Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 24:17–31, 2010

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 8756-8225 print/1540-4730 online
DOI: 10.1080/87568220903400096

The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory:

1540-4730
8756-8225
WCSP
Journal of College Student Psychotherapy,
Psychotherapy Vol. 24, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0–0

Exploring College Student ACOA Traits

KERRIE FINERAN
TheFineran
K. Barnumet Effect
al. and Chaos Theory

The University of North Texas

JOHN M. LAUX, JENNIFER SEYMOUR, and TEQUILLA THOMAS

The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, US

The literature both supports and challenges the notion that adult
children of alcoholics are a distinct and homogenous group.
College students (n = 200) were placed into one of four categories:
Adult Children of Alcoholics, Adverse Childhood Event Group,
Alcohol and Adverse Childhood Event Group, and the No Adverse
Event Group. Participating college students then completed instru-
ments that measured drug and alcohol use, adult children of
alcoholics traits, defensiveness, impulsivity, and resistance to
change. Differences surfaced on two instruments, the Drug Abuse
Screening Inventory and the Children of Alcoholics Scale. Adult
children of alcoholics were overrepresented as CAST+ and under-
represented as CAST–. The Alcohol and Adverse Event groups were
underrepresented in the DAST+ category.

KEYWORDS adult children of alcoholics, childhood development

college students

Woititz (1983) outlined a theory about adult children of alcoholics (ACOAs)

in which she enumerated 13 traits that she hypothesized represent the life
experiences of such persons. Specifically, Woititz theorized that ACOAs
guess at what constitutes normal behavior, have difficulty with project
completion, lie when it is just as easy to state the truth, are excessively self-
critical, have trouble having fun, take themselves very seriously, find
intimate relationships to be challenging, overreact to changes over which

Address correspondence to John M. Laux, The University of Toledo MS 119, HHS 2225,
2301 W. Bancroft Street, Toledo, OH 43606, USA. E-mail: John.Laux@utoledo.edu

17
18 K. Fineran et al.

they have no control, constantly seek approval and affirmation, feel that
they are different from other people, are either very responsible or very irre-
sponsible, are extremely loyal, and are impulsive. In response to Woititz’s
original assertion, subsequent theoreticians have expanded on ACOA-spe-
cific hypothesized traits. For example, Ackerman (1983) theorized that chil-
dren of an alcohol dependent parent develop defensive approaches to life
in an effort to protect themselves against the impact of their parent’s alcohol
use. In the same way, Black (1992) suggested that children in alcoholic
homes learn to lie as a defense mechanism to deal with parental alcohol-
related inconsistency.
The most frequent method of empirically evaluating Woititz’s (1983)
statements involves comparing ACOAs to non-ACOAs across several
domains of interest. Findings from this line of research are unclear and at
times contradictory (e.g., Rodney, 1996). For example, ACOAs, compared to
non-ACOAs, were found to experience greater relationship difficulties (e.g.,
Beesley & Stoltenberg, 2002; Kelley, Cash, Grant, Miles, & Santos, 2004),
psychological distress (e.g., Obot & Anthony, 2004), earn lower grades
(Carle & Chassin, 2004), abuse substances (e.g., Christoffersen & Soothill,
2003), and to be more likely to deny their problems (Hart & McAleer, 1997).
Conversely, ACOA and non-ACOA group differences failed to surface in
studies of memory impairment (Ferraro & Gabriel, 2003), psychopathology
(e.g., Carpenter, 1995), self-esteem (Rodney, 1996), on personality assessments
(Hawkins II & Hawkins, 1997; Hunt, 1999), and on measures of substance
dependence, defensiveness, other measures of self-orientation and
assertiveness (Bandfield, Perera-Diltz, Salyers, Laux, & Cochrane, 2007). The
theoretical position that ACOAs are a homogenous and clinically distinct
population has received only partial empirical support.
Two potential explanations have surfaced to reconcile these mixed
research findings. The first, referred to as the Barnum effect (Logue, Sher, &
Frensch, 1992), posits that Woititz’s (1983) ACOA descriptors are written so
broadly that they could generalize to almost anyone (Sher, 1997). From a
measurement point of view, the Barnum effect may be considered when
non-ACOAs respond to questionnaire items in a manner that suggests the
individual is an ACOA. To illustrate, someone may report having difficulty
with intimate relationships, feeling different from others, being excessively
loyal, or acting impulsively; however, this does not necessarily indicate that
the individual had an alcohol dependent parent. Adding people with these
characteristics to a study of between group differences reduces the
likelihood that ACOAs would appear statistically different than non-ACOAs.
The Barnum effect might explain why the ACOA trait structure proposed by
Woitiz is an attractive construct to such a wide audience and thus represents
a heterogeneous population similar to non-ACOAs. However, the Barnum
effect does not account for studies in which statistically significant differ-
ences between the two groups (ACOA and non-ACOA) are reported.
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 19

The second explanation, referred to as the developmental chaos theory

(Ivey & Ivey, 1998), suggests that adverse childhood events are responsible
for creating ACOA-like traits. Choas of any origin may disrupt personality
development and produce traits consistent with an ACOA personality type
(Foege, 1998). The chaos theory is consistent with Woititz’s (1990)
acknowledgement that other parental behaviors may produce ACOA-like
developmental traits. If the chaos theory is accurate, any meaningful and
unsettling event that occurs within a family could potentially cause develop-
mental impairment to such an extent that traits similar to those exhibited by
ACOAs become apparent. The chaos theory has garnered early empirical
support. Anda and colleagues (2002) reported that non-ACOA related
adverse childhood experiences such as physical abuse, witnessing domestic
violence, parental divorce, mental illness, suicide, or criminal behavior were
as predictive of alcohol dependence and depression among those children
in adulthood, as was being an ACOA. Likewise, Johnson and Jacob (1995)
found that maternal depression, participant age, and participant gender
accounted for greater variance in pathology than did ACOA status. Finally,
ACOAs and adults with other childhood family chaos appeared similar to
one another on measures of family communication, problem solving, and
relationships, scoring statistically lower than adults with no history of family
chaos (Menees & Segrin, 2000).
The fact that the ACOA literature contains conflicting and contradictory
research findings is problematic. Furthermore, even though this mixed body
of evidence exists, some counselors treat members of the ACOA population
as a distinct group (e.g., Kritsberg, 1985; Mahon & Kempler, 1995; Lewchanin
& Sweeney, 1997) and refer these clients to community-based ACOA
self-help groups (e.g., Adult Children of Alcoholics World Service Organization,
n.d.; National Association for Children of Alcoholics, n.d.). Consequently,
students who are ACOAs by demographic status only but report no ill-effect
of their parent’s alcohol dependence may be met by well-intentioned
counselors who recommend unwarranted counseling interventions.
Conversely, counselors informed by this conflicting literature may reject the
ACOA phenomenon altogether and subsequently fail to appropriately
intervene with students who do possess valid ACOA traits. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to continue the scientific inquiry into this arena by
building on and refining methods of previous inquiry. Specifically, this
study develops the ACOA research base by statistically comparing four
separate groups of college students across several domains theorized to be
unique to ACOAs. Those who champion the ACOA trait theory posit that
ACOAs are a homogenous group and are therefore distinct from other
groups of individuals (Ackerman, 1983; Black, 1992; Woititz, 1983). They
suggested that ACOAs are impulsive, overly concerned with impression
management, have difficulty making changes in their lives, and demonstrate
addictive behavioral traits such as alcoholism and/or other drug abuse. On
20 K. Fineran et al.

the other hand, proponents of the Barnum theory would expect to find no
meaningful differences between ACOAs and non-ACOAs. Supporters of the
chaos theory would expect that ACOAs would be similar to persons who
experienced an adverse childhood event but dissimilar to those who did
not. The four groups under consideration include (a) persons who reported
growing up in a home where at least one parent was dependent on alcohol
(ACOA Group), (b) persons who reported experiencing at least one adverse
childhood event (Adverse Event Group), (c) persons who reported both
parental alcohol dependence and at least one adverse childhood event
(Alcohol and Adverse Event Group), and (d) persons who denied parental
alcohol abuse or experiencing any adverse childhood events (No Adverse
Events). If the ACOA theorists are correct, persons in the ACOA group
should produce greater scores on scales selected to operationalize ACOA
traits than the other groups. For the Barnum theory to be accurate, no
significant differences should be found between the groups. Finally, for the
chaos theory to be supported, persons in Alcohol and Adverse Event Group
should have more ACOA-identified symptoms, followed by the ACOA
Group, the Adverse Event Group, and the No Adverse Events Group,
respectively.

METHODS

This study was approved by the sponsoring university’s institutional review

board and complied with the American Counseling Association’s guidelines
for research. The participants completed an assessment packet that included
a demographic data collection form, an informed consent form, and several
instruments described in the following sections.

Participants
This convenience sample was recruited from counselor education and
psychology courses at a large, urban Midwest university. Extra credit was
offered in exchange for participation. The students’ self-identified ethnic
affiliation was European American (n = 159, 79.5%), African American (n = 25,
12.5%), Hispanic (n = 4, 2.0%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 5,
2.5%) and Asian American (n = 1, .5%). Six participants (3%) did not
indicate their ethnicity. The mean age was 21.4 (SD = 4.76, range = 18-55).
There were 14 (7%) freshmen, 78 (39%) sophomores, 55 (27.5%) juniors, 48
(24.5%) seniors, 2 (1%) graduate students, and 2 (1%) students who did not
indicate their academic standing. Two persons (1%) did not identify their
gender. Table 1 indicates the number of participants who reported
experiencing each of the several adverse childhood effects.
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 21

TABLE 1 Sample Size, Mean, Standard Deviation, Range and Internal Consistency of ACOA
Traits

Internal
Instrument Group n Mean SD Range consistency

DAST Total 200 40.82 6.47 0–17 0.91

1 79 0.23 0.97 0–8
2 79 0.34 0.85 0–4
3 7 0.14 0.38 0–1
4 35 1.61 3.85 0–17
CAST Total 200 3.57 6.31 0–24 0.96
1 79 0.92 3.47 0–22
2 79 1.73 3.35 0–14
3 7 10.00 7.90 0–23
4 35 12.37 7.52 0–24
Marlowe-Crowne Total 200 6.11 2.87 0–12 0.70
1 79 5.97 2.78 0–12
2 79 6.18 2.95 0–12
3 7 6.29 2.69 4–12
4 35 6.20 3.03 0–12
AUDIT Total 200 6.19 5.40 0–31 0.82
1 79 5.63 4.99 0–21
2 79 6.06 4.87 0–21
3 7 7.57 5.06 2–13
4 35 7.47 7.25 0–31
Impulsivity Total 200 50.88 8.77 32–73 0.82
1 79 51.37 8.05 35–69
2 79 49.35 8.90 33–69
3 7 48.29 11.63 34–67
4 35 53.74 8.93 32–73
Actions Total 200 46.73 10.31 22–79 0.58
1 79 46.44 9.02 20–67
2 79 48.65 9.88 20–79
3 7 42.86 19.59 20–78
4 35 43.83 11.14 20–66
Note: Group 1 = No Adverse Events; 2 = Adverse Event(s); Group 3 = ACOA; 4 = Alcohol and Adverse
Events Group.

INSTRUMENTS

A literature review provided instruments to operationally define ACOA traits

3 (tendency to lie), 8 (difficulty with change), and 13 (impulsiveness).
Subsequent ACOA research findings (e.g., Christoffersen & Soothill, 2003)
suggest that this population, compared to non-ACOAs, is more likely to
abuse alcohol and other drugs. Consequently, an alcohol abuse screen and
a drug abuse screen were included. Therefore, the variables on which these
four groups were compared were defensiveness, impulsiveness, resistance
to change, alcohol abuse, and other drug abuse, as well as a measure
designed specifically to indicate participants’ ACOA status.
22 K. Fineran et al.

Demographic Data Collection Form

To describe the sample and identify groups, participants completed a
demographic data form on which they indicated their race, sex, age, and
education level. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had a
parent who was an alcoholic during their childhood years, that is, they self-
reported their ACOA status. Berkowitz and Perkins (1988) reported that the
use of a single objective question to determine ACOA status produced
“prevalence rates similar to those obtained from a more detailed diagnostic
survey” (p. 207). This classification method was successfully replicated
recently by Bandfield and colleagues (2007) in a study of college student
ACOAs and served as the basis for group constitution in this study.
Additionally, participants indicated whether or not they experienced any of
the life experiences identified in the literature as potentially leading to
family chaos (Dube, Anda, Felitti, Edwards, & Croft, 2002). These events
were: parental alcohol use, parental alcohol addiction, parental divorce or
separation, serious mental illness, suicide, other death, serious medical
problems, and serious legal and/or employment problems. Participants who
responded “yes” to any of these conditions were asked to indicate the
impact the identified event had on his or her life using a Likert-type scale
with anchors of “no negative impact” (1) to “significant negative impact” (5).
Persons who indicated the presence of one of these events attributed the
event to a parent or guardian, and those who reported that the event had at
least “some negative impact” (3) were categorized into the adult child of an
adverse childhood event group. Persons who reported growing up with an
alcohol dependent parent but experiencing no other adverse childhood
event were placed in the ACOA Group. Those who reported experiencing
at least one adverse childhood event but not having grown up with an
alcohol dependent parent were placed in the Adverse Event Group. Participants
who reported at least one adverse childhood event and reported growing
up with an alcohol dependent parent were placed in Alcohol and Adverse
Event Group. Finally, persons who denied experiencing any adverse
childhood events were placed in the No Adverse Events Group.

Drug Abuse Screening Test

Because ACOAs are theorized and reported to be more likely to evidence
symptoms of drug abuse, the Drug Abuse Screen Test (DAST-20) (Gavin,
Ross, & Skinner, 1989) was selected to screen for this behavior. The DAST
provides a simple, brief, practical, and valid way of identifying drug abuse
among persons 18 and older. This instrument consists of 20 yes/no items
that assess problems associated with drug use in the areas of employment,
marital-family relationships, social relationships, and legal and physical
consequences. The range of scores is 0–20. A total score of 6 or more is
suggestive of drug use problems. Internal consistency estimates rage from
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 23

.74 to .95 (Cocco & Carey, 1998; Salstone, Halliewell, Hayslip, 1994; Skinner
& Goldberg, 1986). A temporal stability (7–43 day) estimate of .78 was
reported by Cocco and Carey (1998), who also presented evidence of
acceptable criterion, construct, and discriminative validity.

Children of Alcoholics Screening Test

The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST) was developed by Jones
(1983) to identify persons who had an alcoholic parent. The CAST is self-
administered, is easy to score, and can be used with children, adolescents,
and adults (Charland & Côté, 1998; Sheridan, 1995). This instrument consists
of 30 yes/no items. Items answered “yes” receive one point. The range of
scores is 0–30. Scores of 0–1 suggest that the respondent is not likely to
have a parent who is an alcoholic. Scores of 2–5 represent of a person who
has problems due to at least one parent’s drinking behavior. Scores of 6 or
higher suggest that the respondent is an ACOA. Strong evidence of internal
consistency (.98) was found in two separate studies (Charland & Côté, 1998;
Sheridan, 1995). Sheridan provided support for the CAST’s discriminant,
factorial, and construct validity.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

ACOAs are theorized to present themselves in a socially desirable manner
and minimize or deny their problems. The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desir-
ability Scale Form C (M-C Form C; Reynolds, 1982) assesses socially desirable
answering patterns. Internal consistency estimates among college student
samples range from .73 to .83 (Paulhaus, 1991). Scores on this instrument
range from 0 to 33 (M = 15.5, SD = 4.4), with higher scores representing
responses that are socially desirable.

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test

Because ACOAs may be more likely than others to develop alcohol use
problems (e.g., Christoffersen & Soothill, 2003) the Alcohol Use Disorders
Identification Test (AUDIT) (Saunders, Aasland, Babor, De La Fuente, &
Grant, 1993) was selected to screen for problem drinking. The AUDIT offers
a number of strengths including its long history of development and evaluation,
its utility across broad spectrums of age, gender, and cultures, and its brevity.
The AUDIT is composed of 10 self-report items that are scored from 0–4.
Three items measure alcohol use, 4 measure alcohol dependence, and
3 measure consequences of alcohol use. Fiellin, Reid, and O’Connor (2000)
evaluated the AUDIT’s sensitivity and specificity ratings and recommended
a cutoff of 8 points as suggestive of harmful and hazardous alcohol use.
Fielling and colleagues (2000) concluded that the AUDIT is most useful
24 K. Fineran et al.

when attempting to detect the type of drinking that is associated with

college student alcohol use such as binge drinking and early stages of alcohol
abuse.

NEO-Personality Inventory, Revised

The Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1995)
operationalizes the Five-Factor Model of personality theory (Goldberg,
1983). Each of the five factors is comprised of six facets. Each facet contains
six items. Two NEO-PI-R facets are of particular fit to this study. The
Impulsiveness facet measures one’s ability to control cravings and urges.
Persons with high Impulsiveness scores experience strong desires that they
feel unable to resist despite possible impending regret. Persons with low
Impulsivity scores are able to manage temptations and tolerate frustrations
related to satiating personal desires. The Impulsiveness facet was chosen to
operationally define Woititz’s (1983) 13th ACOA characteristic (impulsiveness).
Costa, McCrae, and Dye (1991) reported a Cronbach’s a coefficient of
.70 for the Impulsiveness facet in the NEO normative sample. The Actions
facet was selected to operationally define Woititz’s 8th ACOA trait (difficulty
accepting change). The Actions facet measures one’s willingness to try dif-
ferent activities, go to new places, or eat unusual foods. Persons with high
Actions scores appreciate new activities and novel interests. People who score
low on the Actions facet find change difficult and prefer predictable routines.
Costa and colleagues (1991) reported a Cronbach’s a coefficient of .58 for
the Actions facet in the NEO normative sample.

RESULTS

Participants reported at least some negative impact on the following adverse

childhood events: parent addicted to alcohol (n = 42), divorce (n = 63),
mental illness (n = 28), suicide (n = 3), death (n = 18), serious medial problem
(n = 37), and serious legal problem (n = 39). Table 1 presents the total
sample’s descriptive data for each the scales employed in this study as well
as the corresponding descriptive data for each of the four subgroups. A
MANOVA (Wilks’ l = .932, p < .131, hp2 = .02) failed to uncover statistically
significant differences between the groups’ Marlowe-Crowne, Impulsivity
facet and Actions facet scores. Chi-square analyses were conducted to deter-
mine whether the four groups differed statistically with respect to their
DAST, CAST, and AUDIT classification status. The 2 X 4 chi-square test of
group and DAST classification was statistically significant c2 (df = 3, n = 200)
= 9.68, p < .05 (w = 0.45). A review of the standardized residual (SR) or
effect size (z = 2.7) indicated that there were fewer DAST positives (DAST+)
in Alcohol and Adverse Event Group than expected by chance. That is, the
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 25

DAST classified fewer Alcohol and Adverse Event group members as drug
abusers than what would be expected by chance. The 3 X 4 chi-square test
of group and CAST classification was also statistically significant c2 (df = 6, n
= 200) = 94.40, p < .001 (w = 1.89). The SR indicated that there were fewer
than expected No Chaos Group participants classified as having an
alcoholic parent [CAST positive (CAST+)] (z = –3.3) and more No Chaos
Group participants classified as not having an alcoholic parent CAST negative
(CAST–)(z = 2.5) than expected by chance. Furthermore, there were more
than expected Alcohol and Adverse Event Group participants classified as
CAST+ (z = 6.7) and fewer than expected Alcohol and Adverse Event Group
participants classified as CAST– (z = –4.1). Finally, the CAST classified more
than expected ACOA Group participants as positive (z = 2.7). The percentage
of participants classified as positive and negative for hazardous alcohol use
on the AUDIT did not differ by group membership, c2 (3, N = 200) = 0.895
p = .85 (w = 0.13). According to Cohen’s (1992) rubric, the DAST effect size
difference is of medium magnitude, the CAST effect size is large, and the
AUDIT effect size is small.

DISCUSSION

This study compared four groups of college students: students from homes
where at least one parent was alcohol dependent, students who experi-
enced an adverse childhood event, students with an alcohol dependent parent
and who had also experienced another identified adverse childhood event,
and students who denied any type of adverse childhood event. These
groups were evaluated across several traits and domains hypothesized to be
unique to ACOAs in an effort to determine which theory (ACOA, Chaos, or
Barnum effect) best explained the empirical findings present in the literature.
Differences between the groups failed to surface on the three ACOA
traits operationally defined for this study: social desirability, resistance to
change, and impulsiveness. Unlike other findings (Christoffersen & Soothill,
2003), we failed to uncover evidence that ACOAs are more likely to abuse
alcohol. In fact, none of the groups differed statistically with respect to their
alcohol consumption. We interpret these findings as evidence against the
ACOA and Chaos theories and initial support for the Barnum effect. The
ACOA theory did find some support, however, in the finding that students
in the No Adverse Events Group were underrepresented in the self-designated
ACOA group as determined by the CAST (CAST+), and overrepresented in
those who did not designate themselves as ACOAS as determined by the
CAST (CAST–). While members of the ACOA Group and the Adverse Event
Group did not differ from members of the No Adverse Events Group, the
Alcohol and Adverse Event Group members were overrepresented in the
CAST+ group and underrepresented in the CAST– group. However, Alcohol
26 K. Fineran et al.

and Adverse Event Group members were underrepresented in the DAST+

group. These findings argue against the ACOA and the Chaos-only theories
but suggest that there may be an interaction between having an Adverse
Event and an alcohol abusing parent that produces ACOA traits. Support for
the ACOA theory dissipates when other chaos-provoking events are
factored into the analyses. Studies that reported group differences (e.g.,
Obot & Anthony, 2004) generally failed to examine other mitigating factors.
Because alcohol abuse and dependence often impacts a wide range of family
functioning, it is not surprising that our study found such a large number of
participants who reported being raised with an alcoholic parent and experi-
encing some other adverse childhood event.
Another difference between this and previous studies is the manner in
which we constructed our groups. For example, our study improved on pre-
vious group classifications (e.g., Bandfield et al., 2007; Berkowitz & Perkins,
1988) by employing the assumption that students who grow up in an alcohol
dependent home may vary in the perceived impact their parent’s drinking
had on their lives. Consequently, we placed students in the ACOA group if
they said their parent’s drinking had at least some negative impact on their
lives rather than simply based on the fact that a parent abused alcohol. In this
manner, we were able to truly compare the impact of a parent’s alcohol use
against other groups instead of simply comparing demographic categories.
It is interesting that group differences surfaced on the CAST, a scale
designed to identify the likelihood of having an alcoholic parent, and not
on the other three scales selected to define ACOA traits. This conflicting
finding highlights a difficulty encountered when attempting to operationally
define Woititiz’s ACOA traits. One way to critically evaluate a theory is to
examine the way the theory generates testable hypotheses (Popper, 1963).
The difficulty we experienced operationally defining these traits may reflect
on the lack of specificity inherent in the ACOA theory.
Our data do not provide evidence that people who experience adverse
childhood events, yet enroll in college, are different on the tested traits
compared to their No Adverse Events Group peers. Our findings lead us to
suggest a move away from focusing on the negative or unhealthy differences
thought to separate these groups. In light of this empirical evidence, we
suggest that ACOAs are not in fact a homogenous group. It is important to
advocate for a view of college student ACOAs that highlights adaptive and
strength-based development as we purport that adverse childhood events
do not necessarily bind one to a life of failure and psychological turmoil.

Implications for Psychotherapists

Should future practitioners persist in their interest in identifying group
differences, we offer the following considerations. First, counselors and their
clients are encouraged to review the ACOA traits to determine their individual
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 27

goodness of fit with the traits identified in the model. If the client and the
counselor agree that there is an acceptable degree of fit between the client
and these traits, then, prior to assuming their origin is based on a parent’s
alcohol use, we recommend that the counseling dyad investigate other
sources of chaos that may have occurred in the home. We further suggest that
counselors thoroughly consider more than the presence or absence of chaotic
childhood events by assessing individual perceptions of chaotic event impact.
The evidence from this study suggests that there exists more meaning to the
development of personality traits than the mere presence of chaotic events in
the home. It is not safe to assume that the mere presence of a chaotic situation
in the home had a negative impact that affected the client’s well-being. For
example, several individuals in our study reported parental divorce during
their childhood but did not necessarily indicate that this event had a negative
impact on their lives. Individual perceptions of an adverse childhood event
may be influenced by a host of different reasons, including the age(s) of the
child when the event occurred and the length of time the client was exposed
to the event. For example, a 17-year-old client whose parents divorced
following 10 years of physical and emotional conflict may evaluate the impact
of the divorce differently than a 17-year-old client whose parents separated
and divorced the year prior to the client’s leaving home for college. Likewise,
a parent’s sudden death due to stroke may have impacted a client differently
at age 3 than at age 13. Consequently, interventions designed to ameliorate
personality traits theorized to be associated with adverse childhood events are
more likely to be effective when they are applied to persons who perceived
the event with at least some negative impact rather than when they are
applied without considering the impact of these events.
However, if during the course of assessment and treatment these traits
are found to be good descriptors that are associated solely or predominantly
with parental alcohol consumption, the counselor may wish to discuss the
potential benefit of a referral to an ACOA specific support group and/or to a
counselor who has substance abuse training and experience with alcoholic
families. For example, a referral to Al-Anon (http://www.al-anon.alateen.org)
or to Codependents Anonymous (http://www.coda.org) may be appropriate.
Our data strongly suggest that parental alcohol use is frequently associated
with other types of adverse childhood events. Counselors are therefore encour-
aged to obtain comprehensive developmental histories from their clients to
determine the full range of presenting issues. Simply focusing on alcohol-related
facets of a clients’ history could neglect other important developmental issues.

Directions for Future Research

Rather than attempting further investigations of group differences, we call for
exploratory descriptive studies that help counselors better understand the
strengths, success strategies, and positive personality characteristics of persons
28 K. Fineran et al.

raised in homes where alcohol or other forms of adverse childhood events

were present. This study used the NEO-PI-R to operationally define two of
Woititz’s (1983) traits. A cluster analysis (Borgen & Barnet, 1987) of NEO-PI-R
data collected from similar populations may provide a prototypical personality
profile that would include both personality strengths and weaknesses of
individuals who experienced childhood adverse events. Such information
would be useful to counselors seeking to emphasize clients’ strengths.
Knowledge of clients’ strengths provides counselors with access to positive
reinforcement and lends itself to brief, time-constrained therapies, such as
solution focused (de Shazer, 2005) or employee assistant program models.
Should future researchers wish to investigate potential group differences,
we strongly encourage the inclusion of non-alcohol-related adverse childhood
events as mediating variables to consider in statistical analyses. For example,
we believe that the nature of resiliency is a fruitful area of investigation among
persons who have experienced adverse childhood events. Our study produced
a number of persons who reported experiencing an adverse childhood event
but who did not perceive the event as having negatively impacted their lives.
We call for investigations regarding the differences between persons who expe-
rienced similar adverse childhood events but for some reason came to view the
impact of these events differently then those who view them as negatively
impacting their lives. For example, what factors or considerations, if any, are in
place in the lives of those who deny being negatively impacted by these events
that are absent from those who view these events as more impactful?
We recognize that there are specific limitations to our study that restrict
the generalizability of our findings and recommendations. For example, our
sample was composed solely of college students who were enrolled in
counseling or psychology courses taught at one Midwest public metropolitan
university. Future researchers are encouraged to replicate these methods in
high school samples and in older populations to determine if age and setting
provide divergent findings. For instance, it is possible that ACOAs who do
not go to college differ in some meaningful way than those ACOAs we
identified on this campus. Furthermore, it is possible that the ACOAs in our
study may not have had sufficient time to fully develop the traits associated
with this group. While longitudinal designs are necessary to test this
hypothesis, we are unaware of any research that suggests that ACOA traits
become more prominent over the course of one’s life.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, R. J. (1983). Children of alcoholics (2nd ed.). Holmes Beach: Learning

Publications.
Adult Children of Alcoholics World Service Organization. (n.d.). Welcome!
Retrieved February 5, 2008, from http://www.adultchildren.org.
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 29

Anda, R. F., Whitfield, C. L., Felitti, V. J., Chapman, D., Edwards, V. J., Dube, S. R.,
& Williamson, D. F. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences, alcoholic parents,
and later risks of alcoholism and depression. Psychiatric Services, 53, 1001–1009.
Bandfield, A. L., Perera-Diltz, D. M., Salyers, K. M., Laux, J. M., & Cochrane, W. S.
(2007). Testing hypothesized differences between college student adult
children of alcoholics (ACOAs) and non-ACOAs. Journal of College Counseling,
10, 19–26.
Beesley, D., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (2002). Control, attachment, style, and relationship
satisfaction among adult children of alcoholics. Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 24, 281–298.
Berkowitz, A. D., & Perkins, H.W. (1988). Personality characteristics of children of
alcoholics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 206–209.
Black, C. (1992). Effects of family alcoholism. In S. Saitoh, P. Steinglass, & M. A. Schuckit
(Eds.), Alcoholism and the family (pp. 272–281). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Borgen, F. H., & Barnet, D. C. (1987). Applying cluster analysis in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 456–468.
Carle, A. C., & Chassin, L. (2004). Resilience in a community sample of children of
alcoholics: Its prevalence and relation to internalizing symptomatology and
positive affect. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 577–595.
Carpenter, D. R. (1995). Adult children of Alcoholics: CAQ profiles. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly, 13, 63–70.
Charland, H. & Côté, G. (1998). The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test (CAST);
Test-retest reliability and concordance validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
54, 995–1003.
Christoffersen, M. N., & Soothill, K. (2003). The long-term consequences of parental
alcohol abuse: A cohort study of children in Denmark. Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment, 25, 107–116.
Cocco, K., & Carey, K. (1998). Psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening
Test in psychiatric outpatients. Psychological Assessment, 190, 408–414.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality
assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 64, 21–50.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrea, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for Agreeable-
ness and Conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.
de Shazer, S. (2005). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused
therapy. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002) Adverse
childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive
Behaviors, 27, 713–725.
Ferraro, F. R., & Gabriel, M. (2003). Preservation of implicit memory in adult children of
alcoholics. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 137, 373–380.
Fiellin, D. A., Reid, M, C., O’Connor, P.G. (2000) Screening for alcohol problems in
primary care: A systematic review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 160, 1977–1989.
Foege, W. H. (1998). Adverse childhood experiences: A public health perspective.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 354–355.
30 K. Fineran et al.

Gavin, D. R., Ross, H. E., & Skinner, H. A. (1989). Diagnostic validity of the Drug
Abuse Screening Test in the assessment of DSM-III drug disorders. British
Journal of Addiction 84, 301–307.
Goldberg, L. R. (1983). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American
Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
Hart, K. E., & McAleer, M. (1997). Anger coping style in adult children of alcoholics.
Addiction Research, 5, 473–486.
Hawkins II, R. C., & Hawkins, C. A. (1997). Psychological type and adult children of
alcoholics’ traits. Journal of Psychological Type, 41, 17–22.
Hunt, M. E. (1999). A comparison between MMPI and CPI adult profiles of children
of alcoholics and nonalcoholics. Substance Use & Misuse, 34, 921–933.
Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (1998). Reframing DSM-IV: Positive strategies from
developmental counseling and theory. Journal of Counseling & Development, 76,
334–350.
Johnson, S. L., & Jacob, T. (1995). Psychosocial functioning in children of alcoholic
fathers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 9, 101–113.
Jones, J. W. (1983). Children of Alcoholics Screening Test, (CAST). Chicago, IL:
Camelot Unlimited.
Kelley, M. L., Cash, T. F., Grant, A. R., Miles. D. L., & Santos, M. T. (2004). Parental
alcoholism: Relationships to adult attachment in college women and men.
Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1633–1636.
Kritsberg, W. (1985). The adult children of alcoholics syndrome: A step-by-step guide
to discovery and recovery. Pompano Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Lewchanin, S., & Sweeney, S. (1997). A developmental approach to the group
treatment of adult children of alcoholics. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,
15, 51–62.
Logue, M. B., Sher, K. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1992). Purported characteristics of adult
children of alcoholics: A possible “Barnum effect.” Professional Psychology:
Research & Practice, 23, 226–232.
Mahon, L., & Kempler, B. (1995). Perceived effectiveness of therapeutic factors for
ACOAs and non-ACOAs in heterogeneous psychotherapy groups. Alcoholism
Treatment Quarterly, 13, 1–11.
Menees, M. M., & Segrin, C. (2000). The specificity of disrupted processes in families of
adult children of alcoholics. Alcohol & Alcoholism, 35, 361–367.
National Association for Children of Alcoholics. (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved
February 5, 2008, from http://www.nacoa.net.
Obot, I. S., & Anthony, J. C. (2004). Mental health problem in adolescent
children of alcohol dependent parents: Epidemiologic research with a
nationally representative sample. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance
Abuse, 13, 83–96.
Paulhaus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Robinson,
J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and
social psychological attitudes: Volume 1 of Measures of social psychological atti-
tudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. Reprinted in Theodore Schick
(Ed., 2000), Readings in the philosophy of science (pp. 9–13). Mountain View,
CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
 The Barnum Effect and Chaos Theory 31

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short-forms of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38,
119–125.
Rodney, H. E. (1996). Inconsistencies in the literature on collegiate adult children of
alcoholics: Factors to consider for African Americans. Journal of American
College Health, 45, 19–25.
Salstone, R., Halliwell, S., & Hayslip, M. A. (1994). Multivariate evaluation of the
Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test and the Drug Abuse Screening Test in a
female offender population. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 455–462.
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., de la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993).
Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO
Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol
Consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791–804.
Sher, K. J. (1997). Psychological characteristics of children of alcoholics. Alcohol,
Health and Research World, 21, 247–254.
Sheridan, M. (1995). A psychometric assessment of the Children of Alcoholics
Screening Test (CAST). Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 56, 156–160.
Skinner, H. A., & Goldberg, A. (1986). Evidence for a drug dependence syndrome
among narcotic users. British Journal of Addition, 81, 479–484.
Woititz, J. G. (1983). Adult children of alcoholics. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly,
1, 71–99.
Woititz, J. G. (1990). Adult children of alcoholics: Expanded edition. Deerfield
Beach, FL Health Communications.
Copyright of Journal of College Student Psychotherapy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.