Pergamon

Person. indicid. DijJ Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 341-350, 1998 #C 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain

PII : SO19b8869(97)00187-6 0191-8869/98 $19.00+0.00

CONVERGENT VALIDITY OF THE DIMENSIONS UNDERLYING THE PARENTAL BONDING INSTRUMENT

(PBI) AND THE EMBU*

Willem A. Arrindell,‘? Coby Gerlsma,’ Walter Vandereycken,’ Willem J. J. M. Hagernan and Tine Daeseleire4

’ Clinical Psychology Section, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands, * Kliniek Alexianen, Liefdestraat IO, B-3300 Tienen, Belgium, 3 P.O. Box 11091,

2301 EB Leiden, The Netherlands and 4Algemeen Ziekenhuis Sint Norbertus, CAPSA, Rooienberg 25. 2570 Duffel, Belgium

(Received 24 March 1997)

Summary-It has been suggested that the major dimensions of perceived parental rearing behaviour that underlie the EMBU (Emotional Warmth, Rejection and Protection) and the PBI (Care and Protection) may be considered parallel tests of the same constructs. Empirical findings however to back up this allegation are not available. Convergent and divergent validity was therefore assessed in three independent samples: (I) community Ss, (2) unselected psychiatric patients, and (3) eating disordered in-patients and their parents. It was demonstrated in each sample that Emotional Warmth (EMBU) and Care (PBI) are indeed measures of the same construct. Predicted negative correlations between EMBU Rejection and PBI Care were also confirmed. A sizeable overlap was observed between homologous Protection scales. PBI Protection, however, correlated in one out of three samples as high with EMBU Protection as with EMBU Rejection, with these EMBU measures being moderately intercorrelated. It was concluded that EMBU Protection would represent a better measure of its underlying construct than would hold for its PBI equivalent. The strong association between Protection and Rejection was understood in the context of the conceptualization and operational definition of the higher-order Control Attempts concept proposed by Rollins and Thomas (1979). For use in research and in clinical and/or applied practice, the EMBU should be recommended above the PBI. 0 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

Since the 193Os, investigators have developed, at a prolific rate, questionnaires, interviews, and observational instruments for the assessment of characteristics and processes of the family. Holden (1990) for example describes 154 instruments that represent a wide range of approaches for address- ing variables related to the family.

Children’s views of their parents have been studied since 1894 (Goldin, 1969). It has been recognized in the 1930s that such perceptions may be as important as data collected from parents themselves, and in some cases the perceptions may be even more important than the actual parental behaviour (Parker, 1984; Lewinsohn and Rosenbaum, 1987; Richman and Flaherty, 1987).

In summarizing methodological issues pertaining to family measures in general, Holden (1990) pointed to a major and fundamental problem, namely that there is inadequate attention devoted by the authors of instruments to the reporting of psychometric properties; the burden of proof should be on instrument developers to show that their instruments are of high quality, as indicated by reliability and validity data. In Holden’s view: “Although some well-constructed instruments do indeed have good psychometric properties, many do not. Consumers need to shop carefully” (Holden, 1990, p. 304).

The Egna Minnen Betrsffande Uppfostran (EMBU) (Perris et al., 1980) and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) (Parker et al., 1979) are among the most widely-used measures for the assessment of adults perceptions of their parents rearing behaviour (Rapee, 1997). Both instruments qualify as (a) measures of at least the two major dimensions of parental rearing behaviour (see below), (b) having been subjected to repeated replications of their underlying dimensional structures in various

* Swedish acronym for Egna Minnen Betriffande Uppfostran (“My Memories of Upbringing”). t To whom requests for reprints should be addressed.

341

342 Willem A. Arrindell et al.

subgroups of the population, (c) instruments with sufficient internal consistency reliability, and (d) devices with satisfactory discriminatory power, in the sense that they differentiate between psy-

chiatric patient groups on the one hand and community controls on the other hand (cf. Gerlsma et al., 1990).

Both the EMBU and the PBI are measures of the two principal source variables of parental rearing behaviour that the parent-child literature has identified in empirical research conducted in the past four decades, namely AFFECTION/CARE (Warmth vs Hostility) and CONTROL (Permissiveness vs Restrictiveness) (Parker et al., 1979; Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1984; Arrindell et al., 1994). At the first-order level, the EMBU assesses the following dimensions: Rejection, Emotional Warmth, (Over-)Protection and Favouring Subject. The PBI measures Care and (Over)- Protection at the same level. Both questionnaires are completed separately for mother and father based on subjects’ memories of their parents rearing style and behaviour.

Recent meta-analytic and descriptive studies linking specific anxiety and/or depressive disorders with atypical parental rearing styles (Gerlsma et al., 1990; de Ruiter, 1994; Chambless et al., 1996) have suggested that the major dimensions that underlie the EMBU and the PBI (i.e., those related to the principal source variables) are interchangeable for comparative purposes. While this allegation might be conceptually correct, empirical findings to favour its support have been conspicuously absent from the literature. The aim of the present investigation was to fill this gap by determining the convergent and divergent validity of the constructs underlying the EMBU and the PBI in three independent samples, namely a community sample, a mixed psychiatric patients sample, and a series comprising eating disordered in-patients and their parents. There was no special reason for choosing two clinical series other than for having the possibility of examining the cross-sample generality of findings.

On the basis of simple correlational and second-order factor analytic findings reported to date for the different dimensions of parental rearing style (cf. Arrindell et al., 1983b; Parker et al., 1979; Parker, 1983) the following hypotheses could be advanced: (a) the EMBU and PBI Protection dimensions will be so highly intercorrelated that they may be considered interchangeable for measuring the construct of interest; (b) the EMBU Rejection and Emotional Warmth scales will correlate significantly and substantially negatively and positively, respectively, with the corresponding Care measure of the PBI; in addition, the Emotional Warmth and Care measures will emerge as parallel tests of the same construct; (c) the associations predicted under (a) and (b) above will, in magnitude, exceed the sizes of the correlations observed with non- homologous scales which include those for assessing Favouring Subject (divergent validity); (d) homologous EMBU and PBI measures will show very similar patterns of correlations with external measures assessing constructs other than parental rearing behaviour; (e) higher-order factor analyses will reveal three orthogonal higher-order dimensions: a CARE factor which will be highly loaded by the PBI Care (+) and EMBU Rejection (-) and Emotional Warmth (+) scales, a PRO- TECTION/CONTROL factor with the (0ver)Protection scales of the EMBU and the PBI having the highest loadings followed by the EMBU Rejection (+) scales with secondary high loadings, and a FAVOURING SUBJECT factor which will be meaningfully loaded by the corresponding EMBU subscales only. The lower-bound cut-off for a salient factor loading was set at 0.40 which denotes a “high” factor loading (Brand-Koolen, 1972, p. 48).

METHOD

Subjects

The community sample comprised 461 volunteers (45% males and 55% females) from the Dutch community who participated in a mail survey study aimed at examining the influence of current mood states on recall of parental rearing styles (Gerlsma et al., 1994). The mean age of the sample was 46 yr (SD = 16 yr; I = 20-88 yr). On a 7-point scale ranging from a low of 1 (“primary school level”) to 7 (“higher education”), the total sample yielded a mean educational level of 3.6 (SD = 1.9). The great majority of the Ss was either married or cohabiting (73%), 15% reported being unmarried and not living in a state of cohabitation, while 7% were divorced.

The mixedpsychiutricputients sample was a subset of the series described in Gerlsma et al. (1993)

Convergent validity of PBI and the EMBU 343

a study which was also designed to study the influence of current mood state on recall of parental rearing behaviour. As part of the intake procedure, 125 Dutch patients (48% males and 52% females) completed a number of questionnaires. The mean age for this group was 35 yr (SD = 9 yr; r = 21-66 yr). Forty-four percent of the sample reported that they were married or cohabiting, whereas 41.6% were single and 14.4% divorced. Using the 7-point continuum mentioned above, a mean education level of 4.3 (SD = 1.9) was obtained.

Eating disordered inpatients and their parents. In the context of a study on perceived parental rearing in eating disorders (Vandereycken, 1994) data were collected from 59 Flemish patients suffering from either anorexia nervosa (N = 47), bulimia nervosa (N = 9) or an atypical eating disorder (N = 3). All diagnoses were in accordance with DSM-III-R criteria (APA, 1987). Not surprisingly, the sample comprised mainly females (N = 57 or 96.6%). The joint mean age of the series was 19 yr (SD = 5 yr; r = 1240 yr). On a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (“primary school level”) to 6 (“graduated from university”), a mean educational level score of 3.5 (SD = 1.1) was observed. Social class data were as follows: lower, 33.9%; middle, 54.2%; higher, 11.9%. Data were further available for 55 mothers and 54 fathers, with a joint mean age of 48 yr (SD = 8 yr; r = 37- 74 yr). At the onset of the patients’ illness, 56 parents were either married or cohabiting, whereas only two were divorced, and one was deceased.

Measures

EMBU. As pointed out above, the EMBU provides the following four factorially-derived subscale measures (cf. Arrindell et al., 1983b; Arrindell and Van der Ende, 1984): Rejection, Emotional Warmth, (0ver)Protection and Favouring Subject. The Rejection dimension is heavily loaded with items referring to punitive and abusive parental behaviour; the dimension as a whole refers to parental upbringing which is characterised by physical punishment, rejection of the S as an indi- vidual, hostility towards the S, derogation of the S, lack of regard for the s’s point of view and needs, symbolic-love punishment (e.g., shaming the S before others, isolation of the S, withdrawal of love), and ridiculing/criticizing the S’s inadequacies and problems in the presence of others.

The Emotional Warmth dimension captures a form of parental rearing in which the following elements are prominent: giving warm and loving attention, helping the S with projects that are important to him/her without being intrusive, aiding the S through problems in a way best for him/her, a high regard for the s’s point of view, the S feeling able to confide in his/her parents and to ask for help, and intellectual stimulation. Whereas the Rejection dimension is typified by symbolic- love punishment, the one of Emotional Warmth picks up symbolic-love reward, the parents praising the child for approved behaviour, giving him/her special attention and being affectionately demon- strative.

The (0ver)Protection dimension refers to parental behaviour indicative of s’s protection, albeit in a gushing manner, from negative experiences, a relatively high degree of intrusiveness, a relatively high expectancy to know all about what the S is doing, high standards of accomplishment in particular areas, manners, school, etc., imposement of strict regulations and demanding their unquestioning obedience.

The Favouring Subject dimension assesses the extent to which the recipient was favoured over his/her siblings.

PBZ. As noted earlier, the PBI comprises two factorially-derived scales: Care and (Over)- Protection.

The Care factor is bipolar and involves one pole defined by affection, emotional warmth, empathy and closeness, and the other pole by emotional coldness, indifference and neglect. The (Over)- Protection factor has one pole defined by control, overprotection, intrusion, excessive contact, infantilization and prevention of independent behaviour, and another pole defined by items reflecting allowance of independence and autonomy (Parker et af., 1979; Arrindell et al., 1989).

Data on instructions for filling out the EMBU, and the scoring key of interest may be found in Arrindell and Van der Ende (1984) and Arrindell et al. (1994); the corresponding information pertaining to the PBI is given in Parker et al. (1979, p. IO). Each of the above-mentioned groups completed both the EMBU and the PBI. In addition to these measures, the parents of the patients with an eating disorder also filled out both the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) (Dero- gatis, 1977; Arrindell and Ettema, 1986) and the Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (MMQ) (Crowe,

344 Willem A. Arrindell et al.

1978; Arrindell et al., 1983a). For purposes of the present study, the General Psychological Distress index of the SCL-90-R and the General Life Adjustment subscale of the MMQ were utilized.

RESULTS

Lower-order correlational analyses

The correlations between the PBI subscales on the one hand and those of the EMBU on the other hand are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3, respectively, for the community Ss, the mixed psychiatric patients sample and the series comprising eating disordered in-patients and their parents. The tables also show, for each subscale and sample, Cronbach’s coefficient CI as a measure of internal consistency reliability. Variable N’s are due to missing data on scale items, mostly for Ss not having brothers and/or sisters.

It will be seen from Tables 1, 2 and 3 that the Protection subscales of the EMBU and the PBI were substantially positively intercorrelated. The correlations across the three samples exceeded the within-measure correlations in magnitude. When corrected for attenuation (i.e., for unreliability: r,) (Nunnally, 1978) the corresponding coefficients increased in range from 0.63 (community sample) to 0.81 (mixed psychiatric patients sample). Thus, based on the corrected r’s, the Protection scales

Table I. Correlations (Pearsonian type) between subscales of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and the EMBIJ in a community sample (N = 397-434) for ratings of the fathers (F) and the mothers (M) separately, including Cronbach’s OL

for each subscale

Community sample

PBI

Care (0ver)Protection

F M F M a 92 91 85 86

EMBU Emotional warmth

Rejection

(0ver)Protection

Favouring subject

93 s7*** 93 65’** 92 _64***

93 _44***

82 -04 84 - 14** 71 -02 76 -11’

62*” g3***

_48’** -6g*** -09 -201: -07 -05

_45*** _40***

56*** 43*** 53”’ 49*** 04 13;

_38*** - 50***

42’*’ 58*** 38*** 6l*** IO 13’

l P < 0.05, **F’ d 0.01, ***p Q 0.001 (one-tailed tests). a’s x 100, r’s x 100 (decimal points have been omitted). Correlations between homologous scales are in bold type

Table 2. Correlations (Pearsonian type) between subscales of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and the EMBU in a mixed psychiatric patients sample (N = 94105) for ratings of the fathers (F) and the mothers (M) separately, including

Cronbach’s OL for each subscale

Mixed psychiatric patients sample

PBI

Care (0ver)Protection

F M F M OL 93 94 87 87

EMBU Emotional warmth

Rejection

(0ver)Protection

Favouring subject

95 gy*** 94 56’*’ 95 -68.” 93 -411,’ 84 -08 83 -09 81 -02 82 -03

55*** 9()***

-31” _7,***

-01 - 20’

06 06

-48**’ _35*** - 19 -42***

61*** 31** 34*** 60*** 64*t* 35*** 41”’ 69**’ 12 10 I2 18

‘P d 0.05, **P < 0.01, l **!’ G 0.001 (one-tailed tests). a’s x 100, r’s x 100 (decimal points have been omitted). Correlations between homologous scales are in bold type

Convergent validity of PBI and the EMBU 345

Table 3. Correlations (Pearsonian type) between subscales of’ the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBl) and the EMBU in a sample comprising eating disordered inpatients and their parents combined (N = 126157) for ratings of the fathers (F)

and the mothers (M) separately, including Cronbach’s o! for each subscale

PBI

PBI

Care (0ver)Protection

F M F M d 89 88 80 81

EMBU Emotional warmth

Rejection

(0ver)Protection

Favouring subject

91 w** 90 59*“* 87 -52.f’

89 _4,***

81 -04 82 -18f 78 16’ 76 17’

58*** go***

_35*** -48”’

-04 -00

06 17’

-22” -17’

34”’ 30”’ 58.” 48*** 02

-06

-23” -16’

23** 39”’ 43*** 63***

-09 - 14

*P < 0.05. **P d 0.01, ***P d 0.001 (one-tailed tests). a’s x 100, r’s x 100 (decimal points have been omitted). Correlations between homologous scales are in bold type Variable Ws are due to missing data on a number of scale items.

had 40-66% of the variance in common. However, in the community sample, the Protection scale of the PBI correlated practically as high with EMBU Rejection as it did with EMBU Protection, with correlations between these EMBU dimensions being not too high (see also Discussion). Thus, for example, in the community sample, the fathers Protection scale of the PBI correlated as high as 0.64 (corrected for attenuation) with the fathers EMBU Rejection scale, whereas an attenuation corrected r of 0.63 was observed for the homologous fathers Protection scales of the EMBU and the PBI. Considering the fact that the EMBU’s Rejection and Protection subscales correlated only 0.35 (N = 420. P < 0.001, ra = 0.40) with one another in the data of the fathers, it may be concluded that the EMBU Protection scale mirrored a factorially purer measure of its underlying construct than was reflected by its PBI counterpart.

The associations between the Care (PBI) and Emotional Warmth (EMBU) scales were more clear-cut. In each of the three samples, the disattenuated r’s clearly exceeded both the within- measure correlations and corresponding figures obtained in correlating these scales with non- homologous measures (P < 0.01, one-tailed tests by applying Humphreys (1978) statistical method). The disattenuated r’s ranged from 0.88-0.96. These associations are so high (the percentage variance that both measures shared based on the disattenuated r’s varied from 77-92%) that the scales of interest may be considered measures of the same construct (i.e., parallel tests).

The predicted negative disattenuated r’s between EMBU Rejection and PBI Care were also consistently observed across the three samples and ranged from -0.55 in the sample comprising eating disordered in-patients and their parents to - 0.76 in the mixed psychiatric patients sample.

EMBU and PBI correlated with SCL-90 and MMQ. In the subsample of parents of patients with an eating disorder, the General Psychological Distress Index (GPDI) of the SCL-90 (Cronbach’s u. = 0.96) correlated -0.08 (N = 85, ns) with the EMBU Emotional Warmth scale and -0.12 (N = 86, ns) with the corresponding PBI Care measure (fathers ratings). The corresponding figures for the ratings of the mothers were -0.04 (N = 84, ns) and -0.15 (N = 88, ns), respectively.

As to the Protection scales, the following findings were obtained. Fathers’ Protection correlated 0.22 (N = 84, P < 0.05) and 0.19 (N = 87, P < 0.05) with GPDI (EMBU and PBI, respectively). The corresponding coefficients for the mothers’ data were 0.16 (N = 83, P = 0.08 ns) and 0.14 (N = 88, P = 0.10 ns), respectively.

When the pattern of associations with the MMQ General Life Maladjustment scale (5 items; Cronbach’s o! = 0.59) were considered, the following correlations were yielded in the fathers ratings: -0.11 (N = 91, ns) with EMBU Emotional Warmth and -0.16 (N = 91, ns) with PBI Care. In the mothers ratings, the coefficients were -0.00 (N = 90, ns) and -0.08 (N = 93, ns), respectively.

Thus, without any exception, homologous EMBU and PBI scales showed very similar patterns of correlations with other measures in this specific sample of Ss (all tests: one-tailed).

346 Willem A. Arrindell et al.

Table 4. Results of higher-order analysis Bonding Instrument (PBI) and the EMBU

(Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation) involving the subscales of the Parental with data yielded with a community sample (N = 397434) and a mixed psychiatric patients sample

(N = 94-105)

Community sample

Care-M Care-F Protection Favouring subject

Mixed psychiatric patients sample

Care Protection Favouring subject

PBI-Care-M EMBU-Rejection-M EMBU-Emotional warmth-M PBI-Care-F EMBU-Emotional warmth-F EMBU-Rejection-F EMBU-(Over)Protection-M EMBU-(Over)Protection-F PBI-(Over)Protection-M PBI-(Over)Protection-F EMBU-Favouring subject-M EMBU-Favouring subject-F

92 29 -01 -02 85 -19 -03 -85 -13 35 13 -59 49 -03

85 36 03 I8 88 -03 05 34 89 03 -00 a9 -10 -06 38 87 05 II 90 08 -04

-II -79 34 14 -59 46 -04 -26 II 82 20 -03 88 II

15 -11 81 21 15 88 03 -52 -10 72 -02 -51 67 09

01 -56 71 01 -48 68 05 II -11 09 91 -06 06 90

-09 08 20 89 02 07 89

NOW: M = Mother, F = Father. Loadings x 100 (decimal points have been omitted). Loadings with absolute values greater than or equal to 0.40 are in bold type.

Table 5. Results of higher-order analysis (Principal Components Analysis with Varimax rotation) involving the subscales of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and the EMBU with data obtained from eating disordered

patients and their parents (N = 126157)

Components

Care Protection Favouring subject

EMBU-Emotional warmth-M 89 08 15 EMBU-Emotional warmth-F 86 -00 20 PBI-Care-M 85 -05 03 PBI-Care-F 82 -18 12 EMBU-Rejection-M -61 48 14 EMBU-Rejection-F -54 47 08 EMBU-(Over)Protection-M 01 87 06 EMBU-(Over)Protection-F 09 84 20 PBI-(Over)Protection-M -17 79 -20 PBI-(Over)Protection-F -20 79 -08 EMBU-Favouring subject-F 05 03 92 EMBU-Favouring subject-M 16 -02 89

Note: Variable N is due to missing data on a number of scale items. M = Mother, F = Father. Loadings x 100 (decimal points have been deleted). Loadings with absolute values greater than or equal to 0.40 are in bold type.

Higher-order analyses

Table 4 gives the results of higher-order analyses involving the EMBU and PBI scales for the community and mixed psychiatric patients sample. Table 5 does the same for the eating disordered in-patients and their parents.

The results of Principal Components Analyses with orthogonal (Varimax) rotation may be summarised as follows. The findings in two samples, namely the mixed psychiatric patients sample and the eating disordered patients and their parents, converged in revealing the same number of factors, namely three, with eigenvalues exceeding unity. Together the three factors explained 74.4% and 72.8% of the variance, respectively. In both samples, the three factors could be uniformly interpreted as CARE (very highly positively loaded by PBI Care, EMBU Emotional Warmth and highly negatively by the EMBU Rejection and, in one sample, also negatively by PBI Protection scales), PROTECTION/CONTROL (very highly positively loaded by the EMBU and PBI Pro- tection scales and highly positively loaded by the EMBU Rejection dimensions), and FAVOURING SUBJECT (very highly loaded by the corresponding EMBU scales only). The factor analytic findings however differed across the two samples in the patterns of loadings of the PBI Protection variables on the higher-order CARE and PROTECTION factors. Thus, whereas all four Protection dimensions showed salient and factor-specific loadings on the higher-order PROTECTION factor

Convergent validity of PBI and the EMBU 341

in the sample comprising eating disordered patients and their parents, PBI Protection, but not EMBU Protection, measures showed substantial loadings on both CARE (-) and PROTECTION (+) in the mixed psychiatric patients sample. The latter finding, while not in line with the con- figuration of factor loadings obtained to date (it is Rejection that has been observed to have primary high loadings on CARE and secondary meaningful loadings on PROTECTION/CONTROL), reflects the difficulty noted earlier at the first-order level of differentiating Protection as assessed with the PBI from Rejection as measured with the EMBU. A similar conclusion may be drawn on the basis of the higher-order findings presented below which were produced for the community sample.

Four factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity emerged in the community sample. Together these factors explained 84.3% of the variance (a solution of three factors was difficult to interpret and theoretically of lesser importance). This four-factor solution not only differed in part from the predicted pattern, but it also deviated from the configurations observed in the other two samples in two important respects. First, two CARE factors (rather than one) emerged: one for the fathers and one for the mothers, with the pattern of factor loadings being identical to the one observed in the mixed psychiatric sample. Second, the PROTECTION factor was factorially pure in that it was only very highly loaded by the EMBU and PBI Protection dimensions. The EMBU Rejection scales just failed to obtain salient loadings on this factor. The fourth factor corresponded with the FAVOURING SUBJECT factor that was identified in the other two samples.

DISCUSSION

The present study clearly demonstrated with both first-order and higher-order analyses that the dimensions of Emotional Warmth (as assessed with the EMBU) and Care (as measured with the PBI) are measures of same construct: disattenuated r’s ranged from as high as 0.88-0.96, both measures showed similar patterns of correlations with other measures in one subsample, and both measures had very high loadings on a higher-order CARE (Emotional Warmth vs Rejection) factor. The anticipated negative correlations between EMBU Rejection and PBI Care were also confirmed (ru’s ranged from -0.55-0.76), with Rejection measures having, as forecast, negatively high loadings on the higher-order CARE factor.

Findings with respect to convergent validity of the EMBU and PBI Protection scales were less clear-cut. While encouragingly high correlations were yielded between both measures (percentage shared variance based on disattenuated r’s: 40-66%), the PBI Protection scales in the community sample shared as much variance with EMBU Protection as with the EMBU Rejection dimensions. In view of the less marked overlap found between EMBU Protection and Rejection measures in the present investigation (a previous study reported a 20-25% overlap in variance based on dis- attenuated r’s (Arrindell et al. 1983b, p. 173), it was concluded that the EMBU Protection measure would represent a better measure of its underlying construct that would hold for its PBI equivalent.

In line with the usual finding (Arrindell et al., 1983b, 1994) each of the three samples considered in the present investigation, except for the community sample, yielded an orthogonal higher-order PROTECTION/CONTROL dimension which was significantly positively loaded by both Protection and Rejection variables. Not only were the Protection scales of the EMBU and the PBI more strongly associated with one another than with non-analogous subscales of both measures in the sample of eating disordered patients and their parents, but the Protection scales also showed very similar patterns of correlations with other measures (convergent validity). These mixed results across samples possibly reflect, as Parker et al. (1979) have pointed out, the difficulty of defining the Protection dimension quite precisely. The sizeable variance shared by PBI Protection and EMBU Rejection variables in one out of three samples may possibly be explained by adopting a different conceptualization and operational definition of the Protection concept. Arrindell and Van der Ende (1984, p. 679) pointed to the fact that the parent-child literature has for over four decades identified at least two major variables of parental behaviour as being critical in accounting for parental influence in the socialization of children: parental control attempts and parental support (Rollins and Thomas, 1979, p. 3 19). These dimensions were identified by Symonds (1939) as a dominance- submission continuum of behaviour and an acceptance-rejection continuum of behaviour, respec-

348 Willem A. Arrindell et al.

tively. Rollins and Thomas (1979) defined control attempts as “behaviour of the parent towards the child with the intent of directing the behaviour of the child in a manner desirable to the parents” (p. 321). Operationally, in their view, this variable is “a summation of the frequencies of such indicators of parental behaviour as giving directions, instructions, commands, suggestions, pun- ishments, and threats of punishment to a child as well as making requests, imposing rules and restrictions, and providing explanations for rules and restrictions” (p. 321). Rollins and Thomas (1979) also pointed out that the research evidence argues for a multidimensional view of the control attempts constructs (e.g. separate dimensions for coercion which may include physical punishment, deprivation of material objects or privileges, the direct threat of force, or the threat of any of these; and love withdrawal which captures such parental behaviour as ignoring or isolating the child as well as explicit indications of rejection, disappointment, or coldness in response to something the child has done that displeases the parent). On the basis of a content analysis of items contained by the EMBU, Arrindell and Van der Ende (1984) concluded that these aspects are fairly well represented by the Protection and Rejection factors. Hence, the explanation for the emergence of the strong overlap between PBI Protection and EMBU Rejection both at the lower-order and the higher-order level of analysis.

One other possibility should not be overlooked. Murphy et al. (1997) recently pointed to the disagreement in the research literature about whether the PBI is best used as a two-factor or a three- factor measure. Applying factor analyses to PBI scores from 583 U.S. and 236 U.K. students, Murphy et al. (1997) showed that a solution of three factors (Care, Denial of Psychological Autonomy and Encouragement of Behavioural Freedom) was more satisfactory than the original two-factor solution proposed by Parker et al. (1979). Murphy et al. (1997) also demonstrated that Denial of Psychological Autonomy and Encouragement of Behavioural Freedom evidenced different patterns of associations with other measures, allowed greater accuracy of prediction and a better understanding of underlying processes. Thus, the original Protection measure is not a measure of “one thing”, but is broken down into two components. One of these components (Denial of Psychological Autonomy) appears conceptually related to Rejection (see also Rohner’s definition of Rejection given below), which relatedness may further explain the strong overlap between the original PBI Protection measure (Parker et al., 1979) and EMBU Rejection.

Rejection also emerged in the present study as an important element of the higher-order CARE dimension. This higher-order dimension has, together with the PROTECTION/CONTROL dimen- sion, been repeatedly identified in large scale cross-national studies (Arrindell et al., 1994). The dimension of CARE has been termed SUPPORT by Rollins and Thomas (1979); and WARMTH by Rohner (1986) and MacDonald (1992). The WARMTH dimension includes both parental acceptance and parental rejection (see Fig. 1 based on Rohner, 1986). Parental acceptance refers to

WARMTH DIMENSION OF PARENTING

I Pwontrl AccoPtmco

I Pmntrl Rejection

I \

I I I Indlfforonco/Nogloct Undifkrontirtod )08wtylA@gnss~ , ,

Rajrctlon

Physical V.&l Physlcrl VOrb8l f I I I I I I I I I i

I I I i I I I l klm l pmiw l hii l cw*. l physical l d

*hug l compllnwlt . bllr . uy lhoughtlrrr. prphologkrl ’ child’s fooling 01

bring unlowd. l tondl~ . my nko lhlngr . kbk unkind, crud uMv~11ablllty Of UnrpprKirtrd or

l MC. IO of rbout . scratch things to or about wmt uncwed for, MC.

l l IC. . show l ureaam l pay no rttantlon . pinch l kliltlo to nods of child l ate. l NC. l etc.

Fig. 1. Description of elements contained by the WARMTH dimension. (Based on the conceptual frame- work of principal parenting concepts in Rohner’s Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory. Source: The Warmth Dimension: Foundations of Parental Acceptance-Rejection Theory, by R. P. Rohner, 1986, Sage,

Beverly Hills, Ca., U.S.A. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications, Inc.)

Convergent validity of PBI and the EMBU 349

warmth, affection, and love parents can give their children and has two principal expressions: physical (e.g., hugging, kissing and other such indicators of endearment, approval, or support) and verbal (praising, complimenting, etc.). Parental rejection lies at the opposite end and is defined conceptually as the absence or significant withdrawal of warmth, affection, or love by parents towards children. In Rohner’s view, it takes three major forms: (1) hostility and aggression towards the child; (2) indifference and neglect; and (3) undifferentiated rejection, i.e., the feeling of being unloved, unwanted, or rejection without the child necessarily having any positive indicators of rejection as under (1) and (2). Thus the major dimensions as measured with the EMBU and the PBI are well-grounded in theory and demonstrable in empirical research, an observation which offers further support for the validity of the higher-order factors of CARE and PROTECTION/ CONTROL.

All in all, the findings offer excellent support for the convergent and discriminant validity of the Emotional Warmth (EMBU) and CARE (PBI) scales. With the adoption of the Rollins and Thomas (1979) conceptualization of the Control Attempts construct, the findings also provide fair support for the construct validity of the Protection scales. However, considering (a) the factorial instability of the PBI (Murphy et al., 1997), (b) the strong overlap between PBI Protection and EMBU Rejection observed in the present study, and (c) the strong factorial stability across samples both within and across nations of the major dimensions of the EMBU (Arrindell et al., 1994) the EMBU should be recommended above the PBI for use in research and in clinical and/or applied practice.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diugnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, 3rd Edition Revised. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Arrindell, W. A., Boelens, W., & Lambert, H. (1983a). On the psychometric properties of the Maudsley Marital Questionnaire (MMQ): Evaluation of self-ratings in distressed and ‘normal’ volunteer couples based on the Dutch version. Persona/it) and Individual Differences, 4, 293-306.

Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Brilman, E., & Monsma, A. (1983b). Psychometric evaluation of an inventory for assessment of parental rearing practices: A Dutch form of the EMBU. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 163-177.

Arrindell, W. A., & Ettema, J. H. M. (1986). XL-90; Handleiding bo een multidimensionelepsychopathologie-indicator.Lisse. The Netherlands: Swets Test Services.

Arrindell. W. A., Hanewald, G. J. F. P., & Kolk, A. M. (1989). Cross-national constancy of dimensions of parental rearing style: The Dutch version of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Personality and Individual D$ferences. 10, 949-956.

.4rrindell, W. A., Perris, C., Eisemann, M., Van der Ende, J., Gaszner, P., Iwawaki, S., Maj, M., & Zhang, J.-E. (1994). Parental rearing behaviour from a cross-cultural perspective: A summary of data obtained in 14 nations. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell and M. Eisemann (Ed). Parenting andpsychopafhology. Chichester: Wiley.

Arrindell, W. A.. & Van der Ende, J. (1984). Replicability and invariance of dimensions of parental rearing behaviour: Further Dutch experiences with the EMBU. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 671-682.

Brand-Koolen, M. J. M. (1972). Factoranalyse in het sociologisch onderzoek: Explicarie en evaluarie ran enige modellen. Leiden, The Netherlands: Stenfert Kroese N. V.

Chambless, D. L., Gillis, M. M., Tran, G. Q., & Steketee, G. S. (1996). Parental bonding reports of clients with obsesive- compulsive disorder and agoraphobia. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 77-85.

Crowe, M. J. (1978). Conjoint marital therapy: A controlled outcome study. Psychological Medicine, 8, 623-636. Derogatis, L. R. (1977). SCL-90: Administration, scoring &procedures manual-Ifor the r(evised) version and other instruments

qf/hepsychopathology raring scale series. Baltimore, Md: Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Gerlsma, C., Das, J., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (1993). Depressed patients’ parental representations: Stability across changes in depressed mood and specificity across diagnoses, Journal of Affective Disorders, 27, 173-181.

Gerlsma, C., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & Arrindell, W. A. (1990). Anxiety, depression, and perception of early parenting: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 251-277.

Gerlsma. C., Kramer, J. J. A. M., Scholing, A., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (1994). The influence of mood on memories of parental rearing practices. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 159-I 72.

Goldin, P. C. (1969). A review of children’s reports of parent behaviors. Psychological RuNetin. 7f, 222-236. Holden, G. W. (1990). Parenthood. In J. Touhatos, B. F. Perlmutter and M. A. Straus (Ed). Handbook of family measurement

techniques. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage. Humphreys, L. G. (1978). Differences between correlations in a single sample: A correction and amplification. Psychological

Reports, 43, 657-658. Lewinsohn, P. M., & Rosenbaum, M. (1987). Recall of parental behavior by acute depressives, remitted depressives, and

nondepressives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 611619. MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child Developmenf, 63, 753-773. Murphy, E., Brewin, C. R., & Silka, L. (1997). The assessment of parenting using the Parental Bonding Instrument: Two or

three factors? Psychological Medicine, 27, 333-342. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Parker, G. (1983). Parental overprotection: A risk factor in psychosocial development. New York: Grune & Stratton.

350 Willem A. Arrindell et al.

Parker, G. (1984). The measurement of pathogenic parental style and its relevance to psychiatric disorder. Social Psychiatry, 19,75-8 1.

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, l-10.

Perris, C., Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., Von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behaviour. Acra Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 61, 265-274.

Rapee, R. M. (1997). Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. ClinicalPsychology Review, 17,47-67.

Richman, J. A., & Flaherty, J. A. (1987). Adult psychosocial assets and depressive mood over time: Effects of internalized childhood attachments. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 703-712.

Rohner, R. P. (1986). The warmth dimension: Foundations of parental acceptance-rejection theory. Beverly Hills, Ca: Sage. Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in the socialization of children. In

W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye and I. L. Reiss (Ed). Contemporary theories about rhe family: Research-based theories, Volume I. New York: The Free Press.

de Ruiter, C. (1994). Anxious attachment in agoraphobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder: A literature review and treatment implications. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell and M. Eisemann (Ed). Parenting andpsychoparhology. Chichester: Wiley.

Symonds, P. M. (1939). The psychology of parent-child relationships. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Vandereycken, W. (1994). Parental rearing behaviour and eating disorders. In C. Perris, W. A. Arrindell and M. Eisemann

(Ed). Parenting andpsychopathology. Chichester: Wiley.