It was predicted that the ‘poor m e’ paranoid group’s responses on the Parental Bonding Instrument (FBI) would indicate a lack o f care, and that the ‘bad m e’
group’s responses on this measure would indicate that they had experienced low care in combination with high overprotection, from at least one parent.
A comparison o f absolute scores on the FBI was carried out for the two methods o f classifying people into types o f paranoia. Due to the small sample size and non normal distribution, non-parametric statistics were used.
Reliability o f F BI scores
Given the possibility that the ‘poor m e’ group may have given a more positive view o f their parenting experiences than the ‘bad m e’ group, a reliability check was carried out comparing care and over-protection scores with ratings given for each parent on the grid. Although this would not necessarily detect such distortions, it was hoped that this would provide an additional check on the reliability o f data given. The higher the total rating score for each parent, the more positively they were construed by that person. Spearman Rho statistics were calculated and are presented in table 3.0. The average number o f negatively rated constructs for the
father, and for the ‘bad m e’ group, 3.8 and 3.4 respectively. The mean rating on each construct for ‘poor m e’ group was 9.4 for mother and 7.1 for father. The same figures for the ‘bad m e’ group were 9.1 and 8.7. The m aximum possible rating was
13. Scores below 7 indicate that a parent was negatively construed on that construct. Finally, a total score for all fourteen constructs was calculated (possible range = 1 4 -
196; a score less than h alf o f 196 would suggest that a person tended to negatively rate their parent. The smaller the score, the more negative the rating becomes). This score was correlated with the scores on the FBI sub-scales and is summarised in table 3.
Table 3.0 Correlation between FBI subscales and Total grid scores for each parent
Type o f paranoia Grid element FBI subscale Correlation
coefficient
Mother Maternal care 0.829*
Bad me Maternal overprotection -0.200
Father Fatemal care 0.886*
Fatemal overprotection -.486
Mother Maternal care 0.323
Foor me Maternal overprotection -0.765**
Father Fatemal care 0.804**
Fatemal overprotection -0.431
* significant at th e p <0.05 level (one-tailed). ** significant at th e p <0.01 level (one-tailed)
One would expect there to be a positive correlation between ratings o f the element ‘mother’ in the grid, and maternal care scores, because a high care score on the FBI indicates a good relationship with mother. Similarly one would expect a positive correlation between the father element and paternal care scores on the FBI. Fositive correlations are found for both types o f paranoia, however for the ‘poor m e’ group, the correlation is close enough to zero to warrant concern about correspondence between the two ratings. One would expect a negative correlation between ratings o f
parent elements in the grid, and the appropriate parent sub-scale score for over protection, because given high scores on overprotection one might expect that parent to be construed in a more negative way. Though this might not be the case if the person found it difficult to be critical o f others, which one might argue is potentially part o f the ‘bad m e’ position. All the correlations are in the expected directions, however they are particularly weak for the ‘bad m e’ group between ratings o f the mother on the grid and ratings o f maternal overprotection on the FBI. Might this suggest that people with ‘bad m e’ paranoia find it particularly difficult to be critical o f their mothers? There is a relatively weak correlation between the father element in the grid and paternal overprotection for both types o f paranoia. Interestingly, there is a very strong negative correlation between ratings o f the mother and maternal overprotection in the ‘poor m e’ group, suggesting that this group do not find it difficult to criticise their mothers. Perhaps it is less threatening to admit that one’s parent was overprotective than that they were neglectful. 85% o f the men in the sample and 66% o f the women reported low paternal care scores, using Parker et al.’s (1987) cut-offs. Low care scores on the FBI have been found to be highly predictive o f depression in adulthood (Blatt et al., 1992, p.544).
Comparison o f P B I scores between the two groups o f paranoia based on content o f delusions
Table 3.1. Median scores (and ranges) on the PBI for the two types of paranoia (based upon content of delusions).
PBI scale ‘Poor m e’ ‘Bad m e’ M ann-W hitney U P (one-tailed) Mother Care 30.0 (33.0) 21.0 (32.0) 26.00 0.282 Overprotection 13.0 (33.0) 13.5 (17.0) 35.50 0.765 Father Care 8.0 (30.0) 13.0 (31.0) 31.50 0.521 Overprotection 15.0 (30.0) 13.0 (24.0) 29.50 0.416
Table 3.1 shows statistics for raw scores on the PBI. Although none o f the
differences were statistically significant, people in the "bad me" group tended to have lower care from their mothers. This difference was not predicted, however, this finding will be discussed in the light o f the findings o f parental attachment in the two kinds o f depression (as explored in chapter 1) in the next chapter. The "bad me" group also reported slightly less overprotective fathers, which is in the opposite direction to that expected. It may be that the effect size is too small to notice with such a small sample. The same analyses were carried out excluding those
participants identified as formally thought disordered (n=5) but none o f the
differences were significant either, the most significant difference was the ‘bad m e’ group reporting lower maternal overprotection (p = 0.217).
Comparison o f P B I scores between the two groups ofparanoia based on PSQ scores
Two separate analyses were carried out based on participants’ scores on the PSQ. First a comparison was made between ‘poor m e’ s and ‘not poor m e’ s, the findings
o f which are summarised in table 4.1. Secondly, a similar comparison was made between ‘bad m e’ s and ‘not bad m e’ s, the findings o f which are summarised in table 4.2. As can be seen from table 4.2, no significant differences were found between scores on any o f the PBI sub-scales and the two kinds o f paranoid
attributional styles. However, table 4.1 suggests that people who tend to make "poor m e’’ attributions, tend to have had more overprotective mothers, which is the opposite o f the prediction. None o f the comparisons were anywhere near significance when thought-disorder participants were excluded.
Table 4.1 Median scores (and ranges) on the FBI for ‘poor m e’ and ‘not poor me’ groups as determined by PSQ responses
PBI scale ‘Poor m e’ ‘not Poor m e’ Mann-Whitney U P (one tailed) Mother Care 28.0 (2 2.0) 31.5 (33.0) 2 0 . 0 0 0.397 Overprotection 16.0 (2 0.0) 8 . 0 (2 2.0) 7.50* 0.014 Father Care 22.0 (33.0) 6.0 (24.0) 17.50 0.232 Overprotection 12.0(19.0) 18.0 (30.0) 17.50 0.232
* Significant atp< 0,05 (U=7,5, N j = 7, N2 = 8, P = 0.014, two-tailed)
Similar scores and statistics are reported in table 4.2 for the ‘bad m e’ and ‘not bad m e’ groups.
Table 4.2 Median scores (and ranges) on the FBI for ‘bad me’ and ‘not bad me’ groups as determined by FSQ responses
PBI scale ‘Bad m e’ ‘not Bad m e’ M ann-W hitney U P (one-tailed) Mother
Care 30.0 (32.0) 29.0 (25.0) 27.50 0.955
Overprotection 9.0 (22.0) 14.5 (25.0) 25.00 0.779
Father