management of acute grief. Amer

] Psychiat, 297:141-148, 1944.
60. Lippman, H.S.: “The Child With School Phobia.” Chapter 7 in Treat¬
ment of the Child in Emotional Conflict. New York, McGraw-Hill,
1956.
61. Lorenz, K.: On Aggression. London, Methuen, 1966.
62. Maas, H.S.: The young adult adjustment of twenty wartime residential
nursery children. Child Welfare, 42:57-72, 1963.
63. Mahler, M.S.: Certain aspects of the separation-individuation phase.
Psychoanal Quart, 52:1-14, 1963.
64. Mahler, M.S.: A study of how the child separates from the mother.
Mental Health Program Reports, N.I.M.H., 7:113-124, 1967.
65. Mahler, M.S., and Furer, M.: On Human Symbiosis and the Vicissi¬
tudes of Individuation, Vol. I: Infantile Psychosis. New York, In¬
ternational Universities Press, 1968, pp. 7-31.
66. Mandelbaum, A.: Parent child separation, its significance to parents.
Social Work, 7:26-34, 1962.
67. Maslow, A.: Toward a Psychology of Being. Princeton, Van Nostrand,
1962.
68. Mead, M.: Some theoretical considerations on the problem of mother-
child separation. Artier J Orthopsychiat, 24:471-483, 1954.
69. Meier, E.G.: An inquiry into the concepts of ego identity and identity
diffusion. Social Casework, 9:63-70, 1964.
70. Modell, A.H.: Object Love and Reality. New York, International Uni¬
versities Press, 1968.
71. Moss, S.Z.: How children feel about being placed away from home.
Children, 75:153-157, 1966.
72. Murphy, L.: The Widening World of Childhood—Paths Toward Mas¬
tery. New York, Basic Books, 1962.
73. Niederland, W.: Selected papers in Krystal, H. (Ed.): Massive Psychic
Trauma. New York, International Universities Press, 1968.
74. Olden, C.: On adult empathy with children. Psy choanal Stud Child,
8:111-126, 1953.
75. Pappenheim, E., and Sweeny, M.: Separation anxiety in mother and
child. Psy choanal Stud Child, 7:95-114, 1952.
76. Paul, N.: Operational mourning and its role in conjoint family therapy.
Community Mental Health Journal, 7:339-345, 1965.
77. Rochlin, G.: Loss and restitution. Psy choanal Stud Child, 8:288-309,
1953.
78. Rochlin, G.: The dread of abandonment—A contribution to the eti¬
ology of the loss complex and to depression. Psy choanal Stud Child,
76:451-470, 1961.
79. Rochlin, G.: Griefs and Discontents. Boston, Little, Brown and Co.,
1965.
References 145
80. Ramzy, I., and Wallerstein, R.S.: Pain, fear and anxiety. Psychoanal
Stud Child, 13:147-189, 1958.
81. Rose, A.: A re-evaluation of the concept of separation for child welfare.
Child Welfare, 47:444-467, 1962.
82. Schaffer, R.: Aspects of Internalization. New York, International Uni¬
versities Press, 1968.
83. Schulberg, H.C.: The probability of crisis and strategies for preven¬
tive intervention. Arch Gen Psychiat, 7<5:335-358, 1968.
84. Seiden, R.H.: Salutary effects of maternal separation. Social Work,
10:25-29, 1965.
85. Silverberg, W.: Childhood Experience and Personal Destiny. New
York, Springer, 1952.
86. Spiegel, L.: The self, the sense of self and perception. Psy choanal Stud
Child, 74:81-109, 1959.
87. Spitz, R.A.: Hospitalism. Psy choanal Stud Child, 7:53-74, 1946.
88. StoefHer, V.R.: The separation phenomenon in residential treatment.
Social Casework, 47:526-580, 1960.
89. Storr, A.: Human Aggression. New York, Atheneum, 1968.
90. Sullivan, H.S.: “Pre-Adolescence” and “Early Adolescence.” Chapters
16 and 17 in The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York,
Norton, 1953.
91. Suttenfield, V.: School phobia: A study of five cases. Amer J Ortho-
psychiat, 24:368-380, 1954.
92. Talbot, M.: Panic in school phobia. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 27:286-295,
1957.
93. Thompson, J.A.: Children’s fears in relation to school attendance. Bulle¬
tin of National Association of School Social Workers, 24, 1948.
94. Toch, H.A.: Violent Men. Chicago, Aldine, 1969.
95. Van Houten, J.: Mother-child relationships in twelve cases of school
phobia. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 7,5:754-780, 1948.
96. Waldfogel, S., and Hahn, P.: School phobia, causes and management.
The School Counselor, 3:107-113, 1955.
97. Waldfogel, S., Tessman, E., and Hahn, P.: A program for early inter¬
vention in school phobia. Amer J Orthopsychiat, 29:324-332, 1959.
98. White, R.: Ego and Reality in Psychoanalytic Theory. New York, In¬
ternational Universities Press, 1963.
99. Winnicott, D.W.: The capacity to be alone. Int J Psychiat, 59:416-420,
1958.
100. Witkin, H.A., Faterson, H.F., Dyk, R., Goodenough, D., and Karp, S.:
Psychological Differe?itiation. New York, John Wiley and Sons,
1962.
101. Witkin, H.A.: Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology.
J Abnorm Psychol, 70:317-336, 1965.
102. Wolfenstein, M.: Loss, rage and repetition. Psy choanal Stud Child,
24:432-460, 1969.
103. Wolfenstein, M.: How is mourning possible? Psychoanal Stud Child,

21:93-123, 1966.
104. Yarrow, L.J.: Separation from parents during early childhood. In
Hoffman, M.L. and L.W., (Eds.): Review of Child Development
Research. New York, Russell Sage, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 89-136.
105. Zajonc, R.: Familiarity breeds comfort. Psychology To-Day, 3:33-35,
60-62, 1970.
Appendix l
INDIVIDUAL CASE CHARTS AND RECORD FORMS
EXPLANATION OF
ATTACHMENT-INDIVIDUATION BALANCE PERCENTAGE
point 1. Under mild separation deduct the attachment responses

from the individuation responses (if minus, record it as minus).
Point 2. Under strong separation deduct the individuation re¬
sponses from the attachment responses (if minus, record it as minus).
Point 3. Deduct the attachment responses under mild separation
from the attachment responses under strong separation (if minus,
record it as minus).
Pomt 4. Deduct the individuation responses under strong separa¬
tion from the individuation responses under mild separation (if minus,
record it as minus).
Point 5. Deduct the total individuation responses from the total
attachment responses (if minus, record it as minus).
Add all of the points together, making certain to deduct the minus
scores from the plus scores. Now divide the final figure by the total
number of responses to the test. The resultant percentage is the at¬
tachment-individuation balance.
EXPLANATION OF LETTERS ABOVE ROMAN NUMERALS
The letters “N” and “Y” which appear above the Roman numerals
at the top of the individual chart responses stand for the answers “Yes”
and “No” which the youngsters gave to the mental set questions on
each picture. It is planned to make a study of these responses in rela¬
tion to individual pictures as well as to total protocols at some future
date. Here they are simply presented for interest in the individual
case records.
HI
Strong
CO to CN o ■sf CO CN to CN o *-< VO i—«

Mild
o <N o CO o vo o o o o CN ''t o CN CN
CN
TOTAL
- VN to - oo CO o O CO CN VO v—i 'Sf •—< 00
63
wO
Pleasantville —- Hawthorne
N,Y
XII
to
© © o
© OO
© VO
© © ON - CO CO
© C'
©
N,Y
*
© 0
*
XI
VO VO 00 to On CO o
© <N N"
»1i -
c~ CO
0 to
Q
Y,Y
*
© © ■'t
© ©
X
On
w
H
to
-
© to VO Cl CO VO
U- *
12*
to VO *
O CN f- CO
© - VO CO "vf ON oo to
-
UJ
H
<
Q
VIII
Group Residence -
©© © Q© © ©
N,Y
-
to 04 00 ox CN
© CO ON
Own Home_
>* a
z > *
-t - rt CO
©. 00 to
© to
*
On
© VO CO c-
©
*
(N r- "Sf
i
Y,Y
©
*
© ©©
VI
16*
o CO to (N
© -
© cl C'
©
CASE I
»—< tC~
wH
<
Q
33
©'
>*
>-
> cO
©Q ©© (N
© <N oo
*
o
*
to
© ON to rr VO
H
Other
Intake- Foster Home --
C*
*
© ©
17*
IV
* * *
©
*
Y
- CO CN VO co O VO On to to Cl - co
‘A‘A
III
© ©
*
00 ci
©
CO O'. to Tf CO <N
- VO t-- r- CO
, —■
OO
© VO
© <N Tf
© CO c-
*
CO - o ON
0 © to
N,Y
©© © *
©© ©
15*
©
I
*3 responses
On o VO VO CO r-
-
-
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
STATUS:
Reactions
Intrapunitive
TOTAL
w
Sublimation
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
Loneliness
Projection
Rejection
Well-being
Impaired
Reaction
Empathy
Reaction
Adaptive
Reaction
Phantasy
Reaction
Somatic
Identity
Evasion
Anger
Stress
Individual Case Charts and Record Forms 149
4-4
R c
o
C
o
E
u
Et-4 e
13co
co |
-C
b£ *
tn
c
o
'O
o
O O M 1-4
4/1-4
J tJ
CD a
u u
CO c 03
*s * r-4 to 0

0 X3 Pl
^ tS
C S
C
H-* ^
<=> 2OS
4-4 vo 4°
04
NO
ON \° \°
04
NO
ON
NO
ON
NO
Ox
04 ox
8 2 © 20 lO Os O 1
ox
r-- <
S Oh rr\ 00 CN CN A oa 00
l- (4) (4| 1—1 rr^
Dm ©
h.
SEPARATION ANXIETY TEST
*3
*>4 oo so 30 </4 (41 00 003
<3 10 (44
h.
Pattern Summary Chart
Case 1 — Arthur
I ' ; . 002
^ R ^ * O (4| SO
2 § ^ -T VO 'O
R h >—1 X
•>$. 20
<o __T rN
Oa ^ «o>
4-4
R
or\ f4
*- Dm
KjX I—I
"ts l—1 _r (4) r-i O (44
(44 cos
S M "
£ ^ K > *4 #4
H > 00
1
33
3 d
C co o
c
o C/2 • 4—>
4—I
•o I 3 03
o
c
o
13
u
• ^ CO
JZ CO
3- 4 CL
3
d
o
•g _ JZ d <D • *-“1
O
• •—1 *o > O 4-*
H o o > >4 O o
iJ Dh C 4- 4
u
03 ^-4
03 O
'O -a
CL CL u *-'
44
0 C/2
03
4-4 3 o
13
D d
o
j-T 13 *13
03 03 03 (-1
Rl
"4-4
• r«H
03 'o ^ 3
d T3
4-4 O £
E3 E ■M
4-4 CO 03
Q
13
3
8
3
w ^ g o to 3C/2 13
> 33
Dm W 33 3
13 c e :s II 03
3
O
^
C
CD
1
V-_s - —4
CO *34-4 CO
«-> c 03
o
* 02 33
CO
to o Pi)4 CO
R ^ S o 3
^ 3
31
*o 03
CO
O 3 Lh 13 L- 13
•a
c
CJ
T
c/2 03
bb
C
Cl, d
OJ
3
03 > > 03 C/2
H CL B
C/2 cD dy
C C/2 03 03 
03
N >4 E3 -2
03
a:
-d
U 3m
c •r-»
>
-Q
1
3 b bT3
L3 k u
o
13 • H o d *3
-u03 ^
03 aj * ' ! 00
* 3c ^
rr4 d rt -d "O
d
0 ^
l-rt E
'O CL) 13
P d
hU 03
3 a3 c
S 2
T3
o
U
« d T3
<1 ° £ £ 0-1 03 CD 03
Strong
o
4
© o o o wo os o ro o o *-«
0
04 On
r4
Mild
o o o o wo
0
O o o o o
2
wo
—
TOTAL
s>
04 o o o o © CO o M- o o 04 WO r—i CO
34
o«<w •
to VO r- r- 0 SO 04 Tf- ON T—< CO CO wo
-
® © © ©
£
N,Y
* *
XI
VO .VO CO <s VO On CO 0 O t" 04 0- CO - CO

© ©
#
O' VO On VO •sf 0- 0 - wo VO CO cs CO
fc ©
04 04
su. * *
IX
5*
o VO VO 04 04 t~" CO Tf CO ■vt
Y
- vo On o- CO T—«
w ©
H
<
a
VIII
Y,N
VO * •
- VO VO C"* CO •H vo On 04 o CO CO
© © ©
CO
Jh'b *
- CO VO oo vo
•
r-
*
z> ©
vo ON vo CO 04 o 04
©
g >tc- * 3
.91
O cr> Ov 04 vo "Vt* <N 0- OO

E Z © - c-
CO
aH p © © ,<2
o< I «
I
.<3
5*
co VO CO t~- o*- 04 cs CO O 0 vo Tf CO
c X* © ©
g
3 * * * *
17*
IV
12*
Y
- CO 04 VO CO o VO On vo vo oo
04
© ©
z— to Q to
*
- - CO 04
© ©
CO 04 vo r-
© ©
O' o wo a
t§
tso
A‘N
0
II
CO 04 VO VO <N "Vt CO O'- o On %o

- vo
© 04
N,Y
04
I
co vo CO o VO r<
© vo 04 CO
s © ©
I I
3 ?
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
Reactions
w
Intrapunitive
TOTAL
Sublimation
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
Loneliness
Projection
Rejection
Well-being
I
Impaired
Reaction
Empathy
Reaction
Adaptive
Reaction
Phantasy
Reaction
Somatic
Evasion
Identity
Z
Anger
Stress
b cd
R 33 r "( O 33 o
cd cd 03 03
d > d 03 d
03 CJ
• *—< • *“H 03 • O
»—» 03 H3 cd
CO y £
Dh CO jd Dm o « 5 *
£ CD 'a- £ o £
be J JO
Q) O b O o d
O J
03 X -d 03 4-1
6 M-l
03
JO
W X
X
O
d d >
Empathy
Adaptatio:
Sublimatio
Anxiety
^ -s p •M
Anger
° 53 0!
3- 4
• »-h
q
s ^ 33 q
jd Cl,
4- 1 cd
• *H
^ I >
P
+->
q
M
c>
Q> V® NO NO NO NO NO
ON ON \0
o\ o\ ON ON 0*N o\
Dh 0
LO>
(NJ
r-H r—^
rr% tr^
*M
<D <s
Pm 44
C)
TEST
*3
1-4 rf r^- Tf • •
o O
h
ti
ANXIETY
Cd
cr
u <D
X
H
6o3
cd
rA
e
6 v>
J—1
r-l R > .
d 
Sh ■a
<d u X
ti 53 l-l
+4
a!
CW fti
•S
c
or\ r-i
c>
V Pm
o* I *“
-Si > W^
M
XN) oo,
I
S T3 _ M r1< t-H O • • O
8 S m t—* T—H O
X ^ H >
>~~4 O
« >
d
•§ a
CO 0
o CO • t-*
d • H
i 4->
•*-> q cd
o
• *H
4-»
U y rC
4—>
CO
p Dm d
d Cd 2-. 3 d
• *H 0 d o
• *—<
.2
‘j-i
i-J
Dm
^n
d
"o
3-1
0 O
>
■M
CD
CD
■P
o
o 03 O -d • 4—»
*“, >4-4
CO
cd O CD
a-) o
rt crj 3m VM cd q 3-4 ’N d 3-4 4-»
>4-4 C
<d _ <D 03 O, cd
3- 4 _c 3-4
bp co
44
u-,
0 04
y o
g
.5
3
£3 CO
§
d
.2
2
33
d
.2
rt 2
n .<D
zr <d
d CO
CO
aj 33
d
■44
<S S E dco 1/33 ■o S
CO 03 <D
u
03
E CO d
d
CD
>
>
• »~3
Pm 3 <d d d <D CO 33
33 c o I C
03 d
^ 33
co Ert O 30 33 .2 *4-4
K 1
>M>
R
4— 1
d
2 3 c
” d
’on 33
’o
’ CO
03
o
• r~H
4-i T
CO
CO
co
o
—4
G
d
(D
3- 4
y
C
cd
CD
d d > 03
T
03 ^
f-i <D 03 > o-
4- J
CO
c
■Cj 2 3- 4
^ >, 03 03 <D ID 03 2
>->
c
d
d
1/3
 .5 *-> Jh
4- J
d > 3-4 X E -2
-d c d <u -C rt
X CD 33 C-t-4
4-J
CD Jd £ o
-2
• 1
d U
cd
d
00
o ^3 .2rt X
2
d 03
td 33
d
<D
X
o d ^
£ X cd Ph rt
s
Pi 33 U
o
r2
cn C03 33
X
152 Adolescent Separation Atixiety
Strong
CO CN CN CO CO o CO ''4* CO CO CO -ct o CN CN
41
-
Mild
o CO CO CO <N CO o Cl O
31
CO
TOTAL
14-5
- Tj- CO CO Ox oo CN VO co CO VO CN CN CO CN
- r-
AGE•
OJ
c
N,Y,N
* o
0© ©
XII
O r-~
© C"
© CN VO CN
© O'.
© CO CO VO r->
_
N,Y
o * *
Q
XI
CO
CO
VO VO OO CN
© OX CO
©©©
O N- CO
© VO
N,Y
*
Q© © 0
X
H
00
W
H
© CO '<t f-
©© CO CO CN CO CN
U- *
O z z co VC
0© ( CO ) o - VO co Ox 00
*
CO
LU > "
f—>
<
a
III A
*
A‘N
-
CO
©© ©© CO Tf
©© COi OX
0 O CO
© C" oo
*
z > ~ © co
© co co CN CO
*
OX
© VO
© C^ o
*
CN
© CO
o
o
o
©0Q©
a> *
Y,Y
© ©
VI
X o
©
CASE III
©
CO CO CN Tf </S
22! CN r- 00 00 o
E
3 OS
a.
1
Y,Y,Y
o
*
<
e © ©© a
©
V
a 3 CO CO CN CN oo O Ox CO CO
E °
H £
£
5 * * * * * *
>-.>
> ~
- CO
© ©Q
CN VO O r- Ox CO CO OO CN
© -t
Y,Y
0©© Q© *
s
III
vo On
- CO CN o r-' N-
© r- o vo
E
o
a>
A‘A
*
oc
© ©© © © ©
II
-
© O
VO CO co o Ox CO
- tj- r-
U-,
N,Y
# *
CN r- co o\
©© © O’ r-~ o O
© ©
I
O’ - CO co co
X
O
JANICE
03
C
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
Reactions
00
Intrapunitive
TOTAL
D
NAME
Sublimation
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
Loneliness
H
Projection
Well-being
Rejection
Impaired
Empathy
Reaction
Reaction
Reaction
Adaptive
<
Phantasy
Reaction
Somatic
Identity
Evasion
H
Anger
oo
Stress
bidividual Case Charts and Record Forms 153
X CD CD 03 O O
£
o
£
o
to o
c>
3
O
X
o
X
CD
40 X c
X
X nJ hJ
U .§ 2
£ <1
CO G X 03
^ co O c X I
(D O <—( £ 
03 CD
bo
03
.« g
03
to
QJ
to
• *—(
3
OJ
c
o
i
03
to
>
.2
if T3
c
Do
03
G x *3 DT
X
X
C3
-
Do
2
3
’O
« C
o X
< o C
cd
CD 3
^ [§ X I 8 a D-
X
< Dt
o
4-0 ^
® a Q> V® \° V® \° V® \°
8 Jo o\ o\ o\ v» \° O^
cu Do
T$- Up C*P VO ND
Ot
p
O'-
p p
CN r4 up
r—H
VO* r^v
rr
A A VD o
Q Cn|
Vi
Do
h
TEST
<5
to cî
O o
Pattern Summary Chart
h
ANXIETY
, bo >-< X
§ §>
SEPARATION
o
o Ox
rr\
§£>*
§■ „-x
as {2
8
•T-4
c2 ^
<D
>a
S *ts •—1 _r
a -s >-r {-• rî oo O ^
<N rt-
£ ^ B >
I
X ^
c 3 C
co o
_o
G
c
’•D i 3 ^
• u <D X CO o
G
4-> <d to Do
c
Cd _ 0> 3 O
• 1-0
.2
’•M
4->
a. e *o
to
X
2 • *-h
S
o > O
Cd O
rr Mo tO u
u Do . G C to i-J
lo _C <40 C <D _ O « G 03 E DU
M-o P O .5 c <o E u
3 <4_|
X •« E
CO
CO
C3
3
<D CJ X
to °
<-h Oo 6 2 3 '-to Oh • •—*
to
r-> c G
r 
Do 3 <d ■oo- n3 • ti ^ CO > X

3 ^ CL)
CO c
X
c o 03 C 1 G
•rjo iP> g c G o co ■X co ro CO
03 3 C
8 03 o CO X
’co co 3 CD CD
o3 to
<S
G
<D co
y fcD
£ P
C G
‘o
> > c«
O 3
40 G O
£
CO
CD 3 .5
K.
X
40
^
«
to
£i C3 03 «H03
1 Do CO _G "w
X-g
4_> 03 
X
i vg s o •*3 x .S ’D U X
§ s X ^
to _,
o X •S
03
*S
f~<
3
QJ
•>
«
to
G
O E
03
P;
<u
x
g
G
(D
CC3
< 2 X £ X 03 Do c3 & U CD rt 2 T - *
© X
z © © ©© ©© © © OO 0 SO 04 ON
©© 0
© CO
O * *
0^
o
CO
>ia
z * © © ©©
so
©© SO Q 0 V> O- 04 Tf O' CO
0 On
*
fe
w
p
>< *
© ©© ©
to 0 r- 0 - Tf- to NO CO 04
©© 00
*
O z£
© to
©© 0
SO CN O' CO SO
*
CO On O'
© oo
*
Vi Vi
W
H
>5
<
©©©© 0 © © 0
o
Group Residence -
*
>-
z
O' v> 04 o CO
©© o
0thcr_
> a
z > *
© © - CO SO vo to
*
On »—< SO CO
© o
©
*
04
0© 0© 0
t) *
X) o
© ©©
CASE IV
so to so TO Tf O- O'
E OO
p
E§ I °
>» >
>- ©
so
© -
©0 ©
Tf- 0 ©
•
o
*
to
©
On
©
On
P £
Intake —- roster Home -

g
5
> >
•
'sr - CO 04 NO
©
O
©
0 *
O'
•
On
*
to
*
to 00 *
04 Vi
>■
Z "
_
vn 0 ©
tO oo 04
©
*
CO 04 so O' ■'tfr
©
O; Vi
©
s
>> 00 - 04 so SO 04 Tf
©
CO
*
co
0 o
©
Vi 0 Tf-
H
<
s
> *
0 *
♦2 responses
oo Os NO
z 1-1 © © © ©
r-
- vn CO ON
© © © ©
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
STATUS:
Reactions
Intrapunitive
-1
Sublimation
W
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
Loneliness
<
Projection
Well-being
c:
Impaired
Reaction
Reaction
Adaptive
Reaction
o >v H
Reaction
£
Somatic
Identity
e O
£ V* o 03
o CT3 H
Stress
0) 
g
PS 3 1 w £
4_J • r-J
.sp 8
-° -3 -3 3
x. CL 03 be
be 3 > 3 b C 3 £ E «H
1-4 S-,
r-L ^ 53 13 •p
rt
o •fa O 0) O O
o o rt
R > .^
• t-H 6 fa ~> £!
r rs a El
c> >. « 4—>
03 4—>
’flu tn CD X X
U s •« C<
"qj 3
>
c 3
3 03 O
^
ti N *^4 8 o _c -3‘3

s 8 03 
CL
bo
3 o -d > <o 2 3
2J f 3 rt -3 -c Mhd) al
m C3
O ^3 < CL tr 33 E o Dh
^ *§ M 3
X £ « rt o
u
c
+-X a
° ao N°
ox
\°
ox x°
OX
x°
OX
x°
ox
vO
ox X°
OX
R K
cu cl s O O o o O p
c> d 00 oo 'O d d d oo
K (XI
CU
CL Cl
u
CJ vo VO •3~ lo>
o »A
00 CK (XI
h
U V<X 14X
03 I
_ too X
3 R > H—T u~l o VO vo
4«4 x'i
r
<D \t- rx
cn
03 x
u £3
.g
5 oo
r- k>
CL
>rS
(X) (yx
^ >■—<h
s •w u (XI u*> ux «X| <x->
X ^ a >
*x o
a >
i
-O ^x
c 3 3
co 0
o
•a on *13
3 o X p rt
O oo
G
• x>H
4->

3 > cu "•p
4—> fa C o o rt cu o
o p-1 o CL jc *n o 
03
D
k _Q S *»—» w c rt p 8 T3
cu ° £« 3 ->
3 403 CL 2 <D
xj
x» £ 6 3 CO '-y C
O CD
to cucu .2
£
tor
3
U

<3 5 £ oo >
•»—i
EL on —. 33 o 3 £ "O
x^- 33 3 3 4~> CO 0^ 3 U-, 4-J 3
• *—(
cu rt 'O G d 3 .2 I
rt #o CO s CO "TJ
* f—< •O*—< "oj oo *3 cu 4—> (U
R G d r“<
c ’o rt 4—* w 3 H 3 cu
 fa CU rt rt
a*
 fa E
HD i 4-J • H to4—( 4—> b 33
U 4—> • •fa O J3
•O
r-H ' rt
CO
xj ^rt -3
^4—i 3 03 3
fa c 33 T o 33 (—• cu O cu
3 C 33
X ° *3 E rt CU c3 & u CO 03 4—H
CASEV
<
Hn
co
d
o
5
—1
vo
£
p
Q
<
n
H
UJ
NAME M
<
O
Lu
W
Q
H
co
H
_AGI 156
£
o
i
s
z
=3
E
x>
O
A‘A‘A
>-
Feelings and
>
N,Y N,Y N,Y Y Y,N,Y N,Y Y N,Y
IIX
>- >
Z >
>* -
Reactions
Z X
I II III IV VI VIII IX XI TOTAL Mild Strong
—
*
•
d
oc
VO
CO
o
VO
Rejection
-
VO
14*
<N
-
-
©
©
Impaired
-
VO
-
-
VO
d
VO
VO
CO
©
©
Concentration
oo
Cl
ON
CO
CO
CO
■Sf
Phobic Feeling
CN
VO
00
-
o
-
Generalized Dread
*
*
O',
VO
CN
-
CO
d
On
CN
O
CO
-
d
©
or Anxiety
vo
VO
vO
d
On
VO
Loneliness
d
VO
vo
d
CN
Withdrawal
oo
CO
d
Cl
00
CO
ON
Tf
-
CO
CN
Reaction
©
©©
Somatic
Cl
O
CN
vo
-
Tt-
d
CO
*rH
d
o
-
Reaction
©Q © ©© ©
Adaptive
d
d
CN
•'t’
o
00
VO
CO
CO
©
©
Reaction
©
©
©
©
vo
(N
vo
-
Anger
vo
-
-
CO
©
©
0
*
*
*
o
d
co
d
00
vo
On
vo
Projection
O
VO
¥—<
o
-
©©
*
*
*
VO
co
d
ON
CO
vo
Empathy 13*
CO
12*
-
CN
0
©
©
vo
VO
vo
o
Tf
VO
Evasion
'Vf
vo
d
co
-
d
©
©
0
#
#
o
d
vo
vn
d
co
d
Phantasy
On
vo
d
On
o
o
o
Adolescent Separation Anxiety
*01
ON
d
CO
Well-being
■vt
vo
■'f
-
©
©
©
*
vo
vo
d
o
CO
Sublimation
d
CO
CO
CO
o
17*
©©
©
0©
Intrapunitive *
*
CO
d
VO
d
oo
CO
CO
12*
CO
16*
-
o
-
©
Reaction
Identity
*
-
00
d
d
vo
d
-
vo
CO
-
©
©
©
©
Stress
vo
-vf
■"T
CO
d
o
-
d
d
TOTAL 46 20 26
STATUS; Intake —X- Foster Home -- Group Residence - Pleasantville - Hawthorne

*2 responses 0ther _
C
D
D *13 "c3 Cd
High
«->
E
b* D
tJ
03
o O
X •U
t—i t $
o CU 'Dh
X P
4—1 4—> 4—> 4-1 ■3 ^ >2
fc-C
O
P
JO
<73
X 1-2 H3
C
H—v * *■>*
X .2 TJ •§ G
2 § JO XC3 Jhcl) a g O
4-403 4—* bo •« 2 *J3
o \° \0 o NO NO NO \°
R cN 0s- oN Os ON ON qN ON
O o •
O Ov O O o o
K _ i/-. o o' ND o'
^ s
■35K»
C f". VO LO-> 'O
o3
Jp
u >s
«-l03
H>>
o3
E
E tuO
5 I > i—T
>—1 x o
i
C/3 DC/3
p
§ S _r x rn
r-4
c
d u > x X
■M03
4-1 <2 H“"1 <-p
+«4
qc:
Oi •^
£•"
>:*
s■>* HS H—I
<N> O
X ^ >
>
i
X! ^
c D c
O
.2
’ 4-> i
C/D T,
03
U -C CO
C
■p
O o-
c 03
D^ Uc
OJ pU *co
o
Oh G ’oShOh >
4-1 4—-
•S c
•
ud ^ 4-i 2 ° O u c
cCJ o% N E D5P XT
s-T u_, <73 Ch
o a EUh O- In CO 03
R
C co coD p
03CL, ^ 3 03 cD 6 .2 zC HO HD
3 p .. c p ,
C >
3 _>D
1-4 
R c 03 4-4
c s 12
o « P Gp
E
O
‘co HD
V3
• *—< .203
HO ’ CO
§ -OP COC/3 *G
o p
<L) 4->
GD DO
o % ocT c c o 4—>UV3
p, > > Cu G
lH03 Cc 03
<1/ 03 4h
<o G d p03 .5c .S t3
•Cu C CO >% « 4—> ^ 03
> 4-> p3
hd 3 b 4-J Jpo
fti •5 .s •p> -Qi -*j .2 >>~i 
c<D 03 JP
O HD
CO
<73 * C 03 4h HD
t
£ c H3 C GJ
<73
O E "o3 C X
X A £ * P § Oh 03 Pi HD U 03 1—s X
Strong
cn CN
26
- - o j NO - NO H o o - - o
T3
ra o o o o o o CO CN c-
o o- o CO Cl -
2
TOTAL
<N CO o ON *—<
43
- - - *- r- - t" o CO CO CN -
Pleasantville - Hawthorne
O
Q
Y,Y,Y
< *
©©
XII
o C'
© r- OO VO CN
G ON - CO CO NO NO
Y.Y
© ©©
•
XI
17*
NO VO oo Cl NO CO O
© r- CN •'fr CO -
Y.Y
©© ■vt
Q©
X
H
oo
W
H
r- NO C' tT
© NO NO CO CN CO CN NO
LU * *
Q *
XI
O CO NO CN Cl r-* TT o VO CO O’ CN
A
c-. 00 NO T—«
W
H no r ■spons( (0) he is noi 12 to ri n awa> fscor id as w ithdrai vail
<
Q
VIII
Group Residence -
*
Y.Y
*
- NO NO Cl
© r- oo
©© *-
Q ON CN o CO c- NO
Other_
z -
14*
* *
z>
o- CO NO 00 NO
© NO CN
© NO CO f" O CN c- CN
*01
*
© Q©
CASE VI
co NO ON CN - - Tj- r- CN c- NO 00
E z> CO
=3
w
H £ >*
©0©
< *
2 2
C
©>
>*
CO NO CO - t~" c- - L!
©0 © oo o NO VO
Intake-X__ Foster Home -

*
0 * * * *
=
IV
CO
Y
- CN VO CO O T}- r- ON NO NO oo r- d -
Y.N
*
III
NO CN NO
- oo Cl
© Tf CO CN NO f-
© © c~- o CO
0
Y.Y
*
NO Cl
©© ■vt
0
II
00 CN NO o- c- co - o NO
N.Y
*
© ©
15*
r- Ch NO CO
© ©
I
oo o NO
- CN
*1 response
-
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
STATUS:
Reactions
Intrapunitive
TOTAL
Sublimation
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
Loneliness
Projection
Rejection
Well-being
Impaired
Reaction
Empathy
Reaction
Adaptive
Reaction
<
Phantasy
Reaction
Somatic
Identity
Evasion
Z
Anger
Stress
T3
C
g <73 f—h o<73 03 73 £
jo
03
O bf * *y £ 'cl O u jo
bo > fcj i£ X 2 & CD
Cl
os
X S rt g
JO
X
>
G T3 <73 G G
>> O G £ .2
JO
4-> •a03 u
D
03
b
#(U
cd
5h
C/3
03
*G
<73 03
bo O G
5 •§
s-
03
CL
*->
CL c
• *"H
JO r;
>
D
E
» *-H cr1
K s E 03
no
X o
C3
*->
• •—< TO 3 W
JO G G
Ui
X pj & 03 C/3
o
® a \0
o\
vo
ox
\P
ox \°
VO NO
\o
o\
E4 * X X ON
rA p rr> r^\ C4
CK r^>
P Oh rr\ »A ON
X o’ o# r4
L 02 rs <^4
«3
Cn|
<0
h.
s
o
■“»
I ^ X
VO
<D r© X,
> >—i
T 00 VD vO rî ro, O
d
CO
ft is r X
03
o © rr\
•a oo LrX
> - >i-
<s «o
•Kk
(X
•S
Oh
K
<L
«■©
T>*
v^X
X 1-1r» <N <N
ft HH
a M O o
X >
*~s r-
>
G
O
•
G 4->
O
• fH u
dj
G
G 4->
<73
O
• F-«
o *o 4—>
•£3
o
Oh C
rt O
JH
CL <uo G
D ^ TJ ’0
03 03 «-T "<utH O
• *—1
i-»
"aT X D ^ cd
sL JO
<73
"S I a
bo C/3
C/3
CO
CO
-g
G

• »*H
<3 p
E
d £ ra CO 'n
°
«
>
G
C/3
D
> T3
Oh CO G
<D T3 a G -G CO
<o
^ s
G <73 § -a & G
CO
D
O O G
©
ft
g T
QJ C/3
• fH
4—> bo w CL Cl, fcj
CO
C
«
u
G
<73 D o3
C
C
C/3
<L> P .3 E
<2 -c c
D
JO
b -g 2
3 G "S3 o jo
l 4—> •»“< 41
•>
W Gb 03
03 o *-H G3 G
iGJ T3
V c T3 D 0 ^
HH G D c
D
T3
tJ
^ o £ M-i co c3 X
to
c
o CO CO O' O' VO VO o VO to - CO o O o o n VO ON
O'
OQ
"C
:a O - to 04 O' O' o vo Cl o - o o CO CO o Cl CO
s CO
04 <
H CO O' On vo o o c-
O o ci - O' o o CO CO Cl oo Cl
H oo
O
< >< _
*
o r- 0 0 rJ O' On - CO 0
>1 X o
0 © © © © ©
z ©
ON
NO
Q VO Q * *
>1 X CO 0 o r- Cl O' c- CO
>- x © © © On
o © © ©
*
>T x c* O' to
H > X VO CO Cl CO 0 On
GO © © © © © © ©
UJ ©
H
tu * *
O O'"! vo O' - VO CO O' CN c~ OO to
X S VO
Q © © ©
U4 © ©
H
<
Q *
X ~ to 0 oo - to On Cl o CO OO
X' > © © © © ©
© ©
* * *
Z, = O' - CO 0 to to ON VO CO r-> o Cl c~
z > © to
© © 0
VJ
c
o
(U X ~ *
’a
X CO
CASE VII
z > vo O' r- ci c- vo 0 On o>

E © © © © © © © © CC,
3
w z a.
< S x„ o
* *
Q 3 X. > CO VO t"- ci oo o to c to O' 6
X -E to
H a-
X © © © © ©
5 * * * « o
* *
X iS O' CO vo CO o VO c- Cn to to oo Cl
0 0 to
© © ©
X - * u
lO 0 oo ci O' CO Cl vo c~ c~
X “ vo E
© © © © © o
X
>- _ 00 *
0 vo O' C' CO - o 0 to O' vo vo
z " © © © ©
c X * *
I <N c- 00 On O* o vo VO O' to X ws
z “ - CO O'
t- © © © a
© &
C
z o
< a.
o
Generalized Dread
Feelings and
Phobic Feeling
Concentration
in
Reactions
Intrapunitive
Si -4 D
Sublimation
Withdrawal
or Anxiety
<
Loneliness
a t—
Projection
Well-being
Impaired
H <
Reaction
o
Reaction
Adaptive
Reaction
>v
Reaction
>>
Somatic
cs>
Identity
e O
Z. o o n
CtJ H oo
Stress
_0J 4)
to Q, a
"ST c
rj C3
Pi
£ > X
< Ui cu
W
a
D
G
> o
X
a
lH
6u 8 2
O
8 »«
O 03
T3
03
CO G 03
CO G
S-^ .to O £ G T3
C> t^ bo X H .b «3 o 4—>
Vi O u rt u *j3 CJ
<D Cu G *3
^ $
h
CHART
oo IA ro to
o to 00 <hi
■4"
h
ANXIETY
^ rH
<->
R > - CM ©
<-3 * ^ vo
Zs* t-,
+H
as K
s ^ ^
V.
<L>
> G
£ 3 ~ h-t <N VO
a - ▼** H '-■ to O C-4
£ ^ s >
r* r*
n r^-
w >
G
O
G • *H i
4-*
O pfl
•H c.' U o-v G
c rt 2- O
o ’o 3
o o
S
’P
•a Cl, G Jh
x *3 CO V
o 03 O Oh 03 O S, g 3
C V3
£ .2 ^3

<3 B B §
C/3
S 3 £ o
o
> G
a* G <D d £ G g
v-' 03 G
>3 T3 g 8
03 O •C
>-H
G S H3 • r-H t/3 H 3
S
©
. .
c
G
03 .2 .
<-; bo
G
C/3
G
r-J ■Jo T3
G G O
>
CO
03
>
O
—
t/3 *H
G
Dh
D
fi
4->
c

03
«-i
4—1
a 03
X ’rt
3 _£ ^3 r*> £>•3 o b
0$ u
03
r=J
4->
C
•^ M-h qj
- .5 •£3 o X
o3
00 f-i—• G
X ij •£ ^ I iGJ T3 CL)
tj ° ^ 03 rj ti
G > hh d <l> G T3
<1 o l-M 03 d< c3 Pi nD C^J 03
Appendix //
STATISTICAL TABLES ON TEST

TABLE I
SPLIT-HALF CORRELATIONS FOR EACH OF 16 CATEGORIES IN FIRST
TESTING, SUMMER 1967
Test I—Pictures 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11
Test II—Pictures 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
Items Correlations Items Correlations

Rejection 57 Projection 34
Impaired concentration 68 Empathy 59
Phobic feeling 63 Evasion 63
Generalized anxiety 64 Fantasy 55
Loneliness 57 Well-being 50
Withdrawal 64 Sublimation 48
Somatic reaction 74 Anger 41
Oral activity 68 Intrapunitive 50
Patterns Correlations
Anxiety, loneliness, sublimation, empathy 74
Evasion, fantasy, well-being 76
Total responses 88.5
TABLE II
RELATIVE STRENGTHS OF STRONG AND MILD SEPARATION
REACTIONS IN FIRST EXPERIMENT FOR 64 YOUNGSTERS
Strength of Separation No. of Responses

Mild separation
(Pictures 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9*) 1275
Strong separation
(Pictures 1, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12) 1914
Total pictures 3189
Median no. of responses Approx. 50
162
Statistical Tables on Test 163
TABLE III
A COMPARISON OF EMPATHY AND ANGER RESPONSES FOR 45
UNSELECTED CASES IN FIRST EXPERIMENT
Sum of Responses
Strength of Separation Empathy Anger Total
Mild 47 56 103
Strong 142 117 259
Total 189 173 362
TABLE IV
A COMPARISON OF ATTACHMENT AND HOSTILITY RESPONSES FOR
75 CHILDREN UNDER MILD AND STRONG STIMULATION
IN FIRST EXPERIMENT
No. of Responses
Rejection, Loneliness, Anger, Projection
Strength of Separation and Empathy and Intrapunitive Total
Mild 261 235 496
Strong 618 479 1097
Total 879 714 1593
TABLE V
NUMBER OF CHILDREN SHOWING DOMINANCE OF ATTACHMENT
REACTION, DOMINANCE OF HOSTILITY REACTION, OR AMBIV¬
ALENCE IN FIRST EXPERIMENT
Number of Children
Attachment Hostility
Strength of Separation Dominance Dominance Ambivalence Total
Mild 36 23 16 15
Strong 49 15 11 75
Total 85 "38 27 150
TABLE VI
A COMPARISON OF ATTACHMENT AND HOSTILITY REACTIONS
BETWEEN PARENTALLY INDUCED STRONG SEPARATION
AND OTHERWISE-INDUCED STRONG SEPARATION IN 45
UNSELECTED CASES
No. of Responses
Strong Separation Attachment Hostility Total
Parentally induced
(Pictures 1, 6, 8) 187 159 346
Otherwise induced
(Pictures 10, 11, 12) 172 140 312
Total 359 299 658
TABLE VII
ORAL RESPONSES OF 64 CHILDREN IN FIRST EXPERIMENT
No. of Responses No. of Children

0 42
1 8
2 4
3 4
4 or more 6
Total 61 64
TABLE VIII
RESPONSES IN ALL CATEGORIES IN FIRST EXPERIMENT FOR 64
CHILDREN AT PLEASANTVILLE, FAR ROCKAWAY,
AND MOUNT VERNON
Category No. of Responses Median No. of

Rejection 168 2.5
Impaired concentration 186 2.7
Phobic feeling 260 4.4
Generalized anxiety 283 4.6
Loneliness 314 5.6
Withdrawal 116 1.9
Somatic reaction 115 1.3
Oral activity 61 0
Anger 232 3.8
Projection 153 2.5
Empathy 266 4.6
Evasion 113 2.0
Fantasy 168 2.0
Well-being 228 4.2
Sublimation 290 5.0
Intrapunitive 236 3.6
Total 3189 50.7
O-i
Identity rnroSO'OI'':OOu-%»j'S to
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE DATA FOR ALL GROUPS ON SA. TEST, JULY 1969-APRIL 1970
Stress (%) OONOCNO'CL’tOO 00*
Loss of Self-
ro q + <n t ^ r-j Os I";
Love (%) o O 06 06 r-i lo to
Reality ©
re
Avoidance (%)
ThOv-rt-'O^CN'Ot^;
Tension {%) OiAi'OuO'UM'ii-
C'-l r-H r"H v-H *“H r-H
Hostility (%) rj- N N r-I ^ Tf ri W

I re
Median Attachment-
Individuation Balance 0''00'0>'t o
inO'^ÎNiriO'CO
r*-\ r<~> H" i—i r<\
to
re
(°/o)
Median O
Individuation (%)
MONPiNisO'-1
(NNHhhhNN 00*
TABLE IX
Median
© O rrs r<-> rs» ,—i ND rg
Attachment (%) (N(N(NniN(NM<N rg
rgrg©rgsososo© [»h
Percent Difference eg eg n n (N th eg eg
Responses on t—( < ©> *—■< 00 ro O

'0'0'0'0'0it,ia'0
60.5
Mild and Strong OOOCNr^r^rÔ re CN

Pictures (%)
Median No. of NOO'OCO'OfOO'H

rf" t/~, t/-> u<-, u-i ~0 to rj- *e
Responses
No. of Children ÔOOOmiANNN

r-H t—I r-H r-H r-H t-H fS|
r^.
te»
03
£rt
U
o
&
% cd
to1
_ 6
a e a d
rt
<L> ffi w • i-H
-a
a T3 d £ m QJ
a OC
o -o rî eg
to a H- so eg
d Os
Cd
C/5
o , jzE Cu1^ c/5 co ct)
cd o LJ
CD _ I § C/5 o
H
TABLE X
CORRELATIONS FOR 157 ADOLESCENTS BETWEEN VARIOUS
COMPLEXES STUDIED
H '"a k >3 O
a. 2 ~- a § § a a
& T a a
i2 ~-+> <-o a
r>
^
3' "i
a*
aSt a «. a V
S a
p+
a.
r>
&
tS.
V*.
a Ci
a
Individuation —.59 X X X X X
Painful tension + .94 —.35 X X X X
Hostility + .37 —.20 —.11 X X X
X X
Reality avoidance + .58 —.38 + .67 + .36 X
Impaired concentration + .75 —.16 + .09 + .38 + .61
Identity stress + .45 —.22 + .47 + .52 + .69 + .18
»>
Cl
-K> •n,
<o Si
o
§• O ro r-H fO i—I CD *—4 o- to
o O O' *—I o^ <o o 1~ ro
•is 0^ o o oo t'v »—t o 04
<N i-t r-<
00
oo
K *—4
h3 Q>
h
a
Cl
■v*
•t-j
*s
a HnNMNl^HiO tv
o *ts
•*v '00''0^-'trti000' oi
K s>
*W
VO
£ a 13
ci Si
O ft
H to
< D Si
ci
Vi
Si
?«. o
ig
> Oh
03 §
*Q
Cl
M
O
1—I
*0
to
T—I
'O
to
T—I
O'
04
1-I
O'
I—I
»—(
O'
OO
04
OO
t-H
'-1 04
CN
OO
04
cs
5 o Vi
Vi
g £
~ o
Q g 13
C03
♦-* gi 4—>
^
1h Q
7 *7
A ® £
"tS tooooototooir^r^ o.
oic
Cl t-Hi—1»—( •—< r-H CO t-H (~s| to E
5 3 g £ -£S J3
W Q Q <J cdU
TABLE XI
h-<
J J
I—<
e03
5 s g <D
S3 J34->
< PS U Cl
h o R
H fa
• 1v*
<s
c
01 CO
a p- 04 o o 00
CD 41 4-4
00 000
to 'O ^ 04
^ Q Oi <o
ov 04 »—• ro CD
4-i p
4—i
W O Cl
K .g
04 i-H
<11 o
a "CS -Q 'Eh
OHh +H a
t=H <1 Cl Oh bo
C£j IE1/3 oc
c/3 5
C
6 Pi
•*->
Si ,o a <Si
7 W o
s-*
*4—1
03 13
£< C/3 rv
tv hoi'O'+O'HNIO VO ’flj C
c>
tJ-O'O'OmOO'O' Tf 4H rt
I 23
c/3 rj <5
+4
vo
o
00 rp rT3
W ^ tv
3-1

<D
J ^ lH J341
< S 4) 4->
H O 43
4-1 c o
O U X IZ>
H o3 01 41CO
4_> X
03 l-l03 41
4->
V) U
a
com
U
o o
Eo>
U|
03 cd 13 c
•Ho
F10)H 4->
Uh
E cd
E 13 Xi P
w
O
O
4—'cd X3
JJ
•a 13 p £ ro •a .E
a 13 Vi
o 13
B ~g C kJ 04 04 -C 13
c
k C03 -P O VO 04 H .S
O 6 cl,
g £
O
3 ^ u E c/i _c ^ i_
co 13«
4->
0) 03 03 ft E o o
03 (3 U W oi H £
TABLE XII
ATTACHMENT-INDIVIDUATION BALANCE IN RELATIONSHIP TO
ASSUMED ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE AND PERMISSIVENESS
Median Balance
Groups Structure—Permissiveness Percentage
P.S. 194 and J.H.S. 62 Least—Most 12.9
St. John’s, PleasantviUe, and
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway Most—Least 33.15
East Midwood and Camp
Lou Emma Medium—Medium 38.7
a
a O r/i t—. co> m*v VO ^ r^ ^t;
■Os
>3
"a £ o’ o a n fA oo Tt- cn" ©
r-Ti r<-, n O') rr\ r^l ro r-4 cr\
^ .3
.8
>3 Ks
H^-S a
C> ~SJ c>
+-J ' —S
1-4
b/) 3 <0 nn OO ■^ © c-i O oo O' VO
<3 'Ll
T-~, d N N (N N N O' 6
+s, (Nmhn(N(Nh(\|
<L> <N
a a
^ a
o a Os
'Ll ■Os
V,
r^
ca 'Ll
V-
'Ll I''- n“i Ov O rs-v Ol is~>
b0
OvorsiOOvOvu-Ôv oo
a + ^ rA + + + nt*
■S
0)
^ ^
Ov
O
OO
00
i—(
is-i
>A
s—t
00
00
Ov
O' s
n~>
VO
CM
Cs)
VO rsi
fN|
L>
O
a
a vo 3h
"'+■ CM t'- Tf- oo
♦*% r^.
■Os m Is-, 00
O-J
r--
<3 n“>
K
1-4
a
L>
■>)
1-4
a <o f'l ca n O' i-- r^. *s-> rf l/*l
a 'Ll (NtNHIN'ONfA VO
•Os ■t—,
rî
D
a
V-
fin
tfl'OMNlAiO'ObO
R
VlCCX'tfA'IiAlAiCC Ov
£ Is-,
inOOOOiAisvNNN
r-H t-H r-H r—I r-H r-H (NJ
rt
P
rt
O
o
P4
3
i
0=1 |B
cfl
no
O
<-> O w O
no a £ rrs
t f C o Ov) CvJ
o
K
t O J : nt- vo rsi
c _C Ov
o 03
C/3
o 6 Cl, ^ cn ^
C3 -C
<D o
CUcnP$UWOi>-^H
+~>
Cn> On H >0 N N NO UN
i-h r*N c*N
t—i
o-i On O'
'—*
O
fN4 P P
<N 1—1
*>♦ Ci
« </2
<0
<3 h
-Q
•*»> -R t—iOOOnIv-.O^^Ôn 00
<a> C> rÔ'^t'O'OT—ir^’—1
to *8 Tt-^J-rA^j-Ntf-Tj-r/NrJ-
<5
•M co 0*
R
co R
<o
*■> C>
co
0-.
<o t^,r<-iOON',^-r^rl->—i r->
. . . • ♦ • • •
O 'ON^NrNj^'ÔNr^r'N
R
C/2
P
p
O
cd
O t:
R Tt-
r-i no
Tt-
00
NO
o->
7t
u-i
oo
O
OO
C/2 y—4 H i-H p T-P Nt-
P
o
M
pd
o
r^
> i
On •
<0
Pd NO ~ rHTj-O'f'N’tNO'N On
On S mNHrfHtNNN
o Ci
r4
to c/2
X £
w
o
HP
zw <o
p CO
cd
Co
R ,'R
<o
z rÔ'-ôooO'^-rj-r^ ■ch
Q O C> NOr^^NONOtOVNf-' o
w P NO
H H HP
P u
X cd
5
p i>- ?%
■SJ
i/->
CO i- w 'O r^- r«"> On i—i O-
X lONtN^NONj-lOtN
NO
8
0, 'Tl
p
O
C/2
o-i oo oo i/-> o~i rî
P i—i t—H P r—( P f'Ha p
C/2
z
o
p
C/2
w
ed
C3
4-»
o
c/2 !d U W p H
bO
8<3 0'©r*o'>OQOOO©w-\ loo
►Si
* • • • • • • • | o
• • 'O —i rî
•
T-H ¥=H (f^) CN O'
00• f<%• M• 00• 00

1- t ^
O; h a cs n f".
o
i-» c-i © o’ i-I
w
u
3
^ O N CN (N 00
’-< o 06 o’ cc 00
w~>
tOOO + OcOOir,
n o’ yj a « n yj \o
</> cn
V«J VU t, r , • »-H ^ E E
^>
w 0 di cu
TABLE XVI
SELECTION OF TENSION AND HOSTILITY RESPONSES IN THE SAME
PICTURES BY 30 CHILDREN IN THREE DIFFERENT GROUPS
(10 FROM EACH GROUP)
Number of Selections
Group Mild Strong T otal Median Range
St. John’s 21 35 56 6 1-9
J.H.S. 223 15 27 42 4 0-9
Camp Lou Emma 9 16 25 2 0-6
Picture Selected and Frequency of Selection
Picture St. John’s J.H.S. 223 Camp Lou Emma Total
1 0 2 0 2
2 3 4 2 9
3 1 2 1 4
4 6 5 2 13
5 4 2 0 6
6 5 3 2 10
7 3 0 2 5
8 9 8 6 23
9 4 2 1 7
10 6 5 1 12
11 7 4 3 14
12 8 5 5 18
Adolescent Separation Anxiety
„a r- o cî 00
B o vo
04
VO On* r-H t#~> VO VO o\
| r<
rsj r-H r-H 04 r-H
’ts
<3 aq
-Si \
0) K.
*
<3
k3
R
H—, * r»*
c -Si ;*•»
"♦*4 0-)
<s>
* r-4,
S CN
<s
? R
>3
t-
04
©
04
u-
r-H
to
m
fsj
rt“
tO
rsi
ro
04
oo‘
i—<
Tj-
CsJ
o> k<
R t->
R
05 C5
V*
<V)
a*
&O)
REALITY AVOIDANCE RESPONSES FOR VARIOUS GROUPS OF
*3
C”*
g ^ CN GO
'ts H* © r—H VO*
►si ^ to to to so VO
•^
GO »o rf 00 VO O OJ VO
r° VD Tf n-i H rt ^3 n
■>3-
t—I i—I r—I ?—I
157 CHILDREN IN 1969-70
TABLE XVII
R
05
• r-*
00 to 'O N N ro
§ ro ro 1—I Tt- fO ol to
04
fe3
%
"K>
R O'OONO'OOOOOt oo
*3 H(N(Nwrt-|s(sn o-
k, rj
<o
<o
R
O
oq K<3
H-s "Q to CN O- to Tf
. ro 04
o VO
-S1 ro vo to to NO Os r-H
VO
* * **
£ fe
^ a -a « & In
CX on pq U W Ph i-
Q
h-4 00 to tJ- 00 VO O' o-4 vo 00
Q> VD tf w r—( VO CM to o
T-H 04 t-4 —I
h.
>3i 805 rj- vo

?> Tf- rH t}-
r}- 00 to VO
<3J
V. kj
i—( to r<0 >H fA N r-H
04
55
<3 OvOOohO'CoOoooh vo
8>3 4'-
04
CD k<
m
pi I
5 -8
-K4 O' N O W N VO
ro vo to to vo
H 43 vo
U
HH
83
Oh
O 00
^
to
O'
to
OO oo r-- nj-
Tf tH Ov
vo
Ov
r~-
00
VO
Z VO
o
Pi
H <-i
<3S> .O
8
CD 4U
K M M ’-I 04 i—I rH
VO
to
Q 8 kq £»
•+-4
<o
£ *
< ck ?0
to
<50 <3 Ov o-
a 8C> ■Kl
8
>3
00 VO
rn
-H
04
O
to
04
co 5
I"-
o
04
5-
k,
CD
> £ to Ov Ov rj- <—t rj- t+- to

§ I 04 tJ* to to co r-~ to rr 04
W °
_J CD
& ^ to
PQ W
< z CD
H S 004’—10^ 04 001-00--
O 0, 04 to to to rt* 04 to to
Oh
CD
w
0^ »»
Ql) i
to t}" 04 —4 vo O vo vo [O
*«» Q 8
w 8 S> C5 04 co
u +-i
to
• ”4
£ Ck <*»
to
85 Q
04 Ov vo vo Ov to Ov
Q
H—( 8
43
’—t 04 vo
o k<
>
<1 rj-
r—I
vo
to
00
to
O^
04
O
04
04
OO
OO
04
VO
tO O'
43
>< 04
H
M
85
■J
03
W
2
P 03
Pi
O
o
Pi
4h
03 03
Uh
i
£ noO
 H
o £
nO p ro
C no 04 04
8C5 1a joc o h-4 %
■Ck Tf- vo 04
O' . .
03 o Ck 1—1 CD CD
4/5 aJ
p 4/5 4->
o <u OJ
u rt rt CD X E o
Ck CD pH U W Oh H
TABLE XIX
PERCENTAGE ABSURD RESPONSES FOR 157 CHILDREN
IN VARIOUS GROUPS
\
Group Percentage of Total

Pleasantville 5.51
St. John’s 6.3 L 5.6
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 5.0
Camp Lou Emma 4.4
4.25
East Midwood 4.1<
P.S. 194 4.6s
J.H.S. 62 4.5 ► 4.8
J.H.S. 223 5.4
TABLE XX
IDENTITY STRESS RESPONSES FOR VARIOUS GROUPS OF 157
CHILDREN ON MILD AND STRONG PICTURES
Mild Pictures Strong Pictures

Num Per- Num- Per- Percent
Group ber cent ber cent Difference Total
Pleasantville 24 40 37 60 20 61
St. John’s 27 35 51 65 30 78
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 34 38 55 62 24 89
Camp Lou Emma 17 26 48 74 48 65
East Midwood 26 36 47 64 28 73
P.S. 194 72 39 112 61 22 184
J.H.S. 62 71 47 80 53 6 151
J.H.S. 223 32 30 73 70 40 105
Total 303 38 503 62 24 806
Statistical Tables on Test
<o
<11
<-i
<3
■K}
R +4 R o «vi rî O rr\ i—j o

<n C> U o' © 00 00 OO rA 00 <>
01
<n
S u-i 00 <"<■> 00 00 u-
o
R o-.oOt^'O'Of^'
-N""' —J r-
h
01
<A>
<11
K *3I ?>
RESPONSES OF LOSS OF SELF-LOVE FOR THE VARIOUS GROUPS OF
a +4 rh (v. vO N 00 rî
oi R m ia rA m M "t + O
*
a
•ca
R
157 CHILDREN ON THE MILD AND STRONG PICTURES
c>
• 44
+4 -—i i"- O O '—i om 'r~>
<ll
tJ- "t fA f'l X O' O
•o}-
<o
<11
*4
a 01
01 *3 R>
t-i
*4
+4
00’~<OOr--.AAsCsTf n
N^fAMN'AlNrA SO
R n
i>0 a
R •a
TABLE XXI
Q
k. R
t~i
CO o
• *4
+4 or^t^-’-ôoor-- Os
01<11 fA fA (S N >A 't fA 'j-.
0?
0$
<3 lAi ly*s ll"s r—4 o ©>
f-4
cî $ (VJ T—I so 00 r^-
rî
h
<-i
01
*4 <li
a 03 P>I
44
01 >-
44
'O'O'OfA'O'l-'Aot'
r-H O'J *—I m r-H t-H
O
m
R R
a
"a
—-4
JR-
*
R
a
*
00 rf r^l Os 1—I 0O l>-> VO
<u01 t—< I—l rAS rt“ r —I t3"
oil
C<
>4
rt
?03
o
o
M
03 03
C-j-i a
T3 a
X w OO
F3 c/d T3 ro,
> v. d o £
O n3 C^l C^l
JR, U> vo r t
a
a £ Jc 8
ctf o a J
Oh^§ o 1—1 c/5 c/5
N» C/D 03
o3 —i 4= C 4->
C oo CO •M
o
O JL> i-J. ’ yJ o3 rt tc sd
H
r
o
00 fA CO <N
<->
$ VO
a a
co
a
rs • o
^
2 v> t~4
Q
• K
Q •Ki t'O'tONNrh'O 00
h •a ch
tn
Vi
W>^(niorfiH\oso >^~>
R-
Vi
a
o
O
R
•T>»
<a
tH
«s 'ON«rl|N^MMt oo
<->
vj
k
a 
R r-H
co ro
Vi
R
©
O
R
©
Osr^CNvoÔOOO ro,
Mr^r^nN'Omrj- O
o>
CD
~©
a
i<4
a
CD co
' V"*
Oh R
R3 -S
R3 Vi £»
M N + rA CN OO tf- r^\
«, R r—I 1-H H r^l fNI i-H *)•
£ s
^
8
©
o
X
03
£03
Xi
o
o
Pt
u
ca _,
^ E
E T3
W O
0) X O
d £
=3 in T3 o
OR > n C "0 C'j 4
a •M
c X g J
s CN VO
© 03 o E D-i T“H
*- in
> jr E CO C/5 03 r—H
o d
<L> o 03 cd CO X X +—>
\->
GO
o
U Ph* H
TABLE XXIII
INTELLECTUAL SENSITIVITY TO SEPARATION AS EXPRESSED BY A
MEAN DIFFERENCE BALANCE FOR VARIOUS GROUPS OF
157 CHILDREN
Sum of Impaired
Concentration and
Sublimation Differ¬
ences on Mild and Mean Difference
Groups Strong Pictures for Each Child
Pleasantville (15) 35 2.3
St. John’s (18) 38 2.1
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway (18) 44 2.4
Camp Lou Emma (15) 46 3.1
East Midwood (15) 36 2.4
P.S. 194 (32) 106 3.3
J.H.S. 62 (17) 30 1.8
J.H.S.223 (27) 82 3.0
Total (157) 417 27
Explanation of Tables XXIV through XXXVI

The percentage for each group, for each pattern or item, and for
each picture (three-dimensional arrangement) was obtained as in the
following example.
The total number of responses for all of the children of P.S. 194
on Picture 2 (166) was divided into the total number of attachment
responses for the same group (25), resulting in a percentage of 15.7.
This is noted in Table XXVI under the column attachment and next
to the group P.S. 194. Since there is a degree of overlap in the col¬
umns, the percentages read horizontally do not add up to 100. The
medians at the bottom of each table were estimated by taking the mid¬
point of the total number of percentages. Table XXIV is simply a
summary of the medians at the bottom of each of the next 12 tables.
TABLE XXIV
TOTAL MEDIAN PERCENTAGE FOR EACH OF THE 12 PICTURES
►x* Co
Stres.
Idem
a H *0 p §■ ft
ft* o ft. S. <5 ft C> 5s
** 55 • 55
N~-
ft SL ft
ft ^
St
^ ft ft’ ft
s s- « ft-
55 V 55 ft
§- Vi 55 t* ft* rs-
ft Si ft
a x*.
X*.
ft x+
*■+ o V-A . a
a VJ
Os
Pictures 55
1 33.9 18.6 13.1 10.0 22.5 14.5 7.0 1.8

2 16.9 20.9 21.3 23.3 12.7 12.7 3.6 1.6
3 16.9 44.6 5.0 24.5 9.4 11.9 1.9 17.8
4 8.9 37.5 7.2 14.5 10.4 4.8 2.5 11.9
5 17.4 32.1 9.4 22.5 16.3 8.9 6.9 4.1
6 35.4 19.6 27.1 20.9 8.1 10.7 10.4 3.1
7 23.1 21.4 8.1 15.0 11.9 11.2 9.3 3.2
8 35.2 11.6 41.0 38.4 19.6 16.2 4.2 1.8
9 21.3 12.6 11.3 17.6 9.4 1.8 1.8 3.4
10 38.4 16.2 12.6 25.6 20.8 10.8 12.7 0
11 39.6 16.8 18.8 36.0 30.6 18.5 9.0 1.2
12 32.4 17.4 41.4 21.6 27.3 12.6 5.4 1.8
TABLE XXV
PICTURE 1. THE CHILD WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH THE
GRANDMOTHER AND WITHOUT THE PARENTS.
Concentrate
Hostility
Individuatio
Stress
Attachment
Painful
Identity
Impaired
Sublimation
Avoidance
Reality
T ension
a ft
Groups
St. John’s 43.4 26.4 43.4 1.8 22.6 13.2 5.6 1.8
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 40.3 11.3 16.1 12.9 22.5 14.5 3.2 3.2
Pleasantville 30.4 19.6 10.7 16.0 12.5 10.7 7.0 3.5
Camp Lou Emma 33.9 8.9 8.9 12.5 23.2 14.2 7.0 1.7
East Midwood 35.4 18.8 14.5 8.3 29.1 14.5 6.2 0
P.S. 194 25.8 16.3 13.1 10.0 18.2 17.0 11.3 2.5
J.H.S. 62 27.8 18.6 9.3 9.3 9.3 16.2 8.1 1.1
J.H.S.223 34.0 11.6 11.6 68.0 13.6 13.6 6.8 0
Median 33.9 18.6 13.1 10.0 22.5 14.5 7.0 1.8
TABLE XXVI
PICTURE 2. THE CHILD IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER CLASS.
Stress
Identity
Impaired
Hostility
Painful
Reality
Attachment
Individuatio
Avoidance
Concentrath
Sublimation
T ension
Groups a a
St. John’s 16.9 24.5 28.3 24.5 16.9 11.3 7.5 0
Pleasantville 10.7 25.0 10.7 23.3 3.5 17.8 3.6 3.6
Camp Lou Emma 17.8 19.6 23.3 32.1 7.0 8.9 5.3 1.7
East Midwood 10.4 29.1 12.5 22.9 4.1 14.5 2.1 2.1
P.S. 194 15.7 17.9 21.3 25.7 14.4 8.1 2,5 1.2
J.H.S.62 23.2 19.7 5.8 9.3 12.7 12.7 0 1.3
J.H.S.223 23.2 21.2 12.1 17.1 13.1 9.0 3.1 1.01
Median 16.9 20.9 21.3 23.3 12.7 12.7 3.6 1.6
TABLE XXVII
PICTURE 3. THE FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD,
Painful
Avoidance
Reality
Stress
Identity
Attachment
Hostility
Impaired
Sublimation
Concentrati
T ension
a*
a.
al
a
§
*■».
Group 1 §
St. John’s 16.9 75.4 11.3 24.5 1.8 9.4 1.8 1.8
Pleasantville 12.5 44.6 1.7 26.7 5.3 5.3 3.4 21.4
Camp Lou Emma 21.4 41.0 5.3 33.9 10.7 12.5 1.7 17.8
East Midwood 2.1 52.0 0 20.8 12.5 10.5 2.1 27.1
P.S. 194 13.1 36.0 5.0 21.3 9.4 11.9 1.9 15.7
J.H.S. 62 17.4 26.7 3.4 16.3 8.1 13.9 4.6 9.3
J.H.S. 223 11.3 35.6 4.8 16.2 7.3 6.5 .81 17.0
Median 16.9 44.6 5.0 24.5 9.4 11.9 1.9 17.8
TABLE XXVIII
PICTURE 4. THE CHILD IS LEAVING THE MOTHER TO GO
TO SCHOOL.
er
Stress
Identi
a H
U ^
Si
v* &
g-
A
sa
a
v*.
Vi.
g
53.
Vi. .
a
Tt*
1
<5
- a a-
v—*
Vi «
s V a ^ a ^
S G a fb
**
& ^ ft. v*.
*-*•.
Vi St
ts*« a
§ C) Vi a
Groups a
St. John’s 11.3 41.5 22.6 26.4 18.8 3.7 1.8 0

Pleasantville 1.8 33.9 7.2 16.2 8.9 1.8 3.6 14.2
Camp Lou Emma 8.9 ' 41.0 14.2 12.5 7.2 0 1.8 0
East Midwood 2.1 37.5 6.2 16.6 10.4 6.2 2.1 20.8
P.S. 194 8.7 25.1 6.9 11.9 12.5 6.9 2.5 11.9
J.H.S. 62 9.3 31.2 6.9 13.9 10.4 10.4 9.3 6,9
J.H.S. 223 7.6 33.1 12.7 14.4 10.2 3.4 .85 17.0
Median 8.9 37.5 7.2 14.5 10.4 4.8 2.5 11.9
TABLE XXIX
PICTURE 5. THE CHILD IS LEAVING THE PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP.
Hostility
Painful
Stress
Avoidance
Reality
Identity
Impaired
T ension
Concentra C/D
8
V+. 1 a-
v^,
a-
8 2
Si Vi.
Vi .
Cs
a Vi . a
Group a Q>
a
St. John’s 18.8 52.8 26.4 22.6 18.8 72 5.4 9.4
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 16.1 37.0 25,8 22.5 20.9 9.6 6.4 6.4
Pleasantville 17.8 32.1 19.6 17.8 5.4 8.9 3.6 3.6
Camp Lou Emma 12.5 32.1 5.4 30.3 12.5 . 7.2 7.2 7.2
East Midwood 18.7 29.1 6.2 25.0 22.9 10.5 8.3 4.1
P.S. 194 14.4 26.4 9.4 22.0 16.3 5.6 6.9 3.7
J.H.S. 62 17.4 20.8 9.3 11.6 9.3 11.6 6.9 3.5
J.H.S. 223 12.0 6.0 12.0 6.0 10.5 6.0 6.0 7.5
Median 17.4 32.1 9.4 22.5 16.3 8.9 6.9 4.1
TABLE XXX
PICTURE 6. AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER,
THE FATHER IS LEAVING.
Avoidanc
Hostility
Painful
Reality
Stress
Identity
3r
Impaired
T ension
Concentr*
Oo
r*+. Sc a
** • a-
<2 . •
sc 3
S
a .
a <3
Q, • a
a a
Group a
St. John’s 62.2 39.6 39.6 22.6 13.2 9.4 15.0 3.7
Pleasantville 25.0 19.6 28.5 12.5 5.4 7.2 7.2 3.6
Camp Lou Emma 41.0 19.6 21.4 39.3 16.0 10.7 19.6 1.8
East Midwood 35.4 18.7 27.1 25.0 6.2 14.5 16.6 0
P.S. 194 32.7 18.8 17.0 16.3 5.0 7.5 10.0 3.1
J.H.S. 62 16.3 18.6 4.6 11.6 9.3 13.9 10.4 2.4
J.H.S. 223 37.3 21.1 17.0 6.5 5.7 4.9 9.7 2.4
Median 35.4 19.6 27.1 20.9 8.1 10.7 10.4 3.1
TABLE XXXI
PICTURE 7. THE CHILD’S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR
LEAVING ON A VOYAGE.
Stress
Painful
Avoidanc
Reality
Identity
Hostility
Impaired Co
T ension
Concentre
*■+ a a
c sc• a-
a <2
^.
v5- sc §
3 a **.
Si
a 05 a
. a
Group a |
St. John’s 39.6 24.5 9.4 15.0 16.9 13.2 13.2 3.7
Pleasantville 21.4 21.4 5.3 17.8 10.7 7.2 3.6 3.6
Camp Lou Emma 32.1 10.7 10.7 19.6 10.7 1.8 8.9 0
East Midwood 23.1 23.1 2.1 14.7 16.8 12.6 12.6 2.1
P.S. 194 26.4 12.5 7.5 11.9 11.9 8.7 1.9 1.9
J.H.S. 62 20.8 25.5 8.1 15.0 12.7 18.5 9.3 5.8
J.H.S. 223 36.0 21.0 4.5 6.0 18.0 9.0 3.0 1.5
Median 23.1 21.4 8.1 15.0 11.9 11.2 9.3 3.2
TABLE XXXII
PICTURE 8. THE JUDGE IS PLACING THE CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION.
Stress
Sublimation
Painful
Identity
Impaired
Attachment
Individuatic
Avoidance
Reality
Concentration
Hostility
T ension
Group s
St. John’s 53 29 44 47 35 20 36 1.8

Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 35.2 16.0 36.8 38.4 25.6 17.6 6.4 0
Pleasantville 25. 17.8 41. 35.8 14.2 14.2 1.8 1.8
Camp Lou Emma 42.8 5.4 41 42.8 19.6 16.2 3.6 0
East Midwood 42.0 10.5 42.0 46.2 23.1 16.8 4.2 2.1
P.S. 194 25.1 ro.6 31.8 27.6 13.1 10.6 6.2 2.5
J.H.S. 62 27.8 11.6 23.0 23.2 13.9 15.0 6.9 2.3
J.H.S. 223 22.7 9.2 19.1 24.1 12.1 10.7 2.1 0
Median 35.2 11.6 41 38.4 19.6 16.2 4.2 1.8
TABLE XXXIII
PICTURE 9. THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THE CHILD TO BED.
a k >3 Co p ^
*+ o rJ Si §?
& g-
o*. •
O'**
Ok.
1 % 8
o*
S
r>
rti
^
ft
a*
Ok .
3' S. a v V S a
g S V a a
r> Si
Ok .
§
a o
Group a
St. John’s 31.0 14.4 14.4 29 23.4 5.4 3.6 1.8
Richmond Hill-Far Rockaway 19.2 14.4 25.6 17.6 8.0 1.6 0 8.0
Pleasantville 9.0 12.6 7.2 17.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5.4
Camp Lou Emma 21.8 12.6 10.7 25.2 12.6 0 0 1.8
East Midwood 25.2 10.5 8.4 16.8 16.8 0 0 2.1
P.S. 194 21.3 10.0 11.3 15.7 9.4 3.7 3.1 4.4
J.H.S. 62 20.8 19.7 15.0 5.8 8.1 6.9 1.16 3.4
J.H.S. 223 28.8 16.0 6.4 30.4 11.2 1.6 4.8 0
Median 21.3 12.6 11.3 17.6 9.4 1.8 1.8 3.4
Statistical Tables on Tesi 185
TABLE XXXIV
PICTURE 10. THE CHILD’S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN
TO THE HOSPITAL.
C/5
Stress
Identity
Painful
Avoidanc
Reality
Impaired
Hostility
Concentr,
T ensiori
k si
in¬
i'* a.. <>
Si
<2 .
Cr- Ru
3 Si tS. .
Si
a r-V
•
o
a
Group a a
St. John’s 45. 15 30.6 37.8 27.0 12.6 14.4 1.8
Pleasantville 36 16.2 10.8 21.6 7.2 5.4 10.8 0
Camp Lou Emma 42. 17.8 12.6 28.8 27.0 10.8 16.2 0
East Midwood 52.5 23.1 12.6 29.4 29.4 14.7 14.7 0
P.S. 194 34.6 15.7 10.7 24.5 12.6 8.2 6.9 1.9
J.H.S. 62 17.4 16.2 15.0 10.4 15.0 17.4 12.7 0
J.H.S. 223 29.5 16.4 8.2 17.2 8.2 5.7 13.9 .82
Median 38.4 16.2 12.6 25.6 20.8 10.8 12.7 0
TABLE XXXV
PICTURE 11. THE CHILD AND THE FATHER ARE STANDING
AT THE MOTHER’S COFFIN.
Painful
Stress
Impaired
Attachment
lndividuatic
Hostility
Avoidance
Reality
Identity
Concentration
Sublimation
T ension
Group a
St. John’s 45.0 23.4 34.2 37.8 28.8 25.2 12.6 1.8
Pleasantville 37.8 19.8 18.0 36.0 30.6 18.0 9.0 0
Camp Lou Emma 39.6 18.0 14.4 48.6 30.6 21.6 10.8 0
East Midwood 48.3 16.8 23.1 39.9 33.6 25.2 27.3 2.1
P.S. 194 35.2 12.5 18.8 27.0 15.1 12.5 8.7 1.2
J.H.S. 62 30.1 13.9 13.9 20.8 13.9 18.5 6.9 0
J.H.S. 223 33.1 13.4 9.5 12.6 11.9 13.4 5.5 0
Median 39.6 16.8 18.8 36.0 30.6 18.5 9.0 1.2
TABLE XXXVI
PICTURE 12. THE CHILD IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME.
he a : ^ he Co a-
*■+ <C. O ^ Co
Sc • a ^ S. a
rs.
£> sc . a a § E a a air a-
a g ^ s*. ft sc .
Cr Sc
sc .
sc
S'-*
S’ «. §-a at. ^ a*
52
.
a a §
55 c; a ov
sc .
5$ Of.
Si .
£* §
c> sc .
o+-
a o
Group a
St. John’s 37.8 23.4 66.6 27.0 43.2 12.6 10.8 1.8
Pleasantville 28.8 19.8 41.4 21.6 21.6 10.8 5.4 1.8
Camp Lou Emma 32.4 16.2 41.4 28.8 28.8 12.6 7.2 0
East Midwood 33.6 16.8 48.3 23.1 27.3 12.6 4.2 2.1
P.S. 194 30.2 14.4 37.1 18.2 22.6 14.4 7.5 2.5
J.H.S. 62 31.3 17.4 20.8 12.7 23.0 13.9 0 1.2
J.H.S. 223 28.9 5.9 24.4 12.6 12.6 10.4 4.4 0
Median 32.4 17.4 41.4 21.6 27.3 12.6 5.4 1.8
INDEX
A c
Abandonment, 16, 68, 69, 82, 94 Camp Lou Emma, 9, 58, 59, 61, 70, 77, 78,
Absurd responses, 85 83, 84, 85, 98, also Chapt. 10
Acting out, 67, 68, 69, 83, 84, 97 Catholic Charities, 9, 70, 77
Characterological, 9
Adaptive reaction or adaptation, 17, 19,
Chart, controlled association, 46
58, 59, 60, 65
Child care agency, 4, 13
Adler, A., 94
Clinical application of Separation Anxiety
Adolescence or adolescent, 6, 8, 9, 16, 56,
Test, 113-132, 133, 140
57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 83, 84, 90, 91,
Clinical judgement, 13
100, 101, 111, 112, 113, 134
Color of drawings, 15, 48
Age differences, 58 Competence or competency, 95, 96, 97,
Aggression, 19, 67, 68, 69, 86, 91, 95 98, 99, 100, 101
Aggressive drive, 19 Compulsivity, 53
Alienation, 62, 72, 91 Concentration impairment, 8, 19, 48, 96,
Alport, G., 88 97, 98, 99
Anal, 55 Consistency, 50
Anger, 16, 17, 51, 70, 71, 72, 91, 135 Construction of test, criticisms 48, 139-
Anxiety, 6, 7, 16, 17, 47, 50, 53, 57, 75, 76, 140
81, 91 Contact need, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 63,
Anxiety tolerance, 19, 47 64, 73
Articulation in drawings, 11 Coolidge, J., 9, 76
Correlation, 50
Assertiveness, 66, 69, 95
Criteria, 12
Attachment
behavior, 4, 5 D
concept, 11
Defense, 6, 7, 14, 18
individuation balance, 5, 7, 8, 60, 93, 97,
Denial, 16, 17, 85
135, 137
Depressed or depression, 57, 94
need and complex, 19, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57,
Deprivation, 6, 72
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 69, 70, 73, 75,
Diagnose, diagnosis, diagnostic, 12, 134,
77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92,
140
94, 96, 99, 102-112, 133, 134, 135, 136
Displaced, displacement, 69, 100
Autonomy, 4, 14, 19
Drawing of pictures, method, 15
Drive control, 18
B
Bios, P., 16, 19, 57, 82. 91 E
Bowlby, J., 8, 16, 19, 55, 57, 62 63, 67, 134 East Midwood Day School, 10, 58, 59, 61,
Brazenski, 88 62, 71, 77, 78, 83, 84, 85
Bronfenbrenner, U., 62, 71 Efficacy, 95, 101
Buxbaum, E., 93 Ego, ego functions and ego development.
4, 18, 47, 55, 74, 81, 82, 85, 90, 91, 95, I
136 Identification, 5, 89, 95
Eliot, M., 9, 57 Identity, Identity stress and identity crises,
Empathy, 19, 49, 50, 51, 57, 60, 76, 91 ' 7, 8, 12, 17, 19, 56, 81, 83, 89, 90, 91,
Environmental structure and individua¬ 92, 93, 102-112, 136, 137
tion-attachment balance, 61 Independent ego energies, 95
Erikson, E., 19, 88, 91 Individuation, 3, 4, 5, 19, 56, 58, 59, 60,
Evasion, 17, 19, 49, 50, 52, 83, 84, 85, 86, 61, 65, 70, 75, 81, 85, 86, 90, 91, 92, 97,
93 102-112
Experimental design, 12, 139 Insensitivity, 76
Experimental standards, 13 Institutional, 58, 92, 97, 98, 99, 102-112,
133, 139
F Intellectual functioning or dysfunction, 8,
Fantasy, 17, 19, 50, 52, 67, 83, 84, 85, 86, 16, 92
87, 89, 96, 136, 137 Intellectual sensitivity, 97, 98, 99, 138
Far Rockaway residence (Catholic chari¬ Intrapsychic, 57, 66, 69, 74, 80, 82, 86, 100,
ties) 58, 70, 77, 84, 97, 102-112 136
Far Rockaway residence (J.C.C.A.), 9, Intrapunitive reaction, 17, 19, 51, 66, 70,
49, 70 73, 96, 135
Fear, 16, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78 Isolation, 56
Field independence, 11
Fierman, L.B., 55
J
Jewish, 77, 78
Foster home, 47, 68, 69
Jewish Child Care Association, 9, 49, 70
Frequencies, 18
Friedman, N., 55 K
Freud, A., 16, 19, 81 Kestenberg, J., 68
Freud, S., 94
Freudian, 55 L
Frustration and frustration aggression, 66 Laufer, M., 6, 19
Fusion, 55 Lindemann, E., 6, 19, 67, 69
London, 9
G Loneliness, 16, 17, 19, 47, 49, 50, 51, 56,
57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 76, 99
Generalized dread or anxiety, 19, 49, 74,
78, 91 Love object, 93, 94
Globally cognitive, 11 M
Goldfarb, W., 9, 76 Mahler, M., 5, 55
Golding, W., 71 Makarenko, A.S., 71
Grief, 16, 17, 82 Maslow, A., 88
Group dynamics, 65 Masochistic, 47, 135
Guilt, 47, 69 Maternal figure, 47, 54
Mechanisms, 17, 48, 75
H Meier, E.G., 93
Heinecke, C.M., 67 Mental set questions, 17, 18
Hinsey, Leland and Camp, 94 Modell, A.H., 56, 82
Homeostasis, 81 Mourning, 67, 136
Hostility, 19, 47, 50, 51, 52, 53, 66, 67, 69, Mt. Vernon Group Residence (J.C.C.A.),
70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 9, 49, 70
91, 92, 93, 102-112, 135, 136 Multiple choice technique, 16
Humanistic psychology, 65 Murphy, L., 94
Index 189
223Bklyn., 10, 58, 59, 61, 77, 78, 84, 97,

N 98, 102-112, 139
Narcissism, 94, 100
Neurotic, 53 Q
Niederland, W., 9, 76 Quantitative scores, 18, 19
Non-separated children, 10
Normative separation pattern, 138-139 R
Nuclear family, 58, 59, 61, 71, 92, 97, 134 Rationalization, 16
Reality adaptation, 18
0 Reality avoidance, 7, 8, 19, 47, 52, 65, 83,
Object constancy, 90, 100 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 99, 102-112, 136
Object need relations, 19, 86, 97 Reality contact, 91
Object relations, 14, 18, 55, 60, 63, 90 Reality testing, 19, 81, 85
Oral, 52, 55 Recording and scoring chart, 18, 46
Oral dependency, 135 Regression or regressive, 16, 52, 64, 67, 81,
82, 91, 100
P Rejection, 7, 17, 19, 51, 57, 60, 96
Pain, 74, 76 Reliability, 12
Painful tension, 6, 8, 19, 74, 75, 76, 77, Response chart, 46
78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 92, 102-112, 135, 136 Responsiveness, 53
Pain tolerance, 47 Restitution, 79, 80, 82, 83
Paranoid, 69, 72, 135 Richmond Hill Residence (Catholic char¬
Paternal figure, 47 ities), 9, 58, 59, 61, 70, 77, 83, 84, 97,
Pathology and pathological, cases, behav¬ 102-112
ior or symptomatology, 4, 47, 49, 50, Rochlin, G., 16, 19, 81
52, 56, 65, 70, 73, 74, 76, 90, 94, 100, Rod and frame test, 11
135, 136 Rotating room, 11
Patterns, 18, 19, 53, 54
Percentage techniques, 18, 19, 53 s
Perception, 12 Schaffer, R., 5, 19, 59
Personality facets, 13 School phobia or school phobic behavior,
Phobic reaction, 6, 17, 19, 53, 74, 75, 77, 9, 19, 67, 76
78 Scoring, 14, 18
Pleasantville Cottage School, 9, 49, 58, 59, Self actualization, 56, 58, 88
60, 61, 70, 77, 83, 102-112 Self-esteem and self-esteem loss, 7, 8, 19,
Population sampling, 12, 139 88, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 137
Pre-adolescence, 56, 71 Self-identity, 90, 91, 135
Prediction or predictive, 12, 13, 140 Self-image, 88, 93
Projection and projective tests, 12, 16, 17, Self-love and self-love loss, 19, 94, 95, 96,
19, 51, 69, 70, 71, 73, 135 97, 99, 100, 137
Psychiatric clinic (J.C.C.A.), 10 Self-realization, 88
Psychoanalytic, 19, 64, 75, 83, 89, 96 Self-sufficiency, 5, 59, 61, 72, 74, 83, 86,
Psychological differentiation, 11 97, 98, 134 *
Psychotherapeutic, 75 Sensitivity to separation, 47, 65
Psychotic, 69 Sensory deprivation, 56
Public schools Separateness, 11, 12
62Bklyn., 10, 58, 59, 61, 62, 84, 92, 93, Separation
99, 102-112, 139 anxiety, defined, 74
194Bklyn., 10, 58, 59, 61, 62, 77, 78, 84, anxiety test
92, 98, 99, 102-112 administration, 20-21, 75, 133
clinical use, 9, 11, 13, 113-133 Test, division in two parts, 50
pictures, 22-45 method, 11-13, 16, 48, 139
denial, 81 pictures, 14, 15, 20, 50, 51
hostility, 8, 66-73 1. grandmother, 22, 78, 102-103
identity stress, 88-93 2. class transfer, 24, 103-104
individuation, 5, 57 3. moving, 26, 104-105
impressions, 134 4. school, 28, 105, 139
normal, 8, 9 5. camp, 30, 105-106
pain, 74-80 6. parental argument, 32, 106-107
parentally induced, 8, 52 7. sailor, 34, 107-108
pictures 8. judge, 36, 79, 108, 139
mild, 14, 19, 51, 60, 62, 78, 79, 84, 92, 9. sleeping child, 38, 92, 108-109,
97, 98 139
strong, 14, 19, 51, 60, 62, 78, 79, 84, 10. maternal hospitalization, 40, 79,
92, 97, 98 109-110
personality characteristics, 4-6, 140 11. mother’s death, 42, 79, 92, 110-
responses to pictures, creation of, 16-17 111, 136, 139
situations sampling, 14 12. running away, 44, 79, 111
trauma, 9, 47 Thematic apperception method, 16, 49
Silverberg, W., 94, 95 Therapy and therapeutic, 33, 67, 86
Social Psychology, 64 Thought processes, 18
Soviet child, 62 Toch, H., 72
Spiegel, L., 93 Trauma and traumatic, 3, 6, 9, 75
Spitz, R.A., 8
Statistical method, 12, 13, 140
u
Universality of separation, 3, 5, 134
Stimulus, stimuli, stimulation, 15, 50
St. Johns Home for Boys (Catholic char¬
ity,) 58, 59, 61, 70, 77, 79, 83, 84, 97,
y
102-112 Validation and validity, 12, 19
Stoeffler, V.R., 67 Violence, 6, 72
Storr, A., 72
Structured environment, 61, 62 w
Suicidal, 70 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children,
Sullivan, H.S., 56 11
Sublimation, 8, 19, 50, 51, 59, 60, 96, 97, Well-being, 17, 19, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60, 83
98 White, R., 19, 95, 96, 100, 101, 138
Survival value, 4, 63, 134 Withdrawal reaction, 17, 19, 52, 57, 82,
Super-ego, 18, 19, 55, 94, 96, 100, 138 83, 84, 85, 86, 136
Symbiotic or symbiotic object, 14, 47, 55, Witkin, H., 11, 19, 90
87 Wolfenstein, M., 6, 19, 67, 78, 136
Synthetic functions, 18 World War II, 9
T Y
Talbot, M., 67 Yarrow, L.J, 8
22

Adolescent Separation Anxiety

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adolescent Separation Anxiety

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADOLESCENT

HENRY G. HANSBURG, Ph.D.

ROBERT E. KRIEGER PUBLISHING COMPANY

Printed and Published by

All rights reserved. No reproduction in any form of this

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Hansburg, Henry G 1910-

This second printing is termed Volume I because it initiates

Henry G. Hansburg 1979

In august 1970 the author began a considerable correspondence

X he present study is an outgrowth of discussions on a research proj¬

separation problems came in the research discussions at the Jewish

1 owe a debt of gratitude to the many people who stimulated, as¬

Lithauer, psychologist, constantly encouraged me with her interest.

Separation is a universally necessary experience, for without it, no

the subject is familiar. The question remains whether responses to

Theoretically, it seems possible that this kind of interactional

In studying the problem of what occurs as a result of separation

person (love object) is felt to be needed and is now threatened with

THE SEPARATION ANXIET1 TEST

ception—how the child perceived his own body in reference to the

This method of evaluation of separateness influenced my thinking on

based upon clinical judgment and related to the theoretical framework

ported reactions will show patterns which can be useful in diagnosis

6. After an argument with the mother, the father is leaving.

The basic ideas used in the drawings consisted mainly in avoiding

At the end of these phrases an opportunity to bring in other reactions

Occasionally, the child would be asked to imagine how the child in

ego functions were considered of special importance. Thus, the pat¬

On the following pages appear the directions for administration,

Directions to the Child

THE BOY WILL LIVE PERMANENTLY WITH HIS GRAND¬

Did this ever happen to you? Yes_ No_

A BOY IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO A NEW CLASS

Picture 2. A boy is being transferred to a neve class.

THE FAMILY IS MOVING TO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD

Picture 3. The family is moving to a nevo neighborhood.

Did this ever happen to you? Yes_No_

THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS MOTHER TO GO TO SCHOOL

Picture 4. The child is leaving his mother to go to school.

THE CHILD IS LEAVING HIS PARENTS TO GO TO CAMP

Picture 5. The child is leaving his parents to go to camp.

Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes_No_

AFTER AN ARGUMENT WITH THE MOTHER, THE FATHER

Picture 6. After an argument with the mother, the father is leaving.

Did this ever happen in your family? Yes_No_

THE BOY’S OLDER BROTHER IS A SAILOR LEAVING ON A

Picture 7. The boy's older brother is a sailor leaving on a voyage.

Did this ever happen to you? Yes__ No_

THE JUDGE IS PLACING THE CHILD IN AN INSTITUTION

Picture 8. The judge is placing this child in an institution.

Can you remember if this ever happened to you? Yes_No_

THE MOTHER HAS JUST PUT THIS CHILD TO BED

Picture 9. The mother has just put this child to bed.

THE BOY’S MOTHER IS BEING TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL

Picture 10. The boy's mother is being taken to the hospital.

Did anything like this ever happen in your family? Yes_No_

THE BOY AND HIS FATHER ARE STANDING AT THE

Did this ever happen to you? Yes___. No__

THE BOY IS RUNNING AWAY FROM HOME

Picture 12. The boy is running away from home.

Did you ever do anything like this? Yes_No_

CHART FOR CONTROLLED ASSOCIATION RESPONSES

Did this ever happen to you? Yes_. No