The only study explicitly seeking to demonstration of the working of the Westermarck effect on inter- generational incest was given by Hilda Parker and Seymour Parker. Their study compared a sample of 56 fathers (biological and non-biological) who were known to have sexually abused their minor daughters with a control group of 54 fathers (biological and non-biological too) who had no record of child sexual abuse (Parker & Parker 1986, 536). The control group was taken from the same penal or social-psychiatric facilities in similar proportions and age as the study group. The selection of members of both groups was restricted to individuals who had lived in the household of their abused daughter as partner of the mother for at least six months, contributed economically to the household, and performed a paternal caretaking role towards the daughter (Parker & Parker 1986, 536).
One of the factors that was examined was the time spent at home by the fathers when their daughters were three years old or younger (Parker & Parker 1986, 538-539).
Based on the following table 4-17 (table 3 in Parker & Parker 1986, 539),
Table 4-17: Time Spent in Home by Father During First 3 Years of Daughter’s Life by Abuser Status of Respondent
Table 3
TIME SPENT IN HOME BY FATHER DURING FIRST 3 YEARS O F DAUGHTER'S LIFE BY ABUSER STATUS OF RESPONDENT
ABUSERS NONABUSERS
TIME AT HOME 1 % f %
Almost all th# time 19 34 (53)* 36 70 (75)
Most of tha time 4 7 (11) 9 16 (18)
Part of the time 7 12 (19) 1 2 (2)
Almost never 0 11 (17) 3 6 (5)
Not present In home 20 30 3 6
Total 56(30) 100(100) 54(51) 100(100)
»*-23 05 (corrected), 4 dl. p < . 1001 (r1- 10 42 (corrected). 3 dl. pc.COOl)*
* Percentages and summary statistics enclosed In p arentheses are bas<*d on the subsam ples of fathers who were present during the first three years of life of daughter.
Parker & Parker concluded that absence from home is a very significant factor in determining whether a father would be an abuser or not. This accords well with Westcrmarck’s hypothesis (Parker & Parker 1986, 539).
Further, the degree of the fathers’ involvement in child-care and nurturant activities during the first three
years of their daughters’ lives seemed to distinguish sexually abusive from non-abusive fathers (Parker & Parker 1986, 539-540), as shown in the following table 4-18 (table 4 in Parker & Parker 1986, 540).
Table 4-18: Number of Child-Care and Nurturant Activities Performed Frequently by Father during First Three Years of Daughter s Life by
Abuser Status of Respondent
ABUSERS NONABUSERS NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES f % f % None 19 34 (53)* 12 22 (23) O ne 9 16 (25) 12 22 (23) Two 5 9 (14) 7 13 (14) T hree or m ore 3 5 (8) 20 37 (39) Not p re se n t In h o m e 20 36 3 6 Total 56(36) 100(100) 54(51) 100(100) * * -2 7 69. 4 d f. p < 001 (**-12.96. 3 d l , p < .0 1 ) ‘
* P e rc e n ta g e s a n d su m m a ry statlatica e n c lo se d In p a re n th e s e s a re b a se d on the s u b s a m p le s of fa th e rs w ho w ere p re se n t du rin g th e first th re e years of life of th e d a u g h te r.
Even when present at home, sexually abusive fathers were much less frequendy involved in caring and nurturant activities (Parker & Parker 1986, 540).
The risk associated with step-parenting is widely recognised in the literature on child sexual abuse (e.g. Gordon and Creighton 1988). In Parker & Parker’s sample too, stepfathers did seem to be significantly more inclined to be involved in child sexual abuse (Parker & Parker 1986, 541). However, as table 4-19 (table 5 in Parker & Parker 1986, 542) shows
this can be explained by the factor of presence at home during the daughter’s first years of life. Stepfathers who were present followed the behavioural patterns of biological fathers who were present. Stepfathers who were not, followed the patterns of biological fathers who were absent from home in the early years of their daughters lives. Stcpfatlierhood as such was not significant in Parker & Parker’s results (Parker & Parker 1986, 541-542).
Parker & Parker performed multiple regression analyses and concluded that the explanatory power of the factor of time spent at home during daughters’ early childhood was totally absorbed by the factor of father involvement in child-care and nurturance (Parker & Parker 1986, 543).
{{Table 7 Parker & Parker 1986, 544}}
Parker and Parker pointed out a correlation, not a causal relation. The possibility of one factor effecting the correlation should not be overlooked. One such factor could be the ability of the father to empathise. It
Table 4-19: Biological Status of Father Related to Abuser of Those who Were in the Home during the First Three Years of Daughter’s Life
NON- b i o l o g i c a l ABUSERS ABUSERS STATUS I % 1 % Biological lather 30 83 45 88 Nonbiological lather 6 17 6 12 Total 36 100 51 100 X1 -- 10 ( co rr ec ted . 1 <Jf. p- 70* Fisher s Exact Test (two tail). p = 54
could be that a person who can easily empathise with oLhcrs will tend to partake in child-rearing and avoid child sexual abuse (the partaking in child-rearing and the avoidance of child sexual abuse being independent of one another) because he can appreciate the hardships of looking after the household, and can relate to the trauma his daughter might suffer as a result of his sexually abusing her. However if such a factor were effecting the correlation, we would expect that absent stepfathers would be significantly less represented among abusers than biological fathers, as stepfathers arc not involved in child rearing because they were mostly not part of the nuclear family at the time the daughter was an infant. A third factor like inability to empathise is not the cause of their absence, and there is no reason to assume that such a factor would be more common among stepfathers than among the general population. In other words, since it is to be expected that the population of absent stepfathers would not be very different from the general population in the effect of a possible third factor, the pattern of abuse among absent stepfathers should resemble the patterns among the general population of biological fathers, absent or present, and not to the patterns of absent biological fathers. This is not the case in Parker & Parker’s study (Parker & Parker 1986, 541-542). Nonetheless, this conclusion should be hedged because the number of stepfathers is by no means large (46% of the abusers and 17% of the non-abusers [Parker & Parker 1986, 541] which adds up to 26 among the abusers and 7 among non-abusers).
Parker and Parker’s study lends support to Westermarck’s hypothesis concerning the relations of fathers and daughters. Their conclusions should be treated with caution, though, on two grounds. One is the size of the sample which is not very large (56 abusers and 54 in the control group) and the fact that the results
are yet to be replicated. The second has to do with the definition of sexual abuse. Parker & Parker analysed a sample of convicted sexual abusers. Earlier I pointed out that studies of child sexual abuse are of little value for the study of incest as they include relatives other than primary kin and acts other than intercouse, and exclude consensual incest. In this case the study refers to fathers who have sexually abused their daughters, a situation which makes the first and third objection irrelevant. However, the difference between sexual intercouse and sexual abuse is still a problem particularly as Parker and Parker did not indicate the age of the victims when abuse took place. We therefore do not know whether that abuse took place when daughters were pubescent, in line with the formulation of the Westermarck effect, or not.
Not one of the studies just reviewed shows proximity in childhood to be the only possible factor explaining apparent sexual indifference at puberty. However, coupled with the qualitative data described before, the quantitative studies, Shepher’s and Wolf’s in particular, make it reasonable to believe that unrestricted proximity produces sexual indifference at puberty.
Clearly, more research is needed. I do not think that a study that will conclusively rule out the working of cultural construction is possible. This is because whenever a pattern of sexual indifference occurs it will most probably be realised by the members of the society in question and be subsequently mirrored in and incorporated into cultural constructions. This may have happened in the kibbutzim. The only possible conclusive examination of whether cultural construction preceded social practice or vice versa would be a historical one which would examine the development of social practices like peer group upbringing or minor marriages from their origins, and examine the parallel development of cultural constructions. This ideal study may not be possible in practice because data of cultural constructions and the origins of such social practices may not be sufficient.
However, if an absolutely conclusive proof of the independent effect of childhood proximity is unlikely the proposition that childhood proximity effects sexual indifference is falsifiable. If situations of unrestricted physical proximity as described by Shepher and Wolf occurred and were shown to be followed by no pattern of sexual indifference, Westermarck’s hypothesis would be called into question. Until such evidence is provided, every further study that identifies a correlation between childhood proximity and sexual indifference at puberty will increase the confidence in the Westermarck effect.
With this in mind, I will proceed to discuss some analyses which assume the Westermarck effect has been demonstrated, and which attempt to explain its ontogenetic and proximate aspects.