The relationship between the personality characteristics of the "Dominant" and "Subordinate" person in the parental family and the personality characteristics of the child

Sennitskaya Elena Vladimirovna Mater's Degree student of the Department of General Psychology and History of Psychology at Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University 630090, Russia, Nso oblast', g. Novosibirsk, ul. Tereshkovoi, 33, kv. 58 activist07@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The following review of the literature devoted to the formation of the characteristics of a person's personality is structured as follows.

- concepts used in the research of the life scenario, under which they raise both the actions that a person is inclined to commit on his life path (first of all, it concerns the choice of profession and the creation of a family), and the formation of character;

- concepts found in works devoted to a significant adult influencing the formation of a life scenario;

- works on the formation of psychological differences between men and women and the impact of these differences on the life scenario;

- research on the role of the social environment (family) in the development of personality;

- works on specific mechanisms (or specific agents of influence), as a result of which certain qualities are formed in the child.

- little-studied factors.

Basic concepts in life scenario studies

"Life task" ("life task", "development task", "coping")

In foreign theories of growing up, the term "life task" or "development task" is used as a concept close to the "life scenario" (R. Havighurst ^[1],[2], P. Heymans ^[3], N. Cantor, J.Kihlstrom ^[4], S. Zirckel ^[5], W. Meeus ^[6], J. Marcia ^[7],[8]).

Some authors (N. Cantor, J.Kihlstrom ^[4], S. Zirckel ^[5]) mean by "life task" conscious goals, the direction of a person's self-realization in some periods, a life model, finding the meaning of existence, a plan of life in general. Others (W. Meeus ^[6], J. Marcia ^[8]) mean by "life task" a broader concept close to the "individual lifestyle" according to A. Adler. According to K.N. Polivanova ^[9], "life task" may not even be realized. A synonym of "life task" is the concept of "dream", introduced by D. Levinson ^[10].

There is also a close concept of "coping", meaning something like a "life strategy" in the broad sense of the word (K. Levin ^[11], R. Moos ^[12], Folkman, Lazarus ^[13]).

"Achieving identity"

In psychology, the concept of "achieving identity" is also used as an understanding of "who I am" (E.N. Erikson ^[14], G. Vaillant ^[15], G. Sheehy ^[16], J. Vitkin ^[17], B. Friedan ^[18]). Most authors believe that the achievement of identity is a process that can last throughout life, but it is most active in adolescence and adolescence. As E. writes Erickson, a person acquires an identity in the period from 11 to 20 years. At this age stage, he is looking for people and ideas that he could believe ^[19].

E. Erickson ^[20] notes that at the first stage of the formation of his identity, the child introjects images of family members who take care of him, at the second stage – identifies himself with those adults (usually also family members) whom he simply trusts, and at this second stage he realizes the hierarchical structure of the family and the roles that his family members are playing. As a result of the second stage, the child has an idea of what he will become in the future. E. Erickson characterizes the third stage as the formation of identity, when a child identifies himself with a whole set of roles. In the future, these chosen roles may gain a foothold in the course of life, or they may collapse, for example, due to significant changes in society that have crushed previous ideals and values.

E. Erickson ^[19], D. Levinson ^[21], G. Sheehy ^[16], G. Vaillant ^[15] believe that any subculture is a favorable environment for gaining identity, where you can find a real mentor who will become a guide for a young person into adulthood.

Based on the epigenetic concept of E. Erickson, D. Marcia deduces four main types of identity formation: predestination, diffusion, moratorium and the actual achievement of identity ^[7],[8].

"Growing up", "transition to adulthood"

Often, the study of the formation of a person's life scenario is called the study of "growing up", "transition to adulthood". D. Levinson ^[10] writes that in the period from 18 to 25 years, when the transition to adulthood occurs, four main tasks are solved: 1) matching dreams with reality; 2) finding a mentor; 3) preparing for a future career (career guidance and training); 4) creating close relationships.

Similarly, "adulthood" is understood in Russian literature. I.S. Kohn ^[22],[23], speaking of adolescence, notes such a feature of growing up as the appearance of friendship and love. In his opinion, both of these phenomena are associated with the study and awareness of the image of oneself ("the image of Me"). G.S. Abramova ^[24], A.A. Rean ^[25], D.Ya. Raigorodsky ^[26] note that most marriages are concluded in the period from 22 to 25 years, that is, the entry into the period of adulthood is inextricably linked with the establishment of significant connections.

"Self-determination"

In the Russian literature, works related to the life scenario often appear as studies on "self-determination". The very concept of "self-determination" is interpreted ambiguously. L.S. Vygotsky, L.I. Bozhovich, D.B. Elkonin, I.S. Kon understand by this the formation of the "image of Me". N.S. Pryazhnikov, L.M. Mitina, M.V. Ermolaeva mean by it an appeal to leading activities, that is, professional self-determination. S.L. Rubinstein calls self-determination the life path of an individual as a whole.

According to L.I. Bozhovich, self–determination is a process that begins around the age of 15, when a teenager faces the problem of choosing his future. Self-determination, according to L.I. Bozhovich, is not just dreams about the future and assumptions about how life will go. It is based on the stable interests that had developed by that time and is associated with professional choice ^[27]. Self-determination is closely related to self-reflection, which develops at the beginning of the transition age, when a teenager has broader interests ^[28]. As K.N. Polivanova writes, self-determination, which means stable interests and aspirations related to the choice of profession, occurs at about 17 years old ^[9]. I.G. Malkina-Pykh notes that the stage of professional formation is accompanied by active experimentation in work, as a result of which the study of various aspects of one's self is carried out, deepening self-awareness ^{[29, pp. 98-99]}.

"I am the concept", the image of "I"

Humanistic psychology understands self-determination only as the formation of the "I-concept" (the image of "I", the development of "ego-identity"). It is in this sense that R. Burns ^[30], K. Rogers ^[31], A. Freud ^[32], E. Erickson, I.S. Cohn write about self-determination.

To study the development of the "I" image and the formation of a life plan, foreign and domestic psychologists usually use an ideographic method based on the analysis and generalization of individual cases (A. Maslow ^[33],[34], K. Rogers, F. Perls ^[35],[36], K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya ^[37], L.I. Antsyferova ^[38], E.I. Golovakha, A.A. Kronik ^[39], L.F. Burlachuk, E.Y. Korzhova ^[40], F.E. Vasilyuk ^[41],[42].

"Lifestyle"

In the works devoted to the self-determination of an adult, "life style", "time perspective", analysis of life situations are often investigated (A. Adler ^[43], K.G. Jung ^{[44],[45],[46]}, E. Bern ^[47], E.Y. Korzhova ^[48], A.A. Chronik ^[49],[50]).

"The crisis of youth"

The theme of self-determination as the formation of one's life scenario is also found in works devoted to age crises, especially the "crisis of youth" (the transition to "adulthood", which occurs at about 17 years old). The study of the "crisis of youth" was carried out by I.S. Kon ^[51], V.I. Slobodchikov, E.I. Isaev ^[52], M.V. Ermolaeva ^[53] and other authors. Nevertheless, as K.D. Lyubomirsky notes, it remains the least studied in the Russian literature, compared with the crises of earlier ages. In particular, there is no consensus on what is so special about adolescence, in other words, what exactly is the leading activity in this period ^{[54, p. 15]}. Most authors believe that it is professional self-determination. In particular, N.S. Pryazhnikov ^[55], L.M. Mitina ^[56], M.V. Ermolaeva ^[53] think so. "It is curious that the crisis of youth (entering adulthood) is most clearly manifested in those girls and boys who did not enter higher education institutions after school…  This is due to the fact that a young person needs to start working on self–determination anew," notes K.D. Lyubomirsky ^{[54, p. 48]}.

            V.I. Slobodchikov ^[57] and E.I. Isaev ^[58] believe that the "crisis of youth" lasts from 17 to 21 years, and the way out of it occurs when a person moves from dreams to real life plans, because at this age he learns a profession and establishes meaningful connections (in particular, enters into marriage).

Concepts related to the person influencing the formation of the life scenario

"Significant other" ("close adult")

The concept of "significant other" was introduced by the American psychiatrist G. Sullivan. It is synonymous with the sociological concept of "reference personality", that is, "a certain person whose opinion is highly valued by this person" ^{[59, p. 160]}. In domestic works devoted to the development of children, this term is often used along with its synonym "close adult" (M.I. Lisina ^[60], A.V. Zaporozhets ^[61], D.B. Elkonin ^[62], V.S. Mukhina ^[63]).

Functions of the "significant other"

G.Vaillant points out that "significant others" are necessary in order to "appropriate" their qualities and get an additional source of strength to solve development-related tasks ^[15]. The role of the "significant other" is also studied by G. Kraig ^[64], V.A. Petrovsky ^[65], T. Shibutani ^[66], K.D. Lyubomirsky ^[54]). S.K. Nartova-Bochaver ^[67], I.M. Nikolskaya, P.M. Granovskaya ^[68], X. Remschmidt ^[69] write about the importance of working together with a "significant adult". "There is and cannot be any development outside of a significant other," says V.A. Petrovsky ^{[65, p. 232]}. According to K.N. Polivanova ^[9] and L.I. Bershedova ^[70], self-determination just happens in the process of forming the image of a significant adult.

Who can play the role of the "significant other"

Note that the majority of authors consider parents to be "significant others" or "significant adults", in particular, L.S. Vygotsky believes so ^[71],[72]. Nevertheless, A.V. Petrovsky ^[65], A.M. Parishioners ^[73]), V.I. Slobodchikov, N.N. Tolstykh ^[74] believe that in some periods the role of "significant other" can be performed not only by parents, but also by friends of the same age, teachers, famous people or heroes works of art.

"Mentor", "guide to adulthood"

In Western literature devoted to the process of solving "life tasks" ("development tasks"), the term "mentor" is used, denoting the image of a "significant other" who helps to cope with solving these tasks. The search for a mentor ("guide to adulthood") is considered by foreign authors to be one of the most important tasks of development in adulthood (G.Vaillant ^[15], D. Levinson ^[21], E. Erickson ^[19], G. Sheehy ^[16]). According to D. Levinson, a mentor is rather a real person outside the family, who, in particular, helps a teenager to realize his dream. It is important to note that the mentor must have some of the traits of a parent, personifying a certain level of achievement for the student. He sympathizes with his student, communicates with him on an equal footing and instills confidence in him.

According to D. Levinson, a person does not just take steps to create a family and have a child, but comes into contact with a "special" woman or a "special" man who perform the same functions as a mentor, because the object of love shares our dreams and supports us in achieving goals. G. Sheehy proves that girls, their lover is often their mentor in their career. This also occurs in young men, but less often ^[16]. Thus, these authors see a connection between the construction of a life plan (which includes, first of all, the choice of a profession) and a marriage choice.

As K.D. Lyubomirsky notes, "so far there is no clear answer in the psychological literature to the question of who is the bearer of the new content of development, which consists in solving the problems of real self-determination" ^{[54, p. 75]}. In this regard, in his dissertation, he identifies four types of mentor: 1) an ideal mentor; 2) a real mentor from the family; 3) a real mentor outside the family; 4) an internal mentor, which means the presence of an internal dialogue, which is characteristic of adult thinking.

Not the "significant other", but his image

P.Ya. Galperin ^[75],[76], O.A. Karabanova ^[77] include in the concept of "self-determination" the formation of the image of a "significant other" and its influence on strategies for overcoming difficulties.

In the works of O.A. Karabanova, the concept of "orienting image in the structure of the social situation of child development" is introduced ^[77],[78]. Using this term, A.D. Krasilo explores the "orienting image of a mentor" in the process of real self-determination ^[79].

K.D. Lyubomirsky studies the psychological foundations of the formation of the image of a significant adult in adolescents and young men ^[54]. "The actual age-related tasks that a teenager (young man) must solve are determined by the social situation of development. In modern Russia, the ways of solving these problems are so variable that they simply cannot be represented in the characteristics of any one adult. Thus, modern teenagers and young men are forced to focus on a whole circle of significant adults, integrating the qualities and characteristics they most need into a holistic image – the "image of a significant adult"" ^{[54, p. 38]}. In other words, it is argued that the image of the mentor is collective.

M.V. Semenikhina explores the relationship between the features of reflection and images of parents in men and women. As the author emphasizes, "the specificity of our research lies in the fact that it analyzes not the actual, purposeful educational influences of parents, but their subjective component – the images of parents" ^{[80, p. 5]}.

Formation of psychological differences between men and women and the impact of these differences on the life scenario

The origins of gender differences were most of all considered within the framework of a psychoanalytic approach. 3. Freud believed that psychological differences between a man and a woman are laid due to differences in the passage of the Oedipal stage. If the boy's first object of love is and subsequently remains the mother, then the girl's object of affection changes: first it's the mother, then the father. In addition, the girl realizes that she is "castrated initially", envies the boys and feels deeply deprived. With this circumstance, Freud associates a low degree of social activity of women and a weak sense of justice ^[81],[82].

K. Horney ^[83] believed that the psychological characteristics that distinguish a man and a woman are innate. In her opinion, men are initially more self-loving, and women have low self-esteem due to the masochism inherent in women.

I.S. Kletsina ^[84] examines the differences in the social behavior of men and women and concludes that aggressiveness, independence and the desire for dominance are more characteristic of men. Women, on the other hand, are more friendly, seek contact and tend to be interdependent.

V.A. Geodakyan ^[85] proposed the theory of sexual dimorphism, according to which the biological purpose of a woman is to preserve, reproduce and transmit properties from generation to generation. The mission of a man is to face new conditions of existence and, accordingly, to acquire new functions."

There are also a number of well-known philosophical works on gender, the authors of which (S. Kierkegaard, F. Nietzsche, O. Weininger) believe that the psychological differences between men and women are completely insurmountable.  For example, O. Weininger proves the inferiority of a woman, the antisocial, egoistic orientation of her interests ^[86]. Russian philosophers also mostly consider a woman only as a source of inspiration, but not as a person capable of creativity (V.S. Solovyov ^[87], V.P. Shestakov ^[88], N.A. Berdyaev ^[89]).

By the end of the XX century, the theme of "androgyny", that is, manifestations of both male and female qualities, gained popularity. This phenomenon is associated with the ability to adapt to the diverse demands of society. For example, E.E. Maccoby and C.N. Jacklin ^[90] write that women with high femininity often have low self-esteem and increased anxiety. This position was confirmed by experiments that showed that "one hundred percent" men are the losers if they have to engage in those activities that do not fit into traditional gender role stereotypes. The same applies to "absolute" women, if they are required to perform what tradition refers to as male spheres of activity. "Androgynous personalities" are less likely to be in a state of distress (A. Heibrun ^[91]).

Research on the role of the social environment (family) in the formation of personality

As L.S. Vygotsky writes, communication plays an important role for the development of personality, because in the process of this activity self-consciousness is formed, which is essentially social knowledge transferred inside ^[92]. According to D.B. Elkonin, this process occurs especially intensively in adolescence, when yesterday's child begins to compare himself with adults ^[93].

The influence of the environment on the formation of personality was considered in the works of S.V. Molchanov ^[94], V.A. Nepomnyashchaya ^[95], I.A. Nikolaeva ^[96], A.A. Venger, I.V. Dubrovina ^[97], O.A. Karabanova ^[77],[98], E.E. Kravtsova ^[99], G.G. Kravtsova ^[100], V. S. Mukhina ^[63], L.F. Obukhova ^[101],[102], A.M. Parishioners ^[73], etc.

Within the framework of psychoanalytic and analytical directions, both in domestic literature and abroad, the family is considered the main factor in the formation of personality. 3. Freud, E. Fromm, A. Adler, S. Kratokhvil ^[103], E. Harutyunyants ^[104], A.S. Spivakovskaya ^[105], E.G. Eidemiller, V.V. Justitskis ^[106], E.A. Lichko ^[107], V.S. Mukhina ^[63] adhere to this position. The same position prevails in social psychology (G.M. Andreeva ^[108]).

According to L.S. Vygotsky, it is the family that creates the primary social situation of development and plays a key role in the formation of the child's personality ^[109]. The works of N.A. Vasilchenko ^[110], A.D. Davletova ^[111], O.G. Kalina, A.B. Kholmogorova ^[112], Zh.V. Korobanova ^[113], E.V. Trifonova ^[114], D.V. Shatrov ^[115] are devoted to the influence of the family on the personality. There are no aspects of the behavior of adolescents and young men that are not related to the peculiarities of their parental families ^[51],[116].

L. von Bertalanfi considered the family as a system ^[117]. S. Minukhin introduced a close concept of "family structure" ^[118]. In this approach, there is an understanding that each individual family member can be studied only in the context of the entire family system (Varga A.Ya., Karabanova O.A., Kosheleva A.D., Leaders A.G., Petrovsky V.A., Shapiro A.Z., Chernikov A.V.). As a rule, there are four mutually influencing subsystems in the family system: marital, parental, child-parent and sibling. S. Minukhin considers hierarchy in the parental subsystem, emotional connection in it and communication style to be the main parameters of the family structure ^[118]. O.A. Karabanova also introduces the motivation of marriage, the ability to solve problems, satisfaction with marriage and family self-awareness among such parameters ^[119].

What exactly influences the child in the family?

The role of the mother

According to A. Adler, the relationship with the mother forms a child's sense of social community. Taking care of family members and strangers, the mother awakens social interests in the child, encourages his desire to communicate with people and help them. In this regard, A. Adler believes that a mother focused only on the child narrows the scope of his public interests. The role of the father is rather to give the child the tools to achieve his goals and overcome the inferiority complex ^[120].

Representatives of the school of object relations (M. Klein, D. Vinnikot ^[121], X. Kogut) believe that the formation of personality is strongly influenced by the peculiarities of interaction with the mother, since she is the first object of the child's needs.

Many authors have investigated the role of the mother in the formation of the child's first social need: emotional attachment (3. Freud, E. Erickson, K. Horney, J. Bowlby, L.S. Vygotsky, M.I. Lisina, D.B. Elkonin, etc.). J. Bowlby notes that in the process of interaction with the mother, the child is formed not only the image of the mother, but also the "image of Me". A number of authors emphasize that subsequently close contact with the mother should be severed: this is the most important condition for the formation of a personality (D.V. Vinnikot ^[121], E.T. Sokolova ^[122], J. Boulby ^[123]).

W. Bronfenbrenner writes that girls are more active if the authority of the mother is greater than the authority of the father ^[102].

The role of the father

Psychology of the XX century was more interested in the influence of the mother. Works devoted to the father figure were published mainly in the USA (for example, R.D. Parke ^[124]). The research of domestic scientists is mainly devoted to the role of the father in the sexual identification of the son (T.V. Andreeva ^[125]), as well as the role of the father in socialization (I.S. Kohn ^[126], Kagan V.E. ^[127], J. Vitkin ^[17], although there are works devoted to the influence of the father on the personality of the daughter (T.V. Andreeva, S.O. Muromtseva ^[128]). E. Fromm contrasts maternal and paternal love. He calls the first of them unconditional, unrelated to the merits and achievements of the child, and the second – demanding, which must be earned. According to E. Fromm ^[129], the father is perceived by the child as a source of norms, as well as punishments for their non-fulfillment and symbolizes social control for him. The same thing is written by E. Erickson ^[19]. This opinion is confirmed in a study by M. Siegal, which demonstrates that the sanctions from the father are taken for granted by adolescents, while the punishments of the mother are regarded as a lack of love, emotional rejection ^[130].

V.N. Druzhinin writes that "only a father is able to form a child's ability to initiate and resist group pressure" ^{[131, p. 94]}. Druzhinin proves that if a child of any sex is attached to his mother more than to his father, this reduces his ability to resist the aggression of others and does not contribute to the development of interest in social and spiritual values (he will rather be an individualist focused on material needs). Lack of attachment to the father is also a prerequisite for low self-esteem.

According to R.D. Parke ^[124], a boy who loses his father before the age of five becomes more dependent on the group and less self-confident than someone who was brought up in a full family.

W. Bronfenbrenner writes that boys become more responsible if their father watches over discipline ^[102].

Some researchers point out that the peculiarities of the personality of modern children are influenced by the peculiarities of the way of life characteristic of the historical era. For example, in the past, most boys grew up in peasant families, where the sons shared with their father his work duties. Modern urban children do not see how their father works, while their mother is busy around the house before their eyes, and they may get the false impression that only women work (I.S. Cohn ^[126]).

If a boy has a father who can serve as a standard of how to behave, then his behavior and psyche are more stable than a child who does not have such a sample (J. Vitkin ^[17]). According to A.V. Zakharov ^[132], boys whose fathers did not have the proper influence on them (including due to the excessive softness of the father's character or his low position in the family) had difficulty adapting to school.  D.A. Tsiring, S.A. Savelyeva ^[133] write that good relations with the father contribute to the formation of self-confidence.

Inversion of parental roles

In the literature, the influence of the situation when the inversion of parental roles occurs is often investigated. A number of similar scenarios are described by E. Fromm. For example, a boy who has a domineering but loving mother and a weak, dependent father grows up dependent on his mother, undisciplined, with an undeveloped sense of responsibility. A mother who did not give love to a child forms a person who strives to be loved, but not to love himself. An aloof mother and an authoritarian, demanding father make a cold, unempathetic person out of a child, a careerist who goes over their heads. If parents do not love each other, an atmosphere of alienation reigns in the family, then the child will grow up anxious and withdrawn, will go into the world of dreams or will specifically provoke the anger of others to at least attract attention to himself ^[129]. A.I. Zakharov writes that if the mother has rather masculine behavior, she categorical, unable to understand the feelings of another person and overly demanding, and the father is unmanly soft, sensitive and unable to control, children often have neuroses ^[134].

The child's attitude to his position in the family and society

L.I. Bozhovich believed that it is important to take into account not only the position that the child objectively occupies in the family and society, but also his "internal position", that is, his attitude to his position. It is from this component of the child's inner world that his reactions to things that happen around him depend, and these reactions can be changed only if the "inner position" of the child is changed ^[27].

Behavior, beliefs, attitude, interests of parents

D.V. Shatrov ^[115] explores how the behavior, beliefs and attitude of parents affect the morality of children. I.S. Kohn ^[51],[126] notes that the formation of personality is influenced not only by the conscious actions of parents, but also by the interests of the latter. If parents live by great public interests, it helps to broaden the horizons of children.

Norms and values in the family

A number of works are devoted to the functions of the family, among which, in particular, the function of socialization (educational) stands out. A.A. Rean and Ya.L. Kolominsky note that socialization can occur both purposefully and spontaneously, due to the observation of family members, therefore not all of the conclusions of the child that he makes by observing parents, may correspond to their conscious ideas about how to behave ^[25]. "The socialization of a person in the family is carried out through the action of ... uncritical perception of norms and values prevailing in the family," writes A.V. Mudrik ^{[135, p. 63]}. However, it is not explained what to do if the family consists of people of different cultural levels and social status, professing very different norms and values.

"Parental regulations"

According to E. Bern, the main role in the creation of life scenarios is played by explicit and implicit parental prescriptions ^[47], however, why in some cases the "parental prescriptions" and the life scenarios of parents are perceived by the child as their own, and in others they are ignored, no explanation is given.

The role of the child's position in the family, imitation of the most authoritative persons, parenting style, "the totality of all positive qualities of adult family members"

T.V. Andreeva ^[125] believes that the following factors influence the formation of personality: the structure of the family as the unity of the functioning of its members; the position of the child in the family (the totality of his roles in the family, for example, the son of a single mother, the grandson of two grandmothers, the older brother of his sister, etc.); those family members who the greatest influence on him (for example, the most authoritative ones he would like to resemble); the style of upbringing in the family (considered as the predominant style of the main educator-socializer and secondary socializers; the moral and creative potential of the family (the totality of all the positive qualities of adult family members, in particular, their morality, emotionality, volitional qualities, intelligence and culture).

The presence of a senior sibling of the same sex

E.E. Danilova writes that if a boy has an older brother or a girl has an older sister, they exhibit more typical behavior for their gender than those whose gender does not coincide with the gender of the older children in the family ^{[136, p. 312]}.

Social roles played by parents, but not the characteristics of their personalities

Z. Freud ^{[137],[138],[81]}, A. Adler, G. Sullivan and K. Horney ^[83],[139] as the main factor influencing the development of a child, point to the historically established roles played by parents, and not the individual qualities of the parents themselves.

The confrontation of the images of the father, husband and son of the boy's mother

K. Horney ^[139],[83] writes that the development of a child is determined not only by the interaction of his mother and father, but also by the mother's attraction to her own father (the child's grandfather), since a woman seeks to bring up in her son those features of the grandfather that she lacks in the child's father. Because of this, K. Horney believes, the boy usually resembles his grandfather on his mother's side.

Parent of the opposite sex

Z. Freud believes that the parent of the opposite sex has the greatest influence on the development of a child's personality, for whose attention the child is fighting with the second parent ^[82], but he and his followers considered this influence only in childhood, and mainly in terms of the formation of gender identity.

The strongest of the child's environment (changes throughout life)

A. Adler writes: "Being weak, the child feels his inferiority and is in a situation that he can hardly bear. However, he has a desire to develop in the direction determined by the goal that he chooses for himself… It is difficult to say how this goal is fixed [Here and further highlighted by me, – E.S.], but it is clear that it exists and influences every mental movement of the child…

He [the child, – E.S.] ... is looking for the strongest personality in his environment and makes her his model, and imitation of her is the goal. It could be the father or the mother, as we have found that even a boy can be influenced by the mother if she seems to be the strongest person. In the future, the child may want to be a coachman, because for some reason he believes that it is the coachman who is the strongest person. When a child presents this goal, he begins to behave, feel and dress like a coachman, he acquires qualities related to his goal. But if a policeman moves his finger, the coachman becomes nothing. Later, a doctor or a teacher can become an ideal, because a teacher punishes children, and therefore an attitude arises towards him as the strongest person ..." ^{[140, pp. 72-74]}.

Adler does not name the criteria by which a child determines "the strongest in his environment". Oddly enough, such a question has not been practically investigated by psychologists. There is an article by N.F. Fedotova "The head of the family: the motives of recognition" ^[141], but it presents the opinion on this matter not of the children, but of the spouses themselves.

A parent with whom there was a conflict relationship

According to H. According to Hendrix ^[142], interaction with such a parent determines the future marriage choice in accordance with the following logic. In the process of socialization, children, satisfying the expectations of their parents, lose part of their "I". At the request of adults, they get rid of certain emotions, needs and behavior. For this reason, we subsequently choose a spouse who possesses the qualities that we lost under the pressure of our parents, and at the expense of him, as it were, we return these properties, we complete our personality to the whole. The spouse is an improved version of our parents. He should remind us of our parents, but communicate with us in a different way, much better, and thus heal the traumas of childhood. H. Hendrix believes that the prototype of the future spouse is the parent with whom there were more complicated relationships.

Identification and isolation processes

B.C. Mukhina ^[63],[143] believes that the formation of personality occurs due to the mechanisms of identification (identification with another person or group) and isolation (awareness of their differences from another person or group). What determines in which case the child will go by identification, and in which – by isolation, no answer is given. It is only said that this is determined by innate prerequisites, social conditions and the internal position of the individual himself.

Self-identification with some member of the family system

From the point of view of B. Hellinger and his followers ^[144],[145], there are the following reasons that a child begins to imitate someone from relatives. The first is "loyalty to the family system" (the child imitates for the sake of relatives, so that the family system does not reject him). The second is due to some archaic "unconscious group conscience", which seeks to restore those members of the genus who died or were intentionally consigned to oblivion. In other words, if one of the ancestors committed a crime, and they try not to talk about this person, one of the children will certainly behave in a similar way.

"Unconscious group conscience," according to Hellinger, can lead to the fact that if someone has caused serious harm to one of the family members, the child will repeat the fate of this person, because the offender is excluded from the family system, or repeat the fate of the victim, because they also try to forget about her. Let us explain that, according to Hellinger, criminals belong to the family systems of their victims, and victims belong to the family systems of criminals. A similar hypothesis about the imitation of an ancestor, about which they try to talk as little as possible, is contained in the book by A. Anselin-Schutzenberger ^[146].

The third reason for imitating someone's fate, according to B. Hellinger, is the child's desire to complete some processes that are not completed in the family system, that is, the descendant is called upon to complete what the representative of the older generation did not finish (for example, to give birth to children that his relative did not have).

Parents' idea of the child and their attitude towards him

A.S. Spivakovskaya ^[105], A.Ya. Varga ^[147], A.I. Zakharov ^[132],[134], E.T. Sokolova ^[122], V.V. Stolin ^[148] believe that the main influencing component is the parents' idea of the child and their attitude towards him.  V.V. Stolin writes that in the process of upbringing, values and norms are transmitted to the child, according to which he evaluates himself; the image of himself; the assessment of the child by parents (which subsequently determines his self-esteem); the self-esteem of parents and the way of regulating the behavior of the child by parents and other adults, which becomes a way of self-regulation.

Types of family education (emotional attitude, communication style, satisfaction of needs, control)

There are different classifications of types of family education. The most well-known classifications of the following authors: D. Baumrind ^[149], A.Ya. Varga ^[150],[151], G. Kraig ^[64], A.E. Lichko ^[107], E.T. Sokolova ^[122], A.S. Spivakovskaya ^[152]. It is customary, in particular, to distinguish an authoritarian, authoritative, liberal and indifferent style, taking into account not only the degree of control, but also the degree of warmth (Kraig G. ^[64], Andreeva T.V. ^[125]). In the work of A.G. Liders and E.N. Spireva ^[153], it was revealed that the style of upbringing depends not only on the characteristics of the child, but also is a way of realizing the personality of the parent himself.

The types of upbringing are also studied in the works of E. Maccoby ^[90],[154], E.G. Eidemiller, V.V. Justitskis ^[106], L. Benjamin ^[155].

Types of family education are distinguished by emotional attitude, communication style, degree of satisfaction of the child's needs, peculiarities of control. The "parental position" is also investigated, which includes, in particular, what the parent's image of the child and the image of himself as a parent has developed (J. Boulby ^[123], A.Ya. Varga ^[147], V.V. Stolin ^[148], O.A. Karabanova ^[119]).

Within the framework of this direction, attempts were made to identify those conditions of family education that are most favorable. A.E. Lichko, A.Ya. Varga, A.V. Petrovsky ^[65], D. Baumrind ^[149], A.A. Bodalev ^[156], L.A. Petrovskaya, A.S. Spivakovskaya ^[157] believe that the best type of family education is democratic.

On the other hand, there are authors who demonstrate that too warm relations with parents are harmful for children of both sexes.A person is formed dependent, in need of care, unwilling to grow up (I.S. Kohn ^[51]). The same conclusions are reached by O.S. Rybochkina ^[158], whose dissertation shows that high creative abilities are more typical for boys and girls who have strained relations with one of the parents, while for subjects who have warm, friendly relations with both parents, who behaved with the child as friends the average level of creative abilities is characteristic. O.S. Rybochkina interprets this as follows: hostility of the parent (maybe imaginary, but in the perception of the child it exists) "provokes a tendency to overcome his authority," and this is a prerequisite for the development of high creative abilities [Ibid., p. 118].

The model of parents' behavior in the family

Many authors, for example, E.V. Novikova ^[159] write that grown-up children transfer the behavior patterns of their parents into their own family life.

Conflicts between parents

There are a number of studies demonstrating that the characteristics of a child's personality can be a consequence of the relationship between spouses. For example, in the work of V.Ya. Titarenko ^[160] it is proved that the absence of significant conflicts between parents contributes to a responsible attitude to study, discipline, responsiveness, and vice versa, the presence of conflicts reduces these qualities. The study by O.V. Shapatina ^[161] shows that conflict between parents contributes to anxiety and unstable self-esteem. E. Burgess, P. Wallin demonstrate that children from conflict families tend to dominate, and if goodwill reigns within the family, this quality is weakly manifested ^[102].

Generic unconscious

L. Zondi believed that the fate of a person is determined by the influence of latent recessive genes, which force them to engage in those activities that are related to the occupations of their ancestors. The marriage choice, in his opinion, is made in this way: a person likes persons of the opposite sex, similar to himself and, accordingly, to his relatives ^[162]. 

Parents do not influence, since aspirations are laid initially

The authors of the humanistic trend believe that the personality of a child is established initially, that is, the connection of a person's aspirations with upbringing in his family is not considered (A. Maslow ^[163], C. Rogers ^[164]).

Parent image

Relatively recently, another indicator has become the subject of research:the image of a parent that a child develops in the process of upbringing. We emphasize that this approach studies not the real parent, but the subjective perception of his child. This issue was dealt with by L.I. Wasserman ^[165], V.V. Abramenkova ^[166], I.M. Markovskaya ^[167], L.F. Fomicheva ^[168], G.T. Khomentauskas ^[169], E.O. Smirnova ^[170], E.Y. Troshina ^[171].

There are a number of studies that prove that the development of various qualities in a child is related to how he perceives his parents (O.A. Karabanova [O.A. Karabanova [77], L.F. Fomicheva ^[168], O.V. Shapatina ^[65], N.N. Obozov ^[172], O.N.. Abakumova, T.M. Trapeznikova ^[173], N. A. Vasilchenko ^[110], A.I. Tasheva, A.S. Kucherova ^[174]). As synonyms of the concept of "image" in some of the above works, the concepts of "perception", "characteristics of parents", "subjective idea of the style of parenting" are used.

The image of the parent is investigated in different ways. Some authors study the image of the parent within the framework of A.N. Leontiev's ideas about the image of the world (V.V. Petukhov ^[175]), others, following G. Sullivan, understand parents as "significant others" in a full family.

M.V. Semenikhina writes that the least studied experimentally is how adults represent the images of their parents ^{[80, p. 67]}, and in general, "as for adolescence ... there are very few studies of the relationship of the characteristics of an already formed personality with certain characteristics of the parent family" ^{[80, p. 80]}. To such a few The research includes D.V. Berko's dissertation ^[176], devoted to the influence of parenting styles on girls. M.V. Semenikhina also draws attention to the fact that studies of the image of a parent in the mainstream of developmental psychology concern precisely the "image of a parent as an educator". Meanwhile, by adolescence, children no longer think so much about their parents as educators: they are now interested in the figure of the parent as a person in general.

"Misalignment", "tension" between "parent lines"

Among the researchers who have paid attention to such a factor of development as the image of a parent, a group of authors under the leadership of V.K. Shabelnikov stands out. As V.K. Shabelnikov writes, each of the parents is a carrier of a system of values and norms of a kind, and the development of the child's personality is influenced by a "system of tensions" ("mismatch") between the generic structures of the mother and father ^[177]. What is this "stress system" ("mismatch"), a clear definition is not given, but from the context it can be deduced that the more differences between parents, the better it is for the development of the child.

This is how M.V. Semenikhina, one of the authors of this direction, explains this phenomenon: "Any child, as it were, pulls together and coordinates the parent lines that determine him. The discrepancy in the positions, vectors of motivation and energy of the parents' life determines the degree of personal tension of the child. In this regard, in the image of a parent, features that are closely related to certain events and life situations, i.e. having a causality that the child is aware of, are adjacent to features that are unclear, practically unconscious, but create no less (and maybe more) strong tension. And the degree of personal tension itself then manifests itself in the energy of a person's inclusion in the social space, in his business and creative activity, the peculiarities of his self-consciousness" ^{[80, p. 68]}.

Under the leadership of V. K. Shabelnikov, a number of works were carried out aimed at studying the relationship between the images of parents and the development of certain qualities in children. For example, one of the works of A.V. Litvinova is called: "The dependence of the formation of personal characteristics on the mismatch of the images of parents" ^[178]. A.V. Litvina's research revealed that the higher the "degree of mismatch" between the images of parents, the less the child identifies with the family and the more independent he is in setting life goals ^[179],[180].

The same direction includes the research of K.D. Lyubomirsky ^[54], M.V. Semenikhina ^[80], E.V. Trifonova ^[114], O.S. Rybochkina ^[158], Yu.Yu. Limaeva ^{[181],[182],[183]} et al .

 One can see parallels between the idea of V.K. Shabelnikov about the role of "mismatch" and the research of N.N. Obozov, O.N. Abakumova, T.M. Trapeznikova ^[172],[173], which demonstrated that in families where parents do not conflict, the child perceives parents as an integral structure. The experiments of M.V. Semenikhina and O.S. Rybochkina, which revealed a positive relationship between the high degree of reflexivity and creative orientation of the subjects with the degree of "mismatch" of the images of parents, are quite consistent with the conclusions of Ya.A. Ponomarev that people with high creative activity have more diverse upbringing conditions than people who are not inclined to creativity, first of all it refers to the education and occupation of parents ^[184],[185]. R. Albert ^[186] also comes to the conclusion that families of creative people often have tense relationships, and independence is more characteristic of the members of these families than intimacy.

Little-studied factors

Studies devoted to the study of the causes of the formation of certain personality traits, as well as the mechanisms of creating a life plan, are very extensive. The overwhelming majority of authors believe that the main reason for the emergence of a particular life scenario is the influence of the family. Nevertheless, such a factor as the hierarchical position in the family of the relative whose influence is being studied has not been practically investigated. When they write about the influence of "family norms and values", "family interests", "behavior, beliefs, attitude of parents", "emotional attitude in the family", "parenting style in the family" and the like, it is not specified whose specific norms, values, behavior, interests are in question. One of the parents may be a highly spiritual person, and the second may be a person leading an immoral lifestyle. One is to be interested in science or art, the second is in ways to steal and not get caught. In addition, other relatives often live with the child, whose influence is rarely taken into account. From this point of view, the most correct approach seems to be the approach of a group of authors led by V.K. Shabelnikov, who consider the "mismatch between parental lines" (although, of course, children are often brought up not by their parents, but by other relatives). Nevertheless, even among these researchers, "misalignment" is understood not as a hierarchy, but as simply differences between parents, which can be of any kind.

In the works of A. Adler, it is said that the child identifies the strongest personality in his environment and imitates it, but A. Adler does not name the criteria by which he determines this person. In addition, it remains unclear what is the influence of those who are "weaker" than this "strongest", although it is obvious that in order to distinguish the "strongest", it is necessary first to make a comparison with the "weakest". In this regard, this work is devoted to the study of the influence of the child's relatives depending on their hierarchical position in the family.

Hypotheses a

In some cases, the child identifies a Dominant and Subordinate in his family, who obeys the Dominant with special eagerness (of course, if a Subordinate is present in this family at all, see clarifying definitions). The child has a desire to rise above the Dominant One in order, firstly, to rid himself of his dictate, and secondly, to take his place and receive the same adoration from the Subordinate. Note that the gender of the Dominant and Subordinate does not matter, and these constructions should not be confused with the doctrine of the oedipus complex.

The child usually learns the feeling of anger for the first time in interaction with the Dominant, and such a feeling as resentment is often associated with a Subordinate, because it seems to the child that the Subordinate loved the Dominant more than him, although he, the child, competed hard with the Dominant. The subordinate often causes the child to feel pity and (or) guilt, while in relation to the Dominant, these feelings are very rare.

The child pays attention to what, from the point of view of the Dominant, are signs of "strong" and "weak" behavior, and tries to avoid falling into the category of "weak". He adopts those features of the Dominant, which, in the opinion of the child, provide the Dominant with the worship of the Subordinate. As a result, according to the system of movements (facial expressions, gestures, gait), diction, manner of behavior, the child is similar to the Dominant One.

Also, the child looks for the "Achilles heel" of the Dominant – the areas in which the Dominant did not succeed and (a prerequisite!) I was annoyed about it. To get such information for a child is vital, because his key life task is to rise above his Dominant. Based on the "strengths" and "weaknesses" of the Dominant child identified by the child, the child will subsequently choose a profession (the sphere of self-realization) and a spouse.

A person is inclined to choose such a profession in order to successfully fight with it, compete with people of the Dominant sex, and at the same time receive the approval of people of the Subordinate sex.

Definitions

The dominant person is the family member who most corresponds to the following characteristics:

- he had the last word;

- everyone was pleasing him, serving him, and he himself did only what he wanted;

- he was less emotionally dependent on others (and those, in turn, depended on him), in particular, a sign of dominance can be the commission of infidelity and initiative in divorce;

- he raised his voice more often and used force;

- it was scarier to annoy him than other relatives;

- his favor was considered a special honor (he was more stingy with praise).

The dominant one is not always the one who earns more, the one who is older, smarter or who has a higher social position. An alcoholic, a drug addict, a pathological loafer, a mentally ill person or pretending to be one can be dominant, if only in fact everyone did what was beneficial to him.

The subordinate person is the family member who most willingly submits to the Dominant One, loves and respects him the most, forgives him all insults and encourages everyone else to obey the Dominant One.

Approx. 1. Instead of "a man whose family was dominated by a man (woman)", for ease of perception, we write "son of the dominant father (mother)" and "daughter of the dominant father (mother)", although the dominant person is sometimes not the father or mother, but some other family member (for example, grandfather, stepmother, guardian, etc.).

Approx. 2. In case of a positive answer to the question, one was put everywhere, in case of a negative answer – zero. The absence of a response was encoded by the number 2.

Approx. 3. In the course of the study, such concepts as "resentment" and "anger" were used. In order for the subjects to correctly understand the essence of the question, it was explained that by offense we mean a situation when a person first tries to please someone, but these attempts do not meet the expected approval, while we call anger a simple defensive reaction (there are no preliminary attempts to please here).

Approx. 4. We call an adult subject a child because he talks about his childhood.

Approx. 5. It is important to emphasize that the absence of an affirmative answer to questions about the presence of a desire or feeling in the subject's distant past (up to 14 years old) does not mean the answer "no", but "no answer", i.e. the subject does not remember such a desire or feeling, in other words, it is rather an answer like "I find it difficult to answer."

Methods and organization of research

In 2019-2022, an experimental study was conducted, the purpose of which was to test the hypothesis of the existence of a relationship between the personality characteristics of the Dominant and Subordinate person in the parental family and the personality characteristics of the child.

A conversation was used as the main method of experimental research, during which a written survey was conducted with closed and open type answers.

Justification of the choice of methodology. The combination of the survey with a closed and open type of response was due to the desire to obtain information not only that a particular phenomenon takes place in the life of the subject, but also about what exactly it is, which, in turn, increases the degree of reliability, validity of the answer.

Empirical base of the study: clients who turned to a psychologist through the aggregator of psychological services profi.ru .

The study sample consisted of 555 men and women aged 15 to 55 who, on their own initiative, turned to a psychologist for career guidance and/or relationships with a legal or civil spouse through the website.

The contingent of subjects was determined by the desire to demonstrate the universality of the revealed patterns, for which the sample included people of different ages, gender, level and type of education who played the role of control groups.

Stages of the experiment:

1. All subjects were asked to undergo a two-hour interview (the same survey that is given in this paper) in order to immediately receive conclusions and recommendations on the topic of the client's request.

2. The subjects answered the questions verbally, their answers and detailed notes to them were recorded. It was allowed to ask clarifying questions.

3. There was a discussion of the results, the subject could express agreement or disagreement with the conclusions and give additional explanations. According to the results of the consultation, the subjects, being ordinary consumers of psychological services, left their reviews on the website.

Processing of the experiment results:

The answers of all the subjects (for some items it was "yes" and "no", encoded with zeros and ones, for other items – detailed answers) were summarized in a common table. When processing the data, the MS Excel package for Windows XP, the SPSS Statistics software package 23.0 version was used.

Methods of statistical data processing.

To compare the nominal features, the criterion ?2 (chi-square) and the conjugacy tables were used. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare quantitative features. For reasons of clarity, descriptive statistics in percentages were also used.

The works of D.Ya. Raigorodsky, O.Yu. Ermolaev, A.D. Inheritance served as a guide in the selection and use of the above statistical methods.

Who turns out to be the Dominant one in the family?

Next, we will give the content of the items from the questionnaire, the number of positive responses to them and the interpretation of these results. As for the detailed explanations given by the subjects (i.e. the qualitative side of the study), their analysis is supposed to be given in a separate paper so as not to overload the reader with details.

The numbers placed before the questions mean the number of the column in the summary data table, where, in addition to the "yes" and "no" answers, there are text notes, and are of a technical nature.

The purpose of the next question is to find out who was Dominant in the subject's family. According to the hypothesis of the study, looking at this person, the child has an idea that it is this behavior that leads to the fact that you are loved or at least obeyed. The subject had to name who was Dominant in his family, based on the following instructions:

No. 7. "Who was the dominant person in your family in those years when you could not yet resist adults (up to 14 years old)?"

Explanation of the question, read to the subject:

"As the Dominant one, we consider an adult (!) person who had the last word in the family (he said, and everyone obeyed) or, if there was no such person in the family, the one around whom everyone revolved and to whom, in fact, everyone served, and he himself did only what he wanted. This could happen both due to the fact that this person was the most intelligent and respected, and for other reasons. For example, an alcoholic, a drug addict, a pathological loafer, a mentally ill person or pretending to be one may be dominant. The main thing is that in fact everyone is doing what is beneficial to him.

If you have two relatives (for example, a father and a mother) who are approximately "on the same level" in their authority, pay attention to which of them is more emotionally dependent on the other, who is trying to please this second, is afraid of losing him, maybe jealous. The dominant one is less emotionally dependent. If there is such a situation that the parents are divorced, we need to see whose initiative it is. The one who left easily is most likely the Dominant One, because he is more independent.

As a rule, the Dominant one raises his voice more often and uses force, you were more afraid of annoying him than other relatives, his favor is considered a special honor (he is more stingy with praise).

It is important to understand that the Dominant one is not always the one who earns more, the one who is older, smarter or who has a higher social position. Also, you do not need to look at who is closer to you, who communicated with you more (as a rule, a Subordinate is more accessible to the child in terms of communication).

In the case when a child lives only with a single mother, she is automatically dominant, whatever her character.

Some mistakenly call themselves Dominant. In this case, it should be remembered that we are not talking about the present tense, but about childhood, when you could not decide where to go and what to do."

As a result of the study, it turned out who the dominant persons were most often:

- 251 people have a mother, 47 of them, i.e. 8.5% of the total number of subjects, were the children of a single mother;

- 213 people had their father as the dominant person, and in one case he was known only by stories;

- 36 people have a grandmother, and in two cases it was the stepmother's mother, and in one case – the mother's stepmother;

- in 23 cases, the dominant person was the stepfather, and in one case it was not even the stepfather, but the mother's lover, officially married to another woman.

Other persons are rarely in the Dominant role: 3 cases – aunt, 3 – grandfather, 1 – cousin, 1– uncle, 1 – stepmother, 1 – female guardian, 1 - foster mother, 1 – grandmother's sister, 1 – older sister, 1 – coach.

11 people indicated two persons who dominated completely equally at the same time: 4 cases – grandmother and father, 3 – grandmother and mother (in one case, a mother who went to work and a grandmother to whom a child was left), 2 – sister and mother, 1 – mother and father, 1 – mother-a loner and grandmother's sister.

7 people indicated two persons who dominated consecutively:2 cases – father, then stepfather, 1 – father, then grandfather, 1– father, then mother, 1 – grandmother, then stepfather, 1 – grandfather, then mother, 1 – "stepfathers" (as the interviewee explained, "there were many of them, and each time the leading role was not played by the mother or someone from her relatives, but another husband of her mother").

Conclusions on question 7: only 18 people could not clearly indicate the Dominant One. In other words, in the vast majority of cases, it is possible to single out the Dominant One based on the proposed criteria.

If the Dominant was a man, 0 was put, and if the Dominant was a woman, one was put. If the subject could not answer this question unambiguously (a man and a woman were equally dominant in the family, or at first one dominated, and later the other), the figure 2 was put (there were 8 such people).

Conclusion on this issue: the gender of the Dominant was indicated by 547 people out of 555 (8 people had 2 applicants of different genders for the role of the Dominant). There were more of those who were dominated by a woman: 55%. This is a statistically significant conclusion: ?2= 5,530; p=0.019.

Thus, among the people who turned to a psychologist on issues related to the choice of the sphere of self-realization (career guidance) and on issues related to family troubles, people with a woman as the dominant person prevailed. The explanation of this circumstance is contained in the conclusions of this study.

How obvious was the dominance?

The following questions (or rather, statements with which the subject could agree or disagree) are devoted to finding out how obvious the dominance of the specified relative was:

No. 8. "The Dominant One had the last word."

No. 9. "He shouted and/or used force more often. (If he screamed out of impotence, it doesn't count. We need that person whose cry was able to make others obey)."

No. 10. "His favor was considered a special honor. It was not easy to get his approval, and if he did, it was calculated as an achievement."

No. 11. "It was scarier to annoy him than other family members." A clarifying question was also asked here: "What happens if you annoy?" – in order to make sure that the subject was really afraid to annoy the Dominant One.

Then the positive answers to these four questions were summed up, i.e. the severity of dominance was calculated (from 0 to 4 points).

It turned out that the dominant person in 321 people (58% of the subjects, whose answers are 3 or 4 points) dominated the family quite clearly.

Table 1

To what extent was the Dominant Aggressive?

The purpose of the following questions is to find out the degree of conflict between the subject and the Dominant Person. It is assumed that the greater the conflict, the more obvious is the child's competition with people who remind him of the Dominant One, the more definite is his life path and the more predictable are the reactions in those situations that remind him of interaction with his Dominant One. The sum of positive answers to these questions shows the degree of aggressiveness of the Dominant (from 0 to 4 points) from the point of view of the child.

No. 12. "The dominant one showed verbal aggression towards me."

No. 13. "The dominant one showed verbal aggression towards other family members."

No. 14. "The dominant one used physical aggression against me."

No. 15. "The dominant used physical aggression against other family members."

The Cronbach's alpha is close to 1 (0.859), the questions for assessing the aggressiveness of the Dominant are well coordinated.

Table 2

This table demonstrates that the most aggressive family member is not always perceived as the Dominant one, and in many cases there may not be a serious conflict between the child and the Dominant One.

Who was the Subordinate?

The next question is devoted to clarifying the second key figure in the family – the Subordinate (see the definition below).

№ 16. "Who was a subordinate in your family? (We do not call a subordinate the one who is below everyone in position, but only the adult (!) person who was most willing to obey the Dominant One in the family, loved him the most and called on others to obey him)."

The following persons were named as Subordinates:

- 260 cases – mother, 189 – father, 23 – grandmother, 21 – stepfather, 6 – grandfather (in one case it is the stepmother's father), 2 – stepmother, 2 – adult sister, 2 – cousin, 1 – aunt's husband, 1 – aunt, 1 – uncle.

If the subordinate was a man, 0 was put, if a woman – 1.

47 people had no Subordinate (in most cases because the whole family consisted of a mother and a child, and the mother as the only adult played the role of the Dominant one). In this case, the number 2 was put.

288 people (57%) had a female subordinate in the family, 220 people (43%) had a male subordinate. Thus, the Subordinate, as well as the Dominant, in the families of the subjects is more often a woman.

What was the position of the Subordinate compared to the Dominant One?

The following questions are devoted to finding out whether the Subordinate's position in the family was noticeably lower than that of the Dominant One. The positive answers to the first two questions and the negative answer to the third question were summed up, and this sum shows the degree of difference in the position of the Dominant and Subordinate.

This indicator can be from 0 to 3 points, so 3 points mean that the Subordinate had a much lower position in the family than the Dominant One, and 0 points mean that the difference in position was weak.

No. 17. "The subordinate was significantly lower in position in the family than the Dominant One."  Such answers turned out to be 90 (18%) out of 507 (there were 555 subjects in total, but 48 people had a family consisting only of a parent and a child, respectively, there was no Subordinate person there).

No. 18. "The subordinate always obeyed the Dominant." There were 88 such responses (17%).

№ 20. "It has happened that a Subordinate has prevailed over a Dominant One." There are only 55 such people (11%) out of 507, i.e. in 89% of cases, the Subordinate never got the upper hand over the Dominant One.

From the last two questions, it follows that the difference in position between the Dominant and Subordinate in the vast majority of cases was quite noticeable, and for the child it was obvious, and almost a fifth of the subjects noted that the Subordinate was significantly lower in position in the family than the Dominant one.

The degree of difference in the position of the Dominant and Subordinate was assessed as follows: by 1 point – 396 people (78%), by 2 points – 48 people (10%), by 3 points – 62 people (12%).

Was there a grudge against the Subordinate for loving the Dominant One more?

The next question-statement is aimed at clarifying a common conflict, a special case of which has been called the oedipus complex (the rivalry of a boy with his father for the attention of his mother). Nevertheless, our question about whether the child had a grudge against the Subordinate for obeying the Dominant to the detriment of the interests of the child is much broader, since the Dominant and Subordinate are not always father and mother and generally are not always persons of different sexes.

№ 19. "In relation to the Subordinate, you had a grudge that he loved the Dominant more than you, or that the Subordinate neglected your interests in favor of the Dominant (for example, the Dominant offended you, and the Subordinate did not protect you, or the Dominant was clearly wrong, and the Subordinate forced you to admit his rightness), or you had a thought that the Dominant is allowed to "play tricks" as you like, and you do not get proper approval, although you try to be much more Dominant in front of the Subordinate."

As it turned out, such a phenomenon as resentment against a Subordinate due to the fact that he loved the Dominant more than the child, or neglected his interests in favor of the Dominant, is observed in 21% of cases, which is statistically significant: ?2= 173.982; p?0.001.

To which of the adult family members did the child feel the maximum anger?

The following questions are control questions, they check the result obtained when answering questions No. 12-15, devoted to clarifying the degree of aggressiveness of the Dominant ("The Dominant showed verbal aggression against me", "The Dominant showed verbal aggression against other family members", "The Dominant used physical aggression against me", "The Dominant used physical aggression in relation to other family members").

 The purpose of the following questions is, firstly, to test the hypothesis that the greatest conflict in a child, as a rule, is with the Dominant person in the family, and usually it is thanks to him that the child first learns the feeling of anger. As for resentment, this feeling is usually inspired by a Subordinate (see the results on question No. 19). The second purpose of further questions is to clarify the degree of conflict with the Dominant. It is assumed that the greater the conflict, the more predictable the subject's reactions to things related to his memories of the Dominant

No. 22. "Name the adult family member with whom you had the greatest conflict before the age of 14. It's about feeling anger, not resentment. The difference here is this. Anger is a purely defensive reaction (for example, "move away, or I'll hit you"), and resentment arises in a situation when you tried to please a person, to show yourself from the best side, and he "spat in your soul". We need the person against whom anger most often arose."  458 people (82.5%) were able to answer this question.

No. 22a. "The one who caused anger is the Dominant One." If an adult family member, in relation to whom the subject had the maximum anger, is the Dominant one, a unit was placed.

It turned out that 410 people (89.5%) out of 458 who managed to identify in their family a person against whom they had anger, such is none other than the Dominant One. The result is statistically significant: ?2= 286,122; p?0.001.

 No. 23. "Evaluate on a three–point scale the degree of this feeling, where 1 is the minimum level, 2 is average, 3 is strong.  (We put one if we want to emphasize that there was practically no anger)."

100% here are 458 people who answered positively to question 22 (i.e. they had a feeling of anger towards someone from relatives). The answer was given by 266 people (58%), the remaining 192 (42%) found it difficult. 

The number of those who were able to assess the degree of anger towards the Dominant significantly exceeds the number of those who did not, ?2=11.956; p=0.001

Of the 266 people who were able to assess the degree of anger towards the Dominant, 190 (71%) rated it by 3 points! 11 people rated their anger by 2 points and 65 people (24%) rated it by 1 point. Thus, the child's relationship with the Dominant is more often very tense.

The number of those who rated the degree of anger by 3 points statistically significantly exceeds the number of those who rated the degree of anger by 1 and 2 points; ?2=190,158; p?0.001.

To whom did the child feel the maximum sympathy?

The next question, on the one hand, tests the hypothesis that of all family members, the child, as a rule, feels the greatest pity for a Subordinate.

No. 24. "Name the adult family member whom you felt sorry for at the age of 14 (you wanted to make his life easier, help him)." 275 people gave answers. Next, it was calculated how many subjects had the person they most often felt sorry for, this is a Subordinate. It turned out that 264 subjects (96%!) were pitied by a Subordinate, and only 11 (4%) had someone else, and only in 8 cases this person was the Dominant one. The result is statistically significant: ?2=232.760; p?0.001.

The next question is aimed at identifying the conflict of the child with the Dominant because of the Subordinate.

№ 25. "This person was pitied because he suffered because of the actions of the Dominant One."

144 people (52%) out of 275 answered in the affirmative (because only 275 subjects out of 555 felt sorry for someone from relatives, see question No. 24). Thus, 52% of respondents have a certain conflict with the Dominant One due to the fact that the Dominant One somehow upset the one they feel sorry for. In turn, the one who is pitied, in 96% of cases, was a Subordinate.

Note that question 24 can serve as an additional check that the Subordinate has been identified correctly. In the case when it is difficult to determine which of the parents is Dominant and which is Subordinate, this question allows us to clarify. It is assumed that the feeling of pity for the Dominant is an extremely rare phenomenon: anger is more likely to arise in relation to the Dominant child (which is confirmed by the results on questions No. 22, 22a and 23). Of course, in adulthood, there may be a reassessment of who was the real "puppeteer" and, accordingly, there may be pity for the Dominant One, who in fact could be the object of manipulation by a Subordinate or someone else from relatives, but we emphasize that we are considering exactly the feelings that arose in childhood (before 14 years old), because they formed the character of the subject, and his later assessment of childhood events has little effect.

Whose system of movements did the child imitate?

The next question is aimed at testing the hypothesis that the child imitates the system of movements of the Dominant, and not someone else.

No. 26. "Who in the family were you like in the system of movements (facial expressions, gestures, gait), diction, manner of behavior (perhaps others told you about it)?" 322 people (58%) answered. The remaining 233 (42%) do not know who they look like.

It was further noted if the adult family member, to whom the subject was similar in the system of movements, was the Dominant One. It turned out that out of 322 people who answered this question, 288 people (89%) copied the Dominant movement system! The result is statistically significant: ?2=200,360; p?0.001.

Only 34 people (11%) do not resemble the Dominant movement system, and only 12 people out of these 34 believe that they are similar to the Subordinate by the movement system.These results show that in the case when the subject finds it difficult to indicate which of his relatives is Dominant and who is Subordinate, the question should be asked which of these two he (in his opinion, and in the opinion of others) is similar in his movements. In other words, this question can serve as a test of whether the Dominant and Subordinate are correctly defined.

What types of men cause the most outrage?

The next question was asked in order to check how the Dominant gender affects the attitude towards men.

No. 27. "What type of men do you dislike, cause anger?" 276 people managed to describe this type. The rest stated that they do not have such a type of men who would annoy them and cause a feeling of indignation and anger.

Then a clarifying question was asked: "Did you have a relative who was characterized by such unpleasant behavior?" If the subject answered that he described, in fact, the behavior of his Dominant or Subordinate, this was noted in the corresponding columns of the table ("I don't like men like Dominant" or "I don't like men like Subordinate").

As already mentioned, there were 276 people who were generally annoyed by at least some type of men. They were divided into those whose male was Dominant in the family and those whose male was Subordinate, and five were excluded who did not indicate the gender of the Dominant due to the fact that two people of different sexes claimed to be Dominant in their families. Thus, 100% of the subjects at this point of the study are 271 people.

Further, those who were Dominated by a woman and those who were Dominated by a man were considered together on the subject of how the gender of the Dominant affects the attitude towards men.

The data obtained suggest that the subjects of both sexes, in whom the Dominant was a woman, rarely have a deep, childhood dislike for men: 6.8% of them condemn men who remind them of the Dominant-a woman, and 18.2% – men who resemble the person who played the role of a Subordinate in their family. In other words, those who had a man in the family as a Subordinate do not like rather "weak" men.

A completely different picture is observed in subjects of both sexes, in which a man was Dominant: 54.7% of them note that they do not like men who resemble their Dominant (i.e., "strong" men), and only 1.4% indicate that they do not like men who resemble a Subordinate ("weak" men).

The result is statistically significant: ?2=80.325; p?0.001.

Fig. 1. Attitude towards men depending on the Dominant gender

Illustration 1. Attitude towards men depending on the gender of the Dominant

If the subject described mainly "active" qualities as unpleasant behavior, implying that a person behaves aggressively towards others (controls, behaves arrogantly, devalues, threatens, etc.), it was noted in a special column that the subject does not like men with offensive behavior. Further, dislike of men with offensive behavior was compared with the Dominant gender.

As a result, it turned out that among those subjects of both sexes in whom the man was Dominant, 71.9% have a dislike for men with offensive behavior. As for those subjects of both sexes, in which a woman was Dominant, only 48.5% dislike men with offensive behavior. These differences are statistically significant: ?2=15.592; p?0.001.

Fig. 2. The attitude to the offensive position in men, depending on the gender of the Dominant

Illustration 2. Attitude to the offensive position in men depending on the gender of the Dominant

What types of women cause the most outrage?

A similar question was asked in order to test how the Dominant gender affects attitudes towards women.

No. 28. "What type of women do you dislike, cause anger?" 272 people were able to describe the type of woman who causes anger. The rest said that they didn't have any female type that would annoy them.

As in the previous case, the question was asked: "Did you have a relative who was characterized by such unpleasant behavior?" If the subject answered that he described the behavior of his Dominant or Subordinate, this was noted in the corresponding columns of the table ("I don't like women like Dominant" or "I don't like women like Subordinate").

All respondents were divided into those with a Dominant female and those with a Subordinate Female, and six were excluded who did not indicate the Dominant gender due to the fact that two people of different sexes dominated in their families. In total, 100% of the subjects here are 266 people.

38.8% of subjects of both sexes, in whom a woman was Dominant, feel anger towards women whose behavior reminds them of a woman who was the Dominant person. As for the subjects of both sexes, in which the male was Dominant, only 0.9% of them experience anger towards women who are similar in behavior to their Dominant. 

39.5% of the subjects of both sexes, in which the male was Dominant, feel resentment towards women who are similar to their Subordinate. In their explanations recorded in the text notes, the subjects explained that in childhood they were annoyed by excessive passivity, submission, lack of self-respect in a female Subordinate who was too subordinate to the Dominant.

The results are statistically significant: ?2=89.581; p?0.001.

Fig. 3. People of both sexes, whose Dominant was a woman, more often do not like women who remind them of the Dominant

Illustration 3. People of both sexes, whose Dominant was a woman, more often do not like women who remind them of the Dominant

If the subject described mainly "active" qualities as unpleasant behavior, implying that a person behaves aggressively towards others (controls, behaves arrogantly, devalues, threatens, etc.), it was noted in a special column that the subject does not like women with offensive behavior. Further, the dislike of women with offensive behavior was compared with the Dominant gender. Recall that 100% here are 266 people.

The results show that subjects in whom a woman was Dominant more often dislike women with offensive behavior than subjects in whom a man is Dominant: 55.3% vs. 31.6%, respectively.

Statistical significance: ?2=14,758; p?0.001.

Fig. 4. People of both sexes, in whom a woman was dominant, are more likely to experience anger when they see a woman with offensive behavior

Illustration 4. People of both sexes who have a female Dominant are more likely to experience anger when they see a woman with offensive behavior

Note that questions 27-28 can serve as a test of whether the Dominant and Subordinate are correctly defined, because, as the results show, people of the same sex as the Dominant are usually disliked for offensive behavior (for example, the desire to control others, point out, ridicule, devalue other people's achievements, threaten, etc.), in while people of the sex to which the Subordinate belongs, as a rule, cause hostility because of their passivity (lack of their own position, submission, helplessness, unwillingness to develop, etc.).

With whom are conflicts more common – with men or with women?

Questions No. 29-30 are aimed at testing the hypothesis that aggression is more directed at persons of the Dominant sex, while persons of the Subordinate sex tend to justify and ignore the danger that may come from them.

No. 29. "More often I have conflicts with men. I often have a feeling of anger if a man behaves disrespectfully to me, and not a woman."

No. 30. "More often I have conflicts with women. I often have a feeling of anger if a woman behaves disrespectfully to me, and not a man."

The answer is 394 people, the rest found it difficult. The hypothesis received statistically significant confirmation: 96.1% of respondents who were dominated by a woman answered that they often have conflict relationships with women, and 93% of those who were Dominated by a man believe that they are more often in conflict with men. Statistical significance: ?2=314.390; p?0.001.

In connection with the results obtained, it can be argued that questions No. 29-30 can serve to verify the correctness of the definition of Dominant and Subordinate. For example, if a person believes that he often conflicts with women, it should be assumed that a woman was dominant in his family.

Fig. 5. Men and women in whom a man was Dominant are more likely to conflict with men, and men and women in whom a woman was Dominant are more likely to conflict with women

Illustration 5. Men and women for whom a man was dominant are more likely to conflict with men, and men and women for whom a woman was dominant are more likely to conflict with women

Who does he sympathize with more often – a man or a woman?

The following questions are aimed at testing the hypothesis that a person is more likely to feel pity and a desire to come to the rescue for representatives of the sex to which the Subordinate belonged. It was suggested to choose one of two options:

№ 31. "I feel pity and desire to help a man more often than a woman"

№ 32. "I feel pity and desire to help a woman more often than a man."

The hypothesis received statistically significant confirmation: 95.4% of those with a male Subordinate tend to help men, and 92.2% of those with a female Subordinate prefer to help women more. Statistical significance: ?2=234.677; p?0.001. Thus, this question can serve as a check whether the Subordinate is correctly identified.

Fig. 6. Persons of both sexes whose Subordinate was a man are more likely to sympathize with men, and men and women whose Subordinate was a woman are more likely to sympathize with women

Illustration 6. Persons of both sexes whose Subordinate was a man more often sympathize with men, and men and women whose Subordinate was a woman more often sympathize with women

What happens if the sex of the child coincides with the sex of the Subordinate?

The following statement, for obvious reasons, was offered to confirm or refute only women.

No. 35. "It is unpleasant for me to be a person of my gender because there was a Subordinate of that gender in my family." 59 out of 348 women answered this question positively.

Further, positive answers to question No. 35 were compared with positive answers to question No. 17 ("The subordinate was significantly lower in position in the family than the Dominant One"). 61 women answered in the affirmative.

Those 59 women who find it unpleasant and humiliating to be women are divided into two groups: 24 people (39.3%), whose Subordinate was significantly lower in position in the family than the Dominant one, and 35 people (12.2%), whose Subordinate was not a "second-class person".

Conclusion: among those women who indicated that their Subordinate was significantly lower in position than the Dominant One, there are more of those who dislike being a female person because there was a Subordinate of that gender in their family. Statistical significance: ?2=26.336; p?0.001.

Fig. 7. Gender dysphoria in women whose Subordinate was a female person is more common in the case when the Subordinate was significantly lower in position than the Dominant One

Illustration 7. Gender dysphoria in women whose subordinate was female is more common when the subordinate was significantly lower in position than the dominant

What beliefs does he have about the position of persons of one or another gender?

The next question is aimed at testing the hypothesis that, looking at the relationship between the Dominant and Subordinate, a person thinks that all people of the sex to which the Dominant belongs are inclined to control and have advantages for this, and all people of the sex to which the Subordinate belongs are predisposed to be led.

No. 36. "It seems to me that people of the Dominant sex do what they need and "rule the world," and people of the Subordinate sex tend to serve them." Positive responses to this question (85 people) were compared with the severity of dominance, which was assessed using questions No. 8-11 from 0 to 4 points, and the degree of aggressiveness of the Dominant, also assessed from 0 to 4 points using questions No. 12-15.

It turned out that those subjects who answered positively to question No. 36, on average, estimate the severity of their Dominant's dominance by 3.09 points, and those who did not give a positive answer, estimate the degree of dominance of their Dominant by 2.34 points. As for the degree of aggressiveness of the Dominant, those who answered positively to question 36 rated it by an average of 1.62 points, and those who did not give a positive answer rated the degree of aggressiveness of their Dominant by an average of 0.74 points. Thus, the severity of dominance and the degree of aggressiveness of the Dominant one really inspire the child with the idea that people of the same sex as the Dominant one have more opportunities to control people of the same sex as the Subordinate.

Figure 8. The opinion that people of the Dominant sex "rule the world" is more common among those men and women who rated the dominance of this person in the family as pronounced (on average by 3.09 points)

Illustration 8. The opinion that people of the dominant gender “rule the world” is more common among those men and women who rated the dominance of this person in the family as clearly expressed (by an average of 3.09 points)

Fig. 9. The opinion that people of the Dominant sex "rule the world" is more common among those men and women who rated the degree of aggressiveness of this person in the family as higher (on average by 1.62 points)

Illustration 9. The opinion that people of the dominant gender “rule the world” is more common among those men and women who rated the degree of aggressiveness of this person in the family as higher (by an average of 1.62 points)

Who does he criticize more often – men or women?

No. 37. "I criticize representatives of the Dominant sex more."

311 people of both sexes (56%) gave positive answers, 244 (44%) did not confirm. The result is statistically significant: ?2=8,088; p=0.004.

Fig. 10. People of both sexes are more likely to criticize persons of the Dominant sex

Illustration 10. People of both sexes more often criticize people of the dominant sex

No. 38. "I am more lenient towards people of the same sex as the Subordinate, they seem to me weaker and harmless."

100% in this case is 507 people, since 48 people did not have a Subordinate. 54.8% gave positive answers, and 45.2% did not answer. The result is statistically significant: ?2=4,736; p=0.030. Therefore, questions No. 37-38 can serve to check whether the Dominant and Subordinate are correctly defined.

11. People of both sexes are more likely to evaluate persons of the same sex to which the Subordinate belonged as weak and harmless

Illustration 11. People of both sexes more often evaluate people of the same sex as the Subordinate as weak and harmless

What features of the Dominant personality create a risk of alcoholism and drug addiction for the child?

All participants of the study were asked question No. 41 "Have I used drugs or had(a) alcohol addiction." 63 people (11%) responded positively.

Further, these 63 participants were asked questions 42-46, the purpose of which was to test the hypothesis about the three main prerequisites of alcoholism and drug addiction associated with the characteristics of the Dominant personality. Thus, 63 people is 100% for questions #42-46.

Question No. 42 is aimed at testing the hypothesis that the cause of alcoholism and drug addiction is often a protest against control, because it is impossible to control a drunk person in principle.

No. 42. "My Dominant overly controlled me."There were 35 such people (55.5%).

No. 43. "My Dominant used alcohol or drugs."There were 29 people who gave a positive answer (and they, in turn, represent 100% for questions No. 44-45).

The purpose of questions No. 44-45 is to understand whether alcohol weakened the Dominant or made him "stronger" in the eyes of the child.

No. 44. "When my Dominant used alcohol or drugs, it was as if he became stronger, more aggressive, scarier."

No. 45. "When my Dominant used alcohol or drugs, he became weaker (quietly went to bed, complained of nausea)."

It is assumed that in the first case (the dominant one is a "violent drinker"), the child may have a desire to imitate, because it turned out that drinking alcohol gives power over others who are seized by fear. It is also assumed that in the second case, there can be no desire to imitate, because when drunk, the Dominant One did not look formidable, but pathetic. (Moreover, it is logical to assume that the pathetic appearance of the Dominant in a state of alcoholic intoxication may prompt the child to think that sobriety can become a way to become stronger than the Dominant One).

The result testifies in favor of the above hypothesis: it turned out that all 29 Dominant, drug or alcohol abusers "drank violently", that is, there were no "quiet drinkers" among them!

Question No. 46 is aimed at testing the hypothesis that if the Dominant did not drink himself, but unsuccessfully struggled with drunkenness or drug addiction of some other person, then the child could perceive the one who in this way caused the Dominant a feeling of helplessness as a winner, and begin to imitate him.

No.46. "My Dominant unsuccessfully struggled with the drunkenness of some other family member and was furious that nothing was coming out of it."There were 17 such people (27%) out of 63 (those participants whose dominant ones themselves abused alcohol were also interviewed, since drinkers, despite their own behavior, often try to fight addiction in others).

The table below shows which factors, presumably predisposing to the development of addiction, are most common in 63 respondents who have abused alcohol or drugs:

Table 3

Below is a table showing how this 81 choices were distributed: 46 people indicated the presence of 1 factor, 14 – the presence of two factors and 6 – as many as three at the same time, and only one person did not indicate any. Nevertheless, this exception also confirms the hypothesis about the influence of the Dominant personality on the child's attitude to alcohol. Both the Dominant (father) and Subordinate (mother) of this person were heavy drinkers, and his mother died of alcoholism at a young age. It would seem that a child under such circumstances should have an aversion to alcohol, but the opposite happened. The fact is that the Dominant person boasted that he could drink a glass after a glass, but at the same time stay on his feet and allegedly maintain control over what was happening. The death of his mother, with whom his father had not lived for a long time, was commented on by him in the following way: "A weakling – can't drink, no training, not like me." "So I started to train a little to keep up with my father. I was ashamed that I was not such a "superman" like him, and now I don't know how to quit," the man explained. 

Table 4

What is the general principle of choosing a profession?

Questions No. 51–54 were asked in order to test hypotheses explaining the logic of professional choice.

With the help of a set of questions in this section , the following hypotheses were tested:

- people tend to choose such a profession so that it gives an opportunity to rise above the Dominant One (see questions No. 51-52);

- the profession must simultaneously meet two requirements: to make it possible to successfully compete with people of the Dominant sex, and to receive approval and delight from people of the Subordinate's gender (see question No. 53);

- the child is not inclined to listen to the advice of a Subordinate regarding the profession that he should choose (see question No. 54).

No. 51. "I don't like my profession because it doesn't allow me to rise above the Dominant One." There are 85 such people (15.31%) out of 555.

No. 52. "I like my profession because it allows me to rise above the Dominant One." There were 80 such people (14.41%) out of 555.

Questions No. 51-52 were considered together, since both show the connection between love or dislike for a profession and whether this profession helps to surpass the Dominant One. Since a total of 165 (29.72%) participants answered these questions positively, it can be stated that almost 30% of the subjects quite consciously compete with the Dominant One, comparing their occupation with his work!

No. 53. "I would like such a profession so that with its help I could successfully fight, compete with people of the Dominant sex, and at the same time receive the approval of people of the Subordinate sex." This question was asked only to 170 subjects who applied specifically for career guidance. 126 (74.11%) people gave positive answers! This result is statistically significant: ?2=39.553; p?0.001.

The reason why the child does not want to follow the advice of a Subordinate

No. 54. "I don't want to follow the instructions (about profession, lifestyle, choice of spouse, etc.) that my subordinate gave me." This question was also asked only to 170 subjects who applied specifically for career guidance. A positive response was given by 97 people (57%) out of 170.

The answers to question No. 54 were compared with positive answers to questions No. 18 ("The subordinate always obeyed the Dominant One") and No. 24a ("The adult family member whom I felt sorry for at the age of 14 (I wanted to make his life easier, help him) is a Subordinate"), which indicate that the child's awareness of the Subordinate's lower position in the family hierarchy.

As a result, significant differences were revealed both on question No. 18 (?2=5,657; p=0.017) and on question 24a (?2=6,737; p=0.009). Those who answered positively to questions No. 18 and No. 24a, more often answered positively to question No. 54, i.e. confirmed that their Subordinate always obeyed the Dominant One, and indicated that at the age of 14 they felt pity for the Subordinate, more often avoid following the advice of the Subordinate regarding the profession, lifestyle, choice of spouse and others things.

Fig. 12. More often, those men and women who have always obeyed the Dominant Subordinate do not want to follow the instructions of the Subordinate

Illustration 12. More often those men and women whose Subordinate has always obeyed the Dominant do not want to follow the instructions of the Subordinate

13. More often, men and women who indicated that the adult family member whom they felt sorry for at the age of 14 was a Subordinate do not want to follow the instructions of a Subordinate.

Illustration 13. More often, men and women do not want to follow the instructions of the Subordinate, indicating that the adult family member whom they felt sorry for under the age of 14 is the Subordinate

What information about the Dominant person uses to choose a profession and a spouse?

Questions No. 55-70 are aimed at testing hypotheses related to the logic of not only professional, but also marital choice. The assumption was tested that the child is extremely attentive to information that can give him a clue how he can rise above his Dominant. The generalizing hypothesis is that the key life task of a person is the desire to rise above his Dominant, and he chooses a spouse who will contribute to this elevation.

This generalizing hypothesis is subdivided into the following particular hypotheses:

- if a child knows what an unfulfilled dream his Dominant had (question No. 55), he will try to realize it (question No. 56), and will also seek rapprochement with a person who managed to realize what the Dominant failed (question No. 75);

- if it is known who the Dominant respected, admired, and perhaps revered (question No. 57), the child will strive to become like the one the Dominant admired (question No. 58), and will also want to marry a person who possesses the qualities that the Dominant admired (question No.76);

- if it is known who was envied by the Dominant (question No. 59), then the child will most likely want to achieve the same success as the one who was envied by the Dominant (question No. 60), and will also strive to marry a person who has the skills and qualities that the Dominant envied (question No. 77);

- if it is known what type of people the Dominant despised, considered weak and pathetic, the child will not want to fall into this category and will not want to marry a person of this type (questions No. 61, 62, 78);

- if the Dominant was afraid of someone or something (question No. 63), then the child will try not to be afraid of it or will do things that could frighten the Dominant (question No. 64); he will also strive to get closer to a person who is not afraid of what the Dominant was afraid of or does things which could scare the Dominant (question #79);

- if it is known from what the Dominant became enraged, panicked (question No. 65), the child will strive to do things that could cause panic of the Dominant (question No. 66), and will also gravitate to marriage with a person behaving in such a way that it could cause rage of the Dominant (question No.80);

- if the Dominant Person was proud of something, put something to his credit (question No. 67), then it is likely that the child will want to develop these qualities in himself (question No. 68), and will also appreciate those in his spouse (question No. 81);

- if the child knows about a person who has somehow managed to rise above the Dominant One (for example, he openly criticized the Dominant One, laughed at him or surpassed him in something, especially if this caused annoyance of the Dominant One, see question No. 69), then it is likely that the child will take an example from this person (question No. 70), and will also look for a similar person to marry him (question No. 82), since it is with such a person that he will be able to rise above his Dominant.

Below are the answers that demonstrate how much people have the above information about their Dominant Ones, and show what proportion of those who have mastered such information uses it to form qualities in themselves that allow them to rise above the Dominant with it. As for the answers related to the choice of a spouse, we will consider them in the following sections.

No. 55. "What dreams did the Dominant One have that he could not fulfill? For example, he could have the intention to get some kind of education, get some kind of job, become rich, write a book, become famous, move somewhere, etc." 127 people (23% of 555) could name at least one unfulfilled dream of their Dominant, and this number represents 100%. for the next question (No. 56).

No. 56. "I would like to do what the Dominant One dreamed of, but he did not succeed." There were 112 of them (88.2%) out of 127.

No. 57. "Who was respected by the Dominant One, whom he admired, whom, perhaps, he revered (perhaps he had idols?). These can be people from the "inner circle" (relatives and acquaintances), or they can be "media personalities" (those about whom the Dominant One learned from the media), heroes of fiction, writers, directors, actors, scientists, TV presenters, historical figures, politicians, etc."

168 participants (30% of 555) managed to name at least one personality or at least one personality type (a quality respected by the Dominant), and this number represents 100% for the next question (No. 58).

No. 58. "I want to have such successes as that of the person who was admired by the Dominant One." 121 subjects (72%) out of 168 responded positively.

No. 59. "Who was jealous of the Dominant? Envy often manifests itself when a person talks about those with whom he studied or worked ("And Vasya Pupkin was a two-biter, and now he works in the Regional Administration!") or when he follows someone in social networks. Envy can also disguise itself as condemnation ("Look, he stole, how rich he lives!"). Envy is not always accompanied by a wish for someone to fail, it can be just a laudable desire to imitate someone's success and just sincere delight." 96 people (17% of 555) were able to name who was jealous of the Dominant One, and this number represents 100% for the next question (No. 60).

No. 60. "I want to have (or do) what the one who was envied by the Dominant One had (did)." 82 people (85.4%) out of 96 gave positive answers.

No. 61. "People of what type (what category) the Dominant despised, considered weaklings or second-class people. Attention! It is necessary to distinguish those whom the Dominant despised from those whom he hated, because of whom he was enraged, panicked. Those whom the Dominant despised, he considered weaker than himself, and in his judgments about such people there could even be a share of complacency (for example: "Fi, a drunkard lies in a puddle", "so-and–so never brings things to an end", "if you study poorly, you will become a milkmaid"). The ones he was furious about, he took seriously as a kind of danger. (For example: "Don't argue with him, he works for the police"). Accordingly, he did not consider them weaklings." 133 people (24% of 555) were able to explain what kind of people the Dominant One despised (considered weaklings), and this number is 100% for the next question (No. 62).

No. 62. "I don't want to belong to the category of people that the Dominant despised." 119 people (89.5%) out of 133 gave positive answers.

No. 63. "What or who was the Dominant afraid of? (For example, heights, darkness, criminals, germs, poverty, expressing your opinion, policemen, etc.). Attention: fear for someone (for example, fear for his wife and children) does not count. It is necessary to look at what the Dominant was afraid of himself (in case of anxiety for relatives, perhaps there was a fear of loneliness)." 141 people (25% of 555) were able to answer this question, and this is 100% for the next question (No. 64).

No. 64. "I strive to do what the Dominant One was afraid of (or to do something that could frighten the Dominant One)." Positive responses were given by 121 people (85.8%) out of 141.

No. 65. "Why did the Dominant become enraged, showed panic (indicating, perhaps, his helplessness in this situation)? For example, the Dominant One started screaming and panicking if he saw that someone disagreed with him, if he discovered that his son or daughter smoked, if he could not cope with the computer, etc." 115 participants (21% of 555) managed to answer this question, and this is 100% for the next question (No. 66).

No. 66. "I had a desire to do something that could cause rage, panic in the Dominant." 103 participants (89.6%) out of 115 confirmed this thesis.

No. 67. "What was the Dominant proud of, what did he take credit for? For example, the fact that he has broad knowledge, that he is an athlete, that he gave birth to seven sons, etc. If he was proud of the children, it is necessary to clarify why he took credit for their success (for example, he attributed to himself pedagogical talent)." The answer was given by 191 participants (34% of 555), and this is 100% for the next question (No. 68).

No. 68. "I would like to have such skills or qualities that the Dominant One was proud of." 264 participants (85.9%) out of 191 agreed with this statement.

No.69. "Who was the person who openly criticized the Dominant, laughed at him or surpassed him in something (especially if it caused annoyance of the Dominant)? Most often, such a person can be found among the guests who came to the house. For example, your Dominant has a bear on his ear, and someone sings beautifully or someone entertains guests with interesting stories, and your Dominant remains in the shadows (especially if the Dominant is annoyed about it)." 51 people (9%) managed to answer this question, which is 100% for the next question (No. 70).

№70. "I would like to have the qualities and skills that the person who took over the Dominant One had." A positive response was given by 44 people (86.3%) out of 51.

Let's present this data in the form of the table below.

Table 5

The results demonstrate that people do not always have information about what their Dominant failed in life and how they can be circumvented (the arithmetic mean of the number of people who know the answers to questions №55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 equals 22.87%), but if such information succeeds to receive, then the overwhelming majority seeks to use it.

The table below shows the number of simultaneously indicated reasons related to the personality of the Dominant, for which the subject develops any qualities in himself or does something (questions №56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70). These data show that if the child owns the information given in the questions №55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 79, then he tends to rise above the Dominant in several ways. The table below covers the responses of 555 subjects (100%).  

Table 6

How does the behavior of the Dominant and Subordinate affect what a person does to please the chosen one or the chosen one?

Questions 71-73 are aimed at testing the following hypotheses:

- observing the relationship between the Dominant and the Subordinate (especially if they are spouses), the child concludes for what qualities the Subordinate loves the Dominant or, at least, because of what qualities the Dominant one agrees to obey him;

- the child copies these qualities, because he believes that by possessing them, he will achieve the love and subordination of other people, first of all, the one he has designated as a spouse; in other words, in front of his supposed chosen one, he demonstrates first of all those qualities for which the Subordinate loved the Dominant One, and counts on praise.

- if we are praised precisely for those qualities because of which the Subordinate loved the Dominant One, and not for some others, this causes special delight, because it means that we have reached the level of our Dominant One (accordingly, the person who expressed such praise becomes especially valuable for us).

No. 71. "Why did the Subordinate love the Dominant One?" 57 people (11% of 507 subjects whose family had a Subordinate) managed to answer this question, and this is 100% for the following questions (No. 72-73).

No. 72. "I would like my chosen one to love me for the qualities for which the Subordinate loved the Dominant One." Interestingly, this provision was confirmed by everyone who gave a specific text answer-explanation to question 71 (i.e. 100%), and four more people who could not answer question 71, but it "intuitively seems" to them that statement No. 72 is correct (a total of 61 respondents). However, only 33 people (58% of 57 subjects who knew why the Subordinate valued the Dominant One) gave a detailed explanation of how this manifests itself in them (i.e., how exactly they imitate the qualities of the Dominant One, for which the Subordinate loved him). Apparently, this indicator should be taken into account as an objective one.

No. 73. "When I communicate with a person with whom I want to connect my life, I imitate some features of my Dominant and expect that a loved one will recognize and approve of me in this capacity." A similar situation has developed here: 57 subjects answered positively, i.e. all those who answered question No. 71, plus 10 more people who failed to answer question No. 71, but who think that when communicating with a potential chosen one or chosen one, they imitate the behavior of their Dominant and expect to be liked in this capacity.

However, only 39 people, i.e. 68% of 57 subjects who answered question No. 71, gave explanations of what exactly this manifests itself. Nevertheless, even this amount is enough to state that such a motive as imitation of the Dominant in the hope of getting the approval of the person you like is quite common. In turn, the comments of the subjects demonstrate that this tendency can lead to misunderstandings in a couple.

As an example, the following case can be cited. The dominant person in the man's parental family was an unusually economical mother, who carefully recorded all income and expenses. The subordinate person (father) admired this trait of the mother, because the family lived poorly and made ends meet precisely because of her diligence. An adult son, after getting married, also set about a petty calculation of everything that was bought, hoping that his wife would praise him the same way his father praised his mother, but she, not understanding the reason why he was doing this, was beside herself with his "stinginess and suffocating control."

Who does a person fall in love with and why?

Questions No. 75-82 are aimed at testing the hypothesis that if a child can answer the questions №55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 64, 67, 69, containing information on how to live your life in such a way as to achieve more than the Dominant One, the child uses this information not only to develop the necessary for this, the qualities and skills in himself, but also in order to connect his life with such a person, next to whom he will feel stronger than the Dominant One.

No. 75. "I would like to marry a man who has managed to accomplish what the Dominant failed." Out of 127 respondents who knew exactly what the Dominant One wanted to do, but could not, 20 people (15%) confirmed this statement.

No. 76. "I would like to marry a person who has qualities or skills that aroused respect, admiration, admiration of the Dominant." Out of 168 people who knew what qualities and skills aroused respect, admiration, adoration of the Dominant, 33 people (19.6%) gave positive answers.

No. 77. "I would like to marry a man who has qualities that aroused the envy of the Dominant." Of the 96 respondents who managed to answer the question of what qualities caused the envy of the Dominant, 30 people (31%) gave positive answers.

No. 78. "I do not want to marry a person from this category (those whom the Dominant despised and considered pathetic)." Of the 133 respondents who knew which people the Dominant despised and considered pathetic, 30 people answered in the affirmative (22.6%).

No. 79. "I would like to marry a man who does what the Dominant One was afraid of (or does something that could frighten the Dominant One)." Out of 141 people who managed to answer the question of what the Dominant One was afraid of, 30 people (21%) confirmed this statement.

No. 80. "I would like to marry a man who does something that could cause rage, panic in the Dominant." Out of 115 people who knew what could cause rage, panic in the Dominant, 51 people (44%) gave positive answers.

No. 81. "I would like to marry a man who has the same skills and qualities that the Dominant One was proud of." Of the 191 who were able to answer what the Dominant One was proud of, 21 people (11%) confirmed this statement.

No. 82. "I would like to marry a person who has the qualities and skills that the person who took over the Dominant One had." Of the 51 who knew the person who got the upper hand over the Dominant One, 23 people (45.54%) gave positive answers.

Let's present the above results of the answers in the form of a table. Here it is demonstrated that for 100 percent for questions 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 the number of those who answered the questions is taken 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 accordingly.

Table 7

Questions No. 75–82 were presented as a single question with sub-items and it was checked how many people chose several sub-items (questions №75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82) simultaneously.

Table 8

Which of the four types of couples are more likely to turn to a psychologist?

Questions 83-86 were filled in if the subjects were a couple who contacted about their relationship (there were 385 such people). The purpose of these questions is to test hypotheses about what problems are typical for couples belonging to the four types listed below.

No. 83. "The wife is dominated by a woman, and the husband too." There are 130 such people (33.8% of 385).

No. 84. "The wife is dominated by a man, and the husband too." There are 59 such people (15.3%).

No. 85. "The wife's dominant is a woman, and the husband's is a man." So 111 people (28.8%).

No. 86. "The wife's dominant is a man, and the husband's is a woman." There are 85 such people (22.1%).

It is noteworthy that couples whose husband and wife were dominated by a woman are in the lead among visitors, and couples whose husband and wife were dominated by a man are in a clear minority. What is the reason for this, we can assume, based on the results given below.

Figure 14. Four types of married couples who participated in the study

Illustration 14. Four types of couples in the study

What are the typical complaints of women about husbands who are the sons of dominant mothers?

Only women answered questions 87-94. According to the hypothesis of the study, these statements represent typical complaints of wives in couples where the husband is the son of the dominant mother. It is assumed that such a man competes with women in women's spheres, in addition, if he had a serious conflict with his mother, he perceives a woman as an opponent to fight (and this is confirmed by the results of the answers to questions No. 28, 30 and 37).

Based on the above hypothesis, positive answers to questions 87-94 were compared with positive answers to questions 83 and 86 (i.e., it was checked whether such complaints were really characteristic of women whose husbands were sons of dominant mothers).

As a result, statistically significant differences were obtained for questions No. 87-94.

No. 87. "The problem is that the husband gets into women's affairs (for example, gives "valuable instructions" on how to cook and run a household, controls expenses, teaches how to dress and make up better)."

This question was answered positively by 24 women (18.3%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 5 women (2.3%), whose husbands were dominated by a man. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 87 were revealed: ?2=27.432; p?0.001.

Fig. 15. It is more often noted that the husband "gets into women's affairs", those women whose husbands were dominated by a woman

Illustration 15. It is more often noted that the husband “medddles in women’s affairs”, those women whose husbands had a dominant woman

No. 88. "The problem is that my husband criticizes my appearance."

14 women (10.7%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 3 women (1.4%), whose husbands were dominated by a man, responded positively. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 88 were revealed: ?2=15.220; p?0.001.

16. More often complain that the husband criticizes their appearance, those wives whose husbands were dominated by a woman

Illustration 16. More often those wives whose husbands had a dominant woman complain that their husband criticizes their appearance

No. 89. "The problem is that the husband shows pettiness, controls expenses." The affirmative answer was given by 23 women (17.6%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 3 women (1.4%), whose husbands were dominated by a man. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 89 were revealed: ?2=30.914; p?0.001.

Fig. 17. More often complain that the husband shows pettiness, controls expenses, those wives whose husbands were dominated by a woman

Illustration 17. Those wives whose husbands had a Dominant woman complain more often that the husband is petty and controls expenses

No. 90. "The problem is that my husband teaches me." This statement was confirmed by 37 women (28.2%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 5 women (2.3%), whose husbands were dominated by a man. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 90 were revealed: ?2=51.795; p?0.001.

Fig. 18. The wives of those husbands whose dominant was a woman, more often complain that their husband teaches them

Illustration 18. The wives of those husbands whose woman was dominant more often complain that their husband lectures them

No. 91. "The problem is that my husband intentionally causes my jealousy by paying attention to other women, casually shows "suspicious correspondence" or a photo in a smartphone, lingers after work, hangs pictures of beauties on the walls, etc." 34 women (26%) agreed with this statement, husbands whose Dominant was a woman, and only 7 women (3.2%) whose husbands were dominated by a man. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 91 were revealed: ?2=40,600; p?0.001.

19. More often complain that the husband intentionally causes jealousy, those wives whose husbands were dominated by a woman

Illustration 19. More often those wives whose husbands had a dominant woman complain that their husband intentionally causes jealousy

No. 92. "The problem is that my husband compares me with his or with my mother not in my favor." 13 women (9.9%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 1 woman (0.5%), whose husband was dominated by a man, agreed with this statement. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 92 were revealed: ?2=18.944; p?0.001.

20. The wives of those husbands whose dominant was a woman, more often complain that the husband compares them with their mother-in-law or mother-in-law not in favor of the wife

Illustration 20. The wives of those husbands whose woman was dominant more often complain that their husband compares them with their mother-in-law or mother-in-law not in favor of the wife

No.93. "My husband keeps saying: "You're taking my brain out.""The fact of such statements was confirmed by 20 women (15.3%) whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and not a single woman whose husband was dominated by a man. Surprisingly, this question revealed significant differences not just in behavior, but in the frequency of use of a particular verbal turnover! The sons of the dominant fathers in the number of 217 people did not use it at all, while 15% of the sons of the dominant mothers used it. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 93 were revealed: ?2=35.150; p?0.001.

Fig. 21. The wives of those husbands whose dominant was a woman complain that the husband uses the expression "you're taking out my brain" in conversation with them

Illustration 21. The wives of those husbands whose woman was dominant complain that their husband uses the expression “you’re blowing my mind” when talking to them

No. 94. "The problem is that my husband is jealous of me, and therefore hinders my career." 15 women (11.5%), whose husbands were dominated by a woman, and only 2 women (0.9%), whose husband was dominated by a man, responded positively. Significant differences in the frequency of the trait on question 94 were revealed: ?2=19.489; p?0.001.

22. The wives of those husbands whose dominant was a woman complain that the husband is jealous of them, and therefore hinders their career

Illustration 22. The wives of those husbands whose woman was dominant complain that their husband is jealous of them and therefore interferes with their careers

Below is a histogram showing the presence of complaints from questions 87-94 in those women who are married to "sons of dominant mothers" and "sons of dominant fathers".

The total number of female subjects is 348 people, of which 217 are married to men whose dominant person in their families was a man, and 131 are married to men whose dominant person in childhood was a woman.

92.6% of women whose husbands are "sons of dominant fathers" have no complaints at all, given in questions No. 87-94, while in the group of women whose husbands are "sons of dominant mothers", only 37.4% have no such complaints.

In other words, complaints from paragraphs 87-94 are indeed more common in women whose husbands' families were dominated by a woman, which corresponds to the hypothesis.

 23. Complaints from questions No. 87-94 are less common in women whose husbands are "sons of dominant fathers" (the highest column is zero complaints of this type)

Illustration 23. Complaints from questions No. 87–94 are less common among women whose husbands are “sons of dominant fathers” (the highest column is zero complaints of this type)

What is the typical complaint of men about wives who are the daughters of dominant mothers?

Only men answered questions No. 96-98. The hypothesis was that these statements are more common in those men whose wives had a woman as the dominant person in the family.

No. 96. "The problem is that my wife is too fixated on everyday life and money." The affirmative answer was given by 12 men (15%), whose wives were dominated by a woman, and only 6 men (5.1%), whose wives were dominated by a man. The result has statistical significance: ?2=5,577; p=0.018. It is probably explained by the fact that the person who was dominated by a woman is aimed at competing with women, and such competition is often associated with everyday life, outfits, various purchases and other things for which money is needed.

24. More often complain that the wife is too fixated on everyday life and money, the husbands of those women whose Dominant is a woman

Illustration 24. More often they complain that the wife is too fixated on life and money, the husbands of those women whose Dominant is a woman

What are the typical complaints about husbands from women who are the daughters of dominant mothers?

Questions No. 99, 101 and 103 were asked only to women. The hypothesis was that these statements are more typical for those women in whose parental families a woman was dominant.

No. 99. "The problem is that my husband is too boring, there are few emotions from him, he rarely takes me out to visit, he does not entertain me enough." The assumption was justified: 17 women (14.3%), dominated by a woman, and 13 women (6%), Dominated by a man, answered in the affirmative. The result has statistical significance: ?2=6.575; p=0.010.

The explanation for this may be that it is important for the "daughter of the dominant mother" to compete with other women and to be liked by men, which cannot be achieved without going out, while the "daughters of dominant fathers" are more determined to compete with men rather than like them, and the theme is "fashion, style, beauty" is not so interesting for them.

Fig. 25. Women whose dominant was a woman, more often complain that her husband is too boring, he has little emotion, he rarely takes her out to visit, he does not entertain her enough

Illustration 25. Women for whom the dominant woman was more likely to complain that the husband is too boring, he has little emotion, he rarely takes her out on visits, and doesn’t entertain her much.

№101. "I'm jealous, I watch my husband endlessly, I suspect that he has someone." The affirmative answer was given by 28 women (23.5%) who were dominated by a woman, and only 7 women (3.2%) who were dominated by a man. The result has statistical significance: ?2=34,146; p?0.001. The explanation for this, apparently, is that "daughters of dominant mothers" are more likely to compete with women, including to fight for men with other women, than "daughters of dominant fathers".

26. Women who were dominated by a woman are more likely to admit that they are jealous

Illustration 26. Women whose dominant relationship was female are more likely to admit that they are jealous

№103. "The problem is that my husband does not elevate me above other women (for example, he does not bring me out, does not publicly give gifts and does not show signs of attention)." Question No. 103 can be considered an additional verification of the results on question No. 99.A positive response was given by 24 women (20.2%), dominated by a woman, and only 15 women (6.9%), Dominated by a man. The result has statistical significance: ?2=13.281; p?0.001.

27. Women who were dominated by a woman are more often dissatisfied with the fact that their husband does not elevate them above other women

Illustration 27. Women in whom a woman was dominant are more often dissatisfied that their husband does not elevate them above other women

A position characteristic of women whose dominant person in the parental family was a man

№100. "I can't ask anything from a man." This fact was confirmed by 34 women (15.6%), dominated by a man, and only 9 women (7.6%), Dominated by a woman. The result has statistical significance: ?2=4.463; p=0.035. As explained by some subjects from the first category, in their family the position of the mother was noticeably lower than the position of the dominant father, and the position of the mother, as the child believed, was due to material dependence. Accordingly, in order not to repeat the fate of the mother, such a daughter decides to become financially independent. Some even said that they assert themselves when their husbands give expensive gifts or provide them with financial support during difficult periods.

Fig. 28. Those women who were dominated by a man, more often can not ask anything from men

Illustration 28. Those women in whom a man was dominant are more often unable to ask for anything from men

What is the typical complaint of husbands against wives who are the daughters of dominant fathers?

№104. "The problem is that my wife does not express "puppy delight" when I do something for her, and I no longer want to try for her." This is the opinion of 33 people (28.2%) whose wives were dominated by a man, and only 10 people (12.5%) whose wives were dominated by a woman. The result has statistical significance: ?2=6.868; p=0.009.

These data confirm that the trend identified by question No. 100 is objective. The daughter of a dominant mother often does not express delight when her husband brings her a salary or gives her expensive gifts, because she is convinced that it is a shame to depend on a man. In turn, such restraint is mistakenly perceived by the husband as a lack of love and gratitude and creates a prerequisite for cooling the relationship.

29. The complaint that the wife does not know how to express enthusiastic gratitude is more often expressed by those husbands whose wives grew up in families with a Dominant man

Illustration 29. The complaint that the wife does not know how to express enthusiastic gratitude is more often expressed by those husbands whose wives grew up in families with a Dominant man

Who shouldn't a spouse remind you of?

According to the hypothesis, questions No. 107-108 should confirm the position that the most annoying for a person is behavior that reminds him of the behavior of his Dominant One, since it was he who once caused fear in the child and used coercion against him.

It is assumed that in most cases the child first learns what anger is in a relationship with the Dominant, which is confirmed by the results of this study (see questions No. 22-23), therefore, if the spouse behaves in such a way that it resembles the behavior of the Dominant, which once caused the indignation of the child, this should cause anger.

№107. "The problem is that my husband (wife) commits unpleasant actions for me that remind me of the actions of my Dominant."

No. 108. "The problem is that my husband (wife) commits some unpleasant actions for me that remind me of the actions of my Subordinate."

The diagram below shows that if a spouse demonstrates behavior resembling the unpleasant actions of a Dominant, it annoys 25.3% of participants, and if the spouse detects behavior resembling the actions of a Subordinate, it annoys only 5.2% of respondents. The results have statistical significance: ?2=249.578; p?0.001.

Why is the behavior of a spouse so often similar to the behavior of the Dominant person of the second half? As the answers to questions 55-70 and 75-82 demonstrate, people strive to rise above their Dominant, and often choose for themselves as a life partner a person who seems to them more "powerful" than the Dominant One in those areas in which the Dominant One has failed.

How this logic works can be demonstrated on the following mini-test, invented by the author of this work. "Imagine that your husband/wife has come into conflict with your Dominant One (but they do not know each other; for example, they met in another city or in another universe altogether). Which of them will win and at the expense of what? How will the conflict take place? It can take place both verbally and in the form of a fight. In order to make it easier to compare who is stronger, you can imagine this dispute first "as is", and then as if your spouse and your Dominant are people of the same age category."

Whenever a husband and wife came, one of whom was dissatisfied with the union, and the second was satisfied with everything, the first declared that his Dominant would easily have defeated the spouse (for example, "the spouse would have obeyed my father without argument", "my mother would easily have deceived the wife, because she is too naive", "my my wife is emotional, and my father is calm and reasonable, and she would lose in an argument"), the second described a picture of his spouse winning.

It follows from this that love goes away when your spouse has nothing at the expense of which you could rise above your Dominant.  There is nothing in him that makes him more powerful than your Dominant One, so that you feel proud next to him.

If the chosen one is such that it is not difficult to imagine his victory over our Dominant One, it is obvious that in most cases he will be similar to our Dominant One! For example, if the Dominant One was engaged in physical assault, it is difficult to imagine that he was defeated by a "refined intellectual". If he was prone to manipulation, demagoguery or outright lies, it is hardly possible to oppose him with a spouse who is so pure in soul that he is unable to recognize deception. It is much easier to imagine in the role of the one who will defeat our Dominant, notorious cunning (no wonder they say, "they knock out a wedge with a wedge"). As a result, the quality that attracted us to our chosen one from the very beginning may eventually turn against us and begin to annoy us.

30. The similarity of the spouse's behavior with the unpleasant behavior of the Dominant irritates every fourth, and the similarity with the behavior of the Subordinate – only 5.2% of participants

Illustration 30. The similarity of the spouse’s behavior with the unpleasant behavior of the Dominant irritates every fourth person, and the similarity with the behavior of the Subordinate – only 5.2% of participants

In what position is it impossible to put your spouse or spouse?

According to the hypothesis of the study, everyone wants to live a life no worse than his Dominant, and ideally seeks to rise above him, but no one wants to repeat the path of his Subordinate. Being in such a role is a life tragedy.

№109. "The problem is that my husband (wife) puts me in the position of my Subordinate."

Since this fact outrages 48 people (12%) out of 385 participants who contacted about problems in marriage, it should be recognized that this underlying cause of cooling relations is quite common.

What should a husband and wife give each other to make both feel proud?

Question No. 110 is an additional test of the hypothesis that love for a person arises when it seems to you that he has qualities with which he can help you rise above your Dominant. Accordingly, love passes when it turns out that it just seemed, or the situation changes in such a way that the person once loved loses these qualities.

№110. "The problem is that my husband (wife) does not give me anything to make me feel(a) myself is more powerful than my Dominant One."  A positive response was given by 79 people (18.2%) out of 385 who applied for marital troubles, i.e. almost one in five!

What determines a man's lack of "healthy aggression" towards other men?

№112. "The problem is that my husband lacks healthy aggression towards other men." According to the hypothesis, this statement is a typical complaint of the wife of the "son of the dominant mother". The positive answer to this question was compared with the positive answers to questions No. 83 and 86, i.e. with the one who was Dominant in the husband's parental family.

Indeed, such a complaint was present in 60 women (23.7%) whose husbands were dominated by a woman (positive answers to questions No. 83 and 86), and only 12 women (12.6%) whose husbands were dominated by a man. The result is statistically significant: ?2=5.171; p=0.023.

31. The complaint that the husband lacks healthy aggression towards other men is more often expressed by women whose husbands were dominated by a woman

Illustration 31. The complaint that the husband lacks healthy aggression towards other men is more often expressed by women whose husbands were dominant.

How is the complete absence of aggression in a spouse perceived?

№113. "The problem is that my spouse has an unnatural lack of aggression (the person resembles Leopold the cat, who likes everything and does not want to quarrel with anyone)." Here we do not take into account who is the spouse of the respondent, but we can only judge the popularity of this complaint. The hypothesis is that the complete absence of aggression is perceived as an unattractive trait. Indeed, 33 people (8.6%) out of 385 who applied due to marital discomfort identified this as a problem.

How to please the daughter of a dominant father and the daughter of a dominant mother?

According to the hypothesis, a positive answer to question 114 is more often given by the daughters of dominant mothers, and to question 115 – by the daughters of dominant fathers, therefore, positive answers to these questions were compared with the answers to question 3 ("Gender of the subject") and 7a ("Gender of the dominant person").

№114. "I prefer men who are active, proactive in dating, persistent in courtship." A positive response was given by 33 women (73.3%), whose dominant family was a woman, and only 24 women (42.1%), whose dominant was a man.

№115. "I prefer modest, non-intrusive men, and I don't like persistent courtship." This situation was confirmed by 33 women (57.9%), dominated by a man, and only 12 women (26.7%), whose families were dominated by a woman.

The hypothesis received statistically reliable confirmation: ?2=9,947; p0,002. It can be explained as follows. In the case of the "daughter of the dominant mother", the father took the position of a slave, and the daughter had an idea of men as "safe" beings. As for the daughter of a dominating father, she learned from childhood that a man can be domineering and overwhelming, and in some cases verbally aggressive and capable of assault. In this regard, she prefers modest, or even timid men. (Women who were beaten by their father in childhood reported that they purposefully chose men of fragile build as husbands, "in order to cope with him in case of something").

The idea to include this question in the study arose under the following circumstances. The author was offered to hold a seminar in a women's club in Novosibirsk, and before the seminar, for some reason, a short film by M. Bogin "Two" (1965) was watched. The movie began with the fact that a young man, seeing a beautiful girl on the street, began to pursue her very decisively. Here is the literal text. "Girl, you dropped an apple… And by the way, in such cases Cervantes said: "Nothing is as cheap and valued as much as politeness [a remark to a girl who smiled and thanked him with a nod for picking up an apple, but did not enter into conversation]… And you're not very talkative... something about your face is very familiar to me. Excuse me, where could I have seen you? Don't you remember me?.. A girl, a girl! I have a friend, a film artist, so they always stop him on the street and find out where they met him. Are you an actress by any chance? Silence is a sign of consent!.. So you're an actress, you work on the radio and you don't talk for free? We have already bought the fruit [comment about her view of the showcase]… Parle vous france? Sprechen zee deutsch? Do you speak English? Parli Italiano?"

Almost all the audience reacted enthusiastically to this scene: "Well done, that's the way it should be!", "How does he get acquainted, it's nice to watch!", "And where have such real men gone now?!", etc., etc. In contrast, the two women reacted in the opposite way. Literally the following was said: "What disrespect! He behaves so brazenly, and even makes a remark to her!" and "A narcissistic type, I wouldn't talk to him either!". At the seminar, it turned out that all the participants in the viewing turned out to be the daughters of dominant mothers, with the exception of those two whose assertive manner of the character caused rejection. Thus, the above fragment of the film may well be used as an express test to determine the dominant person in a woman's parental family.

Fig. 32. Men who clearly take the initiative in dating are more liked by women who had a woman dominating them.

Illustration 32. Men who clearly take the initiative when dating are liked more by women who have a dominant woman

Identified trends

How is the sphere of self-realization (profession) and spouse chosen

- People tend to choose such a profession so that it gives an opportunity to rise above the Dominant One (see questions No. 51-52);

- the profession must simultaneously meet two requirements: to make it possible to successfully compete with people of the Dominant sex, and to receive approval and delight from people of the Subordinate's gender (see question No. 53);

- the child is not inclined to listen to the advice of a Subordinate regarding the profession that he should choose (see question No. 54).

The results of the answers to questions No. 55-70 and 75-82 give grounds to assert the following:

- if a child knows what an unfulfilled dream his Dominant had, he will try to realize it, and will also seek rapprochement with a person who managed to realize what the Dominant failed.;

- if it is known who the Dominant respected, admired, and perhaps revered, the child will strive to become like the one the Dominant admired, and will also want to marry a person who possesses the qualities that the Dominant admired;

- if the child understands who the Dominant envied, the child is very likely to want to achieve the same success, and will also strive to marry a person who has the skills and qualities that the Dominant envied;

- if a child has heard what type of people the Dominant despised, considered weak and pathetic, the child will not want to fall into this category and will not want to marry a person of this type;

- if the child saw what the Dominant was furious about, panicked, he will strive to do things that could cause panic of the Dominant, and will also gravitate to marriage with a person behaving in such a way that it could cause rage of the Dominant;

- if the Dominant was afraid of someone or something, then the child will try not to be afraid of it or will do things that could scare the Dominant, he will also strive to get closer to a person who is not afraid of what the Dominant was afraid of or does things that could scare the Dominant;

- if the Dominant One was proud of something, put some of his skills or qualities to his credit, then it is likely that the child will want to develop these qualities in himself, and will also appreciate those in his spouse, because these are signs of "strong behavior";

- if a child knows about a person who has somehow managed to rise above the Dominant One (for example, openly criticized the Dominant One, laughed at him or surpassed him in something, especially if this caused annoyance of the Dominant One), then it is likely that the child will take an example from this person, and will also look for a similar one a person to marry with him, because it is with such a person that he will be able to rise above his Dominant.

The influence of the Dominant

The child is inclined to imitate the system of movements (facial expressions, gestures, gait) Dominant (question #26).At the same time, he is inclined to feel aggression towards people of the same sex as the Dominant One (questions No. 29-30, 37), and the greatest irritation is caused by people whose behavior resembles the unpleasant actions of the Dominant One (questions No. 27-28).

People of the same sex as the Dominant one are usually disliked for their excessive activity (for example, the desire to control others, point out, ridicule, devalue other people's achievements, threaten, etc.), while people of the same sex to which the Subordinate belongs, as a rule, cause hostility because of their passivity (lack of one's own position, laziness, helplessness, unwillingness to develop, etc.) (questions No. 27-28).

Influence of a Subordinate

The child is most afraid of living his life like his Subordinate, so he avoids everything that, as it seems to him, caused the Subordinate's lower position in the family compared to the Dominant one. Here are some consequences of this:

- if the sex of the child does not coincide with the sex of the Dominant, but with the sex of the Subordinate (question No. 35, asked only to women), this ensures gender dysphoria, especially in the case when the position of the Subordinate in the family was significantly lower than that of the Dominant (question No. 17);

- the child is not inclined to follow the advice regarding the profession, lifestyle and choice of a spouse coming from a Subordinate (question No. 54).

A person is inclined to pity and justify people of the same sex as the Subordinate (questions No. 31-32, 38).

Alcoholism and drug addiction

The following three categories of people are predisposed to alcoholism and drug addiction:

1) The dominant one was prone to excessive control (question No. 42). (in this case, the use of alcohol and drugs is a form of protest);

2) men and women whose Dominant one behaved violently in such a state and inspired fear to others (question No. 44), because the child has a desire to imitate, because it turns out that drinking alcohol gives power over others who are covered by fear. On the contrary, men and women whose Dominant became quiet when drunk, especially if he went to bed or complained of nausea, are not inclined to alcoholism (question No. 45);

3) men and women are prone to alcoholism and drug addiction, whose dominant one did not use psychoactive substances himself, but desperately and unsuccessfully struggled with drunkenness or drug addiction of some other person (question No. 46).As a result, the child can perceive the one who in this way caused the despair of the Dominant as a winner, and begin to imitate him.

Patterns concerning personal life

1) a person falls in love with someone who, as it seems to him, will help rise above the Dominant person (questions No. 74-82). The opposite is also true: love passes as soon as a person realizes that he was mistaken: the chosen one or the chosen one does not have the qualities and skills that will help him rise above the Dominant One (question No. 110);

2) the most difficult problem for the relationship is the situation when the position of a person in his marital family begins to resemble the position of his Subordinate from the parent family (question No. 109);

3) the most annoying behavior for a person is the behavior that reminds him of the behavior of his Dominant (question No. 107), since it was he who once caused fear in him and used coercion against him. Accordingly, if the spouse behaves in such a way that it resembles the behavior of the Dominant, this naturally causes anger. Note that this conclusion contradicts the well-known judgment, originating from the teachings of Freud, that people allegedly choose a spouse similar to their parent of the opposite sex because of a hidden attraction to this parent!

4) the grown-up child is inclined to copy those qualities of the Dominant, for which, as it seemed to him, his Subordinate loved him (especially if the Dominant and Subordinate spouses). The child believes that, having these qualities, he will achieve the love and subordination of other people, first of all, the one he has designated as a spouse (question No. 73). If the chosen one praises precisely for these qualities, and not for any others, this causes special delight, because it means that the copyist has reached the level of our Dominant (question No. 72). Let's give an example. The Subordinate Father praised the Dominant (mother) for her ability to save. The son of such parents, having married, shows miracles of avarice, records the smallest expenses and sincerely believes that it is for this that his wife will love and praise him, although she has repeatedly said that such behavior makes a depressing impression on her.

5) a number of subjects complained that their spouse "has an unnatural lack of aggression (a person resembles Leopold the cat, who likes everything and does not want to quarrel with anyone)" (question No. 113). A person who has a serious conflict with his Dominant One may be risky to marry someone who had this conflict almost unnoticed, since the latter will be unable to share his anger with those who remind him of the Dominant One, and a more aggressive (due to greater trauma) spouse will feel lonely. Common complaints of a person who had a strong conflict with his Dominant spouse, who did not have such a conflict, sound something like this: "My spouse (spouse) lacks something to be interesting to me. He (she) is some kind of "unfinished", "neither fish nor meat": no clearly expressed opinion, no aspirations"; "my spouse does not strive for anything, does not compete with anyone."

Classification of family problems

The problems that arise when interacting in a couple are also a consequence of the personality characteristics of the Dominant and Subordinate persons from the parental families of the spouses and are divided into four main categories:

1) if the husband is the son of the dominant mother, then conflicts arise more often resulting from the increased aggression of the husband against women.Wives more often point out such features of the spouse's behavior as "getting into women's affairs", for example, gives "valuable instructions" how to cook and run a household, controls expenses, teaches how to dress and make up better (question No. 87), criticizes the appearance of his wife (question No. 88), shows pettiness, controls expenses (question No. 89), teaches (question No. 90), intentionally causes jealousy by paying attention to other women, casually shows "suspicious correspondence" or a photo in a smartphone, lingers after work, hangs pictures of beauties on the walls, etc. (question No. 91); compares his wife with his mother-in-law or mother-in-law does not in favor of his wife (question No. 92); every now and then he says: "You're taking out my brain" (a verbal phrase not typical of the sons of dominant fathers, but typical of the sons of dominant mothers, see question No. 93); envies his wife and hinders her career (question No. 94). 

Some women complain about the lack of a healthy degree of aggression of such a husband against other men (question No. 112), for example, in the complete absence of jealousy or competition with colleagues, which makes such a man unattractive in the eyes of women. As one of the subjects said, "a man can be anything: thin or fat, smart or stupid, rich or poor, but the main thing is not that competition with other men makes a man a man."

2) if the wife is the daughter of a dominant mother, then the husbands of women of this type often complain of excessive obsession with everyday life and money (question No. 96). This can be explained by the fact that the daughters of dominant mothers are aimed at competition with other women, and such competition often takes place in the household sphere. The daughters of dominant mothers say the following about themselves more often than the daughters of dominant fathers: "I am jealous, I watch my husband endlessly, I suspect that he has someone" (question No. 101).

A woman of this type often complains that her husband is too boring, there are few emotions from him, he rarely takes her out to visit, does not entertain her enough (question No. 99), there is also a complaint that her husband does not elevate her above other women (does not bring her out, does not give gifts publicly, does not show signs attention), see question No. 103.

The daughters of dominant mothers, compared with the daughters of dominant fathers, are more likely to like men who are active, proactive in dating, persistent in courtship (question No. 114).

3) if the wife is the daughter of a dominant father, then problems are typical due to the fact that such a woman considers it humiliating for herself to ask a man for something (question No. 100) and thank him enthusiastically. A characteristic complaint of a husband whose wife is the daughter of a dominant father: "My wife does not express "puppy delight" when I do something for her, and I no longer want to try for her" (question No. 104). The daughters of dominant fathers, unlike the daughters of dominant mothers, often prefer modest men who do not show perseverance in courtship (question No. 115), because in their families the man was often domineering, overwhelming, or even aggressive.

A person competes with people of the same sex to which his Dominant One belongs. A number of statements of female subjects of this type indicate that in order to make a good compliment to the daughter of a dominant father, it is necessary to compare her not with another woman, but with a man (in her favor).

4) if the husband is the son of a dominant father, then there were no characteristic problems associated with the personality characteristics of such a person or with the presence of special complaints against his spouse. Nevertheless, in a number of cases, conflicts of the following kind have emerged.

The son of a dominant father is focused on competition with other men, and such competition is more often in traditionally male spheres (technology, hunting, fishing, sports, etc.), and it can be difficult for a woman to find a common topic of conversation with him. Such a husband is sometimes characterized as boring and not loving social life (meanwhile, for the daughter of the dominant mother, visiting is often a matter of great importance).

Since the aggression of a man of this type is directed at men, he is not inclined to criticize women, including his wife. In general, this is good, but in the case when the wife is the daughter of a dominant mother competing with other women, a complete misunderstanding of this rivalry separates the spouses. Recall that the following complaint is typical for the daughter of a dominant mother: "He does not elevate me above other women (for example, He does not bring me out, does not publicly give gifts and does not show signs of attention)."

To summarize what has been said, the problems in couples arise, in particular, due to a misunderstanding caused by the different orientation of aggression (the one of the spouses who was dominated by a woman criticizes women and protects men, and the one who was dominated by a man protects women and criticizes men) and the fact that someone of the spouses, aggression is directed at persons of the opposite sex (in a couple where the husband's mother is the dominant person, and the wife's father is the dominant one, this aggression is mutual).

The results of question No. 7 show that there were more subjects in whom a woman was Dominant (55%). How can this be explained? The fact that the leader among couples who turned to a psychologist is a couple, where both the husband and the wife were dominated by a woman (33.8%). With this combination, the husband's aggression is directed at women, and he unnecessarily criticizes his wife (see questions No. 87-90, 93). She, as the results of the answer to question No. 101 show, is inclined to be jealous of her husband for other women, while he purposely hurts her self-esteem, causing jealousy and comparing with other women (questions No. 91-92). At the same time, the wife, whose aggression is directed at women, and not at men, notices that she is treated disrespectfully, too late when the conflict has gone far.

Recall that the pairs were distributed as follows. In second place – the wife has a Dominant woman, and the husband has a man (28.8%), in third place – the Dominant man, and the husband has a woman (22.1%), in fourth place – the wife has a Dominant man, and the husband too (15.3%). Thus, the last combination turned out to be the least conflicting. From conversations with couples of this type, it can be concluded that the husband and wife in them are most often immersed in work, and do not attach much importance to "everyday trifles". Wives do not compete with other women, and therefore do not feel humiliated if the husband earns little or does not bring them out. The aggression of both spouses is aimed at criticizing men, starting with politicians and ending with colleagues, respectively, the husband is not inclined to insult his wife and compare her with other women, and the most typical problem is the restrained, insufficiently warm attitude of a woman to her husband (see questions No. 100 and 104), which rarely leads to open conflict.   

Conclusions

The teaching of Z. Freud's oedipal complex (the boy's competition with his father for his mother's attention and approval) is true, but this is only a special case of a more general pattern: the child's rivalry with the Dominant One for the sake of recognition and approval of the Subordinate, it does not matter which gender the Dominant and Subordinate are, and the driving force here is not a hidden attraction to the parent of the opposite sex, and the desire to receive the same measure of honor and adoration that the Dominant receives from the Subordinate. (Recall that in the work "I and it" Z. Freud recognized that there is an Oedipus complex on the contrary, i.e. love for a parent of one's own sex and rivalry with a parent of the opposite sex, which is consistent with our point of view).

If the sex of the child coincides with the sex of the Subordinate and does not coincide with the sex of the Dominant, then, provided that the position of the Subordinate was noticeably lower than the position of the Dominant, gender dysphoria occurs. In this regard, it is more correct to look for the origins of problems of sexual orientation not in genetic prerequisites and not in the influence of propaganda, but in the peculiarities of the family way of life.

Freud believed that sublimation occurs over time – the process of transforming libido into any activities approved by society, but did not offer an explanation of what exactly a person will do depends on. The results of this study demonstrate that the child chooses the type of activity that will allow him to rise above the Dominant and receive the approval and delight of the Subordinate.

A. Adler's opinion that a person's "lifestyle" is formed as a result of an inferiority complex experienced in childhood is quite consistent with our "theory of dominance". Adler is certainly right when he claims that a child is looking for the strongest personality in his environment and begins to imitate her. However, Adler does not explain either the mechanism of the formation of an inferiority complex or the mechanism of the allocation of the strongest personality, and the examples he gives indicate that, in his opinion, any random person can be a role model.

We believe that in order to identify the strongest, two factors are necessary: coercion on the part of the "strongest", which the child is unable to resist, and the figure of a Subordinate who worships this "strongest". No wonder they say: "The king is played by his retinue." Without these elements, the inferiority complex, which pushes the child to find ways to rise above the "strongest" and get recognition from a Subordinate, will not develop.

The choice of an object to be imitated among strangers is possible only if the person dominating the family shows respect, delight, admiration for this outsider, reveals rage, panic, indicating helplessness, envy or fear (see questions №55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69). Therefore, the case cited by Adler about the boy who said that he wanted to become an executioner is not due to a "lack of social interest", not a desire to be "the master of life and death", and he is driven not by "the idea of the uselessness of life", but, most likely, by horror (perhaps even mixed with reverence), which the Dominant of this boy expressed when talking about a person engaged in this kind of craft.

The same applies to the examples given by Adler, where the child wanted to be a coachman, a policeman or a doctor. For example, the Dominant One could be afraid of horses, not be able to control them, envy those who work with animals, etc., he could bypass the police for three miles, because he had problems with the law, or be afraid of the dentist. It may also be that the Dominant One himself dreamed of being a coachman, a policeman or a doctor, but could not and spoke about it with regret in the presence of a child, which prompted him to choose such a profession to rise above the Dominant one.

Thus, Adler does not take into account that in order for an outsider to impress a child as "strong" and become a role model for him, it is necessary that the Dominant (from the child's family) somehow give out information from which the child can conclude that if he copies the qualities of this outsider a person, then will rise above the Dominant One. Also, Adler does not single out a second figure (Subordinate) in the child's environment, which is no less important for personality formation than the Dominant one, and it is he who focuses the child's attention on who and why is the leader. In addition, it is the Subordinate who sets the standard of how not to live.

E. Bern explains the formation of personality traits by "parental prescriptions", but does not explain under what conditions "parental prescriptions" affect the child, and under which children do the exact opposite. The results of this study shed light on these conditions. As already mentioned, the information provided in the questions №55, 57, 59, 61, 63, 65, 67, 69 it is perceived by the child as a guide to action, because it tells him how to rise above his Dominant. If the Subordinate sets himself as an example to the child, gives instructions about the profession, lifestyle, choice of spouse, etc., these tips are ignored, because the adviser himself is a model of "weak behavior" for the child (see question No. 54). But the Subordinate's confessions about why he loves the Dominant and for what reason he obeys him, the child listens with interest in the hope of copying these qualities of the Dominant and receiving the same approval from others (see questions No. 53 and 72-73). 

According to E. Bern, the established scenarios push a person to a certain interaction with other people ("transactions"), while the most important "transactions" are "stroking" – various acts of recognition and approval of our existence. Nevertheless, no law has been deduced that allows us to predict exactly what kind of "transactions" a particular person wants to receive. The results of this study make it possible to fill this gap. A person is especially pleased when he is praised for those skills and qualities that, as it seems to him, indicate that he has reached the level of his Dominant, or even surpassed it (see questions No. 53, 72-73). For example, a woman will be flattered if she is praised for her physical strength, if it was the pride of her father, who was Dominant in the family, but at the same time she may be offended if she is told as a compliment that she has the same graceful gait as her mother if she played the role of a Subordinate. First of all, we are drawn to those people who have the skills and qualities that will allow us to rise above the Dominant One (see questions No. 75-77, 79-82). At the same time, we avoid interacting with those whom the Dominant despised, considered weak and pathetic (question No. 78).  

According to B. Hellinger and his followers, a child often identifies himself with a relative "excluded from the family system", i.e. a person about whom they try not to talk (for example, about the perpetrator of a crime). According to Hellinger, the child is pushed to this by an "unconscious group conscience", which seeks to restore those who are consigned to oblivion. A. Anselin-Schutzenberger also speaks about similar phenomena (for example, about the "anniversary syndrome"), however, without offering them an explanation.

From the point of view of our "theory of dominance", imitation of a person who they try not to talk about happens because the child sees: an attempt to talk about the "excluded" causes irritation, impotent rage, fear in relatives. If such a reaction is detected by the Dominant One, for the child it means that the person they are afraid to talk about is "stronger" than the Dominant One, so it's worth trying to imitate him. 

Regarding such a reason for imitation as the child's desire to complete certain "processes not completed in the family system", we can agree with Hellinger, but with an amendment: the child will not want to carry out any initiatives of his relatives, but only the dreams of the Dominant One (and only in relation to himself!), which he could not realize (see questions No. 55-56).

It can be stated that the conclusions drawn in this paper do not contradict the above approaches, rather they concretize them. The observations of Z. are particularly close to our conclusions .Freud and A. Adler, and if Freud had not interrupted the scientific dialogue with Adler, it is quite possible that they themselves would have come to the conclusion that the Oedipus complex is only a special case of the rivalry of a child of any sex with a Dominant (of any gender), and the indicator of the success of this rivalry is the approval of a Subordinate (also of any gender).

As for X 's statement . Hendrix, that the prototype of the future spouse should be the parent with whom the child had a "more complex" relationship, it is impossible to agree with him. In our opinion, Hendrix's position is also not true, that people who are different from our parents are less attractive to us. Strictly speaking, the opinion that a spouse should "remind you of something" (what exactly?) of the parent (which one?), it has been widespread, at least since the time of Freud (in connection with his teaching about the oedipus complex), but there is still no specific explanation of this provision. Apparently, people are not looking for someone who looks like a mother or father, but someone who will help rise above the person who dominated the parental family.

H. Hendrix writes that we provoke our spouse to show the negative qualities of our parent in order to feel the state we need, but in fact provocations against a potential spouse are required in order to check two things: 1) will the chosen one behave the way the Dominant one behaved in such cases, because this is unpleasant, traumatic behavior for us; 2) will the chosen one be able to protect us from such people who behave the same way as the Dominant One.

According to Hendrix, quarrels occur for the following reasons: 1) the behavior of our spouses violates the prohibitions imposed by our parents; 2) our husbands and wives are similar in behavior to our parents, and therefore cannot heal our childhood traumas.

From the point of view of the "theory of dominance", the first point should be reformulated as follows: we may not like the behavior of the spouse, which puts him in the position of a "weakling", "second-class person" from the point of view of the Dominant (question No. 61). The second point can be explained as follows. The similarity of the spouse to the Dominant one does not attract, but repels, but since we are looking for a person who should be more powerful than our Dominant one, it quite often happens that we choose a person who turns out to be similar to him in behavior. For example, it is difficult to imagine how you can rise above a cunning person without being cunning yourself, or be more powerful than a lover of using force without having a similar experience. In addition, the qualities that the Dominant is proud of (question No. 67), considers strong, the child willingly copies himself or cultivates in his spouse, but this is done again not out of a desire to see a person resembling the Dominant next to him, but out of a desire to feel stronger with him.

The trends demonstrated in this study are of practical importance, because they can serve to create a questionnaire in order to identify the orientation of the individual, as well as diagnose problems of relationships in marriage.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.