A PERSONALITY INVENTORY APPROACH
TO THE STUDY OF
MARETAL ADJUSTMENT

Thesis for ”19 Degree of M. A.
MECHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Diane M. Powell
1965

4r "—

THES1$

WWW—.—

 

LIBRAR Y
Michigan State

University

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A PERSONALITY INVENTORY APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF MARITAL ADJUSTMENT

by Diane M. Powell

The purposes of this investigation were: (a) to study Marital
Adjustment (MA) as related to the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (PPS); (b) to investigate the relationship between MA and
interspouse ratings of needs. A sample of 23%- university and
university affiliated married couples were administered the PPS,
van der Veen e_t_il.' s Family. Concept Q-Sort, and a biographical data
sheet. Instructions for the PPS were altered slightly in order to
elicit a rating for spouse as well as for self on each of the paired
items. Using upper and lower tertiles of Q-Sort scores, equal
numbers of males and females were selected from the original sample
to form four groups: High MA males, High MA females, Low MA
males, and Low MA females. Subsequently, PPS scores were analyzed
by a 2 x Z x 2 (MA x Sex x Role) factorial design using analysis of
variance. Sex and MA group differences on Biographical Data Sheet
variables were tested by Student's _t_ and Fisher's Exact tests. In ad-
dition, Biographical Data Sheet findings were correlated against PPS
scores and were found to be independent of PPS findings. With regard
to the first purpose, the findings show that the PPS does measure a
number of significant differences within and between married couples
of high and low adjustment, and that the differences are clearer among

females than among males.

Diane M. Powell

Both High MA males and females are generally more socially
outgoing and less task oriented than the Low MA groups, but they are
divided in their interest in meeting the needs of others (High MA females
exceed High MA males on nNUR): The High MA females appear to be
unusually unneedful of emotional support from others (nSUC) and seem
to have a higher level of self-esteem (nABA) relative to their Low MA
female counterparts.

Although Low males and females agree on their perhaps maso-
chistic persistence in maintaining unsatisfying commitments at the
expense of fulfillment of emotional needs, there are also some striking
sex differences. The hint of denial of individual responsibility and
feelings of guilt at transgression (nABA) in combination with the high
nSUC scores for Low MA males suggests relatively dependent individuals
who relate in a passive-aggressive manner towards females. Although
inordinate interpersonal dependency does not seem to be a major issue,
Low MA females seem to be unable to sever themselves from unreward-
ing relationships, and, consequently, seem to become preoccupied with
concerns about things rather than people. Intropunitive expression of
frustration would seem to characterize this group.

One of the most interesting findings is that MA scores of
married couples seem to be independent of each other. Rather, it ap-
pears as if two mutually High or Low MA persons in a couple are more
rare than cross-over couples'. This conflicts with the literature, where
a significant positive interspouse correlation is usually claimed.

Spouse projection scores reveal that the subjects perceive their
respective spouses as different from the other groups in several ways.
Notable is the finding that High nNUR scores correlate positively with

MA for females and inversely with MA for males. At the same time

Diane M. Powell

High nNUR in spouse projection scores varies positively with MA in
females and negatively with MA in males. Additionally, the more
nSUC males perceive in their wives, the more probable that these
males will have low MA scores. Thus it appears as if the better ad-
justed males are ones upon whom few demands for emotional support
are made by their spouses. Similarly, females who make fewer
demands upon their spouses, whom they perceive to be less capable

of meeting their dependency needs than vice versa, tend to have

 

higher MA scores.

Although the analysis of variance of the PPS provided only one
significant main effect (nAGG) on Role (self-report vs. projected
spouse ratings), numerous discrepancy scores for the two MA groups
indicate marital adjustment correlates with projected interspouse
agreement as well as with self-reported interspouse similarity.
Furthermore, projected spouse similarities tend to be more highly
related to MA than self-reported similarities, which suggests that
high MA couples are even more similar than Low MA couples in the
kinds of defense mechanisms they employ. The nAGG and nDOM
findings suggest a male tendency to exaggerate masculine stereotype
features at the possible expense of their contradiction to reality.

,The overall fewer differences found between male groups compared to
females suggests that perceived spouse characteristics are more
crucial to the determination of MA in males.

Additional findings of interest were noted in the biographical
data relating to number and sex of children. It appears that the longer
females are married, the more likely they are to have a Low MA score.
Low MA females also have more children and are older on the average

than High MA females. A highly significant difference between High

Diane M. Powell

and Low MA males with respect to absence and presence of female
children, if confirmed by further research, would have important
bearing on interpersonal and deveIOpmental theories in general.
Similarity of PPS need-strength best describes this sample,
although differences in ki_nd of need similarity distinguish the High

from the Low MA subjects.

Approved Qfi’Z Z/4 1/

[Committee ((5% airman

 

IA '3, ”V I, 1/
Date /.—’, Jo‘u‘z /T.; /‘/”¢"D

A PERSONALITY INVENTORY APPROACH TO THE
STUDY OF MARITAL ADJUSTMENT

BY

Diane M. Powell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Depa rtment of Psychology

February, 196 5

To Unc and Bill

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express her gratitude and appreciation
for the guidance and assistance in the planning and execution of this
research and the development of this manuscript to Dr. John R.
Hurley, chairman of her committee.

In addition she wishes to thank Dr. Bertram P. Karon and
Dr. Lucy C. Rau for their advice and encouragement during the

preparation of this thesis.

" )1: \‘r s'z \‘r Jr J; J» Jr ~'< \‘t "I \‘t
. fly I. 4" “x g" ’l‘ qs I. 0“ “x y.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

METHOD....I...... .....

Personality Measures .....
Selection of Subjects . . . . . . . .
Description of the Sample . . . .
Experimental Design .....

Statistical Treatment of the Data
RESULTS .....

Biographical Data Sheet .......
Family Concept Q-Sort . . . . . . .

Personality Preference Schedule . .
DISCUSSION . . . . . . .....

Biographical Data Variables
Perceptual Differences

Personality Preference Schedule . .

Comparisons with Previous Findings . .

SUMMARY . . .

REFERENCES ................

APPENDICES

iii

......

\OWNNO‘

10

10
IO
10

20

20
22
24
39

44

47

49

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. Biographical Data Sheet Means and Standard
Deviations for Males and Females of the High and
Low Marital Adjustment Groups ........... 12

2. Biographical Data Sheet Means and Standard
Deviations for the High and Low Marital Adjustment
Groups Differentiated by Sex . . . ........ . . l3

3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Males
and Females for Family Concept Q-Sort Data:
Selected Sample and Total Sample Data . . . . . . . 14

4. Product-Moment Correlations Between Intraspouse
and Interspouse MA Score Comparisons and Overall
Discrepancy Scores for all Scales of PPS (N: 47). . 15
5. Summary of EPPS Analysis of Variance Findings. . 16

6. Overall Means of MA Subgroups and College
Normative Data ..... . . . ....... . . . . . 17

7. MA Subgroup Mean Self Report and Projected
Spouse Comparisons Over Sex _ , , , , , , , , , , , 18

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. A Selection of Complementary Need Pairs ...... l9

LIST OF APPENDIC ES

APPENDIX

Names and Definitions of the Personality
Inventory Variables and Items . . . . . . . . . . .

Raw Data on All Measures for Entire Sample . . .

Duncan's Multiple Range Test Results for all PPS
Scales...... ...... ...... ..

Comparisons Between Biographical Data Variables

and PPS Scales Which Both Differentiate Between
High and Low MA Groups Within Sex. . . . . . . .

vi

Page

50

56

58

73

INTRODUCTION

The use of personality inventories to describe and predict
marital adjustment, spouse conformity, mate selection, etc., has
generally been based on one of two tenets: (a) the similarity
hypothesis--that married partners tend to seek each other on the basis
of sameness of personality traits and needs; (b) the complementarity
hypothesis--that attraction is based on the extent to which the partners
complement each others' needs. The former posits that marital
adjustment is correlated with similarity of the partners' scores on
the various scales of a given inventory. The latter suggests that
compatibility will be reflected when the scores on the same variable
are different.

Depending upon the researcher and the technique involved,
there have been conflicting results on the pertinence of these hypotheses
to marriage research. Winch (1958) found needs of spouses tended to
be dissimilar, which he took as evidence that mates select each other
on the basis of complementarity of needs. Burgess and Wallin (1953),
using 1, 000 engaged couples, found no negative correlations among
their measures and supported the similarity hypothesis. Katz .e_t a_1.
(1960) employed a shortened version of the EPPS and noted four signifi-
cent correlations between like needs and one significant correlation
between unlike needs of married couples. This study concluded that
for the wives complementarity of needs was not generally related to
marital satisfaction, although the picture was less clear for the
husbands.

Luckey (1960) has studied the relationship of marital couples'

individual self-concepts, spouse-concepts, and parental concepts and

l

their existing interrelationships with respect to a measure of marital
adjustment. Assuming that parental identification is an important
factor in adult sexual adjustment, whether and how such identification
is related to marital interaction were questions considered important
to an understanding of the marriage relationship. Using the Inter-
personal Check List (La Forge, 1955; Leary, 1956), the Terman
Scale (1938), and the Modified Marital Adjustment Scale (Locke, 1959) ,
it was noted that congruence in perception of self and of parent of the
same sex was associated with marital satisfaction for men. Maritally
satisfied women also showed descriptive equations of spouse and
father. Conclusions for the men with respect to opposite sexed parent
and spouse concepts were less clear.

The several studies comparing measures of marital harmony
and various self and significant other ratings have generally assumed
a purely descriptive validity in their conclusions--noting, for example,
whether or not the descriptions of the wife's father matched signifi-
cantly those of the male spouse. Descriptive equations of spouse and
opposite sexed parent, while heretofore used to substantiate hypotheses
of mate selection by researchers such as Luckey, also suggest another
interpretation: that satisfaction with the marital partner leads to
perceiving the partner as being closer to the Opposite sexed pamnt, who
culturally often stands as a reference object in the mate selection
process. Furthermore, it would seem that communication and accuracy
of perception of one another's needs would be a crucial factor in
determining marital adjustment and would implicitly contribute to
descriptive agreement. This would suggest that perception as a function
of attitude, that is, selective perceptual sharpening or leveling, is an
interesting and perhaps important variable to investigate in the marital

relationship.

Statement of Problem:

 

The complexity of an interpersonal relationship and the multitude
of salient features one could suspect pertinent in its satisfaction value
to the participants, would make a single variable assessment approach
seem of little relevance. Rather the findings of previous studies
(Katz, e1 z_i_1. , 1960; Luckey, 1960; Winch, 1958) all point to only partial
understanding of what constitutes marital satisfaction. Admittedly
research in this area is still in an adolescent status with regard to
elucidation of the most pertinent indices of analysis. Moreover it will
likely require a substantial amount of further “shotgunning” to clarify
these issues.

In the meantime, it would seem of value to continue to explore
what measures are presently available with respect to the issues at
hand. Notwithstanding Tharp (1964) and Levinger's (1964) comments
regarding the need for greater stimulus specificity in assessing the
martial interaction, the unique importance and dominance of the marital
partnership with respect to other two-person interactions in adult life
logically justifies some credence for presuming this relationship, above
others, is more likely to have measurable effects on the “stable intra-
organismic state. " To abandon a more wholistic trait analysis approach,
not yet fully explored, for more role-specific limits in variable investi-
gation seems premature. Rather the rationales for these methodologies
may remain separate and functional without being mutually antagonistic.

Despite its conceptual weaknesses and the many conflicting
results it has produced, Winch's concept of complementarity (1958)
has been credited by some (Tharp, 1963) with being the most influential
hypothesis in marriage research in the last decade. The essential idea
of complementation in interpersonal relations is that two persons are

“attracted to each other on the basis of their healthy or neurotic needs

for the purpose of maintaining and developing their habitual needs and
goals” (Winch, 1958). Complementarity may occur in both of two
ways: (a) two persons showing different intensities of the same need;
(b) two persons showing positive or negative correlation of intensity
on two different, but theoretically complementary, needs. Winch (1958)
proposed that, although interests and attitudes would show similarity
in a marriage relationship, the more fundamental variables of moti-
vation, for example, needs, would reveal a pattern of complementarity.
Levinger (1964) outlines three conceptual issues that have
received relatively little attention in previous studies: (a) a logical
confusion in the accepted distinction between complementarity and
similarity of needs; (b) the lack of an explicit basis for deciding which
needs are complementary; (c) the distinction between internal and
external sources of need satisfaction. To the first issue Levinger
suggests,

More tenable is the idea that A's and B's needs, same in
in kindand equal in intensity, will complement one another
properly when both members of the pair possess the need
in moderate quantity. (1964, p. 154)

In settling upon a rationale for deciding which needs should be con-
sidered complementary, Levinger suggests the use of a more limited
theory.

While Levinger supports the need for greater stimulus specificity
in choosing research techniques, he criticizes the use of the EPPS for
measuring other than need fulfillment in a general college peer setting.
He assumes that the items do, in fact, elicit only responses with
respect to general peer relations. If, on the other hand, one assumed
that reactions to the general environment are reproduced in significant
degree in any given two-person relationship, then the items of the EPPS

can be regarded as a subtle measure of need fulfillment in that

relationship. Too, for females, the "general environment“ is often

restricted primarily to those relationships within the home bounds.

Purpose of the Present Study:

The purpose of this study is to investigate further the value of
the EPPS scales in: (a) comprehending the nature of the marriage
relationship and its constituents; (b) predicting marital adjustment;
(c) investigating interspouse prediction of one another' 3 needs; and

(d) reviewing the findings with respect to current theoretical issues.

METHOD

Personality Measures:

 

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS): Consisting of 210

 

forced choice items, the PPS variables or “needs" were derived from
the theoretical work of H. A. Murray (1938). Each pair of items is
matched approximately for mean rated social desirability as an
attempt to reduce the effect of this factor on item choice; the pairing
of the items provides the same total raw score for all persons. Thus
the fifteen relatively independent normal personality variables are
presented in such a way as to reflect only the relative strength of any

need.

Family Concept Q-Sort: The Family Concept Q-Sort developed by

 

van der Veen, e_t a_1. (1964) consists of 80 items that describe the family
unit. Presented to the subject on separate cards in random order,
instructions are given to place the cards in nine piles ranging from a
"least like my family" pile to a “most like my family" pile, with the
number of cards per pile determined by normal distribution proportions.

It is assumed that when a person describes a group such as
his family he will select those characteristics salient for

him in all the various group and subgroup events that occur;
that these characteristics are for him the qualities that define
the family group as a whole; and that they are the ones most
likely to influence his feelings and his behavior in the family.
(van der Veen, e_t a_1. , p. 47)

Of the 80 items, twenty-seven are weighted as positive state-
ments, twenty-one are weighted as negative, and the remainder are
considered neutral. A Family-Adjustment Q-Score is obtained by

crediting one point for every negative item that is categorized below

6

the middle category and for every positive item that is categorized
above the middle category. Thus the range of possible scores is
0—47. Van der Veen, e_t 31. (1964) have shown high agreement between
family adjustment scores and marital adjustment scores obtained by
other techniques. It can thus be used as an indirect measure of

marital adjustment.

Biographical Data Sheet: A biographical data sheet including items of

 

interest and pertinence to the confirmation of sample homogeneity was
administered to all subjects after they had completed the first two
techniques. Each subject was asked his age, age at marriage, number
of years married, number of years education, number and sexes of
children, religious affiliation, profession or area of study, status of
parents (alive, deceased, divorced, etc.), and rating of parents'

marital adjustment (five point scale).

Selection qLSubjects:

 

Subjects were all married couples with the exception of one
married woman whose husband did not participate. Six couples partici-
pated from a local interdenominational church group. One-half of the
subjects were recruited from graduate classes in Social Work and
Psychology, while the remainder were respondents to a class-credit
sign-up sheet for undergraduate students taking course work in
Psychology. All subjects were administered and completed all three

materials of the study.

Description of the Sample:

 

The majority of the 47 subjects comprising the sample were
directly affiliated with Michigan State University either as under-

graduate or graduate students. Of predominantly Protestant religious

affiliation, all were presumably of middle class socioeconomic back-
ground and predominantly of Midwest origin. From the original

group of all subjects, husbands and wives combined, upper and lower
tertiles were selected on the basis of the Q-Sort scores and arbitrarily
defined as High and Low Marital Adjustment groups, respectively.
Among the subjects selected, the members of five couples were placed
in the same MA group (two were. High MA and three were Low MA).
Seven couples, however, were divided into opposite groups, about
evenly between the sexes. The remaining eight subjects were not re-

lated to each other by marriage.

Experimental Design:

 

Subjects were asked to respond to the PPS, Family Concept
Q-Sort, and Biographical Data Sheet during the course of one session.
Using a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design of Marital Adjustment (High and Low),
Sex (Male and Female), and Role (Self and Projected Spouse), scores
on all fifteen subscales of the PPS were collected. (The terms
"Projected Spouse" will be used here to refer to a subject‘ 5 rating of
his or her mate.) Instructions for the PPS were altered slightly to
direct the subject to respond for how be viewed his spouse as well as
to give the usual self-report score.

High and Low Marital Adjustment (MA) groups were selected
by choosing the upper and lower tertiles of Family Concept Q-Sort
scores. Equating for sex, four subgroups were selected containing
eight subjects each: High MA males, High MA females, Low MA males,
and Low MA females.

Statistical Treatment of the Data:

 

Biographical Data Sheet variable means on all four subgroups
(High males, High females, Low males and Low females) were
compared by means of Student' st Test to determine relative homogeneity
of the sample. This was done for those variables which might influence
the main variables under investigation. One- and two—tailed hypotheses
were used according to the expectation of directional differences on the
variable under investigation. Where F_ test findings indicated them
appropriate, Welch' s and the pooled techniques were used to calculate
the t_ tests. One biographical data item, Sex of Children, was analyzed
by Fisher' 3 Exact Test for the male groups.

Scores on two of the biographical data variables (Age and No. of
Years Married) which differentiated female groups and which seemed
interdependent, were correlated with MA scores and also with each
other to determine which accounted best for the variance in the other.
Subsequently, fourteen product-moment correlations were calculated
between PPS scale scores and the scores on those remaining biographi-
cal data variables (No. of Years Married and No. of Children) which
differentiated High and Low female groups, respectively. Comparisons
between males on presence of female children and PPS scale scores
which differentiated MA were tested by Student's t_. These were done
to examine the possibility that the differences between High and Low
MA groups were due to unmatched samples.

PPS scores were analyzed by analysis of variance and Duncan's

Multiple Range Test.

RESULTS

Biog raphical Data Sheet:

 

Table 1 lists the mean scores and standard deviations for all
male and female MA subgroups on each of the Biographical Data Sheet
variables. Table 2 lists the mean scores and standard deviations for
all High MA and Low MA subjects, respectively, on each of the
Biographical Data Sheet variables. Low MA females were older, had
been married longer and had more children than High MA females.
There were no differences between High and Low MA males. Low MA
males were younger, had more education and had been married for
fewer years than Low MA females. High MA males were older than
High MA females. Analysis of sex of children as related to MA in
males (Fisher' 5 Exact Test) revealed (p. < . 001) that Low MA males

have significantly fewer female children than High MA males.

Family Concept Q-Sort:

 

Table 3 lists the means, standard deviations and ranges for all
males, all females, and each MA subgroup, separately. ’_t_test
comparisons were made between all four subgroups' mean MA scores
to confirm the assumptions of MA subgroup differences and intra-
group homogeneity. Both high groups were found to differ from both
low groups and males and females within the same MA group were found
to be homogeneous.

' PPS:

———‘

Table 4 lists product-moment correlations over all subjects
for comparisons made between intra- and interspouse score differences,

10

11

both with respect to self-report and projected spouse scores. There
were two significant negative findings between spouse mean MA score
and PPS overall interspouse score discrepancy: (a) interspouse self-
report overall D_ (the sum of the differences on all PPS scales between
the subject's self-report and the spouse's self-report); (b) interspouse
projection overall D_ (the sum of the differences on all PPS scales
between the subject‘ 5 rating of his spouse and the spouse‘s rating of
the subject).

Table 5 presents a summary of all main and interaction effects
including F_‘_ values and levels of significance of those 1: values. While
we may defer discussion of all the findings, significant main effects
were: higher scores on nEXH, nINT, NDOM, and nCHG related to
High MA; higher scores on nSUC and nEND related to Low MA.
(Appendix C contains the summary data for the Duncan's Multiple Range
analysis of each of the findings.) Table 6 shows means of MA subgroup
self-report scores and projected spouse scores and PPS college
normative means with t_ test significant differences noted between the
sexes on the same level of adjustment. Table 7 presents self-report
data for all four subgroups including t_ test differences and their
significance levels for comparisons made between like-sexed subgroups.
Figure 1 denotes significant differences (t_ test at least at p. = . 05)
between sexes and between MA groups on five denotatively comple-

mentary need pairs of PPS subscales.

12

amen pedmnvuoz/HN

 

o ohm
30 v Ch

.30 . v .3 aceowwHCmfim we newer: peaflhepcafl 02$ 23 Geek/pen, eoceuemfip esHm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.... em. $5 n em. 2: 2.... on; 2:.“ 5820

we H®£§ZN

ode Ed 2.2 8:: 22m 3.... 2 .2 2.: 8:835

whee? mo HenchZN

wee E; 8.2 e. 2.... om.~ 2..» 8.... mm.» 8232

when.» we HeQEdZN

an 2d 3.3 3.3 and mo.~ was... 3.3 3.32.2 an om<m

Sn 2.... 3.me 84$ 2.... 2.5 3.3 mnnm m.m<~.
3 u z .2 u 2

<2 04 <2 5 <2 04 <2 E <2 04 <2 5 <2 04 <2 E Bean;
Om made: Om mcmeg

mefiegeh mefimz

 

 

masouD aceeumdflpxw 13:32 301m pee
awflm exp mo meHmEeh use 2332 Mom magnet/0Q pudendum Use mcmez weegm eueQ Heofismmnmoflm .H 3an

13

“wow madden—-039.
am 3 p323: eGOm

 

Amo . v .3

.So . V A: pcmoflwcwfim ma madman 69:335.: 025 we: Geek/Hen— eoceuemfip 0383

.m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

d2m 3.2 85 8.2 8. e2... 8. 2.... 88120
m0 heQanZN

88 an 2.2 n 2.2 28 8.... 8.2 8.: 838582
328.». m0 HeDESZH

2.8 8.... 8.2 n 85 3.2 2.3 25 33 82.32
made? mo HeQEdZN

35 8d 8.8 8.8. 28 8.N 8.8 3.3 @3232 an ew<2
3.x 25 3.8 e 3.3 32... 88 84.... e 8.2.. ew<2

2 u z 2 u z
mmamaoh meamz meHmEem mead: mefieaeh mefiez mefimcfieh meamz easiex’
Om mceez Om made:
<2 04 . <2 5

 

xem .3. pefimfidehewfim mmdouO 28835230.
2.33.3.4 304 Use fimfim 9.3 no“ magnet/0Q Unepcmpm Use 3582 ”Beam mama HeUEmmeoflm .N 3nt

14

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for Males and
Females for Family Concept Q-Sort Data: Selected Sample
Data and Total Sample Data

 

 

 

Subjects Means SD Range
All Males (N223) 33.74 5.75 16-41
All Females (N224) 34.13 6. 60 16-42
Hi Ma Males (N=8) 38. 38 1. 51 37-41
Hi MA Females (N=8) 39.25 1. 58 38-42
Lo MA Males (N=8) 27. 50 5. 37 16-33

Lo MA Females (N=8) 25. 38 4. 24 16-29

 

15

Table 4. Product-Moment Correlations Between Intraspouse and
Interspouse MA Score Comparisons and Overall Discrepancy
Scores for All Scales of PPS (N:47)

 

 

Comparison Product-Moment r Significance

 

Interspouse MA Scores .12 N.S.

Interspouse Self Report
Overall 12 and Mean MA Score - . 36 . 05

Interspouse Projection Scores
Overall 2 and Mean MA Score -. 51 . 005

Self Report-Projection Scores
Overall I_) and MA Score (Insight) -. 14 N.S.

Projection of Spouse-Spouse
Self Report Scores Overall D

and MA Score (Projection) - .10 N.S.

 

16

6.3.9? «.23 mo meadoflwcwfim

mo T33 23 meumuflufi pcooem 02.3 ”@312, umeH. .m en» men—dudes“ See @023 some cw H0353» umufl e58 neuoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. S. 8. 8. 8. 00¢...
28... 1.18 83 2.2 38
S. 8. Hana
em.ee 3~.2m2
8. S. . 8. 02m...
om.2~ m3.~¢ m.e2-
8. 8. 8. emu:
82.82 e¢.- o.em
Ho. Ho. Ho. MDZ:
cam: 3.3 8.:
S. 8. <3?
oe.mm we.eH
8. S. 8. 209H.
8... :8 22.1
S. 8. 09m:
oe.m2 «.22
8. .2.an
a...
S. S. 8. 32¢
wo.e~2 we.ds2 mm.o2
8. 935
2 e i
8. 8. 2x8
em .2... ed
8. mac:
88
S. hmoc
cog:
8. mo<e
3.8
<2 N NOW N OHOMM XOW N OHOMH <2 N Odom NOW X <2 OHOMH NOW <2
mdofiumueuflH 303mm ENE
mmcwpcwh eonmflumxr mo 393.834 manHm— mo >He5§w .m OENH

17

H0 . v d 0» 3G0 03.3.90de v.33 Saw 9353.

m0 . V .Q o..— >Hco 0335018 ago? mummy 0858

N
H

 

 

 

80 . u 93:. a. 28288..
Ho . u Manda um. unwoflflcmflm...ycw

8 . u 33m 3 28536....
0m .0H .3. afimfi 00.: a. wmdfi m0.: 0m .NH 00.2 .0. thL m>.0H .32". 00;: 00.1w:
mel .3" 80.: moJL .w modfi 0m.m~ wwfifi mm.: .33“. mm.wH 0m4: .3." N0.: PHI:
modfi 00.NH mm.: * m>.: 00;; m>.mH mm.m~ .w 0m.mH 00.1: 50.: QZM:
0N.: .w Ex: Nag: mn.m~ mi: .w 0m.mH N04; mhéé 00.: ."3... mod“ 030G
ng: .3. voJL ma .2 .w 3..me 0mg: 0mg: 00;: 00:: mméfi .31. mhdfi mDZ:
:.mH **¢N.NH wmdfl 0m.0H ww.0~ .w mtmfi 2A: *inmm6 0m.: NH.N~ <m<a
0H .vH .1. «.w.: moJL 0m .NH m5)”: mNJL m>.: ."Cw mmdfi meL .w N04: 200:
mmdfi .w v~.0~ 0m.w .w mm.0~ 0m.0 * mp5; 90.: 0m.N~ mm.0H 00.0 Uch
mm.: .3" min: meg: .w mfg mus: 0m.m~ mi: .w 0m.: 2.: mm.: 87::
0v.: *.w 00.m~ mhdfi .w meg: mg .mH mm.: 2 .0m .13“. mm.: mm.: .w mm.: hh<c
0N.N~ *uw TmJL mm...mH .w nor: meL OOJH MHJH thA wwx: * omJ; BD<¢
meL 0¢JL mm.m~ .w 00.: mméfi 00.1: mm.: .6. 004: 00.mH 0mg: EXHG
vmdfi mN.0H ma .2 00.: mm.0~ * owl“: mndfi .33”. wm.0 modfi MC... 00.0H QMOG
ovdfi .3» 3.: EMMA SH: mmda .w m0.0H 8.00 .w 00.0 m>.0H .0. 00.0 ENG:
006“ .1. 00:: 00.2 4. N04; mpg: 0m.m~ Nag: .w mm.: mod; .0. mpg: EDA?»
.m 2 MA 24 mm 23 .mA 24 mm 23 mfimom
mnmnfim

 

m

mEHoZ ommfioo

 

H

monoum cofiuomnounm

 

mmuoom unonm 3mm

 

 

mqu mZfimEHoZ mmwfloU was mmdouwflsm <2 mo 98va Swami/O

.0 mEmH.

18

 

 

 

Table 7. MA Subgroup Mean Self Report and Projected Spouse
Comparisons Over Sex

:
EPPS
Scale Self Report Scores Spouse Projection Scores

HM LM HF LF HM LM HF LF

nACH 16.75 17.25 14.63 15.12 15.50 13.62 15.75 b18.88
nDEF 9.00 9.00 10.75 10.75 10.63 11.75 12.25 12.13
nORD 10.00 9.38 12.63 12.75 14.50 13.00 10.25 13.13
nEXH 16.50 15.00 15.00 b11.25 12.88 11.00 16.25 15.25
nAUT 14.50 14.75 10.88 11.13 11.00 11.63 14.38 15.75
nAFF 11.38 11.25 17.38 a20.13 17.25 18.63 15.13 b10.75
nINT 17.38 17.50 17.13 15.75 15.50 b12.75 16.75 16.63
nSUC 9.88 12.50 10.25 b13.63 12.75 b18.75 9.50 8.50
nDOM 19.62 18.25 14.38 11.75 14.25 12.50 15.75 14.63
nABA 12.12 a 9.25 11.50 a16.12 12.75 b10.50 10.88 10.88
nNUR 10.75 b14.00 18.37 16.00 16.50 18.75 15.50 b11.13
nCHG 15.62 b14.75 17.00 al4.62 15.50 15.75 17.12 b16.12
nEND 11.87 b13.50 12.88 a15.25 13.75 b11.75 14.00 bl7.25
nHET 17.62 18.25 16.50 al3.38 15.88 b18.63 15.50 b14.63
nAGG 16.00 14.75 10.75 12.00 12.50 b10.38 11.63 13.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aThe difference between the two underlined means is significant (p. < . 005)
(p, < .05)

 

1These data were calculated only to p. < . 05.

19

Figure l. A Selection of Complementary Need Pairs

MA

m. G G H. 1’/////////////////////////]/ .
Lo W///A///////Z/[/////Z[/

nABA P“ AéZZ§Z§QQQZ%ZZZ&Za
/////.////I

Lo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nDONI 1% A222ZZ???§Z§444ZVQCCZKZ/7771
Lo /¢$§Q§7§¢9§§C¢CfiK779995359

nDEF Hi /////i 1
Lo QGZ§534%Z'

nAUT Hi /fl//fl/Wy/////4
Lo / ////////////,

nAFF Hi /;2353229'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L0 /////// P
nEND Hi 17///////////l
lfl EZZZZ§Ckfil

 

 

 

 

 

nCHG Hi f///// '
L0 /<§£7§C§§2?C2333

 

 

 

 

 

nSUC Hi ,/CZZ?:4§Z?C>§//
L0 ,/é>C/;é;jé>€7/z’

Hi . -
nNUR Lo W 711%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Male

m
:11 = Female

Note: Equal bar lengths indicate no significant differences (similarity);
Unequal bar lengths indicate significant differences (complementarity)
of p. < .05 or greater.

DISCUSSION

Biog raphical Data Va riable s

An arbitrary selection of biographical data variables was made
as an effort to confirm sample homogeneity and to discover through
correlation if any significant biographical differences among the
assessment groups were related to any of the marital adjustment main
effects of the PPS analysis of variance.

Table 1 presents a summary of variables tested within sex and
between MA group. Table 2 summarizes a selection of tests within
MA group and between sex. Of twenty t_ tests calculated in the two
tables, there were seven significant differences noted; if chance were
operating alone, there would be an average expectation of one difference
at the . 05 level of significance. To check the possibility that sample
heterogeneity on these variables accounted for differences found on the
PPS subscales, product-moment correlations were calculated between
biographical data variables and PPS subscales, which differentiated MA '
groups within sex (Appendix D). There were no significant differences
found (p. < .05). Thus the separate findings on the 'various research
materials can be presumed to be independent of each other.

The only difference noted within High MA groups is that High
MA males are older than High MA females. Three differences were
found between sexes in the Low MA group (Age, Number of Years
Married, and Number of Years Education) and three were found between
MA groups within females (Age, Number of Years Married, and Number
of Children). The difference in present age for High and Low MA

females would seem to be related to the differences between High and

20

21

Low MA females on the variables of Number of Years Married and
Number of Children. Product-moment correlations revealed an

r of -. 56 between Age and MA score and an _r_ of -. 61 between Number of
Years Married and MA score (p. < . 05). A partial correlation of . 90
was found between Number of Years Married and Age for females.
Subsequently, Number of Years Married, which seemed to account for
most of the inverse relationship between Age and MA score for females,
was correlated with scores on PPS findings discriminating female
groups. The other variable showing a difference between female groups,
Number of Children, was also correlated with PPS findings for these
groups. There were no significant relationships between Number of
Children and PPS findings or between Number of Years Married and
PPS findings discriminating female groups. Thus these results can be
considered independent of artifactual involvement. Consequently, it
appears as if the longer a woman is married, the greater the prob-
ability of her having a Low MA score. Of the findings for males, the
fact that Low males have more education than Low females is less

clear as to meaning. However, the greater nACH attributed by Low
MA females to their spouses suggests that the higher education of the
Low male group may be a function of the males' own achievement needs.
The difference on Age between Low males and females is due to the Low
females' greater Number of Years Married. In any event, a difference
between the sexes does not account for differences between High and
Low MA, and therefore these findings were not tested further.

Sex of Children and MA for males, however, was tested by means
of the Fisher's Exact Test. A rather interesting result of this test is
the discovery that with a significance level of p. < . 001, Low MA males
without exception had B female children. Four of the eight Low MA

males had no children at all. High MA males, on the other hand, had,

22

with one exception, at least one female child or no children (two
subjects) although mixed sexes were present in some cases, too.

The implication seems to be that the absence of a female child is
somehow related to a low marital adjustment score for the male parent
in that family. From another point of view, one might question the
reciprocal potential in the Oedipal triangle, that is, what kinds of
stresses are inherent in having only male children for the male parent.
t_ test comparisons (Appendix D) between the male groups on presence
of female child and the four PPS subscales discriminating for male
groups revealed no significant differences. Thus this finding stands

independent of PPS subscale scores.

Perc eptual Differenc es

With regard to another of the major concerns of this work, i_. e_. ,
the investigation of whether or not perceptual distortions play a part in
marital adjustment, analysis of variance by Role (self-report vs.
projected spouse scores) was performed among the grouped subjects.
Examination of the entire sample summed over all scales within each
marital couple provides another means of regarding this hypothesis.
Table 4 presents a summary of product-moment correlations between
MA and intra- and interspouse score discrepancies in addition to a
correlation of spouse Q-Sort MA scores. Specifically, comparisons
were made between spouses' MA scores, MA scores and the discrepancy
between self-report and projected spouse scores, and MA scores and
the discrepancy between an individual' 5 projected spouse score and his
spouse's self-report scores. Additionally, interspouse mean MA score
and the discrepancy between both spouses' self-report scores, and
interspouse mean MA score and the discrepancy between both spouses'

spouse projection scores were correlated.

23

Interspouse discrepancy between self-report scores relates
inversely to MA, i. e. , the greater the summed scale score differences
between spouses, the more likely they are to have a Low mean MA
score. Even though the sum difference between an individual's own
self-report scores and projected spouse scores (Insight) and the sum
difference between his spouse‘s self-report scores and his own pro-
jected spouse scores (Projection) do not correlate significantly with
MA, the overall discrepancy between a couple' 5 combined projected
spouse scores does relate inversely to MA. It would appear that if
married partners project on the same kinds of characteristics, they will
tend to have a higher mean MA score. This finding is directly in support
of the similarity hypothesis, for as a High MA couple they not only see
themselves as more similar than Low MA couples see themselves, but
they also have similar defenses.

Perhaps one of the most interesting findings here is that the
correlation made between spouses' MA scores does not reach
significance. There is disagreement in the literature on this point.
Terman (1938) reports a positive but low correlation between spouses
on his Happiness Test. He concludes that because one would expect a
much higher _1; in view of the nature of the items, this suggests inde-
pendence of spouse satisfaction in the marriage. The probable inter-
spouse collaboration in the unusually high product-moment r_reported
by Burgess and Cottrell, make this study questionably comparable to
the present one. Van der Veen e_t a_._l.'s finding, however, is more dif-
ficult to explain. One major difference between the sample in this study
and that of van der Veen e_t 53' is the difference in criteria of selection.
Whereas the latter study used couples chosen according to their having
a child judged as very well or very poorly adjusted in school, the sub-

jects in this study were chosen on a more nearly random basis.

24

Many, in fact, reported having no children at all. It could be that the
presence of one or more children elicits more similar spouse scores

on this particular technique.

Personality Preference Schedule

Because of the multiple factor design of this study, the various
aspects of the PPS data will first be considered individually before
synthesis with respect to the general issues of marital adjustment
validation and the similarity-complementarity hypotheses. Specifically,
the data will be discussed with regard to: (a) statistical considerations;
(b) differences between members of High and Low MA groups; (c) dif-
ferences between role scores; (d) differences between the sexes;

(e) individual MA group descriptions; and (g) the complementarity-

similarity is sue .

Statistical Considerations: Table 6 presents a synopsis of the main

 

effect and interaction findings on all fifteen analyses of variance of the
PPS subscales. The collective main effect and first and second order
interaction findings for factors of Marital Adjustment, Sex, and Role
are thirty-three significant differences (31%) at the . 05 level of sig-
nificance or higher. j Of the 180 possible significant differences of the
first order interaction analyses by Duncan' 5 Multiple Range Test, 99
were significant at the . 05 level or higher. If chance were operating
alone, only six main effect and interaction findings would be expected
and less than 10 significant differences would be expected on the
Duncan's Test analyses. Discussion of the results will assume
p. < . 05 or greater in reference to significant differences.
Discussion of the subgroup mean data includes comparison of

the subgroup self-report scores and projected spouse scores,

25

respectively, which vary from the normative data. With few exceptions,
comparison of mean projection scores with self-report scores by each
subscale is not done here. Furthermore, comparisons with normative
data refer to directional and estimated magnitudinal similarities and
differences.

The nonsignificant correlation between spouse's MA scores
suggests that use of opposite sexed same MA subgroups as hypothetical
couples is invalid. However, for purposes of descriptive elucidation
of, e. g. , how High MA seems to occur in females differently than in
males, sex comparisons of self-report and projected spouse scores
within MA will be included. Perfect agreement between scores of one
MA subgroup and the scores of the opposite sex MA subgroup would
result in the projected spouse scores of each different sexed same MA
group matching the self-report scores of the other sex same MA group.
Consequently, in reporting the projection score findings, only those
findings that contradict or add to the data derived from the self report

analysis will be discussed.

High MA and Low MA: Of the fifteen subscales, six showed main

 

effect differences between High and Low MA groups regardless of sex.
The High MA group had higher scaled scores than the Low group on
PPS nEXH, nINT, nDOM and nCHG. The Low MA group had higher
scores on nSUC and nEND. There were eight PPS subscales showing a
significant first order interaction effect between levels of MA and
levels of sex, and three PPS subscales revealing second order inter—
actions between levels of sex, MA, and Role.

Males had overall higher nDOM scores than both female groups,
but collective High MA groups' scores and Low MA groups' scores
result in the Low MA group having less nDOM due primarily to the Low

MA females unusually low scores on this variable. nCHG scores

26

clearly distinguished both High MA groups as having higher scores
than either of the Low MA groups, and the High MA females as
showing greater nCHG than any of the other groups. Again this con-
trast is due to the low scores of the Low MA subjects--especially the
females.

The main effect nSUC is attributable to the Low MA female's
higher score than either of the High MA groups and the reduced need
strength on this scale among the High MA subjects. Both Low MA
groups show higher nEND scores than either of the High MA groups,
and Low MA females have even more of this need than Low MA males.

Compared to the Low MA groups and with reference to college
norms, both High males and females reflect a greater tendency to
seek out the attention of others, to be somewhat self-aggrandizing and
to prefer being the focus of others' interest (nEXH). Self-assertiveness
and a preference for taking the influential role in decision making is
also characteristic of this group (nDOM), especially of the males.
Dependency upon others for sympathy and support appears to be minimal
(nSUC). This is most true for High females. An average interest in
trying new things--for altering the routine of day to day living (nCHG)--
complements a low task-orientation and frustration tolerance (nEND).

Relative to the High MA group, and college normative data,
the Low MA groups are less likely to feel comfortable being the ”center
of attention“ in a social context, especially the females, who seem to
prefer avoiding situations where narcissistic self-flattering behavior
may be provoked (nEXH). Whereas the Low MA males appear to have
as much interest in the motivations and psychologic understanding of
human behavior as the High MA groups, the Low MA females show less
interest in this orientation (nINT). Low MA females see themselves as
being somewhat more dependent upon others for support and encourage-

ment (nSUC), but Low MA males are even more extreme, relative to

27

norms, in this respect. Passive compliance to the leadership and
influence of others characterizes the females of this group (nDOM).
Comparative passivity, too, is found in this group's resistance to
spontaneously altering their behavioral routines (nCHG). A tendency
to resist interruption of a given activity suggests a high task orien-

tation with, perhaps, even some compulsive qualities (nEND).

Role Differences: nAGG was the only PPS variable showing a main

 

effect with respect to role differences. Males rated themselves as
higher on nAGG than their spouses, but the difference between females'
self-report and projected spouse scores did not prove to be significant.
Thus nAGG in spouses does not seem to be a variable discriminating
MA in females. High MA males, however, see their spouses as having
more nAGG than Low MA males perceive in their spouses and than is
reported for women in college norms. Females, while scoring lower
with respect to males on self-report scores, saw their spouses as
having much less nAGG than the males attributed to themselves. The
finding that males see themselves as much more aggressive compared
to college norms and to female groups' descriptions of their male
spouses, suggests male self-report distortion toward the cultural
masculine stereotype. There is good agreement between the males'
projected spouse scores and the females' self-report scores, however,
suggesting that the females are better able to judge males on this
variable than males are capable of rating themselves--at least with
respect to the content of the subscale items.

Another finding of interest is the lack of any group differences
on the projection scores for nDOM even though sex differences are
substantiated on self-report scores. As with nAGG, this suggests that
judgment of the self, especially with male subjects, is more likely to

elicit a heightening of the culturally accepted sexual stereotypes, while

28

judgment of the mate appears less subject to the cultural image, but
is, perhaps, evocative of a more accurate view.

In addition to nAGG, two other second order interactions
appeared in the PPS data: nAFF and nNUR. nAFF subgroup scores
indicate, in addition to the findings of the first order interactions, that
High MA females see their spouses as having higher nAFF scores
than High MA males see themselves as having (both male groups rate
themselves as having much less of this need than college norms indi-
cate). nNUR data show a second order interaction indicating that
higher adjusted males and females attributed higher average projected
scores for their spouses than the opposite sexed same MA group reported
for themselves. In addition, the Low MA female self and projected
spouse score discrepancy is much larger than that of the score difference
of the High MA female. It is interesting to note that the. lower of the
two scores of this discrepancy, the projected spouse score by the Low
MA female, approximates the self-report score of the High MA male'.
Thus a low nNUR in the male seems to predict High MA for him, but
a Low MA for his spouse. If one assumes that nNUR is a trait that
should be conducive to successful interpersonal relationships, then this
finding tends to suggest that marriage rarely occurs where both part-

ners are equally satisfied.

Sex Differences: The particular mixture of characteristics of the

 

selected subgroups make them comparable to college norms when
considering their educational level and comparable to general norms
when considering the mean age and marital status of the individuals.
Consequently, a discussion of sex differences will be made with regard
to both standards. This section will deal primarily with differences

in direction within MA groups; quantitative comparisons will be pre—

sented in subsequent sections.

29

Although college norms show no nORD sex differences, the
general norms of the female showing greater need for order and organi-
zation are supported only by the Low MA group. Scores on the sub-
scale describing sticking to a task once begun (nEND) show a difference
opposite to general norms in that the females of this sample have
higher scores than the males; there are no sexual differences noted in
college norms on this subscale. Contrary to college norms is the find-
ing that Low MA females have significantly less nEXH than the Low MA
males. This sample does not reflect the college and general norm
agreement that nACH should show higher scores for males and that
nINT should show no sex differences. Here Low MA males have higher
nACH and Low MA females have lower nINT than their opposite sex,
same MA group.

There were eight PPS subscales showing a main effect between
the sexes. Males gave higher scores on PPS nSUC, nDOM, nHET, and
nAGG. Females were higher on PPS nDEF, nABA, nCHG, and nEND.
In terms of the culturally defined sex roles, these findings would seem
generally congruent: the initiating and dominant male who perceives
himself to be highly sexual; and the deferring, self-effacing wife who
must need be tolerant of a relatively greater demand for self- sacrifice
of her own needs. All these findings with two exceptions, nSUC and
nEND, are consistent directionally with normative data.

Despite the profile of assertive masculinity (nDOM, nAGG), the
male's self description on nSUC does not differ from the female of the
same group. The projected scores for their female spouses, however,
are significantly higher than those reported for self or projected for
spouse by the comparable female group. The discrepancy is especially
large for the Low MA male scores. This leads to speculation that there

may be some projection on the part of poorly adjusted males in marriage.

30

Perhaps an underlying anxiety about one‘ s own dependent strivings on
the part of the Low MA male is indicated. The female high nEND mean
score compared to the average Low MA male score differs by oppo-
sition to general population norms and is different from the college
norms which show no differences on this subscale. The high task
orientation suggested here may be influenced by the largely graduate
student status of the couples, where a large number probably depend
heavily upon the wife for income and family maintenance.

It is of interest to note where the sexes do r£t differ. nACH
and nAUT, while typically associated as masculine characteristics,
show no sexual differences in the combined sample. This may be re-
lated in large part to the fairly high mean years education of all subjects,
which implicitly would suggest rather high need strengths on these two
variables. nINT scores, too, while reflecting a significant difference
of females having higher scores than males in the college norms, show
no sexual difference here among the High MA groups. The Low MA
groups however, show a difference opposite to norms, i_. e_. , the Low
MA females have much less of this need than the Low MA males.

While nAFF and nNUR do not appear as main effects in the data to con-
form with college norm expectations, interaction analyses demonstrate
that the college norm difference, that is, females scoring higher on
both, are supported when spouse role scores are eliminated from the

data .

High MA Males: Self-report scores of High MA males indicate that

 

they express as much nINT as the High MA female group, thus varying
from the normative data which credits the male with significantly less
of this need. A much lower nNUR is noted for this group of better ad-
justed males than for all other groups including male norms--contrasting

with the High MA female's highest scores on this scale. Comparison with

31

normative data suggests quantitative trends toward higher scores on
nEXH, nDOM and nAGG. Lower scores on PPS subscales nDEF,
nAFF and nNUR are also noted. In other words, the High MA male
seems to see himself as closer to the cultural masculine stereotype
than the average male.

Similarity of projected spouse scores on nEXH is found between
High MA males and females despite a sex difference in self-report
scores. Again there are no significant differences between the pro-
jection scores for both sexes of the High MA group on nAUT. This
group sees their spouses as having much less nABA than is reported in
the normative data. Spouses of High MA males are seen as having
high nAGG relative to norms and more than Low MA males see in their
wives; there are no differences noted between the female groups' self-
report scores. Relative to female norms, High MA males attribute
their wives with high nACH, nHET and nAGG and low scores on nDEF
and nABA. It appears as if the woman who participates in the High
MA of the husband is perceived as very similar to himself with the
exception of a greater capacity for nurturing and supportive behavior.

Findings for both male groups are fewer than for the females,
especially on self—report scores. Thus different degrees of MA seem
to relate less to self-report characteristics for males than for females.
It appears that the spouse characteristics of the wives are more crucial
to the determination of the relative degree of satisfaction experienced by

the male in that relationship than vice versa.

High MA Females: High females gave significantly higher nORD scores

 

than their male counterparts, which fits general norms, but not college
norms. nNUR scores indicate High MA females score significantly
higher than both Low MA females and High MA males. This group dif-

fers from all others in having higher nCHG scores. This finding

32

characterizes High MA females as fairly mobile, outgoing individuals
who seek out and provide themselves frequently with new sources of
stimulation. A higher mean self-report score on nEXH is noted for
this group than for Low MA females. This suggests that the females
of the lower MA groups are more socially introverted than the High
MA females. Lower nSUC scores relative to Low MA groups character-
ize both male and female High MA groups, but without significant dif-
ference between them, which is contrary to college norms. This tends
to imply a greater self-reliance and independence attributable to the
better adjusted females as compared to the normative population.
Notable is this group's very low nABA scores, both in comparison to
Low MA females and normative data. Contrary to college norms,
High MA females show no greater nABA than High MA males. nHET
is much greater in this group than in Low MA females and tends to
be higher than female norms. Other differences from normative means
are lower scores on nDEF and nAUT, and higher scores on nNUR.
N-ACH scores are somewhat elevated and nORD scores are halfway
between college and general norms--which coincides with the mixed
student-housewife status of many of the subjects.

Higher nDEF scores are credited the spouses by both High
and Low MA females than the male groups claim for themselves--a
finding contrary to norms and findings of self-report scores--
consequently upsetting projection score expectations. It appears,
furthermore, that these mean projection scores are higher than the
High MA male group' s projected spouse scores'. There are no differences
noted on nEXH for High MA males and females' projected spouse scores.
High MA females project a mean spouse score on nAUT higher than
their own, but not significantly different from the projected spouse score
of the High MA males. Spouses of this group are perceived as having

more nNUR than the Low MA females see their spouses, in contrast

33

to the lowest self-report scores of the High MA male on this scale.
This group attributes significantly more nCHG to their spouses than
the High MA males attribute to m spouses-—a reversal of the self-
report score findings.

High MA females see their husbands as having higher nEXH
and higher nCHG than the average man. Lower nDom and a trend
toward lower nABA and nHET scores also characterize their spouse
percepts. In contrast to the High MA males self description, the
husbands of the High MA females appear to be generally more con-
siderate of their wives‘ needs, more socially expansive and seem to

have a high level of self-esteem.

Low MA Males: The Low MA males had significantly less nABA than

 

all other groups and than is indicated for male college norms. Although
both Low MA groups show higher nEND scores than both High MA
groups, respectively, the significantly lower score of the Low MA
males in contrast to the Low female group is interesting to note.
Perhaps the greater diversification of need gratification sources for
the male, g.g_. , from his career, counteract having a stronger nEND
pattern. The Low MA males' highest mean score on nHET, although
not significantly different from the High MA males', provide sharp
contrast to the Low MA females' lowest mean score. It appears that
disturbance in the marital relationship is connected with a higher
probable extramarital sexual interest in the male, but with a decreased
interest in the female. Although the differences on nNUR and nAUT
between Low MA males and females is consistent in direction with
college norms, it does not reach significance. This group tended
toward higher mean scores on nACH, nSUC, and nAGG than the average
college male. Lower scores than normal were on nDEF, nAFF, as

well as nABA. The picture seems to suggest a mixture of aggressive-

34

assertive characteristics (nAGG, nACH) and a defensive handling of
dependency strivings (nSUC, nABA, nDEF).

Low MA males perceive their spouses as having less nACH
than all other groups. There are no differences between Low MA
males' and females' projected spouse scores on nORD, although the
High MA groups show the expected complementary spouse score pro-
jection consistent with general norms. nINT reveals a projected
spouse score lower than all other groups; this finding is consistent with
the Low MA female's lowest self-report score on this subscale. On
nSUC, however, the Low MA males project a higher score for their
spouses than do High MA males even though there are no intragroup
sex differences noted on the self-report scores for High or Low MA
groups. The spouses of Low MA males are seen as having very low
nABA which contrasts sharply with the Low MA females high self-report
score on this subscale. Low MA males see their spouses as being
significantly more heterosexually oriented than do all other groups,
which is a finding opposite to the self-report score data for Low MA
females. This scale, however, does not specify whether the items are
specific to one' s marital partner or are to be interpreted both mono-
gamously and/or exogamously; it may be that Low MA males perceive
their wives to be inappropriately interested in other males.

Compared to female college norms, wives of Low MA males are
seen as having high nSUC, nNUR and nHET with rather low scores on
nEXH, nINT, nDOM and nABA. Somewhat higher scores on nAFF and
slightly lower scores on nCHG are also noted. The mutually high
nSUC and the wives' high nNUR seem to reflect a union between two
rather dependent kinds of people, but where the man has difficulty
admitting his dependent strivings and yet is unable to participate very

effectively in meeting his wife' 5 needs.

35

Low MA Females: Low MA females gave significantly higher scores

 

on nORD than the Low MA males. Considering the larger family size
of unhappy females, this finding would not seem inconsistent with the
added household workload, which creates greater environmental
demands for order and organization. This group also showed higher
nABA scores than any other group--contrasting the Low MA males'
lowest scores on this scale. Interpretively, there seems to be a
heightening of complementarity in a homogeneously Low MA couple
on this variable under conditions of dissatisfaction in marriage. The
picture would seem to reflect a rigidifying of the male' s defensive
structure-~even to the point of a self-effacing detachment--while the
female is pictured as moving more toward a masochistic, self-
depreciative position. The Low MA females' significantly higher
scores on nEND, although explainable in terms of an assumed high
nEND requisite in tolerating an unsatisfactory marriage, are also
significantly higher than the counterpart male group' s mean score.
Low MA females indicate having less heterosexual interest than all
other groups. The low nINT mean score for this group reflects a
reversal of set difference expectations relative to the college norms,
where the females score higher. Higher nSUC scores for this group
are noted compared to High MA females. Lower nEXH, nDOM and
nCHG scores are noted and higher nACH, nAFF and nEND scores
occur for this group relative to norms. Somewhat higher scores on
nSUC are present, too.

The highest projected mean score on nACH is attributed to the
spouses of the Low MA females. Like the High MA female, this group
projects a higher nDEF score for their spouses than they score for
themselves—-a somewhat surprising finding considering the generally

more aggressive picture given the male spouse by the female groups.

36

The Low MA females show a projected spouse score lower than all
other groups on nAFF and nNUR. Spouses of Low MA females are
seen as having much more nEND than Low MA males attribute to
their spouses, which is the opposite finding directionally to the Low
MA females' significantly higher nEND self-report scores. Low MA
females see their husbands as having less nHET than all other groups,
complementing the converse finding in the Low MA male group.
Projected spouse scores for this group tend to be higher on nACH and
nEND and lower on nAFF, nSUC, nDOM, nNUR and nHET than male
college norms. The picture of an emotionally depriving, highly
career ambitious male seems to characterize the man to whom the

Low MA female is married.

The Complementarity-SimilaritLIssue: To review Winch's definition

 

of complementarity, he says that the resulting gratifications of two
people interacting are defined as complementary when:
. . the need or needs in A which are being gratified are

very different in intensity from the same needs in B which
are also being gratified.

01'

. the need or needs in A which are being gratified are
different in kind from the need or needs being gratified
in B. (p. 243)

Winch' 5 work used comparisons within couples, whereas this
study undertakes to look at group characteristics of people who are
married more or less happily. Consequently, references to sex
comparisons within MA imply a hypothetical couple whose constituents
may in real life seldom occur together. Spouse projection data,
because of its susceptibility to distortion by the respondent' s own

needs, will not be used as a mate self-report equivalent.

37

Comparisons of direction within like MA subgroups on each
subscale of the PPS reveal five findings in support of the comple-
mentarity hypothesis and seven findings in support of a hypothesis of
similarity with respect to mate selection. Of the complementary
findings, _i_. e_., subscales showing significant sex differences within
the same MA group and varying from normative expectations (college
and general), two scales can be said to predict M marital adjustment:
nINT (males having higher scores) and nEND (females having higher
scores). Three scales where similarity is associated with poor
marital adjustment are nAUT, nNUR and nCHG. Two scales where
similarity of scores is related to good marital adjustment are nINT
and nABA. Thus higher adjusted (hypothetical) couples occur when the
male and female are similarly interested in the needs and motives of
others and when there is a similar degree of what may be summed as
conscience (nABA). Lower adjustment couples are distinct in their
similar need for authority (nAUT), similar interest (low) in meeting the
needs of others (nNUR) and in altering routine (nCHG). In addition,
complementary interest in understanding the needs of others (nINT)
and a difference in degree of task orientation (nEND), where males
achieve the higher scores on the former and females on the latter, also
characterize the low adjustment relationship.

All other complementary findings were consistent with norma-
tive data.

The superiority of the concept of similarity in explaining
marital adjustment is further confirmed by the inverse relationship
between interspouse self-report scores presented in Table 5. The
higher correlation between interspouse projection scores suggests that
higher adjustment couples see each other as even more similar than

they report for themselves'.

38

The absence of certain expected differences, however, was of
interest. For example, the lack of significant differences on subscales
nSUC, nINT, and nABA in the High MA groups, where college females
typically score significantly higher than college males, suggests that
the better adjusted males take a greater interest in comprehending
the motivations of others than the average male, while the better
adjusted female is much less dependent and intropunitive than the
average female.

Absence of significant differences between Low MA groups is
noted on nSUC, nNUR, and nCHG. Whereas college and general norms
show a significant difference in favor of the female, the lack of a
difference on nNUR suggests that a sex difference in concern for meet-
ing dependency and giving support is requisite for an adjusted relation-
ship. The similarity on nSUC in this group, while ostensibly the same
finding as in the High MA group, suggests by a significant difference
in magnitude from the latter group, that both sexes in an unhappy
relationship feel equally deprived of emotional support and interest.
The lack of difference on nCHG, which is attributable to the low scores
of the Low MA female, lends little clear indication as to the pertinence
of this finding with respect to the interpersonal relationship of the low
adjustment couple.

Of the fifteen subscales, ten seem to be fairly diametric, at
least with respect to common sense meaning, and can consequently be
paired as rough complements. These scales are: nAGG-nABA,
nDOM-nDEF, nAUT-nAFF, nEND-nCHG, and nSUC-nNUR. Thus in
re-examining the issue of complementarity versus similarity with
regard to mate selection, in this case mate selection that results in
differing degrees of individual and mutual satisfaction in the marital

relationship, a comparison of the two marital adjustment groups will

39

be made using the mean self-report scores of each group on these
selected "complementary" subscales (Figure 1).

In terms of Winch‘ s definition of _1_(_i£1_d of need complementarity,
there appear to be no findings discriminating between Low and High MA
groups in support of the complementarity hypothesis in these data.
There are two complementary subscales, however, that with a combi-
nation of the complementarity and similarity hypotheses can be used to
discriminate MA groups--nEND and nCHG. Similarity of scores on
nEND (low) and complementarity of scores on nCHG (females high)
relate to High MA for both spouses; complementarity on nEND(females
high) and similarity on nCHG (low) predict mutual Low MA.

These findings bring to mind Levinger's comments regarding
the establishment of a logical rationale for determining when needs
are complementary and when they are similar. The difficulty with
Levinger's suggestion is its complexity. To establish whether moderate
amounts of, for example, similar need strengths versus different
amounts of need strengths, is the appropriate definition of complemen-
tariness for a given variable in context of a given population would seem
prohibitive with an inventory inclusive of even a moderate number of
variables. Selection of variables according to a carefully devised
definitional criterion for a given population or single variable investi-
gation would be the alternatives. While admittedly inconsistent in
hypothesis formation, Winch has provided a technique which is valuable

at least in its descriptive utility.
Comparisons With Previous Findings

In relating the present findings to hypotheses of previous investi-
gators regarding complementarity of kind of need, significant differences

between sexes in the same MA group were taken as correlational

40

equivalents to the statistical techniques of these previous studies
(Winch, correlation; Katz e_t a_l., Chi Square, etc.). Differences
significant at p. < . 05 were taken as evidence of complementarity of
intensity on a given need for different sex, same MA group members.

Tharp (1963) in his survey of the literature notes that most of
the earlier studies through Burgess and Wallin (1953) point to homogamy
as the trend in assortative mating. Marital success, however, seems
to be related to variables such as emotional stability, sociability,
consideration, and some degree of interpersonal dependence (Terman,
1938; Burgess and Wallin, 1953). Individuals possessing characteristics
of emotional instability, dominance, isolation, and low self-esteem
tend to be unhappily married. Whereas most of these findings are
grossly repeated in the present study, dominance, at least within the
bounds of the PPS definition, is not found to discriminate between the
two groups of MA.

Preston, Peltz, Mudd, and Froscher (1952) noted a greater
congruence in happy than in (unhappy couples and a tendency for higher
correlations to occur between self-report-projected spouse ratings
than for self-report--spouse self-report comparisons. Although the
superiority of the similarity hypothesis in describing marital adjust-
ment is supported by this study, the second Preston St 31. , finding is
confirmed only in part here. Whereas they found a trend of self-report--
projected spouse rating discrepancies being more highly related to
marital adjustment than self-report comparisons-~that happily married
groups "show more evidence of lack of realism in their (spouse)
personality appraisals"--the present study's findings show an exagger-
ation of perceived similarity as MA goes up only when 113th projection
scores are compared to each other.

The studies of Winch (1958) and Katz e_t a_l. (1963) posit a series

of intra- and inter-need complementarities. Taking their studies

41

together (Katz e_t a_l. include many of the relationships hypothesized
by the original Winch study), the present study shows support for

51. 8% of the hypotheses of intensity need complementarity between the
High MA groups and for 55. 5% of the hypotheses for the two Low MA
groups. It must be remembered, however, that all of these findings
are predictable as sex differences alone, irrespective of the existence
of a marriage relationship.

Comparison of the projected spouse scores means for each
group with college norms reveals some interesting findings. Whereas
the High MA male and female groups tend to see their spouses as highly
similar in need strengths to their own self-percepts, one important
difference does occur: High MA males see their spouses as having
average nNUR but rate themselves as very low on this need; High MA
females rate themselves as rather high on this scale but see their
spouses as having an average nNUR strength. While this may be a
function of response defensiveness on the part of High MA males, it
also suggests the possibility that complementarity of need strength is
requisite for both males and females on this need--only for males this
complementary relationship occurs in the lower half of the score
distribution while for females it occurs in the upper portion. For the
Low MA groups a different situation is found. The wives of the Low MA
males are seen as having high need strength on both nSUC and nNUR in
contrast to the high nSUC and only average nNUR scores of the males.
The husbands of the Low MA females are seen as having L93 need strength
on nSUC and nNUR; the Low females also have a high nSUC and average
nNUR scores. From this it appears as if perceived spouse extreme need
strength on both nSUC and nNUR subscales combined with the subject's
singular high need strength on nSUC predicts low MA. The direction of
projected spouse extreme scores varies for sex, however--the wives

are seen as high and the husbands are seen as low.

42

The combined findings of this study tend to support the similarity
hypothesis both with regard to mate selection and to marital adjustment.
This agrees well with the conclusions of Bowerman and Day (1956) who
studied 60 steady or engaged couples with the PPS. Schellenberg and
Bee (1960) compared steady non-marrieds with married college couples
and also concluded in favor of homogamy for both groups.

Three similarity findings (the presence of homogamy on nINT
and nABA and the omission of complementariness on nSUC) characterize
the High MA group. Four similarity findings (the presence of homogamy
on nAUT, nNUR, and nCHG, and the absence of complementariness on
nSUC) describe the Low MA group. Only two unexpected complementary
findings are to be found in the data, and these are pertinent only to the
Low MA group; nINT(m) and nEND(f). Thus there are about as many
findings of similarity that describe the High MA group as there are that
pertain to the Low MA group. This supports a general theory of
similarity in mate selection. However, the qualitative differences in
similarity between the two groups, and between each group' 5 self- report
and spouse projection scores, suggest that marital adjustment is a
function of special kinds of complementarity (e. g. , nSUC and nNUR) as
well as overall similarity. While this study differs generally from
that of Katz e_t a_l. (who found no overall quantitative support for either
hypothesis in their groups of High and Low Satisfaction married subjects),
there is support found in their finding that satisfaction of both wives and

husbands was positively related to wives' scores on nNUR and nSUC.

Implications for Future Research: Selection of the sample in this study

 

by MA score resulted in several significant differences among the
biographical data variables. Although none of these differences proved
to be artifactual to the PPS data, greater care to assure homogeneity

of relevant biographical sample characteristics would be preferable in

43

future studies. Selection of subjects with respect to biographical
homogeneity first with a secondary selection according to MA scores
would be one way of accomplishing this end.

The value of comparing opposite sex, same MA groups as
hypothetical couples, while useful for descriptive contrast, is somewhat
questionable when compared to real married partners. For example,
despite the good consistency among MA scores for five couples, seven
couples actually show opposite placements in the subgroups. Some of
the qualitative disagreements noted within MA subgroups‘ spouse pro-
jection and opposite sex, same MA group scores, point to the probability
that the kinds of spouses to whom e. g_. , High MA females are married
differs in numerous ways from the High MA male subgroup. On the other
hand, the nonsignificant interspouse MA score correlation suggests
that the occurrence of two same MA marital partners is the exception
rather than the rule. Clarification of this issue may be obtained by
selecting High and Low MA subgroups composed only of couples internally
homogeneous with respect to MA categorization. It would also be of
interest to investigate a sample of only "cross-over" couples.

The value of using the PPS to study MA subgroups appears
evident from this study. Cross-validation with another sample, however,
is indicated in order to establish results free of possible artifactual
contamination. The finding of increasing spouse perceptual distortion
as related to MA suggests that further investigation of interspouse
attitudes, beliefs, and feelings could lead to valuable insights regarding

the marriage relationship and kinds of marital friction.

SUMMARY

The purposes of this investigation were: (a) to study Marital
Adjustment (MA) as related to the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (PPS); (b) to investigate the relationship between MA and
interspouse ratings of needs. With regard to the first purpose, the
findings show that the PPS does measure a number of significant
differences within and between married couples of high and low adjust-
ment, and that the differences are clearer among females than among
males.

Both high MA males and females are generally more socially
outgoing and less task oriented than the Low MA groups, but they are
divided in their interest in meeting the needs of others (High MA females
exceed High MA males on nNUR). The High MA females appear to be
unusually unneedful of emotional support from others (nSUC) and seem
to have a higher level of self-esteem (nABA) relative to their Low MA
female counterparts.

Although Low males and females agree on their perhaps
masochistic persistence in maintaining unsatisfying commitments at
the expense of fulfillment of emotional needs, there are also some
striking sex differences. The hint of denial of individual responsibility
and feelings of guilt at transgression (nABA) in combination with the
high nSUC scores for Low MA males suggests relatively dependent
individuals who relate in a passive-aggressive manner towards females.
Although inordinate interpersonal dependency does not seem to be a
major issue, Low MA females seem to be unable to sever themselves

from unrewarding relationships, and, consequently, seem to become

44

45

preoccupied with concerns about things rather than people. Intro-
punitive expression of frustration would seem to characterize this
group.

One of the most interesting findings is that MA scores of
married couples seem to be independent of each other. Rather, it
appears as if two mutually High or Low MA persons in a couple are
more rare than cross-over couples'. This conflicts with the literature,
where a significant positive interspouse correlation is usually claimed.

Spouse projection scores reveal that the subjects perceive their
respective spouses as different from the other groups in several ways.
Notable is the finding that High nNUR scores correlate positively with
MA for females and inversely with MA for males. At the same time
High nNUR in projected spouse scores varies positively with MA in
females and negatively with MA in males. Additionally, the more
nSUC males perceive in their wives, the more probable that these
males will have low MA scores. Thus it appears as if the better ad-
justed males are ones upon whom few demands for emotional support
are made by their spouses. Similarly, females who make fewer
demands upon their spouses, whom they perceive to be less capable of
meeting their dependency needs than v_ic§ v33_s__a, tend to have higher
MA scores.

Although the analysis of variance of the PPS provided only one
significant main effect (nAGG) on Role (self-report vs. projected
spouse ratings), numerous discrepancy scores for the two MA groups
indicate marital adjustment correlates with projected interspouse
agreement as well as with self-reported interspouse similarity.
Furthermore, projected spouse similarities tend to be more highly
related to MA than self-reported similarities, which suggests that
High MA couples are even more similar than Low MA couples in the

kinds of defense mechanisms they employ. The nAGG and nDOM

46

findings suggest a male tendency to exaggerate masculine stereotype
features at the possible expense of their contradiction to reality.

The overall fewer differences found between male groups compared to
females suggests that perceived spouse characteristics are more
crucial to the determination of MA in males.

Additional findings of interest were noted in the biographical
data relating to number and sex of children. It appears that the longer
females are married, the more likely they are to have a Low MA score.
Low MA females also have more children and are older on the average
than High MA females. A highly significant difference between High
and Low MA males with respect to absence and presence of female
children, if confirmed by further research, would have important
bearing on interpersonal and developmental theories in general.

Similarity of PPS need-strength best describes this sample,
although differences in _1_<_i_n_d_ of need similarity distinguish the High from

the Low MA subjects.

REFERENCES

Bowerman, C. E. , and Day, R. A test of the theory of complementary
needs as applied to couples during courtship. Amer. sociol.
Rev., 1956, _2_1_, 602-605.

 

Burgess, E. W. and Cottrell, L. S. Predicting success or failure
in marriage. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1939.

 

 

Burgess, E. W., and Wallin, P. Engagement and marriage. New York:
Lippincott, 1953.

 

Edwards, A. L. Edwards personal preference schedule: manual.
(2nd ed.) New York: Psychological Corp., 1959.

 

Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods for the behavioral sciences.
New York: Rinehart, 1954.

 

Katz, 1., Glucksberg, S. and KrauSs, R. Need satisfaction and
Edwards PPS scores in married couples. J. consult. Psychol.
1960, 34, 205-208.

 

Levinger, G. Note on need complementarity in marriage. Psychol.
Bull., 1964, 6—1, 153—157.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and analysis of experiments in Rsychology
and education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Chs. 9 and 10.

 

Locke, H. J., and Wallace, K. M. Short marital-adjustment and
prediction tests: their reliability and validity. Marriage
fam. Liv., 1959, _2_1, 251-255.

Luckey, Eleanor B. An investigation of the concepts of the self, mate,
parents, and ideal in relation to degree of marital satisfaction.
Dissert. Abstr., 1959, 2_0_, 396-397.

 

Luckey, Eleanor B. Marital satisfaction and parent concepts.
J. consult. Psychol., 1960, 2, 201-213.

 

47

48

Murray, H. A. (and collaborators). Eglorations in Personality.
New York: Oxford, 1938.

Preston, M. G., Peltz, W. L., Mudd, Emily H., and Froscher,
Hazel B. Impressions of personality as a function of marital
conflict. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 41, 326-336.

Schellenberg, J. A., and Bee, L. S. A re-examination of the theory
of complementary needs in mate-selection. Marriage fam. Liv. ,
1960, 2_Z, 227-232.

Terman, L. M. Psychological factors in marital happiness. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1938.

Tharp, Roland G. Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychol.
Bull., 1963, Q, 97-117.

Tharp, Roland G. Reply to Levinger‘s note. Psychol. Bull., 1964,
6—1, 158-160.

van der Veen, F., Huebner, B., Jorgens, B., and Neja, P. Relation-
ships between the parents' concept of the family and family
adjustment. Amer. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 31:, 45-55.

Walker, H. L. and Lev, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, Ch. 10.

Winch, R. F. Mate selection: A study of complementary needs.
New York: Harper, 1958.

APPENDICES

49

APPENDIX A

NAMES AND DEFINITIONS OF THE PERSONALITY
INVENTORY VARIABLES AND ITEMS

Edwards Personal Preference Schedu1_e:

 

l. ach Achievement: To do one's best, to be successful, to
accomplish tasks requiring skill and effort, to be a recognized
authority, to accomplish something of great significance, to do a dif-
ficult job well, to solve difficult problems and puzzles, to be able to do
things better than others, to write a great novel or play.

2. def Deference: To get suggestions from others, to find out
what others think, to follow instructions and do what is expected, to
praise others, to tell others that they have done a good job, to accept
the leadership of others, to read about great men, to conform to
custom and avoid the unconventional, to let others make decisions.

3. 0rd Order: To have written work neat and organized, to make
plans before starting on a difficult task, to have things organized, to
keep things neat and orderly, to make advance plans when taking a trip,
to organize details of work, to keep letters and files according to some
system, to have meals organized and a definite time for eating, to have
things arranged so that they run smoothly without change.

4. exh Exhibition: To say witty and clever things, to tell amus-
ing jokes and stories, to talk about personal adventures and experiences,
to have others notice and comment upon one's appearance, to say things
just to see what effect it will have on others, to talk about personal
achievements, to be the center of attention, to use words that others do
not know the meaning of, to ask questions others cannot answer.

5. aut Autonomy: To be able to come and go as desired, to say
what one thinks about things, to be independent of others in making
decisions, to feel free to do what one wants, to do things that are uncon-
ventional, to avoid situations where one is expected to conform, to do
things without regard to what others may think, to criticize those in
positions of authority, to avoid responsibilities and obligations.

5O

51

6. aff Affiliation: To be loyal to friends, to participate in
friendly groups, to do things for friends, to form new friendships,
to make as many friends as possible, to share things with friends, to
do things with friends rather than alone, to form strong attachments,
to write letters to friends.

7. int Intraception: To analyze one‘s motives and feelings, to
observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put
one' 3 self in another' 5 place to judge people by why they do things
rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to
analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act.

8. suc Succorance: To have others provide help when in trouble,
to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have
others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to
receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors
cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel
sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt.

9. dom Dominance: To argue for one's point of view, to be a
leader in groups to which one belongs, to be regarded by others as a
leader, to be elected or appointed chairman of committees, to make
group decisions, to settle arguments and disputes between others, to
persuade and influence others to do what one wants, to supervise and
direct the actions of others, to tell others how to do their jobs.

10. aba Abasement: To feel guilty when one does something wrong,
to accept blame when things do not go right, to feel that personal pain
and misery suffered does more good than harm, to feel the need for
punishment for wrong doing, to feel better when giving in and avoiding
a fight than when having one' s own way, to feel the need for confession
of errors, to feel depressed by inability to handle situations, to feel
timid in the presence of superiors, to feel inferior to others in most
respects.

11. nur Nurturance: To help friends when they are in trouble,
to assist others less fortunate, to treat others with kindness and sym-
pathy, to forgive others, to do small favors for others, to be generous
with others, to sympathize with others who are hurt or sick, to show a
great deal of affection toward others, to have others confide in one
about personal problems.

12. chg Change: To do new and different things, to travel, to
meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to
experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to
try new and different jobs, to move about the country and live in dif-
ferent places, to participate in new fads and fashions.

52

13. end Endurance: To keep at a job until it is finished, to com-
plete any job undertaken, to work hard at a task, to keep at a puzzle or
problem until it is solved, to work at a single job before taking on
others, to stay up late working in order to get a job done, to put in long
hours of work without distraction, to stick at a problem even though it
may seem as if no progress is being made, to avoid being interrupted
while at work.

14. het Heterosexuality: To go out with members of the opposite
sex, to engage in social activities with the opposite sex, to be in love
with someone of the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to
be regarded as physically attractive by those of the opposite sex, to
participate in discussions about sex, to read books and plays involving
sex, to listen to or to tell jokes involving sex, to become sexually
excited.

15. agg Aggression: To attack contrary points of view, to tell
others what one thinks about them, to criticize others publicly, to make
fun of others, to tell others off when disagreeing with them, to get
revenge for insults, to become angry, to blame others when things go
wrong, to read newspaper accounts of violence.

(Edwards 1959, p. 11)

Family Concept Q-Sort:

 

We like to do new and different things.

We usually can depend on each other.

We have a number of close friends.

We often do not agree on important matters.

Each of us tries to be the kind of person the others will like.
Good manners and proper behavior are very important to us.
We feel secure when we are with each other.

We want help with our problems.

+ 9. We do many things together.

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

. There are serious differences in our standards and values.
12. We feel free to express any thought or feeling to each other.
Our home is the center of our activities.

14. We are an affectionate family.

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

- 16. Little problems often become big ones for us.

- 17. We do not understand each other.

+ 18. We get along very well in the community.

mNO‘mt33WNH

+ + + '
H r—a
W r—I

I
p—a
U‘I

+

19.
20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.

53

We often praise or compliment each other.

We do not talk about sex.

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

If we had more money most of our present problems would be
gone.

We are proud of our family.

We do not like each other‘s friends.

There are many conflicts in our family.

We are usually calm and relaxed when we are together.
We are not a talkative family.

We respect each other‘s privacy.

Accomplishing what we want to do seems to be difficult for us.
We tend to worry about many things.

We often upset each other without intending it.

Nothing exciting ever seems to happen to us.

We are a deeply religious family.

We are continually getting to know each other better.

We need each other.

We do not spend enough time together.

We do not understand what is causing our difficulties.
Success and prestige are very important to us.

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

We are ashamed of some things about our family.

We have warm, close relationships with each other.
These are some topics which we avoid talking about.
Together we can overcome almost any difficulty.

We really do trust and confide in each other.

We make many demands on each other.

We take care of each other.

Our activities together are usually planned and organized.
The family has always been very important to us.

We get more than our share of illness.

We are considerate of each other.

We can stand up for our rights if necessary.

We are all responsible for our family problems.

There is not enough discipline in our family.

We have very good times together.

We depend on each other too much.

We often become angry at each other.

We live largely by other people's standards and values.
We are not as happy together as we might be.

We are critical of each other.

60.
61.
62.
63.

64.
65.
66.
67.
68.

69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.

54

We are satisfied with the way in which we now live.

Usually each of us goes his own separate way.

We resent each other's outside activities.

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

We sometimes wish we could be an entirely different family.
We are sociable and really enjoy being with people.

We are a disorganized family.

It is important to us to know how we appear to others.

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

We are not really fond of one another.

We are a strong, competent family.

We just cannot tell each other our real feelings.

We are not satisfied with anything short of perfection.

We forgive each other easily.

We are usually somewhat reserved with each other.

We rarely hurt each other' 5 feelings.

We like the same things.

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

We are liked by most people who know us.

We are full of life and good spirits.

(van der Veen _et ELI. , 1964)

55

CODE NUMBER:
SEX:

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

 

Present age

 

Age at marriage

 

Number of years of education

 

Number of years married

 

Num be r of children

 

Ages of children and sex

 

 

 

 

Your vocation (or field of study)

 

Religious affiliation (optional)

 

Parents: living or deceased; please explain

 

 

Marital status of parents (if living)

 

How would you rate your parents' marriage? (Circle one)

1 2 3 4 5

 

Unusually A typical marriage Unusually
Unhappy Happy

 

 

 

88 2&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 82&82 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&82828
88 2&2 8&8 8&8 8&82 8&8 2&2 2&2 2&82 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&28

2.8 8&2 8&2 8:: 2&8 8&8 8&2 2&8 8&2 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&8 2&2 2&8 2&8 2&28

8N 2&2 2&8 2&82 8&2 8&8 8&2 2&8 2&8 8&8 2&8 8E 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&2 8&2 84
88 2.8 2&2 8&8 8&2 2&2 8&82 8&2 2&8 8&2 8&8 8&82 2&2 8&2 8&8 2&8 2&2 8

88 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&2 8&8 2&82 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&8 2&82 8&2 2&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 828
8 2&2 8&2 2&8 8&2 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&2 8&82 2&2 8&8 2&2 2&8 2&8 2&284
8 8&8 2\2 8&2 8&2 8&2 8&2 2&2 2&8. 8&8 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&2 2&2 8&8 8&282
88 2&2 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&2 8&82 2&2 2&2 2&2 2? 2&8 8&8 2&2 2&8 8&2 8&22r
8 2&2 2&8 8&8 2&82 2&2 2&8 8&8 8&82 2&8 8&2 2&2 2&8 2&8 2&2. 8&2 8&2 2A
8 2&2 8&8 2&8 2&2 8&2 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&2 2&8 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&2 2&8 2&8282

>8 2&8 8&2 2&2 8&8 8&2 2&8 2&2 8&8 8&8 8&2 2&8 2&8 2&8 2&8 2&2 2&823
88 2&2 2&8 8&8 8&2 2&2 8&8. 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&82 8&8 8&8 2&2 8&2 8&82 2&283
2. 8&2 2&8 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&2 2&8 2&8 8&8 2&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&8 2m
8 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&2 8&2 8&2 8&8 8&2 8&2 2&8 2&2 882212
82 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&2 2&2 2&8 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&8 2&2 8&2 2&2 2&8 8&2 2&2 24
8 2&8 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&8 8&8 8&8 8&2 8&82 2&2 2&8 2&8 2&8 2&8 2&2 882882
8 2&8 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&82 2&8 8&8 8&82 2&8 8&2 8&2 8&2 8&2 8&8 2&28 A
82 2&8 2&8 8&8 8&2 8&2 2&8 8&82 8&8 2&2 2&8 8&2 8&2 8&8 2&2 2&8 8&28 A
8 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 2&8 8&2 8&8 8&2 2&2 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&2 8 A
88 2&8 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&82 8&2 8&82 8&2 8&8 8&2 2&2 8&2 8&2 8&82 2&2 8&28 m
8 2&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&8 8&8 2&2 8&8 2&8 2&2 8&8 2&8 8&2 8&2 2&8 2&88 A
2. 2&2 8&8 2&8 2&2 8&8 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&2 8&8 2&2 8&8 2&2 8&8 8&2. 2&28 r
8 8&2 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 2&2 2&8 8&82 8&2 2&8 8&2. 8&2 8 A
8 8&8 8&2 8&8 2&8 2&2 2&2 8&2 8&8. 2&2 2&8 2&2 2&8 2&2 8&2 8&8 2&28

88 2&2.2&2 8&8. 8&8 2&8 8&2 8&8 8&8 8&8 8&2 8&2 2&2 2&2 8&8 8&8 2&2 2
<2 8 00... 8mm ozm omo mbz <82... 20m 008 .87: .88.. so... 58 omo r882 mo<m

mqmszm 822.8282 mom 882808488 .34 20 <23 38.8

H

m XHQZMnmnm/w

QSOHw <2 304 m5. MOM Umaumfimm
adouw <2 nwflm 8: new 6080308

A
E

 

.muomfiadm 32.2me 8. 8280.925 :86 ”muumfindm 3mg 0» .28me 8280.225 EUO

 

uwomqoxm 55m 83

.oamumnsm 8.2: :0 muoum 08.9on we

mouocmv vacuum 083 modmomnsm 82$ :0 muoum p.808: 3mm 2.38 8%. o» muomoh 2880 £028 a“ “092.85 “88w m£H

H

 

vN
hm
mm
¢m
mm.
ow.
mN
mm
wm
om
om
hm
mm
mm
hm
mm
mm
vm
om
3..
mm

8&82
22&~2
22&v2
o2&o
~2&o
N2&82
82&N2

8&82
¢2&82
82&82

8&82
o2&8
~2&82
82&~2
22&22
82&~2
o2&w2
82&v2
82&N2
22&22

8&82

N2&¢2
2&2
8&8
8&8

v2&o2

82&.2

8~&8

22&22

82&22

N2&82

o2&o2

o2&8
8&82

o2&8
8&.2

¢2&.
8&o8

82&~2
22&N2

82&22

¢2&¢2

N2&22
82&82
88&¢N
2N&8~
~2&.2
o&.
~2&8
82&82
82&22
82&82
o2&om
o2&82
>~&.2
82&82
o2&22
¢N&.2
.2&8~
8&8
2N&2~
82&.2
o2&88

¢2&2N
8&8
22&82
.2&82
o2&8
o2&vm
82&82
N2&o2
82&82
¢2&82
w2&~2
2N&N2
.&02
8&22
88&02
82&om
22&~
88&N~
82&82
82&82
8&82

82&8

82&82
o2&82
82&82
~2&w2
o2&22
o~&82
o2&82
N~&¢2
NN&2N
2~&2~
82&82
82&82
22&82
2~&8N
82&82
82&2N
»2&2N
82&o2
¢N&¢N
82&2N

o2&82
N~&2N
82&2N
.2&82
82&82
o~&8
2&82
82&8
.&22
82&o2
”2&82
.&o~
N~&82
om&88
.2&82
82&82
8~&o2
82&~2
o2&8
8&82
82&o

82&N2
22&N2
82&o2
¢2&82
82&v2
8&22
8&82
82&82
8&8
82&82
8&8
8&8
o2&2
2&.8
>2&N2
8&82
o2&8
om&2~
¢2&¢2
8&82
82&22

82&.2
82&>2
v2&82
82&82
v2&.2
82&8N
om&8
2N&8N
2~&82
8&8
22&22
o2&82
8&82
8&82
8&82
o2&22
«2&28
8&8
82&82
82&o2
82&¢2

8&82
22&22
82&~2
82&82
o2&82

8&22

8&82
22&8

8&82

.&o

8&8

8&28
2~&>

.&82

8&82
¢2&82
2~&82

8&8
82&82

8&8
N2&22

o2&82
82&o2
.2&o2
.2&~2
om&.2
om&82
o2&vN
82&82
o2&82

8&02
om&82
82&v2
o2&88
88&8~
82&2N

8&82

8&82
82&82

8&22
82&¢2
o2&82

.2&~N
¢N&¢N
82&ow
om&o~
o2&o~
8~&8
8&28
¢2&o2
¢2&o2
~2&¢2
82&w2
o2&NN
8N&8
88&8N
o2&88
om&-
om&~2
8&82
8&8
82&28
22&8

82&8
.&8
22&22
8&8
82&82
82&82
8~&o
8&82
.2&.2
82&82
om&28
82&.
8&88
N2&22
22&82
82&~2
N2&2~
82&¢2
82&N2
22&8
¢2&82

82&.
8&82
8&8
8&8

82&o2

¢2&82

8N&22
~2&¢~

82&o2

22&N2

N2&82

~N&v2
8&om

82&N2
8&82

82&v2
8&82
8&8

82&N2

82&82

82&82

8&82
82&o
82&8
82&~2
o2&8

8&82
22&om
82&82

8&o2
o2&v2
22&o
2~&82
¢2&8

8&8
v2&w

8&82
o~&2
8N&82
82&2N
N2&82
om&8

82&22
o~&82
N2&o2
¢2&82
8&8
~&.
22&¢2
82&N2
.&8
82&o2
22&v2
8&82
82&8
~2&22
82&8
o2&8
o2&8
82&o2
o2&82
o2&22
22&82

o2&88
82&82
82&82
>2&82
2~&82
w2&82
82&¢2
82&82
”2&82
o2&82
~2&82
2N&.2
~2&8N
82&22
82&22
22&.
8&82
82&82
82&.2
-&82
82&8N

wv 1H
:8

9v 4
ma»

vv 1H
m¢ E
Nw 1H
:u E
08»
mm
pm
88
mm
Vm
mm
Nm
Hm
om
mm
mm E
um

3:44

I

APPENDIX C

DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST RESULTS
FOR ALL PPS SCALES

>:<
nACH

Self Report Scores

 

 

 

HF LF HM LM Shortest
14.63 15.12 16.75 17.25 Signif. Range
14.63 2.12 2.62 * 1.742
15.12 2.13 1.836
16.75 1.895
17. 25
Projected Spouse Scores
LM HM HF LF
13.62 15.50 15.75 18.88
13.62 1.98 2.13 5.26
15.50 3.38
15.75 3.13
18.88

 

 

“All differences recorded reach at least p. < . 05 level of significance.

58

10.

10.

10.

11.

12.

12.

.00

.00

75

75

63

75

13

25

59

nDEF

Self Report Scores

 

 

 

 

HM LM LF HF
9.00 9.00 10.75 10.75
1.75 1.75
1.75 1.75

Projected Spouse Scores

HM LM LF HF
10.63 11.75 12.13 12.25
1.50 1.62

Shortest
Signif. Range

1.19
1.96

2.03

10.

12.

12.

10.

13.

13.

14.

.38

00

63

75

25

00

13

50

60

n0 RD

Self Report Scores

 

 

Shortest
Signif. Range

1.
1.

2.

 

 

LM HM HF LF
9.38 10.00 12.63 12.75
3.25 3.37
2.63 2.75

Projected Spouse Scores

HF LM LF HM
10.25 13.00 13.13 14.50
2.75 2.88 4.25

69

96

03

61

nEXH

Self Report Sco res

 

 

 

LF HF LM HM Shortest
11.25 15.00 15.00 16.50 Signif. Range
11.25 3.75 3.75 5.25 3.64
15.00 3.84
15.00 3.96
16.50
Projected Spouse Scores
LM HM LF HF
11.00 12.88 15.25 16.25
11.00 ‘ 4.25 5.25
12.88
15.25

16.25

 

10.88

11.13

14. 50

14.75

11.00

11.63

14.38

15.75

62

nAUT

Self Report Scores

 

 

 

 

HF LF HM LM
10.88 11.13 14.50 14.75
3.62 3.87

Projected Spouse Scores

HM LM HF LF
11.00 11.63 14.38 15.75
4.75
4.12

Shortest
Signif. Range

3.

59

3.79

3.

91

11.25

11.38

17.38

20.13

10.75

15. 13

17.25

18.63

63

nAFF

Self Report Scores

 

 

LM HM HF LF Sho rte st
11.25 11.38 17.38 20.13 Signif. Range
6.13 8.88 3.04
6.00 8.75 3.25

Projected Spouse Scores

 

 

LF HF HM LM
10.75 15.13 17.25 18.63
4.38 6.50 7.88

3.50

15.75

17.13

17.38

17. 50

12.75

15.50

16.63

16.75

64

nINT

Self Report Scores

 

 

LF HF HM LM
15.75 17.13 17.38 17.50
1.75

Projected Spouse Scores

 

 

LM HM LF HF
12.75 15.50 16.63 16.75
2.75 3.88 4.00

Shortest
Signif. Range

1.

1

67

.76

9.88

10.25

12. 50

13.63

8.50

9.50

12.75

18.75

65

nSUC

Self Report Scores

 

 

 

 

HM HF LM LF Shortest
9.88 10.25 12. 50 13.63 Signif. Range
3.75 2.78
3.38 2. 93
Projected Spouse Scores
LF HF HM LM
8.50 9.50 12.75 18.75
4.25 10.25
3.25 9.25
6.00

11.75

14.38

18.25

19.62

12.50

14.25

14.63

15.75

66

nDOM

Self Report Scores

 

 

LF HF LM HM
11.75 14.38 18.25 19.62
6.50 7.87

5.24

Projected Spouse Scores

LM HM LF HF
12.50 14.25 14.63 15.75

Shortest
Signif. Range

3.

4.

 

 

83

04

9.25

11.50

12. 12

16.12

10.50

10.88

12.38

12.75

67»

nABA

Self Report Scores

 

 

 

 

LM HF HM LF Sho rte st
9.25 11.50 12.12 16.12 Signif. Range
2.25 2.87 6.87 1.31
4.62 1.38
4.00 1.42
Projected Spouse Scores
LM HF LF HM
10.50 10.88 12.38 12.75
1.88 2.25
1.87

10.75

14.00

16.00

18.37

11.13

15.50

16.50

18.75

68

nNUR

Self Report Scores

 

 

HM LM LF HF Shortest
10.75 14.00 16.00 18.37 Signif. Range
3.25 5.25 7.62 3.03
4.37 3.19

Projected Spouse Scores

 

 

LF HF HM LM
11.13 15.50 16.50 18.75
4.37 5.37 7.62

3.25

14.62

14.75

15.62

17.00

15.50
15.75
16.12

17.12

69

nCHG

Self Report Scores

 

 

LI‘ L14 Ith IHF‘
14.62 14.75 15.62 17.00
1.00 2.38

.87 2.25

1.38

Projected Spouse Scores

Shortest
Signif. Range

.58
.61

.63

 

 

HA4 .LNI .LF' 13F
15.50 15.75 16.12 17.12
.62 1.62

1.37
1.00

11.87

12.88

13.50

15.25

11.75

13.75

14.00

17.25

70

nE ND

Self Report Scores

 

 

HM HF LM LF
11.87 12.88 13.50 15.25
1.63 3.38

1.62 2.37
1.75

Projected Spouse Scores

 

 

LM HM HF LF
11.75 13.75 14.00 17.25
2.00 2.25 5.50
3.50
3.25

Shortest
Signif. Range

13.38

16.50

17.62

18.25

14.63

15.50

15.88

18.62

71

nHET

Self Report Scores

 

 

.LF‘ HI‘ H14 L14
13.38 16.50 17.62 18.25
3.12 4.24 4.87

1.12 1.75

Projected Spouse Scores

 

 

.LF‘ IHF‘ IHh4 L44
14.63 15.50 15.88 18.63
.87 1.25 4.00

3.13

2.75

Shortest
Signif. Range

.77

.82

72

mod
pm;
$04

omsmm owflcwwm
“mophosm

 

 

om.m

oo.v m».~

sm.v NH.m

mm.m oo.¢ mN.N

No.m em.v No.m NH.N

oo.os mp.vs oo.m2 om.- oo.ms mo.ss ms.oH mm.c2
SE 33 amid 3835 :3 39mm mm 3933

mouoom omdomm pouoomonna paw monoom tomom :om

00¢:

00;:

thl

coda

om.-

coda

mo.:

mh.oH

wmx:

APPENDIX D

COMPARISONS BETWEEN BIOGRAPHICAL DATA VARIABLES AND
PPS SCALES WHICH BOTH DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN HIGH
AND LOW MA GROUPS WITHIN SEX

 

 

 

 

FEMALES

Comparison Product-Moment .3 Significance Level
No Years Married with MA Score -. 61 . 05
Age with MA Score - . 56 . 05
No. Years Married with Age (partial r) . 90 . 01
No. Years Married with nEXH Score . 38 N.S.
No. Children with nEXH Score - . 48 N.S.
No. Years Married with nAFF Score . 37 N.S.
No. Children with nAFF Score . 34 N.S.
No. Years Married with nSUC Score .18 N.S.
No. Children with nSUC Score . 01 N.S.
No. Years Married with nABA Score .19 N.S.
No. Children with nABA Score . 513 N.S.
No. Years Married with nCHG Score -.11 ‘ N.S.
No. Children with nCHG Score - . 05 N.S.
No. Years Married with nEND Score .13 N.S.
No. Children with nEND Score . 09 N.S.
No. Years Married with nHET Score . 01 N.S.
No. Children with nHET Score . 02 N.S.

73

74

MALES

 

Comparison

Student' 5 t

Significance Level

 

Presence of Female Child with nABA Score
Presence of Female Child with nNUR Score
Presence of Female Child with nCHG Score
Presence of Female Child with nEND Score

.57
.62
.24
.23

N.S.
N.S.
N.S.
N.S.

75 5543

03

l 1
.llll
H
Ill
H
l
I"
"1
I
I
iiioo
I
“9
Illiln .-
“1
I"
“3
III
II"