A Family Portrait

 

Christian A. Ferrer , M.A., M.A., Senior Master emeritus; The Municipal Family Clinic of Dalum, Odense, Denmark
and
Axel B. Lumholt, M.A., specialist and supervisor in the fields of child psychology and psychotherapy; private practice, Sorø, Denmark

 

In 2003, the Parents’ Preference Test was published. Lessons learned from experience with this new Danish test are emerging, and this article is a summing up of reflections concerning everyday professional use in psychological practice.

The purpose of the Parents’ Preference Test– the PPT (Westh, 2003a, 2003b) – is to map parents’ notion of their own parenthood, disclosed through central dimensions of parenting styles. The test is a picture-based multiple choice-test with 24 items. Each item consists of a large theme picture (ena-bling the respondent to perceive whether the situation presented concerns e.g. a picnic or cooking at home) followed by four smaller selection pictures (where the respondent is required to choose the one picture most aptly representing the behavior she/he would exhibit in a corresponding setting).
The respondent’s selection is then recorded in a protocol form; the test administrator will tick a quadrant indicating the selection made, and record the reasons stated by the respondent for making that particular choice. The data from the protocol form are then entered into a web-based computer program, where the results are calculated in relation to the four dimensions used in the PPT: Energy, Focus of Attention, Experiential Modality, and Regulation Style.
Energy is described here as a continuum ranging from Active to Passive/expectant in relation to the child: Is it Daddy suggesting a ball game (Active), or is he waiting for his son’s request, with which he is happy to comply (Passive – in the most positive version of this behavioral mode)?
The continuum of Focus of Attention concerns the object of this focus: Are you paying attention mostly to your child (Paedoptic focus) or to yourself (Autoptic focus)?
The third dimension deals with Experiential Modality, which within the PPT framework goes from Emotional to Rational.
Finally, there is Regulation Style, where light is attempted shed on the favored aspect of one’s child raising behavior: the Precepts or the Context.
On the basis of these four perspectives, a parenting style profile is generated. This profile may be combined with family interaction observations, thorough analysis of the reasons offered by the re-spondents for their selections, and the use of other tests, in order to provide the starting point for the psychologist’s future sessions with the parents – and, hopefully, at a later date also with the family’s network – in order to arrive at an understanding of the most appropriate actions of everyone in-volved with the child.

It works!
Having worked with the PPT for more than a year, we can sum up our experience as positive. The dimensions are relevant to clinical practice and provide a fine basis for discussions with single par-ents concerning their parenting style, as well as with couples concerning the interplay between their observed parenting styles, what they perceive to be their parenting styles, and what their partners perceive to be their parenting styles – and these perceptions may well turn out to differ greatly. Even finer nuances appear once these somewhat quantitative maps are supplemented by a qualita-tive analysis of the reasons given by the respondents.
It is our impression that fundamentally, the pictures are perceived as intended. There are deviations from this impression; these, however, do not seem random, but turn out to be clinically important as expressions of thoughts prevalent in the mind of the respondent (i.e. projection).
On several occasions, some of the clients use the first couple of items to feel their way through the options, apparently in search of the “right” answer. The groundwork in developing the test has, however, resulted in a series of pictures which are actually warm and conducive of positive experi-ences; a fact which serves to confirm the psychologist’s statement that there are no right or wrong choices per se – only choices expressing differences in each person’s approach to playing a parental part.
In consequence, most clients will relax when moving into the third item, and in most cases, the test is actually carried out in a pleasant atmosphere. There are cases, of course, where even when talking about the twentieth item, the client will correct her/his first selection and proceed to explain why this second selection is only one option out of several possible ones – all the while focusing with formidable attention on the psychologist’s face. This, too, is of great clinical significance and as such an important element of the sum total of the test.

Clients’ answers
It is of great importance to record each client’s reasons carefully, since they form a mine of qualita-tive, projective material. When e.g. the client begins his session of selection and verbalization by ruling out three selection pictures in as many seconds, explaining that “That’s no go – that’s no go – and that’s no go”, it comes as no great surprise that the last remaining picture is deemed acceptable in accompaniment of a Regulatory reason. Similarly, the growing suspicion that this person will find himself at the extreme Preceptual end of the Regulation focus is nicely confirmed by the sub-sequently generated profile.
In other cases, examples are seen of mothers explaining that “I’m the kind of person who … but I’ve become the kind of person who …, because Joe doesn’t want …” – quite in accordance with the test administrator’s later impression when informed that the child has been subjected to physical punishment, performed by the stepfather on Mommy’s request.
Moreover, these statements play an important part when one is engaging in practical work with one’s clients. In family therapeutic settings there is an appreciably sized group of clients who are quite receptive to the aura of inevitability and authority provided by a graphically represented pa-rental profile complete with four central continua – but who fail to arrive at a clear understanding of  exactly what it is they are doing or not doing. In these cases, select samples of their own statements serve admirably as concrete examples, just as the profile will be both illustrated and nuanced by the employment of recorded observations of the family in actual interaction.
In some cases, Preceptual preferences come out fine in actual practice, and conversations concern-ing the consequences hereof follow naturally. One such consequence might be unambiguity and predictability. In other cases, the client might make selections indicating Regulatory Preceptuality, subsequently confirming his or her corresponding self-image – only to be surprised by the psy-chologist’s observations from actual family life, indicating a high level of Contextuality. Naturally, there are also consequences of such a situation: one result might be that the child receives a plethora of rules and regulations – none of which are, however, used twice in similar situations. This might very well engender not only confusion, but also resignation in the child; a result less than easy for the parents to understand, since they put so much emphasis on explaining the ways of the world to their child.

The qualitative perspective
Westh (2004b) is currently focusing on an emerging approach of systematized qualitativity, result-ing from lessons learned in the developmental process preceding the appearance of the test. Apart from the dimension of Activity, which is omnipresent, one dimension is dominant in each item. However, the other dimensions are also active, albeit in an adjunct position (Westh, 2003b). The supplementary approach, then, consists of coding each verbal response in accordance with the di-mension (and, naturally, the apparent preference on the continuum) seemingly dominant in that re-sponse.
Testing this approach with a client displaying borderline features led to an interesting observation: the client’s selections pointed powerfully towards the Emotional extreme of her Experiential Mo-dality (corresponding perfectly to her observed child rearing behavior), whereas a coding of her verbal responses indicated near omnipresence of Experiential Modality in her answers – at the ex-treme Rational end of that continuum!
In general, her son displayed marked features of disorganization, allowing him i.a. to provide a Ror-schach response containing the unusual phenomenon of double exposure : one single response con-tained one figure facing two directions – at once. The stimulus section interpreted as the creature‘s head was identical with the section explained as being the creature’s feet – without any experience on the child’s part of contradiction or of any kind of desire to make a choice.
It is difficult to avoid suspecting that the client’s extremely Rational verbalizations of her equally extremely Emotional Experiential inclination must result in descriptions of never-ending imperma-nence (an impression in no way disproved by actual observations); and that contradictions appear with such frequency and constancy as to impart to the child the impression that verbalized logic is not merely inadequate, but simply irrelevant when it comes to describing and understanding the world, including the child himself.

The PPT and parental competency investigations
 The PPT is a powerful tool also in investigations concerning parental competency. Such investiga-tions can be carried out in many ways; the dominant Danish tradition tends to require, as part of such investigations, observation of live interaction between parent and child.
In supplement, there is an inclination towards applying tests, typically the Rorschach, the WAIS-III, and a selection of other cognitive and projective tests. The PPT forms a useful addition when it comes to disclosing nuances and objectivity with regard to the observations performed, but it also clarifies the meaning and importance of the data provided by observation.
Being, roughly put, a test signaling friendliness and comfort, the PPT is well suited to support the formation of an investigative alliance – something very difficult to secure in investigations of paren-tal competency. To this is added Westh’s (2003c) point concerning face validity as seen by the par-ents, which means that the test is actually experienced by the parents as relevant to the investiga-tion. This is less easily obtained if starting the investigation procedure by asking whether the subject has heard about the Rorschach test, especially considering the ongoing controversy surrounding this test due to its very opaque nature.

“That depends …”
Of course, it is not always unfounded when parents begin their responses with the words “That de-pends …”. Avoidance aside, it is quite legitimate to consider whether situations exist which might indicate the desirability of specific, well-founded selections other than one’s main selection. Corre-spondingly, the subject’s most recent experience must needs be taken into consideration (e.g. the child having stayed with one’s ex-spouse, whose medication level is displaying signs of need of re-evaluation).
Apart from situational factors, individual ones must be reckoned with as well. Children do differ, and parents well skilled in the art of reflection might explain that when dealing with one of their children, they would consider picture number two to be the most appropriate one, whereas their other child would engender the kind of behavior illustrated by picture number four. The relevance of this point increases manifold if the child referred to is battling personal challenges of the neural variety.
This is not in any way to suggest that the test is not applicable under such circumstances, but that like any other test, it must be applied with careful judgment. In some of the cases mentioned above, the appropriate response might be an exhortation to select according to one’s normal course of ac-tion. Other situations – especially those of the individual-based variety – would suggest that the test be taken twice, in order to uncover the differences in parental style relative to each child. The fact that this might prove time-consuming in cases with parents hailing from the upper cognitive strata and sporting no less than four children is quite another matter.

Individual peculiarities
Another kind of individual variations exists: clients facing problems when it comes to interpreting and understanding the situations illustrated in the stimulus material – e.g. individuals to whom the interpretation of facial expression, body language, and/or intentional behavior poses grave difficul-ties.
This client group proves to be in need of particularly thorough and explicit instructions with regard to the picture material – instructions obviously transcending those prescribed in the test manual. This carries an implicit risk of forcing the test administrator into a more directive role in guiding the subject through the assignment than has been taken into account – not least in establishing the scor-ing foundations for the test. In these cases, it is imperative for the test administrator to be mindful of her /his influence on the process at hand, and to strive unflinchingly to maintain neutrality – keep-ing in mind that this type of explicit instruction is likely to be the very condition making the partici-pation and cooperation of these clients at all possible.
Here especially, it becomes important to stress that the object being tested is not the relation itself, but the subject’s understanding of her/his way of participating in the relation, and that of her/his partner. This understanding, in turn, codetermines the nature of the relation.

The context of family therapy
As a supplement to other relevant tests of personality, and observations of family interactions, the PPT provides a more encompassing and precise map of the subjects’ personality and functioning in the context of parenthood. It indicates their notions of the proper way to act in central relational situations with their children.
The clients being active participants in discussing actual everyday incidents as illustrated by the stimuli, the therapist is provided with a tool permitting reflections at several levels. Points covered might be:
• Specifics as opposed to generics in regard to family interactions and the parent’s contribu-tion and influence within this sphere.
• An aperture for reflections concerning cause and effect: “When you do P, the result is Q.” This, in turn, permits changes of perspective: “If you were to do X, the result would be Y”.
• Access to discussions of intention and practice. Direct questions such as “What are your in-tentions?”, “How are your intentions reflected in your actions?”, and “How does what you are doing seem to work?” become natural avenues of exploration in post-PPT conversations with the family in question.
Reflections such as these are central to a process of change and development. Not surprisingly, such dialogues invite reflections in answer to questions such as “Where do you think your parenting style came from?” and “How did you, as a child, experience this style of parenting?” Thus, the sessions following the PPT will provide a natural forum for a process of insight and recognition likely to en-gender change within the parents, not least in their style of parenthood management. Applied in this fashion, the PPT functions as a stepping stone towards a family and individual therapeutic process, during the course of which the children, too, are given the opportunity to contribute their experience of their parents’ parenting style.
In families characterized by resistance and dominated by repression and denial, the verbalization of the PPT results will contribute to unraveling the tangled skein, since it now becomes possible to cir-cumvent resistance. Similarly, repression and denial lose import due to the comforting and appre-ciative atmosphere for discussing individual differences, provided by the PPT. Thus, the PPT pro-vides an essential contribution via its potential for significantly reducing the guilt and anxiety oth-erwise closely associated with the practice of parenthood.

Conclusion
Within our field of practice (family therapy and investigations), the PPT delivers extensively. It provides an opportunity for mapping parents’ experience of themselves in their parental capacity, whilst supplying a starting point for safe and comforting discussions of parenting style in theory and practice; and on this basis, the first step in planning the course of action and intervention necessary to change the parents’ way of practicing in that capacity, in the direction desired. Quite importantly, it provides a basis for understanding the relation between the parenting style experienced and the parenting style exhibited.
Like car driving, the test provides many possibilities, but also some dangers – in which connection it is tempting to repeat the fine caveat from the first “Karate Kid” movie: “License [in this case: cer-tification] never replace eye, ear, or brain”.
As far as replacing goes, neither can the PPT replace observations of live interaction – but it can re-duce the number of observation sessions necessary; it can serve to qualify the results and supply nu-ances; and it can add new, significant dimensions, thereby providing novel approaches to working with the dynamics and interactions within a family. And finally, it goes a long way towards cor-roborating and clarifying the challenges faced – not least with the parents.

Literature
Westh, F. (2003a). Parents Preference Test - PPT. Copenhagen, Denmark: Westh Development & Psykologisk Forlag A/S
Westh, F. (2003b). Parents Preference Test - PPT. Vejledning. Copenhagen, Denmark: Westh De-velopment & Psykologisk Forlag A/S
Westh, F. (2003c). Familiebilleder. Psykolog Nyt, 57 (11), 14-17.
Westh, F. (2004a). At bygge et hus. Psykolog Nyt, 58 (10), 8-12.
Westh, F. (2004b). Personal communication. Copenhagen, Denmark: October 2004.