p [/14
AL; ‘ ‘ h ‘1 ‘; :3; é‘i/‘i
in

 

ABSTRACT
“EMERSON PERCEPTIONS AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT
by Donna J o Pelonen

The study of nsritel sdjustnent (MA) so it relstes to persenelity
veriehles was extended, for both self report (SR) and note iuge (MI)
descriptions. “I've less-ores of HA, the Locke Scsle end an edsptetion of
ven der Veen's "Psnily Concept Inventory", and two personslity nesseres;
the Edwards Personel Preference Schedule (PPS) end LeForge's Interpersonal
Check List (161.), were sdliustered to 50 married student couples with
children. Tests were sdlinistered in group situations thst prevented
celleherstion of husbands end wiveso

Correlstiens between husbands end wives on the HA nessures were higher
then expected (maxing Iron .58 to .69): Onlsnstione other thn s testing
litnstien thst prev-ts eollsherstion between huts]. pertsers net he
eeneddered for previous findings.

For 161. dste, the correlstiens between BI discrepency scores and Mt
were significant: between 83 discrepancy scores and m, the correletion
as not significant it in the sppnopriste direction. Correlstiens between
as discrepancy eeeres and HA were not signiﬁcant for 8! or II dete.’

Correlstions- of Specific pcsomlity vsrimhles vith. m soeres indioste
thetheppymltdte hetbseinn’hich the wifeis deseribedhy
herself and by her spouse es rsther “Massive end loving, end in which the
p hushed is mt described es nuissive by his wife or as mused" ed leving

Donna J. Palonen

by himself. The PPS measure of need Heterosemality was negatively cor-

related with MA in every comparison.

 

 

Dateﬁ/Z @uj% /Zé(;

INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTst AND MARITAL ADJUSTMENT

by

Donna J. Palonen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial mlfillnent of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology
1966

ACKNOW‘E

without the thoughtful assistance of Dr. John Hurley through every
stage of its development and completion. this undertaking would not have
been possible; w warmest thanks are extended to him. I also want to
express my gratitude to 11-. William Stellwagen and Dr. Bertram Karon
for their helpful suggestions and understanding patience.

thanks are due to the married couples who served as subjects for
this study.

The research for this study was completed during the tenure of a
Fredoctoral Fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health.
United States Public Health Services. Sincere thanks are due to them
for the freedom that permitted the writer to fully invest herself in
this research. and for the funds that allowed pment of subjects.

11

List of tables

List of appendices

Introduction
Method . .
Results . .
Discussion
Summary . .
References

Appendices

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

Page
iv

\OU‘H

13
18
19
20

Table
l .

2.

3.

LIST OF TABLES

Correlations between HA scores of husband and wife in
V”1W8.t“d1.3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Correlations between total discrepancy score and couples'
Tatumeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Correlations of Total MA with ICL variables
Correlations of Total MA with PPS variables

iv

10

12

INTRODUCTION

Marital adjustment has been promisingly studied within the framework“ of
interpersonal perception. In Tharp's 1963 review of the literature, con.
gruence of self descriptions of mates was consistently reported to be
positively correlated with marital adjustment (MA) measures. However,

Tharp also noted that even larger correlations have been found between

MA on the one hand. and congruence of self report (SR) and mate image (hi)

on the other; that is. a person who perceives his spouse as similar to
himself will tend to be more happily married than one who perceives his
spouse as different from himself. More recently. the investigation of MI
congruence, or degree of similarity between the husband's view of his wife
and her view of him, has been added to the picture (Hurley and Silvert, 1966).

The recent studies have focused on MA in relation to personality var-
iables of the marital partners. ’Ioeg (1965.) administered two PA measures.
the Locke scale (Locke and Wallace, 1959) and Hurvits's "Marital Roles In.
ventory" (Hurvits. 1960). to a group of volunteer Michigan State Police
officers and their wives: on the basis of these scores. he formed a "well-
adjusted" group of 11 couples and a "less well-adjusted" group of 11 couples,
and compared the two groups in terms of discrepancy scores derived from
their completion of LaForge's (1963) Interpersonal Check List (ICL). admin-
istered under SR and MI instructions. Results varied from those reviewed
by Tharp. in that SR congruence failed to correlate significantly with
couples' MA scores (3; a -.OS), although congruence of MI was significantly
related to HA (3; = .3“. p<.05). Hoeg also found several specific person-
ality variables which correlated significantly with couples' HA: husbands
who described themselves higher on variables labelled Competitive and
Sadistic tended to be less happily married. and husbands who described

1

their wives as relativelyVhich on variables Aggressive.-Rebellicus, or.,
Self—effacing tended to be less happily married.

Powell (1965) did a similar study using the Edwuds (1959) Personal
Preference Schedule (PPS) and a new Q-sort measure of family adjustment
(van der Veen, at: ﬁlm 1964) as an index of MA. Her sample consisted of
23 volunteer student and church group couples, and the results were in the
same direction as the Hoeg data. Congruency of SR was almost significantly
related to couples' MA (5 = .34, p< .06) but MI congruency was even more so
(3; = .55. p (.01). Some specific personality variables also reached signi-
ficance: the more happily married husbands were those who described their
wives as being higher on need Change, higher on need Ehdurance. and lower
on need Heterosexuality.

One outstanding feature of both the Hoeg and Powell studies is that all
personality variables related significantly to couples' MA are concerned with
descriptions made by the husband, either of himself or his wife. This sug-
gests that observations and beliefs of the husband are more crucial than
are the views of the wife in determining marital happiness for both partners.

‘Ihe present study is in part a replication and extension of the Hoeg
and Powell findings. Personality measures from both previous studies are
utilised, as are the Locke MA scale and a revised version of the van der
Veen, at; 31;. measure. Information regarding the generality of the former
findings, in addition to a view in greater depth of the personality attri-
butes related to the role of a married college student should result from
using a more representative sample of couples from married housing units
at Michigan State university (MSU).

The Silvert and Hoeg designs did not prevent collaboratimn of husband
and wife while the NM.ratings were being obtained. Hofman (1966). however.

found notably lower correlations between adjustment scores of husband and

wife than those generally reported in the literature under conditions which
did not allow communication in the testing situation. Results of the three
studies are sumarised in Table 1. By preventing connnication between
marital partners during data collection, the present stab will also attempt
to verify Hoffman's results.

A major drawback of previous findings is the possible non-representa-
tiveness of samples because of the necessity to include volunteer couples
only. In the present study, a modified sampling procedure will be used in
an attempt to draw a more representative sample.

.011 the basis of these considerations, the following hypotheses will be
exploreda

mothesis I. Congruence of SR between husband and wife on the person-
ality measures is related to couples' HA scores. 1

Methods II. Congruence of III between husband and wife on the per-
sonality measures is related to couples' HA.

mothesis III. Congruency in spouses' MI is more highly related to
couples' HA than congruency of SR.

m. thesis IV. Certain personality variables are related to couples'

HA scores. Specifically:

(1) MA is correlated with husbands' SR scores on the ICL variables C (Com-
petitive) and D (Sadistic).

(2) HA is correlated with husbands' NI scores on the ICL variables I (Aggres-
sive). F (Rebellious). and H (Self-effacing).

(3) HA is correlated with husbands' 3R scores on the PPS variable need
Change.

(it) HA is correlated with husbands' SR scores on the PPS variables need
mdurance and need Heterosexuality.

Table 1. Correlations between HA scores of husband and wife in various

studies.

 

 

Hoffman

 

MA measure Hoeg Powell
Locke .58 .28
Hurvitz .hh .96
Composite of

Locke and Hzrvitz .714
FCI Q-sort .12 .30

FCI true-false

.le

 

PE TH 0 D

Subjects. Forty couples from MSU married housing comprised the sample
(one additional couple was dropped because, due to an apparent lack of under-
standing of the instructions. their answer sheets were incorrectly completed,
and corrections could not be arranged). The selection of couples residing
in two-bedroom units restricted the sampled to married students with
children; this excluded the very newly married couples.

Five buildings, each with 8 or 12 apartments, were randomly selected
from a list of all two-bedroom buildings on campus. letters were sent to
each eligible couple (eligibility consisted of student status for one member
of the marital pair. which excluded couples where one partner was a faculty
member and the other a non-student), explaining briefly the nature of the
research, the amount of time required, and the payment fee of $20.00 per
couple for participation in the experiment. Out of 48 requests for parti-
cipation, #1 couples completed all the test materials. 0f the couples who
did not participate. two reported a lack of time, one of the husbands was
out of town at the time of testing, one couple could not arrange to come to
the testing place, and three were not interested but gave no further reason.

Of the #0 couples included. the number of years of marriage ranged from
1 to 17. with a mean of 5.9; number of children ranged from 1 to 1+. with a
mean of 1.7 (mdn.. l). The age range for husbands was 20 to #3 (mean. 28.9).
and for wives was 19 to 39 (mean. 26.6). Fourteen of the husbands were
undergraduates. 26 were graduate students; 14» wives were undergraduates. and
lb were graduate students. Nine of the husbands maintained tun time jobs.
and 11 worked part time (30 hours per week or less); 9 of the wives worked

full time and 1+ worked part time; 20 wives were not students and did not
list an occupation (except "homemaker" or "housewifo") .

Procedure. Thirty-eight of the 1&0 couples were tested in groups ranging
in size from 1 to 114 couples; husbands and wives were tested simltaneously
and separated by seating them on opposite. ends of the room. Circumstances
made it necessary for two of the couples to complete the tests at home,
away from the experimenter. The importance of independently completing the
forms was stressed to these couples; however, lack of commication camot
be guaranteed in these instances. (An examination of the data from these
2 couples indicated that they did not differ in any significant way from

others in the sample. morefore. it was not necessary to exclude them from

any of the analyses.)
Each subject was given a packet of test materials with an instruction

sheet and allowed to work at his own speed. The order was the same for

everyone:
(1) Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. completed with SR and HI instructions:

Read each pair of statements and decide which is more characteristic
of what you like or how you feel. men decide which is more character-
istic of what your spouse likes or feels. ‘

If the same statement of the pair applies to both of you, indicate
this by marking an "S" in the appropriate space on the answer sheet.

If different statements apply to you and your spouse. then make the
usual mark under the letter corresponding to the statemmt that is most
characteristic of .

For example. statement A is more characteristic of both you'and
your spouse. make an "8" under A on the answer sheet.

If A is more characteristic of you while B is more characteristic
of your spouse. then mark A on the answer sheet in the usual manner.

Sometimes it is difficult to decide between the We statements. but
do your best on each item without skipping any.

(2) Interpersonal Check List, completed with SR and MI instructions:

For each item. decide whether the characteristic applies to you;
then decide whether it applies to your spouse.

If it applies to both of you, make an "S" on the answer sheet
under "true".

If it applies to neither of you. make an "S" on the answer sheet
under "false".

If it applies to you but not to your spouse. mark the "true" column
of the answer sheet in the usual manner..

If it applies to your spouse but not to you, mark the "false"
column of the answer sheet in the usual manner.
Do not omit any items.
(3) An adaption of van der Veen's "Family Concept Inventory", in a 5-choice
format.
(h) The Locke scale of marital adjustment.

Measuring instruments. The PPS is a forced choice inventory in which
an attempt was made to control for social desirability: measures of 15 person-
ality variables, labelled needs, are provided: Achievement, Deference, Order,
Exhibition, Autonom, Affiliation, Intraception, Succorance, Dominance,
Abasement, Nurturance, Change, Ehdurance, Heterosexuality, and Aggression.

In addition, a measure of Consistency, the number of identical choices made
in 2 sets of the same 15 items, is provided. Coefficients of’internal con-
sistency for these variables have been found to range from .60 to .87;
stability coefficients (with a one-week interval) range from .74 to .88.

The ICL consists of a series of 13h personality characteristics; sub-
jects are required to answer "true" or "false" to each item as it applies to
them (or to their spouse, in this study). It is scorable in a variety of
ways, ranging from global factor scores to specific scores determined'oy
the eight items constituting each basic variable. In this study, scores
for the 16 basic personality variables were obtained; these variables have
been labelled and arranged in a circular profile in which opposite elements
represent opposing variables. The scales are A- Mhnagerial, B. Narcissistic,
0- Competitive, D- Sadistic, E. Aggressive, F. Rebellious, G. Distrustful,

H- Self-effacing, I; Mnsochistic, J- Docile, K. Dependent, L. Cooperative,
M. Over-conventional. N- Hypernormal. 0- Responsible, P- Autocratic. Scores
for these scales can be combined by using a formula based upon trigonometric
considerations (LaForge, 1963. p. #2) to provide scores on two more global
dimensions, love-Hate (LH) and Dominance-Submission (DB). An additional

score, Nic. or total number of items answered "true", has been found to be

related to Acquiescence Response Style, or a "willingness to talk". Test-
retest reliability coefficients for the 16 variables range from .64 to .77.
Internal consistency measures range from .51 to .86 for the 16 basic variables,
and are above .90 for the summary scores.

In the present study, SR and MI instructions provide a score for Ron-
identical Responses, or the number of items in which each subject reports a
different answer for self than for spouse, in both the ICL and PPS.

The FCI used in this study is a new adaption of the original Q-sort
measure reported by van der Veen. Hoffman administered both the Q-sort and
a true-false version of the measure to the same subjects. and reported a
correlation between the two of .72. To facilitate a wider distribution of
scores, the true-false items were administered with instructions to check
one of five categories (strongly agree, tend to agree, neutral. tend to dis-
agree, strongly disagree) rather than just "true" or "false". Median test-
retest reliabilities of .71 and .80 have been reported for the Q-sort form.
In the present study, the split-half reliability of the 5-choice form was
.85.

The Locke scale consists of 15 basic or fundamental items used in pre-
vious MA measures; possible scores range from 2 to 158. For a sample of 236.
Looks and Wallace (1959) reported a split-half reliability coefficient of
.90. as well as good discrimination between a well-adjusted group and a mal-
adjusted group of marriages (mean adjustment scores were 135.9 and 71.7. A
respectively).

RESULTS

All data was analyzed by means of product-moment correlation coeffi-
cients: two-tailed tests and a significance level of .05 were used.

The correlation between MA scores of husband and wife on the Locke
scale was .58; on the FCI it was .65: on a composite score that assigns
equal weight to both MA measures, the correlation between husband and wife
was .69; correlations between ROI and Locke scores were .72 for husbands.
.69 for wives, and .73 for the combined groups of husbands and wives. 0n
the basis of these substantial correlations, it was decided to use composite
MA scores in further analyses; T-scores were used to assign equal weight to
each MA measure and to both husband and wife. In this way. a couples'

Total Adjustment Score (Total MA) was derived for each couple.

A total discrepancy score, the summed raw score differences between
husband and wife on each personality test was computed for each couple, for
both SR and MI data. This is the same measure used in the Hoeg (1965) and
Powell (1965) studies. The results are reported in Table 2. The difference
between the MA vs. MI and MA vs. SR discrepancy correlations was not signi-

ficant. Correlations between Total MA and specific personality variables
are reported in Tables 3 and h.

10

Table 2. Correlations between total discrepancy score and couples' Total

 

 

 

MA.
ICL FPS
SR I-e17 delz
MI -.39* .01

a. between SR and MI .39 .02

 

*p< .05

11

 

 

 

Table 3. Correlations of Tbtal MA.with ICL variables.
Self Report Mate Image

husband wife husband wife
A- Managerial .12 -.30 -.19 .06
B- Narcissistic .11 -.08 -.00 .0“
C. Competitive .08 -.15 -.09 -.06
D. Sadistic .22 -.30 .02 -.12
E. Aggressive .20 -.40* -.h3* -.0h
F- Rebellious -.20 -.h7* -.65* -.25
G- Distrustful -.17 -.42* -».’-F2"I -.42*
H- Self-effacing -.31* .lb .05 -.26
I; Masochistic -.3U* .39* .18 -.12
J. DUOfle .13 .27 .18 -.07
K. Dependent -.32* .22 .26 -.09
L. Cooperative -.h7* -.05 .00 -.24
M. Over-conventional -.08 .08 .2b .03
N- Hypernormal -.31* .12 .39* .07
0- Responsible -.10 .17 .43* .13
P- Antocratic .16 —.37* .07 -.21
Love-Hate -.22 .h0* .51* .12
Dominance-Submission .27 -.28 .08 .21
Nic -.2h -.15 .02 -.21

*P < 005

Table h. Correlations of Total MA with PPS variables.

12

 

 

Self Report Mate Image

husband wife husband wife
nAchievement .05 .01 .16 -.13
nDeference .0“ .08 .2“ -.21
n0rder .20 .33* .03 .14
nEkhibition .15 -.08 -.02 -.0# ‘
nAntonomy -.O6 .01 -.29 .22
nAffiliation -.08 -.O3 .11 .10
nIhtraception 1.07 n.08 .22 .02
nSuccorance -.08 .07 -.22 .09
nDominance . 23 .13 .11 . 29
nAbasement -.30 .2“ .00 .08
nNurturance -.08 -.10 .27 .06
nChange .21 -.09 -.12 .11
nEndurance .18 .03 .21 -.20
nHeterosexuality -.39* m3?"I ”38"I -.36‘
nAggression -.05 -.07 -.30 -.01
Consistency_ ....3l"I .02 -.22 -.16

 

*p<.05

DISCUSSION

Correlation of muses' MA scores. The unexpectedly high correlations
between husbands and wives on the MA measures are difficult to explain. be
low correlations reported by Hofman. previously assumed to be due to the
experimental procedure of preventing communication of husband and wife
during testing, must now be reconciled in some other m.

The most obvious explanation seems to be differences in the nature of
samples in various studies. The present sample. all student couples with
children. and the Hoeg sample, all State Police. are more restricted than
those used by Powell (some student couples and some couples from a church
group) and Hofman (some student couples and some couples seeking help for
disturbed children).

The implication from the present sample is that happily married people
tend to be married to each other, and unhappily married people tend to be
married to each other. This is not surprising. 1h his classical study of
marital happiness. Terman (1938) found an almost identical correlation (.59)
between total happiness scores of husband and wife. His comment remains
applicable: "It is inadmissable that in so complementary a relationship
as marriage the fortunes of either could in general be independent of the
partner's" (Terman. 1938, p. 81).

However. this dependence is far from complete. mly “7.5! of the co...
variance is accounted for in the composite correlation of .69 between husbands
and wives. Over half of the covariance remains unpredictable from a knowledge
of spouses MA. Thus, it seems that "marital adjustment of a couple" is not
as meaningful a measure as is the "marital adjxstment of a husband or wife."
In order to predict the happiness of one member of a marital pair. crucial
factors other than the happiness of his partner must be sought.

11

11+

Discrepancy scores and Total MA. Results for correlations between ICL
discrepancy scores and MA measures were highly consistent with those reported
by Hoeg. The correlation for M1 was significant; that for SR was not signi-
ficant, but in the appropriate direction. Thus, it seems verified that
similarity of spouses' descriptions of each other on the ICL is positively
related to marital adjustment.

Correlations between PPS discrepancy scores and MA were not significant
for SR or MI data. This is in contradiction with Powell's findings. and
seems difficult to reconcile with results of the ICL discrepancy scores.
Among several possibilities, two explanations seem most cogent. (1) Com.
pleting the PPS is a tedious task, and one in which unmotivated subjects
might be expected to be careless: in the present study. subjects were paid.
and were subjected to a longer testing session than in the Powell stuck.

An examination of other data. however. makes lack of motivation an unlikely
explanation for the present findings. The relatively high consistency
scores would not be expected from unmotivated subjects. Also. the number
of distinctive responses (those in which a different response is indicated
for self and spouse) does not decrease in the second half of the inventory
although the amount of effort required to give a distinctive response seems
to be slightly greater. These considerations make lack of motivation an
unlikely explanation for the lack of significant correlation between 101.
discrepancy scores and MA.

(2) An alternative view stems from indications that husbands and wives
in the present sample are more different from each other. or perceive more
differences between themselves. Thus. fewer items were answered with the
same response for both SR and MI in the present sample than in that of
Powell. Because the PPS is controlled for social desirability and the 101.
is not, it is reasonable to assume that perceived differences between self

and spmlae are more likely to show uh on the PPS. especiallv when the subjects

15

are relatively happy in their marriage, as they are in the present sample.
This seems to be the most appropriate explanation for confirming results on
the ICL but not on the PPS.

Results, then, did not confirm Hypothesis I, although correlations fer
both ICL and PPS data were in the appropriate direction. Hypothesis II‘was
supported by the 1£1.data, but not by the PPS data; therefore, Hypothesis
II‘was partially confirmed.

Hypothesis III”was not confirmed; in fact, correlations for the PPS
discrepancy scores fall slightly in the opposite direction from.that which
was hypothesized. The fact that MA correlated more highly; even though not
significantly, with M1 congruency than with SR congruenqy on the ICL is intri.
guing, especially since this variable has been overlooked in the literature
for so long. Hurley and Silvert (1966) have pointed out that this finding
would be expected because of the interactional character of marital rela-
tionships. Seemingly, discrepancies between self reports could hardly'have
an effect on the relationship if not perceived by the respective spouses,
although this conclusion is not confirmed by the present data.

Specific variables. Hypothesis IV was partially confirmed: three of
the eight previously reported significant correlations between Total MA.and
personality measures were also significant here. All three, Aggression,
Rebelliousness, and need Heterosexuality, involve the husband's perception
of their wives, and all are in the negative direction. The conclusion can
be reached that the marital adjustment of a couple tends to be lower when
the wife is described by her husband as aggressive, rebellious, or highly
heterosexual.

This seems to suggest that happy marriages, in general, are those in
which the wife fulfills the role she is expected to fill, at least in her
husband's eyes. Ihterestingly enough, Corsini (1956) has reported that

l6

marital happiness is related to the degree to which .‘L'E‘. conform to a cul-
tural stereotype, although he did not find this relationship with women.
A further look at the present data can clarify this point.

In general, significant results from Tables 2 and 3 can be summarised
by saying that happy marriages tend to be those in which the wife is des-
cribed by herself and by her spouse as rather submissive and loving, and
in which the husband is not described as submissive by his wife or as
submissive and loving by himself. This implies that well-adjusted mar-
riages tend to be those in which both partners fill stereotyped roles:

The husband dominates and the wife willingly complies to his wishes and
concentrates on making him happy.

The PPS measure of need Heterosexuality was the most consistent per-
sonality variable studied. In both SR and MI data, for both husband and
wife, MA was significantly related to lower scores on this measure. This
implies that happily married people are less interested in sex than un.
happily married people. The cause and effect problem remains unanswered;
here. Perhaps a high need Heterosexuality score implies an excessive con.
cern for semal activity, to the exclusion of other things that are at least
equally important in marriage; or, it might be true that unhappily married
people are likely to score high on need Heterosexuality because they are
quite aware of their own inadequate sex life and are looking for something
better.

Implications for further researc . Although the roles of both husband
and wife seem important to marital adjustment, the relative importance of
them is left in doubt.’ Corsini reports that the husband's rele is more
crudial,‘whi1'e prestnt results suggest the-wife's role is," although both

play a part. Further research is necessary to clarify thie.poiift’.~*~ ..

17

The measurement of MA is an area that remains uncertain. Although tra-
ditional measures have been found to correlate highly with each other, it
remains to be seen whether they are measuring a really meaningful aspect of
marriage. Perhaps, for example, they are reflecting some kind of social
conformity, and high scorers tend to be those who are compelled, for one
reason or another, to say positive things about themselves and their mar-
riages. Future research could initiate a measure of social conformity as
a control for this.

Another possible advancement in the measurement of MA might be the use
of sophisticated clinicians to rate marriages on the basis of interview
material. Or, an experimental setting utilising a problem-solving or con-
flict situation might be beneficial in an examination of marital adjustment;
examples of this type of procedure can be found.in Feldman and Band (1965)
and Ryder and.Flint (1963).

The nature of the present sample must be considered before generalizing
any findings. The 85% turnout is high in comparison with other studies;
generalization to other married student populations seems justified, al.
though other variables, such as size of the university or college and
geographical location, may be important to consider. In view of differences
between data from this study and those of Hoeg, Powell, and Hbfman, general.
isation to a non-student population must remain tentative, pending results
of further work in the area.

SUMMARY

The study of marital adjustment (MA) as it relates to personality
variables was extended, for both self report (SR) and mate image (MI)
descriptions. THO measures of MA, the Locke scale and an adaptation of
van der Veen's "Family Concept Inventory", and We personality measures,
the Edwuds Personal Preference Schedule (PPS) and LaForge's Interpersonal
Check List (ICL), were administered to 1+0 married student couples with
children. Tests were administered in group situations that prevented
collaboration of husbands and wives.

Correlations betwee husbands and wives on the MA measures were higher
than expected (ranging from .58 to .69); explanations other than a testing
situation that prevents collaboration between marital partners rust be
considered for previous findings.

For ICL data, the correlations betiveen MI discrepancy scores and MA
were significant; between SR discrepancy scores and MA, the correlation
was not significant but in the appropriate direction. Correlations between
PPS discrepancy scores and MA were not significant for SR or MI data.

Correlations of specific personality variables with MA scores indicate
that happy marriages tend to be those in which the wife is described by
herself and by her spouse as rather submissive and loving, and in which the
husband is not described as submissive by his wife or as submissive and
loving by himself. The PPS measure of need Heterosexuality was negatively

correlated with MA in every comparison.

18

19
REFERENCES

Corsini, Raynond J. Understanding and similarity in marriage. J. Abn. Soc.
PEIIChOJ... 52: 327-3329 1956.

Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Manual. New York:
The Psychological Corporation. 959.

Feldman, Harold, and Rand, Martin E. Egocentrism-altercentrism in the husband.
wife relationship. J. Marr. Fam., 27: 386.391, 1965.

Hoeg, Bion L. Marital adjustment and the comparison of personality descrip-
tions of mates. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University,
1965.

Hofman, Kees. An investigation of the construct validity of marital adjust.
ment and the similarity between marital adjustment of spouses. Unpub-
lished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1966

Hurley, John R. and Silvert, Diane M. Mate-image congruity and marital ad.
justment. Submitted to the American Psychological Association, 1966.

Hurvits, N. The measurement of marital strain. Amer. J. Sociol., 60: “7-51.
1960.

LaForge, Rolfe. Research use of the ICL. Oregon Research Instiimte Technical
RQEOI't, VOle 3. No. ’4, OCteQ 1963s

Locke, Harvey J. and Wallace, Karl M. Short marita1-adjustment and prediction
' tests: their reliability and validity. Marr. Fem. Mn. 21: 251-256.
1959.

Powell, Diane M. A personality inventory approach to the study of marital
adjustment. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1965.

Ryder, R. G. and Flint, A. A. Vicissitudes of marital disputes: the Object

Matching Test. Unpublished paper delivered at the annual meeting of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1963.

Terman, Lewis M. P cholo ical Factors is Marital H inees. New York:
McGraw-Hill BooE Company, 50., 1938.

Tharp, Roland G. Psychological patterning in marriage. chhol. 3111..
60: 97-117, 1963.-

van der Veen, Ferdinand. The family-concept Q—sort. Unpublished mimeo-
graphed paper, 1963.

20

Appendix A. Letter sent to prospective subjects

Donna Palonen

Graduate Student

Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan l#8323

Dear Mr. and Mrs.

I am a graduate student in psychology and am planning a research
project dealing with married college students and their families.
I have randomly selected a number of married housing units for
study, and yours is included. All couples in your building are
being asked to participate.

It would be very helpful to me if both of you would agree to
participate in this research project. This would involve one
session of approximately three hours, to be spent in filling out
true-false type questionnaires. Each couple that completes the
procedure will receive $20.00 for their time and effort.

Your cooperation is very important; I hope you will be able to help
me out. I will be reaching you by telephone some time in the next
week or two to arrange a time that is convenient, if this meets with
your approval.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely yours,

Donna Palonen

WED]: B. LOCKE SCALE

Encircle the dot on the scale below which best describes the degree of happiness,
everything considered, of your present marriage. The middle point, "happy,"
represents the degree of happiness which most peOple get from marriage, and the
scale gradually ranges on one side to those few who are very unhappy in marriage,
and on the other, to those few who eXperience extreme joy or felicity in marriage.

0 O O O O O 0
Very Happy Perfectly
Unhappy Happy

State the approximate extent of agreement between you and your mate on the following
items Please encircle the apprOpriate dots.
Almost
Almost Occa- Fre- Always Always
Always Always sionaliy quently Dis- Dis-
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree agree agree

Handling family finances: . . . . . .
Matters of recreation: . . . . . .
Demonstrations of affection . . . . . .
Friends . . . . . .
Sex Relations . . . . . .

Conventionality (right, good

or proper conduct) . . . . . .
PhiIOSOphy of life . . . . . .
Ways of dealing with in-laws . . . . . .

When disagreements arise, they usually result in: husband's giving in ,
wife giving in , agreement by mutual give and take .

Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? All of them ,
some of them , very few of them , none of them 2

In leisure time do you generally prefer: to be "on the go" , to stay at
home ?
Does your mate generally prefer: to be "on the go" . to stay at home ?

Do you ever wish you had not married? Frequently , occasionally ,
rarely , never .

If you had your life to live over, do you think you would: marry the same
person , marry a different person , not marry at all ?

Do you confide in your mate: almost never , rarely , in most
things , in everything 7

JRH: #107
8/65mc

AMI C. FAMILY CONCEPT INVENTORY

Instructions: Indicate the degree of your agreement or dis-
agreement with each of the following items as it applies to
your immediate family (husband or wife and children) and
encircle the letter(s) representing the apprcpriate response.
First impressions are satisfactory, and most people are able
to complete this inventory in ten minutes. It is quite impor-
tant that you give a response to each item, even though it may
sometimes be difficult to make a decision.

 

1. We usually can depend on each other.

. We have a number of close friends.

. We feel secure when we are with each other.

. We do many things together.

. Each of us wants to tell the others what to do.

. There are serious differences in our standards and values.

. Our home is the center of our activities.

. We are an affectionate family.

10. It is not our fault that we are having difficulties.

11. Little problems often become big ones for us.

12. We do not understand each other.

13. We get along very well in the community.

14. We often praise or compliment each other.

15. We do not talk about sex.

16. We get along much better with persons outside the family.
than with each other.

17. We are proud of our family.

18. We do not like each other's friends.

19. There are many conflicts in our family.

20. We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together.

21. We respect each other's privacy.

\OGNO‘UI-l-‘UJN

22. Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be difficult for us.

23. We tend to worry about many things.

24. We are continually getting to know each other better.

25. We encourage each other to deve10p in his or her own
individual way.

26. We have warm, close relationships with each other.

27. Together we can overcome almost any difficulty.

28. We really do trust and confide in each other.

29. The family has always been very important to us.

30. We get more than our share of illness.

31. We are considerate of each other.

32. We can stand up for our rights if necessary.

33. We have very good times together.

34. We live largely by other peeple’s standards and values.

35. Usually each of us goes his own separate way.

36. We resent each other's outside activities.

37. We have respect for each other's feelings and Opinions
even when we differ strongly.

38. We sometimes wish we could be an entirely different family.

39. We are sociable and really enjoy being with people.

40. We are a disorganized family.

41. We are not really fond of one another.

42. We are a strong, competent family.

43. We just cannOt tell each other our real feelings.

44. We are not satisfied with anything short of perfection.
45. We forgive each other easily.

46. We usually reach decisions by discussion and compromise.
47. We can adjust well to new situations.

48. Our decisions are not our own, but are forced on us by
circumstances.

. We feel free to express any thoughts or feelings to each other.

E3

In:

oaoaoaaaa:
:> :> :1» > >‘lStrong1y Agree
ammammmammammamn‘end to Disagree .9.

SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA

SA
SA

SA

SA
SA

SA

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m mlTend to Agree

mmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmmm

Neither Agree
Nor Disagree

2 22222222222 222222222222 322222222 222222222222222|

DuO-O-O-O-D-D-DAD-

QuOnDaDaOaO-O-O-O-G-O-D-

D- 9-920-990-9990.-

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
uuuucuuuuuuuuuulsuongly Disagreeg

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD
SD

SD

SD
SD

SD

23
Appendix D. Marital adjustment scores.

 

 

 

locks FCI Total HA
couple 1.. husband wife husband wife

1 125 126 148 153 207
2 121 _ 128 171 162 p 220
3 121 136 177 175 231
4 110 131 170 171 220
5 139 108 159 150 208
6 119 107 126 159 189
7 126 153 159 167 230
8 136 142 172 185 241
9 96 85 120 111 149
10 125 145 153 174 226
11 102 125 166 168 212
12 120 135 143 186 222
13 139 118 154 143 207
14 100 110 150 160 194
15 146 120 179 170 232
16 43 51 94 91 95
17 127 122 162 175 222
18 118 146 158 182 229
19 120 151 169 184 239
20 126 115 142 145 197
21 67 103 104 120 143
22 85 129 162 148 196
23 112 139 151 141 '208
24 109 127 168 127 198
.5 141 139 166 165 231
26 89 98 136 161 181
27 150 144 164 153 231
28 94 134 165 169 211
29 105 85 132 159 178
30 55 117 82 128 139
31 84 98 134 104 153
32 107 113 157 160 201
33 137 137 16? 165 229
34 116 147 117 166 206
35 31 105 ' 97 145 139
36 122 149 150 180 229
37 91 95 104 125 151
38 95 121 147 170 200
39 144 157 180 182 253

no 121 . 95 126 109 164

 

24

Huebande' ICL eel! description scores.

Appendix E.

 

 

ABCDEFGHIJKLHNO'PIHIB

couple

 

mnaaammnmamnummmxmmnamnamamanmwsammnmnmm
sumsnunsasamsaanmmannmmammvaammumMMmuusm

.4“ 55‘6578hu63677u6n355528 565332.4“8067376
205211.43.“ 3u6u158323u13u3725u 23u201532h~77
236.4 223u66u655u 7h. 3.“ 51.4146532635651083u3u5
.414 7522514 Batu/031414 753a zozuuasuuéuun/Buusu 3&8
21“ 222k. 25“ 36h». 2353211u1 zzaszu‘vauu 2u635~33
3255““.4 32251461532314 33u2122n51153uh523u56
22.432130 254.4 2502.4 3111321u03151u522172163u
1 5u3510 2h?55162225136573142.105256211382232“
3535.4 333.“. 222332.“ 1:31.“.2632“ 3532.43“ 33.435532
2..“ 2.4.“ 3.4352432“ 2.43325. 26./33527215535352.9221
a. 31466 566 5225hwhw355hwu 7h8u3655uuu15u5155u5u
bk67776653hh“ 35355356“ 536776560756u66565
74.4 25.4 255511314 255.44.“ 5&633uu15521u3u0353u3
5237367773.“.4 3314614 7.4658 556““56205261u7uu1

l4 1337527732536575uu 7275173665315u8155386

234 678901234567890 234567890 234567890
1 5 111111111123222222223n333333334

 

25

Husbands' ICL mate image scores.

@thF.

 

 

MN 0? 18 w

cmﬂeA BC DE FG HI JK L

 

“9.335%. ﬂan ﬂawam gammammﬂmuwmﬂMMﬂﬁuuMEnnﬁUv/N w
mm ”aw Dﬁamﬁn mnwwmmswnwmnﬂwﬂﬂwnﬂﬂﬁﬂﬁﬁm ”ﬁﬁﬂﬂ

4544464434454464444534435523455455554467
.4356614526466351455518748363366652037664
3466735416265550644518566464456655257564
4477625303444442544427434577465744257457
2242413411274435321236124553343425046552
3555326532285442534437644644173347255654
3343346321457163346326424534356327265453
2434325231324243352216541433222336345431
0233455441453252214455642342212214343424
3223235253243224621464122505422422424323
1123152473342328421561133312244321721224
4334343363253238523774323524304559612236
5343342615543427232405336235141533721323
4134441253424216334314223336215631531044

121/“567890123.“567890 Awas“..hu..aJIDn/nuunV/o..._._.Sn
llllllllllzan 2:222233.3

 

26

hthG.

Wives' ICL self description scores

 

 

A BC DE FG HI JKILPIN(DY LH m

cwﬂe

 

(Uh. 2 12 2 .429st5 886260700“? 878 78
zzaamaznaﬁwwlllalzn2112131121a221n20 a”
7656963512076097373091 5 75h2u790366 6
1222213212132311333213”2N22133113313N%2n

32h3263u35453u36343363535uu35553u5u3u3u3
13h55uu33713u622555hBuu123535732bSaﬁusul
Banana7525256uuu667555653u3267““25u5u6h1
huuuuuuulzJZB/Ohhw 588.4.4673576 2.4148451.» 7%.plu851
2h“223333u06622uu533h5h125u5u7235535uu32
25335th4 222.4 3713+ 36664U655h. 76356u37h~2zt5651
223233550023653345652653uu73u5533826u550
324322382h225650uu52165223u3551027u62631
61623“263232555052626h63135235335757u755
1321142535h16u3542&3650u1h3uu35u2265u22u
13122521uh215227323h622u155Kusauauzzzzaa
6uu335u35552u2u6u2266233uu5/33662251ulau
“257271u76535h533h157653363617532573u652
h212251322h2225u351u1230511u2u522231233u
3414531422144 5521.4 70.4.4 505.4 25225336714 25213143

6a2&664257uuu12733052u3134171u332262323u

123h56789 3h5£7890 23h56 :9 12345 - 9O
11111112ﬂ22222ﬂ2 :2 3:333 733 h

 

27

Appendix H.

Wives' ICL mate image scores.

 

 

If.

I."

L I

 

w

2.4 53.463644 55455864 574353 355454744 5641.1 535‘
154 24.4451/13326235553122144361.4330235.344.47h
44.44.4464243:.555676644344444545..346np12544
224.424.4441..an23458843342r)26445614(1571713458
23h. 2123.1222/632925552145.“1.1131433133314141.2.637...
213224432. ..1. 3:6346346433.1rJ1220/u(211..943.81...
36431151242354 norm/35321552130214xh.243h19.2r265
24322130212314.3113214233420...021323nt.131hw3031¢1.
.4142122013232420232.2351h~01.21322511221nln213/f2
133431234301326JrJZ7~3h~ 542332313147.22431.2u9uﬁu
13212314311143221332212312143256323333332
4144434222326244323223425173110412644.9335).
4.145462422436464443461.4514 35.355551457654753
4.1234423321233434 5331232ﬁ/2333642362351433
43344525402p332r 444533551.4r..4 54416.4 72148441..

013.“. 25u730 0211.? 314"... rJCJQJuuBBK/Zn/hw/Ohw 5511148 2.5633“

120)“! 56780. 000.3 2314.)! 7130/01.. 314. 6:8 n)
11232227....222332 313 33 3.4

 

‘ "‘ ° 9' re"
Husband's IFS self descriptlon 9L0 o.

28

 

 

Def 0rd Exh Ant Aff Iht Suc Dom Aha Nur Chg End Hot Ag; Con

 

Appendix I.
couple Ach
1 22
2 20
3 17
4 22
5 12
6 15
7 21
8 20
9 19
10 22
11 14
12 18
13 11
14 17
15 22
16 13
17 19
18 25
19 17
20 20
21 23
22 12
23 12
24 22
25 22
26 08
27 O7
23 15
29 19
30 20
31 17
32 19
33 13
34 16
35 17
36 19
37 22
38 15
39 16
40 16

11
10
15
17
14
08
15
10
05
14
16
13
19
10
14
11
15
O8
14
09
15
12
08
12
O6
14
O6
14
15
08
16
10
16
11
14
11
11
15
12

16

13
O7
12
17
O7
19
17
14
O4
11
15
O7
13
O9
18
06
21
11
07
10
15
13
01
18
12
15
O7

.16

08
14
08
13
23
22
13
O6
09
15
14
11

12
19
09
O8
11
14
11
15
14
12
12
17
09
10
17
14
O9
17
12
19
O9
15
17
O9
17
13
09
10
23
10
10
20
O9
15
06
18
12
11
14
14

11
17
14
O9
12
12
12
20
20
14
13
O7
17
17
07
13
12
16
16
15
10
O9
20
19
20
17
19
08
18
14

12
11
1 7
12
14
19
17
09
15
09
17
14
16
09
11
21
16
15
25
O6
12
11
17
09
12
O8
12
on
11
O8
10
13
12
10
15
20
11
08
14
11

24
18
19
18
24
15
08
14
10
22
22
O6
13
20
08
23
10
18
23
O8
16
03
22
19
14
10
16
11
17
19
12
03
18
14
24
26
19
16
18
16

09
12
12
13
O9
11
11
15
14
12
13
17
04
08
06
03
O6
04
11
16
12
08
O4
01
05
03
13
08
09
15
14
O7
05
10
18
11
13
13
12
08

23
19
16
10
22
15
08
20
19
18
06
23
21
24
28
19
18
20
12
12
03
23
15
08
25
12
13
35
20
10
09
15
19
20
O6

03
10
04
19
15
12
08
09
O8
05
07
19
19
12
08
15
11
09
03
15
06
19
15
09
03
18
21
18
16
13
23
06
13
05
12
05
12
17
05
17

10

O9
18
15
13
14
15
12
17
14
20
15
15
14
05
20
11
16
18
11
16
10
14
17
10
10
22
O9
O4
O9
17
03
14
00
14
10
12
15
12
10

24
16
21
09
13
19
19
14
21
16
19
17
13
20
17
14
08
19
17
14
15
13
17
17
15
21
08
19
16

19
16
O4
23
12
O7
23
12
05
08
10
O9
15
O7
18

05

23
08
10
20
21
23
06
20
13
18
23
20
06

23
06
15
15
22
11
11
07
24
19
20

09
18

15
16

11
12
13
12
11
11
13
09
10
13
14
13
14
11
12
14
13
13
12
13
14
11
12
12
13
12
14
12
11
14
13
13

 

29

Appendix J. Hubuuh' PPS nut. 1:230 scorn.

 

 

couple Act: Do! On! Exh Ant Afr Int Sue Don Ah. In: Chg End not 1“ Con

"u. o-w- —-n v“ “Fi-r-"I'w. wwwvrvv r.“ 'J'wI—~—V" 1"- ._- ._____

1 15 12 23 18 13 O9 12 17 12 19 O9 12 20 10 09 12
2 13 12 d7 11 O7 10 19 15 12 14 26 15 09 11 19 11
3 21 18 O5 10 22 15 07 13 04 13 22 1? 19 08 13
4 18 20 10 11 13 19 11 08 20 17 08 18 06 16 10
5 14 O9 17 22 18 13 13 11 12 24 10 07 13 17 11
6 16 16 11 10 15 O9 15 12 20 11 15 11 21 13 13
7 08 O6 10 19 21 17 14 16 16 24 05 04 18 17 13
8 22 15 13 10 13 16 12 13 10 13 12 13 1 17 04
9 18 14 15 17 11 21 11 20 O7 11 17 03 21 15 09
10 22 05 13 16 23 21 17 11 05 22 17 04 13 16 13
11 13 20 14 13 08 05 20 15 17 0? 19 18 I4 15 11
12 20 15 O9 O9 18 12 21 03 19 20 18 11 14 O9 10
13 12 12 21 19 18 11 O4 21 14 16 11 13 08 13 11
14 14 15 13 14 20 15 08 08 19 15 19 11 17 O7 09
15 15 22 11 08 10 14 07 O9 15 08 22 20 19 12 12
16 15 12 12 16 13 04 13 14 13 11 24 11 19 18 12
17 11 13 10 13 24 05 08 14 14 18 24 14 15 12 10
18 17 12 19 12 20 13 O7 15 10 25 23 07 13 O7 15
19 14 08 10 14 23 1? 21 0 5 09 23 17 08 19 O4 10

16
15
10
15
15
18
O9
05
12
12
17
15
18
15
15
10
18
20 18 14 0? 12 13 13 17 17 12 13 08 17 10 23 16 14
21 24080807151813140114142119171714
22 11:0131205221318081? 2011181208

0

10

11

10

17

14

13

04

11

O9

12

16

1.9

14

12

10

11

11

28
23 07 1312112021170815211609220511
24 15 1013141923060516222213111113
25 27 1418141014062107111717101312
26 09 1212091408 231218142109201913
27 18 1714081712131113221525070112
28 16 1510080911072416111828151612
29 14 1715141720151313092208150511
30 12 0718211808191605171007282013
31 09 1613201715191616211201071409
32 17 09161621070921.40810 2518181311
33 18 1412092115151611212405100711
34 15 1112142119180908172410110510
35 19 25140912061810 07072118141112
)6 1b 210910251021061719ﬂl4030611
37 11 1406n261917071422230160514
38 12 131307180713201621181131310
39 15 1810141411142210131816150907
40 12 21.091517114200610151707231310

 

~vvﬂ'1‘.‘ '— ____ W wry—w—

‘M Kc

Vivu' m “1! 4088111810: man.

30

 

 

Mp1. thDotOnllohhthIntSuoDoIAhalu-Chghdlotmcu

 

15
15

Sﬁﬂ8ﬂﬂ§§

%‘
13
12
06
12
15
13
O8
06
12
08
16
18
14
O5
O8
15
13
05
06
13

O9
06

K

SSKBSBRgagﬁﬁaﬂﬁ

3533:35535385§38$ﬁ3

:33

SSESKSES§K““35§53§
ﬁ gﬁﬂ
8333

SBﬂuﬁigﬁﬁﬂES

89
O9
16

16
13

15
14

13

:2

13
18
12
8‘7
17
12
10

12
1

13
17
06
10
13
17
17
O8
86
11
14
13
12
13
12
20

08
17

0711

1?

33

16
19

13
15

14
06
13
18
14
10
05

16

09

n
o?
13
n
a
19
a
15
:1
26
12
n
19
10
n
m
16
n
u
15
1h
15
21
17
‘n
19
11
15
12

17
14

17
97
14
14
08
14
13
15
05
O9
O8
13
13
18
08
12
13
12
15
17
08
12
15
13
1O
17
19
16
09
08
15
83

1016

10
16
12
24
14
23
16

12
19
h
09
13
02
15

19
22
18
15
15
15
20
15

09
18
15
14

15
18

12
23
21
13
15

17
15

38833333388323333583333333533333:2353352

5558535333ﬂ3$8833835553

BSGSgSgﬂﬂﬂsﬁaﬁﬂﬂ

333333323838

8

ﬂRSKKSRKSK§§338§ES

3883:3833333383833333838833

12
11
15

13

8

835:555

 

Appendix'Lo

‘

31

 

 

 

133598” mummy

13
88
13
28
18
11
19
13
89

86

13
21
18
13
25

23

12
18
15
89
89

11
88
13
17
°§
8

16

12
14
19
88
15

14
23
23
85
13
24
15
28
13
17

17
11
13
88
23
21
83
13
23.
16
17
17
88

13.
218..

16
17
83
16

1’.

13
12
87
89
11
11
13
11
12
11
87
89
13
12
18
11
12
89
11
13
13
11
11

14
18
89
88
12
14
12
11

.89

85
13
11
13
89
13
11
88

 

"'Tﬁiﬁ\iﬂf\\\jli\iﬂ1@\ﬁﬁﬂﬂﬂﬁﬂiﬂgﬂﬂfﬂﬁlﬁms